Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding, 11052-11053 [2014-04325]
Download as PDF
11052
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
writes the necessary implementing rules
for programs involving highways,
airports, mass transit, the maritime
industry, railroads, and motor
transportation and vehicle safety. DOT
writes regulations carrying out such
disparate statutes as the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Uniform Time
Act. Finally, DOT has responsibility for
developing policies that implement a
wide range of regulations that govern
programs such as acquisition and grants
management, access for people with
disabilities, environmental protection,
energy conservation, information
technology, occupational safety and
health, property asset management,
seismic safety, security, and the use of
aircraft and vehicles.
DOT’s Existing Process for Reviewing
Rules
The Department has long recognized
that there should be no more regulations
than necessary and those that are issued
should be simple, comprehensible, and
impose only as much burden as is
necessary. Likewise, the Department
understands that review and revision of
existing regulations is essential to
ensure that they continue to meet the
needs for which they originally were
designed and that they remain costeffective and cost justified. The
Department regularly makes a
conscientious effort to review its rules
in accordance with the Department’s
1979 Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, Feb. 26,
1979), Executive Order 12866, and
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 610.
In 2011, in response to Executive
Order 13563, the Department decided to
improve its plan by adding special
oversight processes within the
Department; encouraging effective and
timely reviews, including providing
additional guidance on particular
problems that warrant review; and
expanding opportunities for public
participation. The Department merged
the results of the retrospective review of
existing rules that was initially
conducted pursuant to Executive Order
13563 and the other special reviews that
were to be conducted, into a 10-year
review plan to provide a simpler
resource for the public and a more
effective tool for oversight and
management of the Department’s
retrospective reviews of rules.
The Department’s 2011 final plan
listed 79 existing rules for which the
Department had already undertaken or
proposed actions that promise
significant savings in terms of money
and burden hours. In addition, the
Department identified 56 other rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Feb 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
with potential savings, and we
committed to further study of public
commenter recommendations further
before deciding on the appropriate
action. You can find this list of rules as
Attachment 2 to our 2011 final plan,
located at https://www.dot.gov/
regulations/retrospective-review-andanalysis-existing-rules.
Public Participation and Request for
Comments
DOT is an active regulatory agency
with broad regulatory responsibilities,
thus a robust regulatory program is
essential to our mission. For this reason,
it is all the more important that we
maintain a consistent culture of
retrospective review and analysis. We
have determined that it is time to begin
a second round of retrospective review,
even as the first round of reviews begun
under Executive Order 13563 are being
completed.
Unlike the first round of retrospective
review under Executive Order 13563,
where the Department solicited
suggestions for specific rules that
should be on the list of candidate rules
for review, the Department is looking for
your suggestions on how this round
should be managed and your reasons for
your suggestions.
1. Should DOT simply publish a
notice in the Federal Register asking for
suggestions for specific existing rules to
be reviewed, as we did during the initial
round?
2. Should DOT focus on the 56 rules
identified in the 2011 plan as having
potential savings? Or are there any
particular rules from that list that
should be?
3. Should DOT publish a notice and
request for comment in the Federal
Register—
a. Focusing instead on the existing
regulations of one or more specific OAs?
If so, which OA(s) and why?
b. Focusing instead on one or more
cross-cutting issues such as access rules
or drug and alcohol testing? If so, which
cross-cutting issues and why?
c. Focus on a combination of one or
more specific OA(s) and specific crosscutting issue(s)? If so, which and why?
4. One other idea would be to hold a
series of listening sessions announced
in the Federal Register, each one
tailored to a specific OA or cross-cutting
issue. Ideas developed at these sessions
could be developed at additional public
workshops (e.g., if the OA has an
authorized advisory committee (such as
FRA’s Railroad Safety Advisory
Committee chartered under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act), at workshops
under the auspices of that advisory
committee), and/or through publication
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of a notice and request for comment in
the Federal Register, before the idea is
included in a DOT draft preliminary
retrospective review plan with a request
for comment. We would like your
thoughts on whether this idea is
preferable, and if so how much time
should be allowed for each stage
(listening sessions, additional public
workshops, and/or publication of a
notice and request for comment on the
suggestions for retrospective review).
Please send suggestions as to which
OAs and/or cross-cutting issues could
benefit from this more in-depth
retrospective review, including your
rationale.
5. We also seek other alternatives for
how to implement this second round of
retrospective review and your reason for
supporting the alternative(s).
Regulatory Notices
Privacy Act: Anyone may search the
electronic form of comments received
into any of our dockets by the name of
the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business,
labor union, etc.) You may review
DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–78), or you
may visit https://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/
browse.html and browse under 2000 for
April 11, looking under the heading
‘‘Department of Transportation.’’
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 610; E.O. 13563, 76 FR
3821, Jan. 21, 2011; E.O. 12866, 58 FR 51735,
Oct. 4, 1993.
Issued on February 19, 2014, in
Washington, DC.
Kathryn B. Thomson,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2014–04008 Filed 2–26–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket Nos. 01–229 and 01–231;
Report No. 2994]
Petition for Reconsideration of Action
in Rulemaking Proceeding
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Petition for reconsideration.
AGENCY:
A Petition for Reconsideration
has been filed in the Commission’s
Rulemaking proceedings by Edward
Czelada.
DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must
be filed on or before March 14, 2014.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Replies to an opposition must be filed
on or before March 24, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew J. Rhodes, 202–418–2700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of Commission’s document,
Report No. 2994, released December 19,
2013. The full text of Report No. 2994
is available for viewing and copying in
Room CY–B402, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC or may be purchased
from the Commission’s copy contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1–
800–378–3160).
Subject: In the Matter of Amendment
of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations
(Caseville and Pigeon, Michigan) (MM
Docket No. 01–229).
In the Matter of Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments,
FM Broadcast Stations (Harbor Beach
and Lexington, Michigan) (MM Docket
No. 01–231).
Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of
Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2014–04325 Filed 2–26–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0131;
FXES11130900000–145–FF09E42000]
RIN 1018–AW04
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Removing Oenothera avita
ssp. eurekensis and Swallenia
alexandrae From the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule and 12-month
petition finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
remove Oenothera avita ssp. eurekensis
(now accepted as Oenothera californica
subsp. eurekensis, with a common name
of Eureka Valley evening-primrose,
Eureka evening-primrose, or Eureka
Dunes evening-primrose) and Swallenia
alexandrae (with a common name of
Eureka dune grass or Eureka Valley
dune grass) from the Federal List of
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Feb 26, 2014
Jkt 232001
Endangered and Threatened Plants. This
action is based on a review of the best
available scientific and commercial
information, which indicates that both
species no longer meet the definition of
an endangered species, and further do
not meet the definition of a threatened
species, under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This
proposed rule, if made final, would
remove these plants from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Plants. This
document also constitutes our 12-month
finding on a petition to remove both
species from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants. We are seeking
information and comments from the
public regarding this proposed rule.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
April 28, 2014. We must receive
requests for public hearings, in writing,
at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by April
14, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You
may submit comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–
0131, which is the docket number for
this rulemaking. Then, in the Search
panel on the left side of the screen,
under the Document Type heading,
click on the Proposed Rules link to
locate this document. You may submit
a comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment
Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand-delivery to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R8–ES–2013–
0131; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
Information Requested section below for
more information).
Document availability: You may
obtain copies of the proposed rule and
related documents (including a copy of
the Background Information document
(Service 2014, entire) referenced
throughout this proposed rule) at
https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2013–0131, or
at the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office’s
Web site at https://www.fws.gov/
ventura/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen P. Henry, Deputy Field
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11053
Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife
Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B,
Ventura, CA 93003; telephone 805–644–
1766; facsimile 805–644–3958. If you
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Species addressed. Oenothera avita
ssp. eurekensis (now accepted as
Oenothera californica subsp.
eurekensis; Eureka Valley eveningprimrose) and Swallenia alexandrae
(Eureka dune grass) are endemic to three
dune systems in the Eureka Valley, Inyo
County, California. Eureka Valley falls
within federally designated wilderness
within Death Valley National Park, and
is managed accordingly by the National
Park Service (Park Service).
Purpose of the Regulatory Action.
This document constitutes our 12month finding in response to a petition
to delist Eureka Valley eveningprimrose and Eureka dune grass, and we
are proposing to remove both plants
from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Plants.
Basis for the Regulatory Action.
Under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, we may be petitioned to list,
delist, or reclassify a species. Under the
Act, a species may be determined to be
an endangered species or threatened
species because of any of five factors:
(A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) Disease or predation; (D)
The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. We must consider the same
factors in delisting a species. We may
delist a species if the best scientific and
commercial data indicate the species is
neither threatened nor endangered for
one or more of the following reasons: (1)
The species is extinct, (2) The species
has recovered and is no longer
endangered or threatened, or (3) The
original scientific data used at the time
the species was classified were in error.
The primary threat to Eureka Valley
evening-primrose and Eureka dune grass
at the time of listing was off-highway
vehicle (OHV) activity at Eureka Dunes
(43 FR 17910; April 26, 1978); although
not specifically stated in the final listing
rule, this also presumes a lesser degree
of impacts from camping that were
associated with OHV activity on and
around the dunes. Habitat protections
and ongoing management by the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM; up until
E:\FR\FM\27FEP1.SGM
27FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11052-11053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04325]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket Nos. 01-229 and 01-231; Report No. 2994]
Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: A Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the
Commission's Rulemaking proceedings by Edward Czelada.
DATES: Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before March 14,
2014.
[[Page 11053]]
Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before March 24, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew J. Rhodes, 202-418-2700.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of Commission's document,
Report No. 2994, released December 19, 2013. The full text of Report
No. 2994 is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's
copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160).
Subject: In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Caseville and Pigeon, Michigan) (MM
Docket No. 01-229).
In the Matter of Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Harbor Beach and Lexington,
Michigan) (MM Docket No. 01-231).
Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Office of Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 2014-04325 Filed 2-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P