38328 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1 17 CFR 145.9. 

2For example, the Commission has published 

notices of proposed rulemakings addressing 

conforming amendments to its regulations regarding 

the registration of intermediaries under 17 CFR part 

3, 76 FR 12888, Mar. 9, 2011; to conform the 

requirements under 17 CFR part 4 governing the 

operations and activities of commodity pool 

operators and commodity trading advisors 

consistent with title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act, 76 

FR 11701, Mar. 3, 2011; and to make consistent 

with title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act part 40’s 

provisions common to all registered entities, 75 FR 

67282, Nov. 2, 2010. Further, the Commission has 

published notices of proposed rulemaking to 

implement changes to core principles for 

designated contract markets (‘‘DCMs’’) and 

derivatives clearing organizations (‘‘DCOs’’) under 

title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act by revising part 38, 

applicable to DCMs, and part 39, applicable to 

DCOs, 75 FR 80572, Dec. 22, 2010; 75 FR 63113, 

Oct. 14, 2010; 75 FR 77576, Dec. 13, 2010; 75 FR 

78185, Dec. 15, 2010; 76 FR 3698, Jan. 20, 2010; and 

76 FR 13101, Mar. 10, 2011. The Commission also 

is engaged in a proposed rulemaking to adapt all 

applicable CFTC regulations to the Dodd-Frank Act: 

proposed revisions to part 1 of the Commission’s 

regulations would amend certain fundamental 

(i) Non-essential—If the agency 

determines that a maximum-entry-age is 

not essential to the performance of the 

duties of the position, then the agency 

must waive the age requirement for 

qualified veterans’ preference eligible 

applicants as prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 

3312. 

(ii) Essential—If the agency 

determines that a maximum-entry-age is 

essential to the performance of the 

duties of the position, the veterans’ 

preference eligible applicant must meet 

the maximum-entry-age requirement 

established by the agency under 5 

U.S.C. 3307. 

5. Add § 338.602 to read as follows: 

§ 338.602 Minimum-entry-age 

requirements. 

Minimum-entry-age requirements for 

all Federal positions are prescribed in 

§ 551.601 of this chapter. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16272 Filed 6–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325–38–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

5 CFR Chapter XLI 

17 CFR Chapter I 

Reducing Regulatory Burden; 

Retrospective Review Under E.O. 

13563 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Request for information. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review,’’ the 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (‘‘CFTC’’ or 

‘‘Commission’’) intends to review its 

existing regulations to evaluate their 

continued effectiveness in achieving the 

objectives for which they were adopted. 

In this regard, the Commission has 

developed a plan to identify and 

evaluate its regulations periodically to 

determine whether any such regulations 

should be modified, expanded, 

streamlined or repealed in order to 

make the agency’s regulatory program 

more effective (the ‘‘Plan’’). 

DATES: Interested parties are encouraged 

to submit their views on the Plan on or 

before August 29, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may make your 

submission, identified by ‘‘Plan for 

Retrospective Review,’’ by any of the 

following methods: 

• The agency’s Web site, at http:// 

comments.cftc.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

through the Web site. 

• Mail: David A. Stawick, Secretary of 

the Commission, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 

Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20581. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as 

mail above. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Please make your submission using 

only one method. All submissions must 

be in English, or if not, accompanied by 

an English translation. Your submission 

may be posted as received to http:// 

www.cftc.gov. You should submit only 

information that you wish to make 

available publicly. If you wish the 

Commission to consider information 

that you believe is exempt from 

disclosure under the Freedom of 

Information Act, a petition for 

confidential treatment of the exempt 

information may be submitted according 

to the procedures established in § 145.9 

of the Commission’s regulations.1

The Commission reserves the right, 

but shall have no obligation, to review, 

pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or 

remove any or all of your submission 

from http://www.cftc.gov that it may 

deem to be inappropriate for 

publication, such as obscene language. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Maria D. Godel, Assistant General 

Counsel, Office of General Counsel, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581. Telephone: 202–418–5120 and 

electronic mail: mgodel@cftc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. The Executive Order 

On January 18, 2011, President 

Obama issued Executive Order 13563 

entitled ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review.’’ The Executive 

Order emphasizes several guiding 

principles, including that: agencies 

consider the costs and benefits of their 

regulations and choose the least 

burdensome path; the regulatory process 

must be transparent and include public 

participation; and agencies must 

attempt to coordinate, simplify and 

harmonize regulations to reduce costs 

and promote certainty for businesses 

and the public. Section 6 of the 

Executive Order focuses on the 

importance of maintaining a consistent 

culture of retrospective review and 

analysis by agencies of their regulatory 

programs. To that end, section 6 

includes a ‘‘look-back’’ provision for 

agencies to develop a preliminary plan 

under which the agency will 

periodically review its existing 

significant regulations to determine 

whether any should be modified, 

streamlined, expanded or repealed in 

order to make the agency’s regulatory 

program more effective and less 

burdensome. 

In a memorandum dated February 2, 

2011, the administrator of the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) provided guidance to the 

heads of executive departments and 

agencies and independent regulatory 

agencies regarding the principles and 

requirements of Executive Order 13563 

(the ‘‘OIRA Memorandum’’). While 

Executive Order 13563 does not apply 

to independent agencies, such as the 

Commission, the OIRA Memorandum 

encourages independent agencies to 

give consideration to its provisions, 

consistent with their legal authority, 

and to consider undertaking voluntarily 

retrospective analysis of existing rules. 

The OIRA Memorandum emphasizes 

that in formulating its plan for 

retrospective review, ‘‘each agency 

should exercise its discretion to develop 

a plan tailored to its specific mission, 

resources, organizational structure and 

rulemaking history and volume.’’ 

II. The Commission’s Plan 

As part of the implementation of the 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Transparency 

and Accountability Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank 

Act’’), the Commission already has 

reviewed many of its existing 

regulations. In determining the extent to 

which these existing regulations have 

needed to be modified to conform to the 

Dodd-Frank Act’s new requirements, the 

Commission already has subjected many 

of its rules to scrutiny.2 As such, ‘‘Phase 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 38329 

definitions and recordkeeping rules; conforming 

changes to parts 5 (off-exchange foreign currency 

transactions); 7 (registered entity rules altered or 

supplemented by the Commission); 41 (Security 

futures products); 15 (general reports); 18 (reports 

by traders); 21 (special calls); 36 (exempt markets); 

140 (organization, functions and procedures); 145 

(Commission records and information); 155 (trading 

standards) and 166 (customer protection) also have 

been proposed, 76 FR 33066, Jun. 7, 2011. 

3See the CFTC’s Unified Agenda at: 

http://www.refinfo.gov/public/do/ 

eAgendaMain?operation=OPERATION_GET_

AGENCY_RULE_LIST¤tPub=true&agecyCd=

3038&Image58.x=39&Image58.y=7. 

One’’ of the Commission’s retrospective 

review of its existing regulations is (and 

has been) well underway as a significant 

effort prior to the issuance of Executive 

Order 13563 and the OIRA 

Memorandum. 

Accordingly, the Commission’s Plan 

is as follows. After the substantial 

completion of the promulgation of final 

rules under the Dodd-Frank rulemaking 

process, including the revision of 

various existing Commission regulations 

to conform to the requirements of the 

Dodd-Frank legislation, the Commission 

intends to begin the process of the 

periodic, retrospective examination of 

the remainder of its regulations (i.e., 

those regulations that were not reviewed 

as part of the Dodd-Frank effort). This 

process will constitute ‘‘Phase Two’’ of 

the Commission’s retrospective review. 

A Regulatory Review Group (‘‘Group’’), 

consisting of senior agency staff, will be 

formed to implement the CFTC Plan. 

In accordance with the OIRA 

Memorandum, the Group will solicit 

public input on which rules should be 

reviewed. Subsequently, the Group will 

recommend to the Commission a list of 

candidate rules for review. To aid the 

Commission in its consideration, the 

Group will prioritize the rules 

recommended for review according to 

the Commission’s statutory mission and 

resources. The Commission then will 

determine which rules will be reviewed. 

If, as a result of the retrospective 

review, the Commission determines to 

propose a revision to an existing 

regulation, the Commission will provide 

the public with notice and opportunity 

for comment as required by the 

Administrative Procedure Act. 

Additionally, section 15(a) of the 

Commodity Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) 

provides that before promulgating a 

regulation under the CEA, the 

Commission shall consider the costs 

and benefits of such an action. The 

CFTC publishes a list of proposed rules 

that becomes part of the ‘‘Unified 

Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 

Deregulatory Actions.’’ 3 The Unified 

Agenda provides uniform reporting of 

data on regulatory and deregulatory 

activities under development 

throughout the federal government. The 

results of the foregoing process for 

developing the list of regulations for 

retrospective review will be integrated 

into the Unified Agenda. 

The Commission encourages 

interested parties to submit their views 

on the Plan. Specifically, the 

Commission seeks submissions that 

address the following: 

1. As stated above, as ‘‘Phase Two’’ of 

its retrospective review, the 

Commission intends to examine those 

regulations that were not reviewed as 

part of the Dodd-Frank rulemaking 

process (including the revision of 

various existing Commission regulations 

to conform to the requirements of the 

Dodd-Frank legislation). Are there any 

of the Commission’s other regulations, 

presently intended for potential 

examination under ‘‘Phase Two’’ that 

should, instead, be reviewed before the 

substantial completion of the DoddFrank rulemaking and conformation 

process? 

2. What criteria should the 

Commission use to prioritize the review 

of existing regulations? 

3. As the Executive Order and OIRA 

Memorandum indicate, the Executive 

Order does not apply to independent 

agencies. Which of the principles and 

guidelines with respect to retrospective 

review should the Commission 

voluntarily adopt? Are there any 

principles or guidelines that are not 

appropriate for the Commission to 

voluntarily adopt? 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 23, 

2011, by the Commission. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Note: The following appendix will not 

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Appendix to Retrospective Review of 

Agency Rules—Concurring Statement 

of Commissioner Jill E. Sommers 

I am pleased the Commission has 

expressed its intent to periodically 

engage in a retrospective review of its 

regulations to determine whether any 

should be modified, streamlined, 

expanded or repealed in accordance 

with Executive Order 13563. Executive 

Order 13563, which reaffirms and 

builds upon Executive Order 12866 of 

September 30, 1993, sets forth a 

blueprint for promulgating regulations 

in a manner that is transparent and 

designed to achieve regulatory goals in 

the least burdensome, most costeffective way. Taken together, the orders 

emphasize the importance of public 

participation in rulemaking, adopting 

rules only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits justify 

the costs, and maintaining flexibility by 

specifying performance objectives rather 

than prescriptive rules, where possible. 

I wholeheartedly agree with the 

regulatory philosophy embodied in the 

Executive Orders and support the 

Commission’s determination to seek 

comment on which of the principles 

and guidelines with respect to 

retrospective review the Commission 

should voluntarily adopt. I write 

separately to express my concern, based 

upon the record of the Dodd-Frank 

rulemaking process thus far, that the 

Commission is not complying with 

either the letter or the spirit of the 

Executive Orders. 

The Commission states that ‘‘Phase 

One’’ of a retrospective analysis is 

already well underway through its 

review of its pre-Dodd-Frank rulebook 

and various proposed conforming 

amendments. While I agree that 

amendments to the existing rules will be 

necessary to conform with new DoddFrank definitions and requirements, I 

objected to the timing of some of the 

proposals, which in my view were 

premature because final rules 

establishing certain definitions and 

requirements had not yet been adopted. 

We will inevitably have to engage in a 

round of conforming amendments to the 

conforming amendments once the rules 

upon which they are based are finalized. 

Rushing conforming amendment 

proposals in the guise of complying 

with Executive Order 13563 is, in my 

opinion, disingenuous and an 

inefficient use of both the Commission’s 

and the public’s resources. 

The Commission also cites its 

proposed rulemakings to implement 

new requirements for complying with 

the core principles for designated 

contract markets and derivatives 

clearing organizations as a ‘‘Phase One’’ 

retrospective analysis initiative. Again, 

changes to the Commission’s guidance 

and acceptable practices for complying 

with core principles are in order given 

the Dodd-Frank amendments. My 

objection here is that, contrary to the 

Executive Orders, the Commission has 

proposed detailed prescriptive rules for 

complying with the core principles 

rather than preserving the flexibility 

that was intended by Congress and 

encouraged by the President. 

I have objected in the past to the 

Commission’s failure to conduct a 

robust cost-benefit analysis in 

connection with its Dodd-Frank 

proposals. And I have yet to see 

evidence at the proposal stage that we 

are truly looking for the least 

burdensome, most cost-effective way to 

meet regulatory goals. I believe that a 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
38330 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

retrospective review of rules is an 

important part of the regulatory process 

as long as it does not impose additional 

burdens to the agency and to the public. 

I urge the Commission as we move 

forward with finalizing rules to consider 

the goals of the Executive Orders. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16430 Filed 6–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 357 

[Docket No. APHIS–2010–0129] 

RIN 0579–AD44 

Implementation of Revised Lacey Act 

Provisions 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Food, Conservation and 

Energy Act of 2008 amended the Lacey 

Act to provide, among other things, that 

importers submit a declaration at the 

time of importation for certain plants 

and plant products. The declaration 

requirements of the Lacey Act became 

effective on December 15, 2008, and 

enforcement of those requirements is 

being phased in. We are soliciting 

public comment on regulatory options 

that could address certain issues that 

have arisen with the implementation of 

the declaration requirement. These 

options include establishing certain 

exceptions to the declaration 

requirement and modifying the 

Declaration Form PPQ 505 to simplify 

the collection of information. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before August 29, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ 

#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2010-0129- 

0001. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2010–0129, 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-2010-0129 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) 690–2817 

before coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

George Balady, Staff Officer, Quarantine 

Policy, Analysis and Support, PPQ, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 60, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734– 

5783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. 3371 et 

seq.), first enacted in 1900 and 

significantly amended in 1981, is the 

United States’ oldest wildlife protection 

statute. The Act combats trafficking in 

‘‘illegal’’ wildlife, fish, or plants. The 

Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 

2008, effective May 22, 2008, amended 

the Lacey Act by expanding its 

protection to a broader range of plants 

and plant products (Section 8204, 

Prevention of Illegal Logging Practices). 

The Lacey Act now makes it unlawful 

to import, export, transport, sell, 

receive, acquire, or purchase in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

plant, with some limited exceptions, 

taken, possessed, transported, or sold in 

violation of the laws of the United 

States, a State, an Indian tribe, or any 

foreign law that protects plants. The 

Lacey Act also now makes it unlawful 

to make or submit any false record, 

account, or label for, or any false 

identification of, any plant. 

In addition, Section 3 of the Lacey 

Act, as amended, makes it unlawful, 

beginning December 15, 2008, to import 

certain plants, including plant products, 

without an import declaration. The 

declaration must contain the scientific 

name of the plant, value of the 

importation, quantity of the plant, and 

name of the country from which the 

plant was harvested. 

On October 8, 2008, we published a 

notice in the Federal Register (73 FR 

58925–58927, Docket No. APHIS 2008– 

0119) announcing our plans to begin 

phased-in enforcement of the 

declaration requirement on April 1, 

2009, and providing dates and products 

covered for the first three phases of 

enforcement. We solicited comments on 

the proposed plan for phasing in 

enforcement for 60 days ending on 

December 8, 2008, and received 124 

comments by that date. On February 3, 

2009, we published a second notice in 

the Federal Register (74 FR 5911–5913, 

Docket No. APHIS 2008–0119) and 

provided a revised, more detailed 

phase-in schedule based on comments 

we received in response to the October 

notice. We solicited comment on the 

revised phase-in plan for 60 days ending 

on April 6, 2009, and received 41 

comments by that date. The comments 

covered a range of topics, including the 

scope of the declaration requirement, 

the specific products covered in each 

phase, definitions of terms, length of 

phases, effects on trade and industry, 

and enforcement issues. On September 

2, 2009, we published a third notice in 

the Federal Register (74 FR 45415– 

45418, Docket No. APHIS–2008–0119) 

and provided a further revised, more 

detailed phase-in schedule based on 

comments we received in response to 

the April notice as well as our 

experience with implementation to that 

date. We solicited comment on the 

revised phase-in plan for 60 days ending 

on November 2, 2009, and received 67 

comments by that date. 

We are publishing this advance notice 

of proposed rulemaking in order to seek 

information and develop regulatory 

options on the following issues: 

1. Whether an exception from the 

declaration requirement for products 

containing minimal amounts of plant 

material could be developed that would 

be less burdensome while still carrying 

out the intent of the Lacey Act 

amendments; 

2. How importers may comply with 

the declaration requirement when 

importing composite plant products 

whose genus, species, and country of 

harvest of some or all of the plant 

material may be extremely difficult or 

prohibitively expensive to determine; 

3. How to accommodate products 

made of re-used plant materials, or plant 

materials harvested or manufactured 

prior to the 2008 Lacey Act 

amendments, and for which identifying 

country of harvest, and possibly species, 

would be difficult if not impossible; and 

4. Whether groups of species 

commonly used in commercial 

production, could be given a separate 

name that could be entered on the 

declaration form as a type of shorthand 

identification of genus and species, such 

as the currently recognized ‘‘SPF’’ 

acronym for ‘‘spruce, pine, and fir.’’ 

Declaration Requirement for Shipments 

Containing Minimal Plant Materials 

The Lacey Act does not explicitly 

address whether the declaration 

requirement is intended to apply to 

imported products that contain only 

minimal amounts of plant material. It is 

not ideal to apply this requirement to 

minimal amounts of non-listed (i.e., not 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS