76276 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2013 / Notices 

Recommendation 88–9, Presidential Review of 

Rulemaking, ¶ 1, 54 FR 5207 (Feb. 2, 1989) 

(‘‘[Presidential review] can improve the 

coordination of agency actions and resolve conflicts 

among agency rules and assist in the 

implementation of national priorities.’’). 

18Administrative Conference of the United 

States, Recommendation 88–9, Presidential Review 

of Agency Rulemaking, ¶ 3, 54 FR 5207 (Feb. 2, 

1989). 

19Administrative Conference of the United 

States, Recommendation 93–4, Improving the 

Environment for Agency Rulemaking, 59 FR 4670 

(Feb. 22, 1994). 

20Administrative Conference of the United 

States, Recommendation 88–9, Presidential Review 

of Rulemaking, ¶ 5, 54 FR 5207 (Feb. 2, 1989) (‘‘An 

agency engaged in informal rulemaking should be 

free to receive guidance concerning that rulemaking 

at any time from the President, members of the 

Executive Office of the President, and other 

members of the Executive Branch, without having 

a duty to place these communications in the public 

file of the rulemaking unless otherwise required by 

law. However, official written policy guidance from 

the officer responsible for presidential review of 

rulemaking should be included in the public file of 

the rulemaking once a notice of proposed 

rulemaking or final rule to which it pertains is 

issued or when the rulemaking is terminated 

without issuance of a final rule.’’); Administrative 

Conference of the United States. Recommendation 

80–6, Intragovernmental Communications in 

Informal Rulemaking Proceedings, ¶ 2, 45 FR 

86,407 (Dec. 31, 1980) (‘‘When the rulemaking 

agency receives communications from the 

President, advisers to the President, the Executive 

Office of the President, or other administrative 

bodies which contain material factual information 

(as distinct from indications of governmental 

policy) pertaining to or affecting a proposed rule, 

the agency should promptly place copies of the 

documents, or summaries of any oral 

communications, in the public file of the 

rulemaking proceeding.’’). 

21See, e.g., Administrative Conference of the 

United States, Recommendation 93–4, Improving 

the Environment for Agency Rulemaking, 59 FR 

4670 (Feb. 1, 1994) (‘‘We continue to support 

presidential coordination of agency policymaking 

as beneficial and necessary.’’); Administrative 

Conference of the United States, Recommendation 

88–9, Presidential Review of Agency Rulemaking, 

54 FR 5207 (Feb. 2, 1989) (‘‘Presidential review 

should apply generally to federal rulemaking. Such 

review can improve the coordination of agency 

actions and resolve conflicts among agency rules 

and assist in the implementation of national 

priorities.’’); Administrative Conference of the 

United States, Recommendation 80–6, 

Intragovernmental Communications in Informal 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 45 FR 86,407 (Dec. 31, 

1980) (‘‘Because the President, as the nation’s Chief 

Executive, may be deemed accountable for what 

agencies do, efforts to achieve policy coordination 

through Presidential channels have become 

increasingly significant.’’). 

a reluctance by OIRA to use return letters. 

Both senior agency employees and other 

observers (including several former OIRA 

officials) also suggested that a decrease in 

OIRA staffing in recent years may have been 

another contributing factor. In addition, the 

executive review process has become more 

complicated for all parties involved as 

regulations have grown increasingly 

complex, interagency coordination has 

become more important, and various 

transparency and procedural requirements 

have grown more demanding. 

The Administrative Conference has long 

supported effective executive review of 

agency rulemaking, and has emphasized the 

importance of timeliness and transparency in 

this process. In Recommendation 88–9, the 

Conference stated that ‘‘[t]he process of 

presidential review of rulemaking, including 

agency participation, should be completed in 

a timely fashion by the reviewing office and, 

when so required, by the agencies, with due 

regard to applicable administrative, 

executive, judicial and statutory 

deadlines.’’ 18 Similarly, in Recommendation 

93–4, the Conference asserted that ‘‘the 

reviewing or oversight entity should avoid, to 

the extent possible, extensive delays in the 

rulemaking process.’’ 19 The Conference has 

also issued several recommendations 

advocating a transparent OIRA review 

process.20

Building upon these prior Conference 

initiatives addressing executive review, the 

Conference now offers a discrete set of 

principles for improving the timeliness of 

review and the transparency concerning the 

causes for delay. The OIRA review process 

involves many components and participants. 

Delays may not be attributable to any single 

cause but rather can arise from multiple 

factors (and complex interactions amongst 

them) involving numerous players, including 

OIRA, agencies submitting rules for review, 

and other agencies and offices in the 

interagency review process (including other 

parts of the EOP). As a result, the Conference 

wishes to highlight a number of principles 

that OIRA and agencies should consider to 

improve review times and enhance 

transparency concerning the timing of the 

review process. 

The Conference reaffirms its long-term 

support of the basic presidential regulatory 

review process 21 and seeks to ensure that it 

functions as effectively and efficiently as 

practicable. The values of transparency, 

credibility, management effectiveness, and 

the rule of law apply to the executive review 

process, even if it is not subject to judicial 

oversight. 

The following principles suggest ways that 

both OIRA and the agencies can promote 

timely and transparent OIRA review: 

1. The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) should, whenever 

possible, adhere to the timeliness provisions 

of Executive Order (EO) 12,866. The 

Administrator of OIRA should continue to 

focus on improving OIRA review times. In so 

doing, the Administrator should consider 

preparing a publicly available document that 

identifies any specific policies that OIRA, 

regulatory agencies, and other agencies 

participating in interagency review should 

undertake in order to ensure that the 

measures of timeliness return to historical 

averages under this executive order. 

2. Agencies and OIRA should coordinate 

prior to the submission of a completed 

rulemaking package. To the extent possible, 

OIRA should use the regulatory planning 

process created by section 4 of EO 12,866 to 

identify all of the relevant entities, establish 

lines of communication among them, and 

create workplans with timelines and 

responsibilities for action. The section 4 

process should be used to identify the 

principal factual and policy issues likely to 

be raised by a proposed rulemaking and to 

convey any presidential priorities respecting 

them. OIRA should hold itself available to 

mediate such disputes among the identified 

agencies as may arise, and to assure that all 

participating agencies place a high priority 

on the resulting processes, so as not to cause 

undue delays. 

3. Though OIRA has the final authority for 

determining which rules will be classified as 

‘‘significant,’’ the agency should decide the 

point at which it will submit a draft rule to 

OIRA for review under EO 12,866. Once an 

agency has submitted a completed 

rulemaking package with approval from the 

appropriate senior agency official(s) within 

the meaning of EO 12,866, the clock for the 

review period should commence. 

4. In connection with interagency review, 

OIRA should promptly send the draft rule to 

all of the relevant entities and, to the extent 

feasible, establish a timeline by which these 

entities should submit comments. All 

participating entities should place a high 

priority on the review process so as to avoid 

undue delays. 

5. If OIRA concludes that it will be unable 

to complete the review of an agency’s draft 

rule within a reasonable period of time after 

submission, recognizing the timeframes 

established in section 6(b)(2) of EO 12,866 

and the nature of the matter—but in no event 

beyond 180 days after submission—OIRA 

should inform the public as to the reasons for 

the delay or return the rule to the submitting 

agency. 

6. OIRA’s staffing authorization should be 

increased to a level adequate to ensure that 

OIRA can conduct its regulatory reviews 

under EO 12,866 in a timely and effective 

manner. In addition, or as an alternative, staff 

from rulemaking agencies could be detailed 

to OIRA. 

[FR Doc. 2013–29949 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6110–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

[Docket No. APHIS–2013–0096] 

Notice of Request for Extension of 

Approval of an Information Collection; 

Importation of Ovine Meat From 

Uruguay 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Extension of approval of an 

information collection; comment 

request. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this 

notice announces the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service’s intention to 

request an extension of approval of an 

information collection associated with 

the regulations for the importation of 

ovine meat from Uruguay into the 

United States. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 242 / Tuesday, December 17, 2013 / Notices 76277 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before February 

18, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS–2013– 

0096–0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2013–0096, Regulatory Analysis 

and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 

3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Supporting documents and any 

comments we receive on this docket 

may be viewed at http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS–2013–0096 or 

in our reading room, which is located in 

room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 

14th Street and Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading 

room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call (202) 799–7039 

before coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on the regulations for the 

importation of ovine meat from 

Uruguay, contact Dr. Silvia Kreindel, 

Senior Staff Veterinarian, 

Regionalization Evaluation Services 

Staff, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 

38, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 

851–3313. For copies of more detailed 

information on the information 

collection, contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, 

APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2908. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: 

Importation of Ovine Meat From 

Uruguay. 

OMB Number: 0579–0372. 

Type of Request: Extension of 

approval of an information collection. 

Abstract: Under the Animal Health 

Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), 

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) is authorized, 

among other things, to prohibit or 

restrict the importation and interstate 

movement of animals and animal 

products to prevent the introduction 

into and dissemination within the 

United States of animal diseases and 

pests. The regulations for the 

importation of animals and animal 

products are contained in 9 CFR parts 

92 through 98. 

The regulations in part 94 provide the 

requirements for the importation of 

specified animals and animal products 

to prevent the introduction into the 

United States of various animal 

diseases, including rinderpest and footand-mouth disease (FMD). The 

regulations in § 94.22 place certain 

restrictions on the importation of beef 

and ovine meat from Uruguay into the 

United States. These restrictions allow 

the importation of ovine meat from 

Uruguay under certain conditions to 

prevent the introduction of FMD. These 

conditions involve an information 

collection activity that requires APHIS 

to collect certification for each shipment 

from an authorized veterinary official of 

the Government of Uruguay that the 

conditions in § 94.22 have been met. 

We are asking the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to 

approve our use of this information 

collection activity for an additional 3 

years. 

The purpose of this notice is to solicit 

comments from the public (as well as 

affected agencies) concerning our 

information collection. These comments 

will help us: 

(1) Evaluate whether the collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

Agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, through use, as 

appropriate, of automated, electronic, 

mechanical, and other collection 

technologies; e.g., permitting electronic 

submission of responses. 

Estimate of burden: The public 

reporting burden for this collection of 

information is estimated to average 1.6 

hours per response. 

Respondents: Federal animal health 

officials of the Government of Uruguay. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 5. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 1. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 5. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 8 hours. (Due to averaging, 

the total annual burden hours may not 

equal the product of the annual number 

of responses multiplied by the reporting 

burden per response.) 

All responses to this notice will be 

summarized and included in the request 

for OMB approval. All comments will 

also become a matter of public record. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

December 2013. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–30022 Filed 12–16–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

National Urban and Community 

Forestry Advisory Council 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Notice of meeting. 

SUMMARY: The National Urban and 

Community Forestry Advisory Council 

(Council) will meet in Washington, DC 

The Council is established consistent 

with Section 9 of the Cooperative 

Forestry Assistance Act, as amended by 

Title XII, Section 1219 of Public Law 

No. 101–624, and the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 

II). Additional information concerning 

the Council can be found by visiting the 

Council’s Web site at: http://

www.fs.fed.us/ucf/nucfac.html. 

DATES: The meeting will be held on 

January 22 and 23, 2014, 9:00 a.m. to 

5:00 p.m. or until Council business is 

completed. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be at the 

USDA South Building, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20250–9911, Wing 3, 

First Floor, Cafeteria Room 1 and 2. 

Written comments may be submitted as 

described under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. All comments, including 

names and addresses when provided, 

are placed in the record and are 

available for public inspection and 

copying. The public may inspect 

comments received at the USDA Forest 

Service—Washington Office. Please call 

ahead to facilitate entry into the 

building. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Stremple, Executive Staff to the 

National Urban and Community 

Forestry Advisory Council, by mailing 

address at 201 14th Street. SW., Yates 

Building (3 Southeast), Washington, DC 

20250; by phone at 202–205–7829, by 

cell phone at 202–309–9873 or by email 

at nstremple@fs.fed.us. 

Individuals who use 

telecommunication devices for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., 

Eastern Standard Time, Monday 

through Friday. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES