Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-12-21 · Securities and Exchange Commission · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Request for additional comment

20,492 words·~93 min read·/register/2006/12/21/06-9812

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 245 Thursday, December 21, 2006 Proposed Rules SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 270 [Release No. IC-27600; File No. S7-03-04] RIN 3235-AJ05 Investment Company Governance AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. ACTION: Request for additional comment. SUMMARY: The Commission is reopening the comment period on its June 2006 request for comment regarding amendments to investment company (“fund”) governance provisions. The purpose of the additional comment period is to permit public comment on two papers prepared by the Office of Economic Analysis on this topic that will be made public by including them in the comment file.
The comments the Commission receives will be used to inform our further consideration of the matter. DATES: Comments must be received on or before 60 days after publication of the second of the two staff economic papers in the public comment file. When the second of the two staff economic papers in the public comment file is published, the Commission will publish a document announcing the comment deadline. ADDRESSES: To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, comments should be sent by one method only.
Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number S7-03-04 on the subject line; or • Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( *http://www.regulations.gov* ). Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.
All submissions should refer to File Number S7-03-04. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml* ). Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan Sokobin, Deputy Chief Economist, Office of Economic Analysis,
(202)551-6600 or Vincent Meehan, Staff Attorney, or Penelope Saltzman, Branch Chief, Office of Regulatory Policy,
(202)551-6792, Division of Investment Management, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In June 2006, the Commission requested additional comment 1 regarding amendments to fund governance provisions of rules under the Investment Company Act. 2 We received many comments in response to our request, some of which provided information on the costs of the provisions. Few, however, directly addressed in a meaningful way the economic implications of the provisions. Before considering further rulemaking on this matter, the Commission wishes to develop a more comprehensive record and a more thorough understanding of the economic consequences of the provisions. 1 Investment Company Governance, Investment Company Act Release No. 27395 (June 13, 2006) [71 FR 35366 (June 19, 2006)]. 2 15 U.S.C. 80a. To that end, the Commission invites comment on any aspect of the two staff economic papers that will be published shortly after the issuance of this release. Specifically, our staff economists have reviewed existing relevant economic literature related to conflicts of interest that advisers have with regard to mutual funds they advise, as well as literature related to mutual fund governance, independent chairmen, and board independence. Our staff economists also have performed an analysis of the statistical properties of mutual fund returns and potential limitations inherent in any empirical analysis designed to identify a relationship between those returns and fund governance. We will include their papers in the public comment file, and we request comment on them. In addition, in order to facilitate our assessment of the economic implications of the fund governance provisions and any alternative approaches available to us, we also seek comment on any other extant analyses, and we request that commenters provide us their best assessment of these. Dated: December 15, 2006. By the Commission. Nancy M. Morris, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-21903 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Indian Gaming Commission 25 CFR Part 547 RIN 3141-AA29 Technical Standards for “Electronic, Computer, or Other Technologic Aids” Used in the Play of Class II Games AGENCY: National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior. ACTION: Notice of extension of comment period. SUMMARY: This notice extends the period for comments on proposed Class II technical standards published in the **Federal Register** on August 11, 2006 (71 FR 46336). DATES: The comment period for the proposed technical regulations is extended from December 15, 2006, to January 31, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Gross, Senior Attorney, at 202/632-7003; fax 202/632-7066 (these are not toll-free numbers). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Congress established the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission) under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2701 *et seq* .)
(IGRA)to regulate gaming on Indian lands. On August 11, 2006, the Commission published proposed Class II technical standards in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 46336). Dated: December 14, 2006. Philip N. Hogen, Chairman, National Indian Gaming Commission. Cloyce V. Choney, Commissioner, National Indian Gaming Commission. [FR Doc. E6-21784 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7565-01-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Prisons 28 CFR Parts 571 and 572 [BOP-1120-P] RIN 1120-AB10 Reduction in Sentence for Medical Reasons AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) is revising its regulations on procedures for reductions in sentence
(RIS)for medical reasons. 28 CFR Part 571, Subpart G, is currently entitled “Compassionate Release (Procedures for the Implementation of 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and 4205(g)).” We are revising these regulations to
(1)more accurately reflect our authority under these statutes and our current policy,
(2)clarify procedures for RIS consideration, and
(3)describe procedures for RIS consideration of D.C. Code offenders, for whom the Bureau has responsibility under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (D.C. Revitalization Act), D.C. Official Code § 24-101(b). The new Subpart G will be entitled “Reduction in Sentence for Medical Reasons.” DATES: Comments due by February 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Regulations Unit, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534. Our e-mail address is *BOPRULES@bop.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Qureshi, Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone
(202)353-8248. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau is revising its regulations on procedures for reductions in sentence
(RIS)for medical reasons. 28 CFR Part 571, Subpart G, is currently entitled “Compassionate Release (Procedures for the Implementation of 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) and 4205(g)).” Title 18 of the United States Code, section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) states that a court, on motion of the Director of the Bureau, may reduce a term of imprisonment if “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” Based on the Bureau's experience in implementing this statute and resultant policy decisions, we clarify through these proposed regulations the specific criteria that the Bureau will consider for a RIS. It is important to note we do not intend this regulation to change the number of RIS cases recommended by the Bureau to sentencing courts. It is merely a clarification that we will only consider inmates with extraordinary and compelling medical conditions for RIS, and not inmates in other, non-medical situations which may be characterized as “hardships,” such as a family member's medical problems, economic difficulties, or the inmate's claim of an unjust sentence. In this regulation, we explain that an inmate may be a candidate for RIS consideration if Bureau medical staff, or a Bureau-selected doctor consulting on his/her case, conclude with reasonable medical certainty that the inmate has one of the following two conditions: • A terminal illness with a life expectancy of one year or less; or • A profoundly debilitating medical condition that:
(1)May be physical or cognitive in nature;
(2)is irreversible and cannot be remedied through medication or other measures; and
(3)has eliminated or severely limited the inmate's ability to attend to fundamental bodily functions and personal care needs without substantial assistance from others, including personal hygiene and toilet functions, basic nutrition, medical care, and physical safety. If an inmate has such a medical condition, we will not automatically give that inmate a RIS recommendation. Instead, as is our current practice, we will carefully consider whether the inmate is a danger to society, and other relevant considerations which focus on potential risks to public safety and the nature of the offense, before recommending a RIS. These considerations may include but are not limited to: Potential impact on victims or witnesses, criminal history, inmate's age and length of sentence, and the previous existence of the medical condition. Section-by-Section Explanation Subpart G—New Title Previously, this subpart was entitled “Compassionate Release.” We are changing the title of subpart G to read “Reduction in Sentence for Medical Reasons.” The Bureau has received letters and Administrative Remedy appeals from inmates who mistakenly believe that we will consider circumstances other than the inmate's medical condition for reducing a sentence. Such is not the Bureau's practice. We believe this title more accurately describes our criteria and procedures. Section 571.60 Purpose In this section, we state that the purpose of this part is to describe the procedures used to assess whether an inmate in Bureau custody is appropriate for a reduction in sentence. Section 571.61 Legal Authority for Reducing the Term of Imprisonment of an Inmate Requesting a Reduction in Sentence This section describes the statutes that allow the Director to make a motion to the sentencing court requesting a RIS. In addition to previous authority, 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and 4205(g), we added the District of Columbia (D.C.) Code § 24-101, §§ 24-461 through 24-465, § 24-467, and § 24-468. Under the D.C. Revitalization Act, enacted August 5, 1997, the Bureau is responsible for the care and custody of “the felony population sentenced pursuant to the District of Columbia Official Code” (D.C. Code offenders). (D.C. Official Code § 24-101(b)). D.C. Code offenders in Bureau custody are subject to Federal laws and Bureau regulations as long as they are “consistent with the sentence imposed.” Under the D.C. Revitalization Act, we must follow the D.C. Code when reviewing a RIS for D.C. Code offenders in Bureau custody. We therefore add the relevant D.C. Code provisions to this regulation. Section 571.62 Medical Conditions Considered for a Reduction in Sentence In this section, we clarify what extraordinary and compelling circumstances may warrant a RIS. We explain that an inmate may be a candidate for RIS consideration if Bureau medical staff, or a Bureau-selected doctor consulting on his/her case, conclude with reasonable medical certainty that the inmate suffers from a terminal illness with a life expectancy of one year or less, or a profoundly debilitating medical condition that may be physical or cognitive in nature, is irreversible and cannot be remedied through medication or other measures, and has eliminated or severely limited the inmate's ability to attend to fundamental bodily functions and personal care needs without substantial assistance from others (including personal hygiene and toilet functions, basic nutrition, medical care, and physical safety). In each of these conditions, inmates may be unable to care for themselves. We may find that such inmates are not likely to pose a danger to the public or the community if released. We may find that issues of confinement, punishment, and rehabilitation may no longer be principal considerations. These types of conditions, viewed in totality, may be extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting a RIS. Section 571.63 How To Request a Reduction in Sentence This section instructs inmates to request a RIS in writing at the institution. This does not change any previous substantive requirements. We currently have this requirement in 28 CFR 571.61(a). This section also explains what the RIS request should include. This does not change any previous substantive requirements, which are currently in 28 CFR 571.61(a)(1) and (2). Section 571.64 Submitting a Request for a Reduction in Sentence on Behalf of an Inmate Who Is Too Ill To Make a Request in Writing This section allows inmates who are too ill to make written requests to make their requests verbally to staff or to have someone else make a request on their behalf. We intend this regulation to be more permissive, and allow more ways for ill inmates to make this request. Section 571.65 Bureau Review of a Request for a Reduction in Sentence This section simply explains that Bureau medical staff or a Bureau-selected doctor consulting on an inmate's case at the institution must first conclude that an inmate has a medical condition as described in § 571.62. If an inmate is medically eligible for RIS consideration under § 571.62, Bureau staff at the institution must then determine that the inmate will not pose a danger to society. If both these threshold requirements are met, staff will then carefully assess other relevant factors before determining that a RIS is appropriate in the inmate's case. In assessing other relevant factors, Bureau staff will be guided by national Bureau policy statements on this subject. This section also explains that staff at the institution, the Warden, the Regional Office, and the Central Office of the Bureau all review inmate RIS requests. This is merely a codification of currently existing practice, and will notify inmates and the public that a RIS request is reviewed by all three levels of the Bureau before approval. Section 571.66 Director's Determination That a Reduction in Sentence Is Appropriate This section explains that, if the Director determines that a RIS is appropriate, he/she will ask the United States Attorney's Office in the district where the inmate was sentenced to submit the Director's motion to the sentencing court on the Bureau's behalf. A RIS can only occur if the court grants the motion under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) or § 4205(g). If the court grants a motion under § 4205(g), release also depends on a decision by the Parole Commission to grant parole. This does not change any previous substantive language. For D.C. Code offenders, a RIS can only occur if the United States Parole Commission grants medical or geriatric parole under D.C. Official Code §§ 24-463 through 24-465 to inmates in Bureau custody for offenses that were committed before August 5, 2000, or the court grants a motion under D.C. Official Code § 24-468 for inmates in Bureau custody for offenses that were committed on or after August 5, 2000. Section 571.67 Denial of a Request for a Reduction in Sentence This section explains how the Warden, Regional Director, and General Counsel will notify inmates if they deny a RIS request and how inmates may appeal that decision. This does not change any previous substantive language. We currently have similar language in 28 CFR 571.63(a)(4). We note that D.C. Code offenders, as described below, may appeal RIS decisions or any other Bureau action or inaction through the Bureau's Administrative Remedy Program. Sections 571.68-571.74 D.C. Code Offenders We add these sections to comply with the D.C. Revitalization Act. The D.C. Revitalization Act makes the Bureau responsible for “the felony population sentenced pursuant to the District of Columbia Code” (D.C. Code offenders). (D.C. Official Code § 24-101(b)) D.C. Code offenders in Bureau custody are subject to Federal laws and Bureau regulations as long as they are “consistent with the sentence imposed.” The D.C. Code contains specific provisions that govern D.C. Code sentences regarding RIS based on medical reasons. Because the Bureau is now responsible for the custody of D.C. Code felony offenders, we add regulations stating the eligibility requirements that D.C. Code offenders in Bureau custody must meet to be considered for RIS. The process described in §§ 571.62 through 571.67 will otherwise be followed. Section 571.68 Eligibility of D.C. Code Offenders With Indeterminate (Parolable) Sentences for Reduction in Sentence In this section, we describe the ways in which D.C. Code offenders who committed a felony before August 5, 2000, and were sentenced to an indeterminate (parolable) sentence, might be eligible for a reduction in sentence, which is described in the D.C. Code as “medical parole” and “geriatric parole.” This section also describes inmates who are excluded from RIS eligibility: D.C. Code offenders
(1)whose physical or medical condition existed at the time of sentencing; or
(2)who were convicted of first degree murder (D.C. Official Code §§ 22-2101, 2106), an armed crime of violence or dangerous crime (D.C. Official Code § 22-4502), possession of a firearm while committing a crime of violence or dangerous crime (D.C. Official Code § 22-4504(b), or armed or unarmed carjacking (D.C. Official Code § 22-2803). Section 571.69 Eligibility of D.C. Code Offenders With Determinate (Non-Parolable) Sentences for Reduction in Sentence In this section, we describe RIS eligibility for D.C. Code offenders who committed a felony on or after August 5, 2000, and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment not subject to parole. Such inmates may be eligible for a reduction in sentence if they:
(1)meet the medical conditions described in § 571.62, or
(2)are 65 years of age or older, have a chronic infirmity, illness, or disease related to aging, and release under supervision would not endanger public safety. This section also describes inmates who are excluded from RIS eligibility: D.C. Code offenders
(1)whose physical or medical condition was known by the court at the time of sentencing; or
(2)who are serving a term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to the District of Columbia Official Code §§ 22-2803(c) (carjacking), or 22-2104(b) (first degree murder). Section 571.70 How To Request a Reduction in Sentence Under the D.C. Code Under this section, D.C. Code offenders with indeterminate (parolable) sentences may request a reduction in sentence either by following the procedures in §§ 571.63 and 571.64, or by sending an application directly to the Parole Commission. D.C. Code offenders with determinate (non-parolable) sentences may request a reduction in sentence only by following the procedures in §§ 571.63 and 571.64. Section 571.71 Evaluating a Request for RIS by a D.C. Code Offender This section makes it clear that the Bureau will use the same procedures to assess a D.C. Code offender's application for a reduction in sentence as it uses for federal offenders. Section 571.72 Ineligibility for Reduction in Sentence Aside from provisions concerning D.C. Code offenders, this is not a substantive change from the current § 571.64. An inmate is not eligible for a RIS if he/she is
(a)a state prisoner housed in a Bureau facility,
(b)a federal offender who committed an offense before November 1, 1987, and serving a non-parolable sentence, or
(c)a military prisoner housed in a Bureau facility. Section 572.40 Reduction in Sentence
(RIS)Under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g) We make minor changes to this section to conform with changes to our regulations on RIS for medical reasons. Executive Order 12866 This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review”, section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Director, Bureau of Prisons has determined that this regulation is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this regulation has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Executive Order 13132 This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, under Executive Order 13132, we determine that this regulation does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Director of the Bureau of Prisons, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), reviewed this regulation and by approving it certifies that it will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This regulation pertains to the correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, and its economic impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This regulation will not result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This regulation is not a major rule as defined by § 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This regulation will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. List of Subjects 28 CFR Parts 571 and 572 Prisoners. Harley G. Lappin, Director, Bureau of Prisons. Under the rulemaking authority vested in the Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director, Bureau of Prisons, we propose to amend 28 CFR parts 571 and 572, chapter V, subchapter D, as follows. Subchapter D—Community Programs and Release PART 571—RELEASE FROM CUSTODY 1. Revise the authority citation for 28 CFR part 571 to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3565; 3568-3569 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 3582, 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 4161-4166 and 4201-4218 (Repealed as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984, as to offenses committed after that date), 5031-5042; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 2; 28 CFR 1.1-1.10; D.C. Official Code § 24-101, §§ 24-461—24-465, § 24-467, and § 24-468. Subpart G—Compassionate Release (Procedures for the Implementation of 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) and 4205(g)) 2. Revise subpart G of part 571 to read as follows: Subpart G—Reduction in Sentence for Medical Reasons Sec. 571.60 Purpose. 571.61 Legal authority for reducing the term of imprisonment of an inmate requesting a reduction in sentence. 571.62 Medical conditions considered for a reduction in sentence. 571.63 How to request a reduction in sentence. 571.64 Submitting a request for a reduction in sentence on behalf of an inmate who is too ill to make a request in writing. 571.65 Bureau review of a request for a reduction in sentence. 571.66 Director's determination that a reduction in sentence is appropriate. 571.67 Denial of a request for a reduction in sentence. 571.68 Eligibility of D.C. Code offenders with indeterminate (parolable) sentences for reduction in sentence. 571.69 Eligibility of D.C. Code offenders with determinate (non-parolable) sentences for reduction in sentence. 571.70 How to request a reduction in sentence under the D.C. Code. 571.71 Evaluating a request for RIS by a D.C. Code Offender. 571.72 Ineligibility for reduction in sentence. § 571.60 Purpose. The purpose of this subpart is to describe the criteria and procedures used to assess whether an inmate in Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) custody is appropriate for a reduction in sentence. § 571.61 Legal authority for reducing the term of imprisonment of an inmate requesting a reduction in sentence.
(a)Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), the Director of the Bureau of Prisons is authorized to file a motion in the sentencing court for a reduction in an inmate's sentence when the Director of the Bureau determines that extraordinary and compelling circumstances exist to warrant a reduction in sentence. The sentencing court may reduce the term of imprisonment on the Director's motion, and the inmate becomes immediately eligible for release.
(b)18 U.S.C. 4205(g)(Repealed as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987) provides that the court, on the Director's motion, may make an inmate serving a parolable sentence immediately eligible for parole consideration.
(c)The District of Columbia Official Code (D.C. Official Code) § 24-101, §§ 24-461—24-465, § 24-467, and § 24-468, collectively authorize the Bureau to determine whether a RIS may be warranted for D.C. Code offenders in Bureau custody. § 571.62 Medical conditions considered for a reduction in sentence. An inmate may be considered for a RIS if Bureau medical staff, or a Bureau-selected doctor consulting on his/her case, conclude with reasonable medical certainty that the inmate suffers from:
(a)A terminal illness with a life expectancy of one year or less; or
(b)A profoundly debilitating medical condition that:
(1)May be physical or cognitive in nature;
(2)Is irreversible and cannot be remedied through medication or other measures; and
(3)Has eliminated or severely limited the inmate's ability to attend to fundamental bodily functions and personal care needs without substantial assistance from others, including personal hygiene and toilet functions, basic nutrition, medical care, and physical safety. § 571.63 How to request a reduction in sentence.
(a)You may request a reduction in sentence
(RIS)in writing at your institution.
(b)The RIS request should include:
(1)A statement explaining the medical condition(s) that create the extraordinary or compelling circumstances for a RIS; and
(2)A proposed release plan, including information about where you will live, receive medical treatment, and how you will support yourself and pay for medical care. § 571.64 Submitting a request for a reduction in sentence on behalf of an inmate who is too ill to make a request in writing. If an inmate is too ill to make a request in writing, that inmate may make the request verbally to Bureau staff, or someone else may submit a written request for that inmate. § 571.65 Bureau review of a request for a reduction in sentence.
(a)*Institution staff review.*
(1)Bureau medical staff at the institution level must first conclude that you have a qualifying medical condition as described in § 571.62 or, for D.C. Code offenders who committed a felony before August 5, 2000, as described in § 571.68.
(2)If you are medically eligible for RIS consideration, Bureau staff at the institution level will carefully assess the public safety concerns and the totality of the circumstances before determining that you are, in fact, appropriate for a RIS, including a review of the impact a RIS will have on any victims.
(b)*Warden review.* If the Warden, after reviewing all the relevant documents, determines that a RIS is appropriate, the Warden sends a written recommendation to the Regional Director.
(c)*Regional Director review.* If the Regional Director agrees, the Regional Director sends a written recommendation to the Office of General Counsel.
(d)*General Counsel review.* The General Counsel will ascertain whether the United States Attorney's Office in the district in which you were sentenced agrees with the Regional Director's recommendation. If the General Counsel and the U.S. Attorney's Office agree with the recommendation, the Director will then determine whether to request the U.S. Attorney's office to submit a RIS motion to the sentencing court on the Bureau's behalf. § 571.66 Director's determination that a reduction in sentence is appropriate. If the Director determines that your situation makes you appropriate for a RIS under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) or § 4205(g), or for D.C. Code offenders, D.C. Official Code §§ 24-461-465, 467-468, the Director will request the U.S. Attorney's Office in the district where you were sentenced to submit a RIS motion to the sentencing court on the Bureau's behalf. A RIS can only occur if the court grants the motion or if the Parole Commission grants the application for certain D.C. Code offenders. If the court grants a motion under § 4205(g), release also depends on a decision by the Parole Commission to grant you parole. § 571.67 Denial of a request for a reduction in sentence. If the Warden, the Regional Director, or the Director determines that a RIS is not appropriate and denies your RIS request, you will receive a written notice stating the reason(s) for denial.
(a)If the Warden or Regional Director denies the RIS request, you may appeal the denial through the Administrative Remedy Program (28 CFR part 542, subpart B).
(b)If the Director denies the RIS request, you may not appeal the denial through the Administrative Remedy Program. § 571.68 Eligibility of D.C. Code offenders with indeterminate (parolable) sentences for reduction in sentence.
(a)If you are a D.C. Code offender who committed a felony before August 5, 2000, and you were sentenced to an indeterminate (parolable) term of imprisonment, you may be eligible for:
(1)*Medical parole* only if you are:
(i)*Terminally ill* , which means that you have an incurable condition caused by illness or disease which would, within reasonable medical judgment, produce death within 6 months, and you do not constitute a danger to yourself or society; or
(ii)*Permanently incapacitated* , which means that, by reason of an existing physical or medical condition which is not terminal, you are permanently and irreversibly physically incapacitated, and you do not constitute a danger to yourself or society; or
(2)*Geriatric parole* , which means that you are age 65 or older, you suffer from a chronic infirmity, illness, or disease related to aging, and you pose a low risk to the community.
(b)*Exclusions.* You are *not* eligible for medical or geriatric parole if:
(1)The physical or medical condition existed at the time of sentencing, or
(2)The conviction was for first degree murder (D.C. Official Code §§ 22-2101, 2106), an armed crime of violence or dangerous crimes (D.C. Official Code § 22-4502), possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence or dangerous crime (D.C. Official Code § 22-4504(b), or armed or unarmed carjacking (D.C. Official Code § 22-2803). § 571.69 Eligibility of D.C. Code offenders with determinate (non-parolable) sentences for reduction in sentence.
(a)If you are a D.C. Code offender who committed a felony on or after August 5, 2000, and you were sentenced to a determinate (non-parolable) term of imprisonment, you may be eligible for a reduction in sentence if:
(1)You meet the medical conditions described in § 571.62; or
(2)You are 65 years of age or older, have a chronic infirmity, illness, or disease related to aging, and releasing you under supervision would not endanger public safety.
(b)*Exclusions.* You are *not* eligible for medical or geriatric parole if:
(1)The physical or medical condition was known to the court at the time of sentencing, or
(2)You are serving a term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to the District of Columbia Official Code §§ 22-2803(c) (carjacking), or 22-2104(b) (first degree murder). § 571.70 How to request a reduction in sentence under the D.C. Code.
(a)*D.C. Code offenders with indeterminate (parolable) sentences* may request a reduction in sentence either by following the procedures in §§ 571.63 and 571.64, or by sending the request directly to the United States Parole Commission (USPC).
(b)*D.C. Code offenders with determinate (non-parolable) sentences* may request a reduction in sentence only by following the procedures in §§ 571.62 and 571.63. § 571.71. Evaluating a request for RIS by a D.C. Code Offender. Other than applying different eligibility requirements (described in § 571.69), in evaluating a RIS request by a D.C. Code offender who committed a felony before August 5, 2000, the Bureau will follow the same criteria and procedures set forth for federal prisoners in §§ 571.62 through 571.67. § 571.72 Ineligibility for reduction in sentence. You are NOT eligible for a reduction in sentence if you are:
(a)A state prisoner housed in a Bureau facility; or
(b)A federal offender who committed an offense before November 1, 1987, and serving a non-parolable sentence; or
(c)A military prisoner housed in a Bureau facility. Subpart H—Designation of Offenses for Purposes of 18 U.S.C. 4042(C) §§ 571.71 and 571.72 [Redesignated] 3. Redesignate §§ 571.71 and 571.72 as §§ 571.81 and 571.82, respectively. PART 572—PAROLE 4. Revise the authority citation for 28 CFR part 572 to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 4205, 5015 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28 CFR 1.1-1.10. 5. Revise § 572.40 in Subpart E to read as follows: § 572.40 Reduction in Sentence under 18 U.S.C. 4205(g). 18 U.S.C. 4205(g), repealed effective November 1, 1987, remains the controlling law for inmates who committed offenses before that date. 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A) is the controlling law for inmates who committed offenses on or after November 1, 1987. Procedures for a RIS under either statute are in 28 CFR part 571, subpart G. [FR Doc. E6-21772 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-05-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, 1917, 1918, 1919 and 1926 [Docket No. S-778B] RIN 1218-AC19 Standards Improvement Project, Phase III AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor. ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). SUMMARY: OSHA routinely conducts reviews of its existing safety and health standards to improve and update them. As part of this ongoing process, OSHA is issuing this ANPRM to initiate Phase III of the Standards Improvement Project (SIPs III). SIPs III is the third in a series of rulemaking actions intended to improve and streamline OSHA standards by removing or revising individual requirements within rules that are confusing, outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent. These revisions maintain or enhance employees' safety and health, while reducing regulatory burdens where possible. OSHA has already identified a number of provisions that are potential candidates for inclusion in SIPs III. These candidates include recommendations received from the public in other rulemakings. The purpose of this notice is to invite comment on these recommendations, as well as provide an opportunity for commenters to suggest other candidates that might be appropriate for inclusion in this rulemaking. OSHA will use the information received in response to this notice to help determine the scope of SIPs III. DATES: Comments must be submitted by the following dates: *Hardcopy:* Your comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by February 20, 2007. *Facsimile and electronic transmission:* Your comments must be sent by February 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and additional material, identified by OSHA Docket No. S-778B, by any of the following methods: *Electronically:* You may submit comments, and attachments electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions online for making electronic submissions. *Facsimile (FAX):* If your comments, including any attachments, are 10 pages or fewer, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-1648. *Mail, hand delivery, express mail, and messenger or courier service:* You must submit three copies of your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. S-778B, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202)693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is
(877)889-5627). OSHA Docket Office and Department of Labor hours of operations are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the Agency name and OSHA docket number (S-778B) for this rulemaking. Submissions, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* For further information on submitting comments plus additional information on the rulemaking process, see the “Public Participation” heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read or download submissions, comments, or other material, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index, however, some information ( *e.g.* , copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: *Press inquiries:* Kevin Ropp, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
(202)693-1999. *General and technical information:* Michael Seymour, Office of Physical Hazards, OSHA Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3718, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
(202)693-1950. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Request for Information, Data, and Comments A. Compliance with NFPA 101-2000, Life Safety Codes (§ 1910.35) B. Subpart H—Hazardous Materials—Flammable and Combustible Liquids (§ 1910.106) and Spray Finishing Using Flammable and Combustible Materials (§ 1910.107) C. Subpart I—Personal Protective Equipment (§ 1910.132 and § 1915.152) D. Respiratory Protection (§ 1910.134) E. Subpart J—General Environmental Controls—Sanitation Standard (§ 1910.141) F. Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.) (§ 1910.1003) G. Lead (§ 1910.1025 and § 1926.62) H. 1,3-Butadiene (§ 1910.1051) I. Asbestos (§ 1915.1001) J. General Modifications to Medical Examinations and Industrial Hygiene Sampling Provisions K. General Modifications to Training Provisions L. Miscellaneous Items Under Consideration M. General Solicitation for Recommendations III. Public Participation IV. Authority and Signature I. Background OSHA wants to improve confusing, outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent requirements in its standards. Improving OSHA standards will help employers better understand their obligations, which will lead to increased compliance, ensure greater safety and health for employees, and reduce compliance costs. In addition, this action will allow OSHA to recognize newer and more flexible ways of achieving the intent of the standards. OSHA's effort to improve standards began in the 1970s, not long after the first set of standards was issued. In 1973, OSHA issued proposals to clarify and update rules that had originally been adopted by the Agency as “initial” standards. In 1978, OSHA published the Selected General and Special (Cooperage and Laundry Machinery, and Bakery Equipment) Industry Safety and Health Standards: Revocation (43 FR 9831). Commonly known as the Standards Deletion Project, this was a comprehensive final rule revoking hundreds of unnecessary and duplicative requirements in the General Industry Standards (part 1910). Another rulemaking in 1984 titled the Revocation of Advisory and Repetitive Standards (49 FR 5318) resulted in the removal of many repetitive and unenforceable requirements. These rulemaking actions were primarily directed at removing standards that were:
(1)Not relevant to employee safety; that is, the standards addressed public safety issues;
(2)duplicative of other standards found elsewhere in the general industry standards;
(3)otherwise considered a “nuisance” standard; that is, one having no merit or employee safety and health benefits; or
(4)unenforceable due to legal considerations. In 1996, in response to a Presidential Memorandum on Improving Government Regulations, OSHA began another series of rulemaking improvement actions. Patterned after the earlier rulemaking actions, the new effort was designed to identify and then revise or eliminate standards that were confusing, outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent. This effort also included standards that could be rewritten in plain language. In the first action, Miscellaneous Changes to General Industry and Construction Standards (61 FR 37849), otherwise known as the Standards Improvement Project (SIPs I), OSHA focused on revising standards that were out of date, duplicative, or inconsistent. The final rule on SIPs I was published on June 18, 1998 (63 FR 33450). Changes made in SIPs I included reducing the frequency of a medical testing requirement and eliminating an unnecessary or obsolete medical test required in both the coke oven and inorganic arsenic standards; changing the emergency-response provisions of the vinyl chloride standard; eliminating the public safety provisions of the temporary labor camp standard; and eliminating unnecessary cross-references in the textile industry standards. All of these improvements were made without reducing employee safety and health protection. In 2002, OSHA published a proposed rule for Phase II of the Standards Improvement Project (SIPs II) (67 FR 66494). In that notice, OSHA proposed to revise a number of provisions in health and safety standards that had been identified by commenters during SIPs I or that the Agency had identified as standards in need of improvement. In the final rule on SIPs II, published on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 1111), the Agency revised a number of health standards to reduce regulatory burden, facilitate compliance, and eliminate unnecessary paperwork without reducing health protections. The improvements made by SIPs II addressed issues such as employee notification of the use of chemicals in the workplace, frequency of exposure monitoring, and medical surveillance. In addition to the SIPs initiatives, OSHA has a related but separate rulemaking process, the Consensus Update Project initiated on November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68283), to update OSHA standards that are based on, or reference national consensus standards. Many of OSHA's rules were adopted under a two-year statutory authority that allowed the new Agency to incorporate existing national consensus standards into its body of regulations without notice and comment rulemaking. National consensus standards are generally updated on a regular cycle, and thus the rules initially adopted by OSHA are often out-of-date. To update these rules based on the updated consensus standards requires rulemaking. OSHA is using a number of different rulemaking approaches to update as many of these rules as possible. The rules that are addressed in SIPs rulemakings are not simply consensus standards updates. Some of the suggestions that were received in previous SIPs rulemakings are currently being addressed in either specific rulemaking projects for updating of the rule involved (e.g., a complete revision of the explosives standard is currently on the regulatory agenda), or will be addressed in the consensus standards update process. Therefore, it is likely that any comments or suggestions related exclusively to consensus standards that are submitted in response to this request will be considered under the consensus standards update project rather than the SIPs rulemaking. OSHA has identified numerous standards as potential candidates for improvement in SIPs III based on the Agency's review of its standards, suggestions and comments from the public, or recommendations from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB recommendations were based on comments they received on Regulatory Reform of the U.S. Manufacturing Sector (2005). 1 Many commenters during the SIPs II rulemaking process applauded the SIPs process and OSHA for its “efforts to streamline and improve its health standards by removing or revising requirements that are outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent” (Ex. 3-5, 3-10, 3-11, and 3-13 to Docket S-778A). 1 To view the full Regulatory Reform report, please visit: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/reports/manufacturing_initiative.pdf* . Because the Agency has identified numerous candidate standards for improvement and stakeholders have encouraged the Agency to continue this effort, OSHA has determined to proceed with Phase III of SIPs. As already noted, SIPs III will proceed at the same time that the Agency updates consensus standards in a separate project. In SIPs III, OSHA's objective is to modify individual provisions of standards by removing or revising requirements of standards that are confusing, outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent without reducing employees' safety and health or imposing any additional economic burden. As in the earlier rulemakings, the Agency seeks help from the public to identify standards that are in need of improvement based on this objective. While commenters may suggest extensive changes or major reorganization of some standards, suggestions that require a large-scale revision of a standard may not be appropriate for this rulemaking. The Agency will determine whether such large-scale changes are addressed in SIPs III, in the Consensus Update Project, or in a future rulemaking dedicated to the specific issues raised by commenters. II. Request for Information, Data, and Comments OSHA requests the public to identify standards that are in need of improvement because they are confusing, outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent. In addition, the agency is considering the following changes in SIPs III. When commenting on the issues below, OSHA requests that you reference the issue number, explain your rationale, and provide, if possible, data and information to support your comments. A. Compliance with NFPA 101-2000, Life Safety Codes (§ 1910.35) On May 19, 2004, OSHA received a petition from the International Code Council
(ICC)to revise Subpart E—Exit Routes. This standards development organization proposed that OSHA consider allowing employers to demonstrate compliance with the egress provisions of Subpart E by following its International Building Code
(IBC)and International Fire Code (IFC), just as OSHA currently permits employers to demonstrate compliance by following the egress provisions of the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA)101, Life Safety Code (2000 edition). The IBC and IFC are not currently referenced by OSHA. The preamble to OSHA's 2002 plain language update of Subpart E (67 FR 67949-67965) explains that OSHA declined to extend recognition to the building codes 2 at that time because there were three different model building codes used in the country. That situation has changed significantly. First, the three former building codes have evolved into a single code, the IBC. Secondly, OSHA has made a preliminary determination that the egress provisions of the IBC and IFC, when applied together, offer employee protection equal to the Subpart E provisions. 2 Uniform, Southern, and BOCA Building Codes. Some jurisdictions in the country adopt the ICC codes for building construction and fire prevention purposes, while NFPA codes are used in other jurisdictions. OSHA believes employees, employers, the building industry, and code officials may all benefit from OSHA allowing either alternative. Therefore, OSHA is considering the recognition of the combined egress provisions of the IBC and IFC as an alternative equivalent to Subpart E. 1. Do the combined egress provisions of the IBC and IFC offer equivalent protection to OSHA's Subpart E? 2. Are there other alternative national building codes that OSHA should consider? 3. Would allowing the use of the IBC and IFC as an equivalent to Subpart E help employers reduce cost? B. Subpart H—Hazardous Materials—Flammable and Combustible Liquids (§ 1910.106) and Spray Finishing Using Flammable or Combustible Materials (§ 1910.107) On December 1, 2001, the National Marine Manufacturers Association petitioned OSHA to update § 1910.107 to reference portions of the 1995 edition of NFPA 33-Standard for Spray Application Using Flammable or Combustible Materials. This edition of NFPA 33 was the first to include a composites manufacturing chapter. This chapter includes less stringent provisions than previous editions of NFPA 33 that formed the basis for § 1910.107. These less stringent 1995 provisions presumed a lower degree of hazard in the process of composites spraying. Subsequently, OSHA staff witnessed field tests at the request of the industry to demonstrate the hazard level; these tests were inconclusive. OSHA received a second petition on August 17, 2004, from the American Composite Manufacturers Association (ACMA). ACMA petitioned OSHA to adopt certain sections of the “current” versions of NFPA 33 as well as NFPA 30—Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code. At that time, the current versions of those NFPA standards were the 2003 editions. NFPA 33 retained the specific provisions for composites spraying through its 2003 edition. ACMA noted in their petition, that the newer NFPA standards “* * * reflect significant advances in understanding the hazards presented by many of the covered operations.” They further noted “* * * NFPA 33 now contains fire protection standards specifically designed for composites manufacturing operations which recognize the inherently lower degree of hazard inherent in these operations.” On June 17, 2004, ACMA testified on this issue to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight of the Small Business Committee, U.S. House of Representatives. Additionally, the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Marine Manufacturers Association subsequently submitted a reform nomination 3 to OMB. Both the testimony and the reform nomination requested recognition of the more “current” NFPA 33 provisions, but did not request recognition of NFPA 30. The 2003 editions of NFPA 30 and 33 remain the most current, however, NFPA is in the process of revising both these standards, with the next anticipated editions being 2007. 3 In OMB's draft 2004 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulation, OMB requested public nominations of specific regulations, guidance documents and paperwork requirements that, if reformed, could result in lower costs, greater effectiveness, enhanced competitiveness, more regulatory certainty and increased flexibility. See Reference Number 153 addressing flammable liquids in the Regulatory Reform report at: *http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/reports/manufacturing_initiative.pdf.* OSHA is considering whether or not NFPA 30 and NFPA 33 are equivalent to the existing provisions in § 1910.106 and § 1910.107. As mentioned above, OSHA had attended a presentation to demonstrate that the new NFPA provisions were equivalent, however the demonstration did not prove to be conclusive. In addition, there is a lack of data that OSHA can rely on to draw conclusions. With this, OSHA cannot conclude at this time that NFPA 30 and NFPA 33 provide protection for employees equivalent to § 1910.106 and § 1910.107. OSHA hopes that commenters can provide data to help the Agency determine what course of action to take. As mentioned above, OSHA intends to update its standards that reference outdated consensus standards. As part of that process, it is anticipated that § 1910.106 and § 1910.107 will be updated in their entirety sometime in the future. In this ANPRM, however, OSHA is exploring the idea of amending § 1910.106 and § 1910.107, at this time, to allow employers to comply with the 2003 editions of NFPA 30 and 33 until the more extensive revision is completed. Making this change now, as part of the SIPs III effort, would allow employers engaged in composites manufacturing operations to follow the newer provisions of the NFPA 33. However, the Agency is concerned that the new NFPA 33 may not provide employee protection equivalent to the existing standard. OSHA believes additional information regarding the equivalency of the employee protection afforded by the newer requirements for composite spraying is needed. While OSHA's *de minimis* policy would allow employers to comply with the more current versions of consensus standards applicable to their work, employers must be able to demonstrate that complying with the consensus standard is as protective as following the OSHA standard. In the case of composite sprayings, ACMA noted that they were aware of the *de minimis* policy but that, in their experience, they have had problems demonstrating that the newer standard provides equivalent protection. ACMA stated that “* * * some of our member companies have been able to successfully appeal citations to OSHA supervisors, but such appeals are time consuming and expensive, and are often intimidating to small business owners” [ACMA 2004 petition]. Updating the OSHA standard to reference the newer NFPA standards would eliminate any confusion or inconsistency as to the employer's obligation. OSHA is particularly interested in comment on the following: 4. Are the provisions in the 2003 edition of NFPA 30 as protective or more protective of employees' safety and health than the equivalent provisions in § 1910.106? Should OSHA revise § 1910.106 to be consistent with these provisions? Please submit specific available information or data supporting your comments. 5. Are the provisions in the 2003 edition of NFPA 33 as protective or more protective of employees' safety and health than the equivalent provisions in § 1910.107? Should OSHA revise § 1910.107 to be more consistent with these provisions? Please submit specific available information or data supporting your comments. C. Subpart I—Personal Protective Equipment—General Requirements (§ 1910.132 and § 1915.152) In 1994, OSHA revised the general industry safety standards regarding personal protective equipment
(PPE)“to be more consistent with the current consensus regarding good industry practices, as reflected by the latest editions of the pertinent American National Standards Institute
(ANSI)standards” (59 FR 16334). The revision includes a requirement for employers to perform a hazard assessment that would provide the information necessary for the employer to select the appropriate PPE for employees and to verify compliance by way of a written certification. As part of this revision the Agency added paragraphs § 1910.132(d), (e), and
(f)as well as non-mandatory appendices A and B to Subpart I—Personal Protective Equipment. Appendix A contains a list of references and is provided for information purposes. Appendix B—Guidelines for Hazard Assessment and Personal Protective Equipment Selection was added to the subpart to provide specific guidance to employers and employees regarding eye, face, head, foot, and hand hazards. In the final rule, OSHA determined that it was not necessary for employers to prepare and retain a formal written hazard assessment. However, in order to verify compliance the employer is required to prepare a written certification that would include the following: The person certifying that the evaluation had been performed; the dates of the hazard assessment; and a statement identifying the document as the certification of the hazard assessment required by the standard. The ship repair, shipbuilding, and shipbreaking ( *i.e.* shipyards) standard requires a similar hazard assessment. The final rule for Shipyards § 1915.152, published in 1996 (61 FR 26321), revised the PPE section requiring employers to do a hazard assessment, equipment
(PPE)selection, and to verify the required assessment through a “document,” rather than a certification as required for general industry employees in § 1910.132. The document must contain the date of the hazard assessment and the name of the person performing the hazard assessment. The comments from the Shipyard industry argued against a written certification, stating that it would create a burden. OSHA agreed and changed the word from “certification” to “document”, which OSHA judged to be an equally effective way to verify compliance. OSHA is concerned that the hazard assessment provisions in § 1910.132(d) and § 1915.152 lack specific documentation of the hazard assessment required to be performed by the employer, and are thus not sufficiently protective of employees' safety and health. Currently, employers in both industries are not required to document or post the results of the hazard assessment. Employers are only required to include the name of the person certifying, the date(s) of the hazard assessment, and in the General Industry standard § 1910.132, a statement that the document is a certification that the hazard assessment has been performed. The Agency is interested in making the hazard assessment process more effective. One method the Agency is considering is to require employers to include the results of the hazard assessment (the hazards identified and the PPE needed to address those hazards) in a certification and to post the certification for review by employees. Another method being considered to increase effectiveness of the hazard assessment in § 1910.132 and § 1915.152 is to revise the respective Appendices and make them mandatory, adding a requirement to post the results of the assessment. OSHA believes that all industries could benefit from doing a hazard assessment and in the interest of making rules consistent across all industries, we have included some questions on Construction (part 1926), Marine Terminals (part 1917), and Longshoring (part 1918) standards where there is no explicit requirement for a written PPE hazard assessment. There may be ways to revise these standards, such as a performance-based assessment, that are both feasible and not overly burdensome. OSHA is seeking answers to these questions and suggestions for effective alternatives. OSHA is seeking comments on other options that the Agency should consider that would assure that employers conduct thorough hazard assessments and select the appropriate equipment to protect employees. 6. OSHA has identified posting requirements in many other standards to ensure employee notification. Are there other methods to inform employees of the hazard assessment results, such as additional training to inform employees of the findings, that are equally as effective or more effective? 7. Would adding a posting requirement to § 1910.132 and § 1915.152 be more or less protective than the protection currently provided? Please provide any rationale or data to support your answer. 8. Are there other approaches to conducting hazard assessments for PPE that are more effective than Appendix B in § 1910.132 and Appendix A in § 1915.152? 9. Should similar revisions be considered for Construction (Part 1926), Marine Terminals (Part 1917), and Longshoring (Part 1918) standards? D. Respiratory Protection (§ 1910.134) Paragraph (o)(2) of this standard states “Appendix D of this section is non-mandatory;” however, paragraph (k)(6) of the standard specifies that the “basic advisory information on respirators, as presented in Appendix D of this section, shall be provided by the employer * * * to employees who wear respirators when such use is not required by this section or by the employer”. [Emphasis added.] The phrase “shall be provided” in paragraph (k)(6) mandates the employer to provide the “basic advisory information” in the appendix to the designated employees. Appendix D is also marked as “Mandatory” in the standard. Therefore, OSHA is considering removing paragraph (o)(2) from the standard and revising the preceding paragraph (o)(1) to include Appendix D among the list of mandatory appendices, which was OSHA's original intent. 10. Have employers understood that the requirement to provide Appendix D information to employees who voluntarily use respirators is a mandatory requirement? 11. Is the information contained in Appendix D appropriate for alerting employees to considerations related to voluntary respirator use? 12. To what extent, if any, would deleting paragraph (o)(2) and clarifying that Appendix D is mandatory increase the burden on employers? E. Subpart J—General Environmental Controls—Sanitation Standard (§ 1910.141) The definition of potable drinking water in OSHA's current sanitation standard, § 1910.141, makes reference to U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards published in 42 CFR part 72. There are other agencies that have provisions relating to safe drinking water, such as the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)at Title 21 of the CFR, referring to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)at Title 40, specifically the Office of Water. 13. What is the appropriate updated reference that would provide an adequate definition for potable water? Are there other references or definitions for drinking water from other agencies or authoritative sources that OSHA should consider? 14. Are there other instances where a citation to another Federal Standard referenced in an OSHA standard is no longer correct? F. Carcinogens (4-Nitrobiphenyl, etc.) (§ 1910.1003) In 1996, OSHA consolidated 13 similar standards for regulating carcinogenic chemicals into a single standard, § 1910.1003 (See 61 FR 9228, March 7, 1996). OSHA did not intend to make substantive changes to any of the 13 standards under that action. Where language among the 13 standards differed, the Agency attempted to design the regulatory text of the single rule to maintain the same substantive requirements of each standard. Four of these 13 standards, covering employee exposures to methyl chloromethyl ether, bis-chloromethyl ether, ethyleneimine, and beta-propiolactone, had a provision in former paragraph (c)(4)(iv) of each standard that provided respirator requirements that differed from those provided in the other nine standards. Specifically, this provision required employers to ensure that employees involved in handling any of these four carcinogenic chemicals wear full-facepiece, supplied-air respirators of the continuous-flow or pressure-demand type rather than half-mask respirators permitted under the other nine standards. The Agency inadvertently omitted this provision from the consolidated standard, thereby appearing to change the respirator requirement for those four substances. That was not intended; therefore, OSHA is considering reinstating the former respirator-use requirement in paragraph (c)(4)(iv) of § 1910.1003 for the four substances. 15. What types of respirators are currently being used to protect employees from exposure to these four chemicals? 16. If OSHA reinstates the requirements for full-facepiece air-supplied respirators, does the respirator-use requirement conflict with OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard (§ 1910.134)? 17. Would the reinstated respirator use requirement be more or less protective than the protection offered by OSHA's Respiratory Protection Standard? Please provide any data or rationale to support your answer. 18. How would reinstating the respirator use requirement change the economic or paperwork burden? G. Lead (§ 1910.1025 and § 1926.62) The Agency's substance-specific standards usually require that employers initiate or implement protective actions, including exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and exposure controls, at specific airborne concentrations of a toxic substance. In several provisions of the lead standards (§ 1910.1025 and § 1926.62), the airborne concentrations at which protective actions must occur vary slightly. A number of provisions in the lead standards trigger actions at airborne concentrations, which are “above the AL,” and “at or above the PEL.” The terminology in the lead standards for these airborne concentrations is inconsistent and can be confusing. For example, § 1910.1025(d)(6)(iii) currently states that “[t]he employer shall continue monitoring at the required frequency until at least two consecutive measurements, taken at least 7 days apart, are below the PEL but at or above the action level[.]” OSHA is considering revising this to state “[t]he employer shall continue monitoring at the required frequency until at least two consecutive measurements, taken at least 7 days apart, are at or below the PEL but at or above the action level[.]” [Emphasis added.] Similar issues arise with respect to the blood lead levels that trigger medical removal protection or return to work in the lead standards. OSHA is considering changing these terminologies in the lead standard(s) to make these internally consistent and consistent with each other. Table 1 describes the revisions being considered. Table 1.—Recommended Revisions to the AL, PEL, and Numerical-Criteria Provisions of the Lead Standards Provision Existing language Revised language § 1910.1025 (Lead in General Industry): (d)(6)(ii) “at or above the action level but below the permissible exposure limit” “at or above the action level but at or below the permissible exposure limit” (d)(6)(iii) “are below the PEL but at or above the action level” “are at or below the PEL but at or above the action level” (d)(8)(ii) “exceeds the permissible exposure limit” “is above the permissible exposure limit” (j)(1)(i) “above the action level” “at or above the action level” (j)(2)(ii) “exceeds the numerical criterion” “is at or above the numerical criterion” (j)(2)(iv) “exceeds 40 μg/100 g” and “exceeds the numerical criterion” “is at or above 40 μg/100 g” and “is at or above the numerical criterion” (k)(1)(i)(B) “at or below 40 μg/100 g” “below 40 μg/100 g” (k)(1)(iii)(A)(1) “at or below 40 μg/100 g” “below 40 μg/100 g” § 1926.62 (Lead in Construction): (d)(8)(ii) “at or above the PEL” and “at or above that level” “above the PEL” and “above that level” (j)(2)(ii) “exceeds the numerical criterion” “is at or above the numerical criterion” (j)(2)(iv)(B) “exceeds 40 μg/dl” “is at or above 40 μg/dl” (k)(1)(iii)(A) *(1)* “at or below 40 μg/dl” “below 40 μg/dl” 19. Would making the provisions of the lead standards more consistent with each other assist employers in complying with these standards? 20. Are there any increases to the economic or paperwork burden as a result of making the suggested changes? If increases are identified, please explain the impact. 21. Are there similar changes needed in other standards that would increase their consistency? Please explain the rationale for your suggestions. H. 1,3-Butadiene (§ 1910.1051) Paragraph (m)(3) of the 1,3-butadiene standard (§ 1910.1051) for general industry requires employers to establish and maintain fit-testing records for employees who use respirators to reduce toxic exposures. However, paragraph (h)(2)(i) states that “employers must implement a respiratory protection program in accordance with OSHA's respiratory-protection standard § 1910.134
(b)through
(d)* * * and
(f)through (m).” The requirements to establish and maintain fit-testing records specified in paragraph (m)(2) of the respiratory-protection standard are essentially the same as the applicable recordkeeping requirements in paragraph (m)(3) of the 1,3-butadiene standard. The Agency inadvertently failed to delete the recordkeeping provision in the 1,3-butadiene standard when it replaced many of the respiratory-protection requirements of health standards with the reference to the respiratory-protection standard in § 1910.134 (see 63 FR 1293-1294). OSHA believes that having two similar recordkeeping provisions is redundant and confusing. Therefore, the Agency is considering removing paragraph (m)(3) from the 1,3-butadiene standard for general industry. 22. To what extent, in any, does removing paragraph (m)(3) from 1,3-butadiene standard reduce protection? 23. Does removing this paragraph reduce employers' and employees' understanding of their obligations to keep respirator fit-test records? 24. Are there similar changes that can be made in other standards that would increase their consistency? Please explain the rationale for your suggestions. I. Asbestos (§ 1915.1001) The introductory paragraph to OSHA's respiratory-protection standard (§ 1910.134) specifies that the standard applies to ship repair, shipbuilding, and ship breaking (i.e. shipyards) (Part 1915), general industry (Part 1910), marine terminals (Part 1917), longshoring (Part 1918), and construction (Part 1926). Three of these parts, general industry, shipyards, and construction, contain standards regulating employee exposure to asbestos, with each of these standards having a paragraph entitled “Respirator program.” These paragraphs specify the requirements for an employer's respirator program with respect to asbestos exposure. In the final rulemaking for the respiratory-protection standard, the Agency updated these paragraphs in the asbestos standards for general industry and construction 4 so that the program requirements would be consistent with the provisions of the newly revised respiratory-protection standard (see 63 FR 1285 and 1298). However, the Agency inadvertently omitted revising the respirator program requirements specified in paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the asbestos standard for shipyards (§ 1915.1001). OSHA is considering correcting this oversight and revising paragraph (h)(3)(i) of the asbestos standard for shipyards to read the same as paragraphs (g)(2)(i) of the asbestos standard for general industry (§ 1910.1001) and (h)(2)(i) of the asbestos standard for construction (§ 1926.1101) which state “[t]he employer must implement a respiratory protection program in accordance with § 1910.134
(b)through
(d)(except (d)(1)(iii)), and
(f)through (m).” 4 Paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (h)(2)(i) of the asbestos standard for general industry (§ 1910.1001) and the asbestos standard for construction (§ 1926.1101), respectively, specify the provisions of the updated respiratory-protection standard that apply to employers covered by these standards. Similarly, the Agency is considering removing paragraphs (h)(3)(ii), (h)(3)(iii), and the entirety of paragraph (h)(4) from the shipyard standard, which address filter changes, washing faces and facepieces to prevent skin irritation, and fit testing, respectively. OSHA believes this is appropriate because the continuing-use provisions specified in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) duplicate paragraphs (h)(3)(ii) and (h)(3)(iii) of the asbestos standard for shipyards. Also, the fit-testing requirements provided in paragraph
(f)of the respiratory-protection standard either meet or exceed the provisions specified in (h)(4) of the shipyard asbestos standard except that the frequency of fit-testing is different. The current Shipyard asbestos standard at § 1915.1001 (4)(i) requires quantitative and qualitative fit-testing be performed initially and at least every six months thereafter. The Respirator standard at § 1910.134 (f)(2) requires employees wearing a tight-fitting respirator be fit-tested prior to initial use, whenever a different facepiece is used and at least annually thereafter. By adding the reference to § 1910.134 (respirator standard) in § 1915.1001(h)(3)(i) of the shipyard asbestos standard, OSHA would incorporate the fit testing requirements of § 1910.134(f), which include the requirement to use the OSHA-accepted qualitative fit testing and quantitative fit testing protocols and procedures contained in Appendix A. Accordingly, the fit testing requirements of § 1915.1001, Appendix C would be duplicative. Therefore, OSHA is considering deleting this Appendix. 25. Would revising § 1915.1001(h)(3)(i) to be consistent with similar provisions in the asbestos standard for general industry and construction create additional compliance requirements? 26. Does this change maintain the same level of employee protection? Would making the recommended changes increase the economic or paperwork burden? 27. Besides altering the frequency of fit testing, how would making the recommended change to delete paragraphs (h)(3)(ii) through (h)(4)(ii) affect the requirements of the standard? J. General Modifications to Medical Examinations and Industrial Hygiene Sampling Provisions Many of OSHA's health standards are over 20 years old. Since their promulgation, there have been many technological advances, including changes in medical testing and industrial hygiene sampling. The Agency is interested in determining whether any of these new medical tests or industrial hygiene sampling technologies should be permitted for use in its health standards. The Agency is also interested in determining whether these tests or technologies would accomplish the identified task required by the standard as well as or better than the technologies identified in the current medical and sampling requirements. 28. Are there newer medical tests that would provide equivalent or better diagnostic results than the tests contained in OSHA's standards? For example, are there updated medical tests that could replace chest x-rays for diagnosing asbestos related diseases or Beta-2 microglobulin in urine for diagnosing kidney disease related to cadmium exposure? 29. Are there newer methods to determine personal exposures to hazards? For example, are there newer methods using passive sampling for different chemical exposures or an updated method to determine exposure to cotton dust better than the vertical elutriator cotton dust sampler? K. General Modifications to Training Provisions Training is an essential part of every employer's safety and health program for protecting employees from injury and illness. Many OSHA standards specifically require that employers train employees in the safety and health aspects of their jobs. Other OSHA standards establish employers' responsibility to limit certain job assignments to employees who are “competent” or “qualified,” meaning that they have had specialized training. In SIPs II, OSHA changed the notification and timing requirements in some health standards to make them more consistent across different health standards (67 FR 66493). OSHA did this to reduce regulatory confusion and facilitate compliance but without diminishing employee protection. Similarly, the Agency believes bringing consistency to its training requirements would achieve the same goals. 30. How could the Agency modify the training requirements in various OSHA safety and health standards to promote compliance with the training requirements? 31. How should training content and frequency of retraining be addressed to improve employees' safety and health? Please identify changes that could be made to improve the training process. 32. Would making training requirements uniform among various standards facilitate employers' compliance with OSHA regulations? Please explain. 33. To what extent, if any, do other agencies' training requirements overlap with OSHA's? L. Miscellaneous Items Under Consideration a. Recordkeeping Requirements—Commercial Diving Operations (§ 1910.440) The original Commercial Diving Operations standard included a requirement in paragraph § 1910.411 that employers provide medical exams to dive team members. This paragraph was removed by a 1979 court decision [Taylor Diving and Salvage vs. U.S. Department of Labor (599 F.2d 622)(5th Cir., 1979)]. However, the current standard still includes a reference to paragraph § 1910.411 in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of § 1910.440, which requires employers to keep dive team medical records for five years. Since there is no longer a requirement for team medical exams, the requirement to keep such records for five years makes no sense. Therefore, OSHA intends to propose removing paragraph (b)(3)(i) of § 1910.440. 34. Is there any reason why this paragraph should not be deleted? Please explain. 35. Are there references in other standards that need to be updated? b. Definitions (§§ 1917.2, 1918.2, and 1919.2) Hazardous Ships' Stores (46 CFR 147) contains the following definition for ships' stores: Materials which are aboard a vessel for the upkeep, maintenance, safety, operation, or navigation of the vessel, or for the safety or comfort of the vessel's passengers or crew. A definition of ships' stores is not contained in Marine Terminals (29 CFR 1917.2), Safety and Health Regulations for Longshoring (29 CFR 1918.2), and Gear Certification (29 CFR 1919.2), even though these OSHA standards contain the term. OSHA is considering adding the definition of ships' stores in 47 CFR 147 to these OSHA standards. 36. Is there any reason why this definition should not be added to the OSHA standards listed? If so, please explain your rationale for why this definition should not be added. Is there an alternative definition that OSHA should consider? 37. Are there other definitions that could be added to these or other standards to improve consistency? M. General Solicitation for Recommendations In addition to solicitation of comment on the specific recommendations noted above, OSHA invites comment on other standards that are in need of improvement because they are confusing, outdated, duplicative, or inconsistent with similar standards. It would be helpful if you could provide information supporting your recommended changes. Please describe the reasons why you believe these regulations are confusing, outdated, duplicative or inconsistent and provide specific language that you believe will improve the standard. 38. Are there any standards that can be updated to make them more protective of employees' safety or health and at the same time reduce the compliance burden on employers? 39. Are there any standards that can be updated to be more protective of employees' safety or health without imposing any additional compliance burden on the employer? 40. Are there any other standards that need to be changed to reduce or eliminate inconsistencies between standards? III. Public Participation Submission of Comments and Access to the Docket OSHA invites comments on all aspects of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). Throughout this document, OSHA has invited comment on specific issues and requested information and data about practices at your establishment and in your industry. OSHA will carefully review and evaluate these comments, information and data, as well as all other information in the rulemaking record, to determine how to proceed. You may submit comments and additional materials
(1)electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov* , which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal;
(2)by facsimile (FAX); or
(3)by hard copy. All submissions must identify the Agency name and the OSHA docket number for this rulemaking (S-778B). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document attachments and files electronically. If, instead, you wish to mail additional materials in reference to an electronic or fax submission, you must submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section). The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic submissions by name, date, and docket number so OSHA can attach them to your submissions. Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a significant delay in the receipt of submissions. For information about security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand, express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-2350 (TTY
(877)889-5627). Submissions are posted without change at: *http://www.regulations.gov* . Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about submitting personal information such as social security numbers and dates of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through *http://www.regulations.gov* . All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the *http://www.regulations.gov* Web site to submit comments, and attachments, and to access the docket, is available at the Web site's User Tips link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the Web site and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket submissions. Electronic copies of this **Federal Register** document are available at *http://www.regulations.gov* . This document, as well as news releases and other relevant information, also is available at OSHA's Webpage at: *http://www.osha.gov* . IV. Authority and Signature This document was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. It is issued pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657), 29 CFR 1911, and Secretary's Order 5-2002 (67 FR 65008). Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor. [FR Doc. E6-21799 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P 71 245 Thursday, December 21, 2006 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request December 18, 2006. The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding
(a)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;
(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), *OIRA_Submission@OMB.EOP.GOV* or fax
(202)395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling
(202)720-8681. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Forest Service *Title:* National Visitor Use Monitoring, and Customer and Use Survey Techniques for Operations, Management, Evaluation, and Research. *OMB Control Number:* 0596-0110. *Summary of Collection:* The National Forest Management Act
(NFMA)of 1976 and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA)require a comprehensive assessment of present and anticipated uses, demand for and supply of renewable resources from the nation's public and private forests and rangelands. An important element in the reporting is the number of visits to National Forests and Grasslands, as well as to Wilderness Areas that the agency manages. *Need and Use of the Information:* The Forest Service
(FS)is required to report to Congress and others in conjunction with these legislated requirements as well as the use of appropriated funds. FS plans to collect information from a variety of National Forests and other recreation areas. The Customer and Use Survey Techniques for Operations, Management, Evaluation and Research (CUSTOMER) study combines several different survey approaches to gather data describing visitors to and users of public recreation lands, including their trip activities, satisfaction levels, evaluations, demographic profiles, trip characteristics, spending, and annual visitation patterns. FS will use face-to-face interviewing for collecting information on-site as well as written survey instruments to be mailed back by respondents. Information gathered through the various Customer modules has been and will continue to be used by planners, researchers, managers, policy analyst, and legislators in resource management areas, regional offices, regional research stations, agency headquarters, and legislative offices. *Description of Respondents:* Individuals or households. *Number of Respondents:* 69,900. *Frequency of Responses:* Reporting; Quarterly; Annually. *Total Burden Hours:* 9,910. Charlene Parker, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-21833 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. FV-05-308] United States Standards for Grades of Pea Pods AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)of the Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is establishing voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Pea Pods. The standards will provide industry with a common language and uniform basis for trading, thus promoting the orderly and efficient marketing of pea pods. DATES: *Effective Date:* January 22, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cheri L. Emery, Standardization Section, Fresh Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Room 1661, South Building, Stop 0240, Washington, DC 20250-0240,
(202)720-2185, fax
(202)720-8871, or e-mail *Cheri.Emery@usda.gov.* The United States Standards for Grades of Pea Pods are available either from the above address or by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/standards/stanfrfv.htm.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 203(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), as amended, directs and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture, “To develop and improve standards of quality, condition, quantity, grade and packaging and recommend and demonstrate such standards in order to encourage uniformity and consistency in commercial practices.” AMS is committed to carrying out this authority in a manner that facilitates the marketing of agricultural commodities and provides copies of official standards upon request. The United States Standards for Grades of Fruits and Vegetables not connected with Federal Marketing Orders or U.S. Import Requirements, no longer appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, but are maintained by USDA, AMS, Fruit and Vegetable Programs. AMS established the voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Pea Pods using the procedures that appear in part 36, title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 36). Background AMS developed a proposed U.S. Standards for Grades of Pea Pods. The proposal would establish U.S. Fancy and U.S. No. 1 “Grades,” “Tolerances,” and “Application of Tolerances” sections. Additionally, this proposal defines: “Injury,” “Damage,” “Serious Damage,” and basic requirements. On January 24, 2006, a notice was published in the **Federal Register** (71 FR 3817), requesting comments on proposed voluntary United States Standards for Grades of Pea Pods, with the comment period ending on March 27, 2006. A request was received from a packer/shipper of pea pods, expressing the need for additional time to review the proposed U.S. Standards. The packer/shipper requested an extension to the comment period to allow them the opportunity to submit comments. After reviewing the request, AMS reopened and extended the comment period by publishing a notice in the **Federal Register** , May 22, 2006 (71 FR 29606), extending the period for comment to June 22, 2006. AMS received one other response to the proposed standards. The comment was from an industry group representing about 90 percent of the fresh vegetables produced in California and Arizona. The association expressed support for the development of the standards for pea pods. The comments are available by accessing the AMS, Fresh Products Branch Web site at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/fpbdocketlist.htm.* Based on the comment received, specifically concerning the development of the standards and information gathered, AMS believes the standards will provide a common language for trading and promote the orderly and efficient marketing of pea pods. The official grades of pea pod lots covered by these standards will be determined by the procedures set forth in the Regulations Governing Inspection, Certification, and Standards of Fresh Fruits, Vegetables, and Other Products (Sec. 51.1 to 51.61). The United States Standards for Grades of Pea Pods will be effective 30 days after publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** . \ Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621-1627. Dated: December 15, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-21840 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service [Docket No. TM-07-04] Notice of Release of National Organic Program Noncompliance and Adverse Action Records AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA)Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)is publishing this notice to inform accredited certifying agents and producers and handlers certified to the National Organic Program
(NOP)of AMS' intention to release notices of noncompliance, and the identity of each entity which has been suspended or revoked, as well as the reasons for these actions. The release of these materials complies with the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)in which any information that is not protected from disclosure by a FOIA exemption must be provided to the public. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Bradley, Associate Deputy Administrator, National Organic Program, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 4008-S, Ag Stop 0268, Washington, DC, 20250-0268; Telephone:
(202)720-3252; Fax:
(202)205-7808; e-mail: *mark.bradley@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Statutory Authority This notice is issued under the FOIA as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Organic Foods Production Act
(OFPA)of 1990, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 6501 *et seq.* II. Background On April 12, 2006, AMS received a FOIA request for notices of noncompliance and records of suspension and revocation of certification and accreditation issued pursuant to the NOP. The Agency maintains the records sought by the FOIA requester pursuant to its administration of the OFPA. The FOIA provides for any person to request and access federal agency records except for those records, or portions of records, which are protected by one of the nine exemptions under the FOIA. The records collected and maintained under the OFPA are not statutorily exempt from disclosure, and therefore in accordance with the FOIA and USDA's FOIA implementing regulations, 7 CFR part 1, AMS is required to release responsive records, or portions of responsive records, that are not protected from disclosure by any FOIA exemption. III. Action Pursuant to 7 CFR 205.662, accredited certifying agents are obligated to issue noncompliance notifications, notices of suspension, and notices of revocation regarding NOP certification when circumstances warrant such action. Likewise, pursuant to 7 CFR 205.665, the NOP is obligated to issue notifications of noncompliance and notices of suspension and revocation of accreditation as warranted. Some of the information contained in these notification letters, in particular those issued to certified operations, may contain confidential business information. Therefore, the agency will conduct a thorough review of those notification documents issued since implementation of the NOP on October 21, 2002, pursuant to 7 CFR 205.662 and 205.665, and in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4), withhold confidential commercial or financial information. Examples of the information which may appear in responsive records and that is subject to withholding include: Product formulations; supply sources; amount paid or owed in certification fees; sales volumes; yield quantities; amount of acreage planted to a specific crop or designated as pasture; the number of livestock units; the identity of an entity for which a private label is produced. Dated: December 15, 2006. Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-21838 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0187] General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan; Meeting AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of meeting. SUMMARY: We are giving notice of a meeting of the General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement Plan. DATES: The meeting will be held on January 24, 2007, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Georgia World Congress Center, 285 Andrew Young International Boulevard, NW., Atlanta, GA. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Andrew R. Rhorer, Senior Coordinator, National Poultry Improvement Plan, VS, APHIS, 1498 Klondike Road, Suite 101, Conyers, GA 30094,
(770)922-3496. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The General Conference Committee (the Committee) of the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), representing cooperating State agencies and poultry industry members, serves an essential function by acting as liaison between the poultry industry and the Department in matters pertaining to poultry health. In addition, the Committee assists the Department in planning, organizing, and conducting the NPIP Biennial Conference. Topics for discussion at the upcoming meeting include: 1. H5/H7 low pathogenic avian influenza program for commercial layers, broilers, and turkeys; 2. Compartmentalization of notifiable avian influenza free zones; 3. National animal identification program for poultry; and 4. Cleaning, disinfection, and bird disposal costs for commercial poultry flocks. The meeting will be open to the public. However, due to time constraints, the public will not be allowed to participate in the discussions during the meeting. Written statements on meeting topics may be filed with the Committee before or after the meeting by sending them to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . Written statements may also be filed at the meeting. Please refer to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0187 when submitting your statements. This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of December 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-21841 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project, Barnstable County, MA; Record of Decision 1. *Purpose* —As State conservationist for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), I am the Responsible Federal Official
(RFO)for all NRCS projects in Massachusetts. The recommended plan for the Cape Cod Watershed involves works of improvement to be installed under authorities administered by NRCS. This areawide planning Project 1 includes 26 salt marsh restoration projects, 24 fish passage remediation projects, and 26 stormwater remediation projects. 1 We use “Project” in this ROD and the Plan-EIS to refer to the areawide Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project and “project” to refer to individual site restoration or remediation activities; the Project comprises 76 projects. The Cape Cod Watershed plan was prepared under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566, 83rd Congress, 68 Stat. 666, as amended) by the Cape Cod Conservation District, Barnstable County Commissioners, the 15 towns of Barnstable County, and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. The scoping meeting, held during May 2005, established the NRCS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, as lead agency. 2. *Measures taken to comply with national environmental policies* —The Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project has been planned in accordance with existing Federal legislation concerned with the preservation of environmental values. The following actions were taken to ensure that the Cape Cod Watershed plan is consistent with national goals and policies. The interdisciplinary environmental evaluation of the Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project was conducted by the sponsoring local organizations, cooperating agencies, and the NRCS. Information was obtained from many groups and agencies. An inventory and evaluation of environmental and socioeconomic conditions were prepared by Massachusetts NRCS and EA Engineering, Science, and Technology under a contract with NRCS. Reviews were held with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service, Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah). Inputs from these reviews were included in the EIS. A public meeting was held on May 18, 2005, to solicit public participation in the environmental evaluation, to assure that all interested parties had sufficient information to understand how their concerns are affected by water resource problems, to afford local interests the opportunity to express their views regarding the plans that can best solve these problems, and to provide all interests an opportunity to participate in the plan selection. More than 400 parties were notified by mail of the joint public meetings. Meeting notes are on file at the NRCS State Office. Testimony and recommendations were received relative to the following subjects: a. Support for projects to treat stormwater runoff as a means for improving water quality and keeping shellfish beds open for recreational and commercial use. b. Support for projects to restore fish passageways on local streams. c. Support for projects to restore tidal flushing to salt marshes with restricted tidal openings. A draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)was prepared in August 2006 and made available for public review. The recommendations and comments obtained from the public meeting held during Project planning and assessment were considered in the preparation of the draft EIS. The draft EIS was distributed to agencies, conservation groups, organizations, and individuals for comment. Copies were also placed in the libraries of all 15 towns in the watershed, and the draft EIS was made available on the Massachusetts NRCS Web site. The draft EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on August 3, 2006, and notices of the availability of the draft EIS for public review were published in the **Federal Register** by NRCS on August 1, 2006, and by EPA on August 11, 2006. Existing data and information pertaining to the Project's probable environmental consequences were obtained with assistance from other scientists and engineers. Documentary information as well as the views of interested Federal, State, and local agencies and concerned individuals and organizations having special knowledge of, competence over, or interest in the Project's environmental impacts were sought. This process continued until it was felt that all the information necessary for a comprehensive, reliable assessment had been gathered. A complete picture of the Project's current and probable future environmental setting was assembled to determine the proposed Project's impact and identify unavoidable adverse environmental impacts that might be produced. During these phases of evaluation, it became apparent that there are legitimate conflicts of scientific theory and conclusions leading to differing views of the Project's environmental impact. In such cases, after consulting with persons qualified in the appropriate disciplines, those theories and conclusions appearing to be the most reasonable, and having scientific acceptance were adopted. The consequences of a full range of reasonable and viable alternatives to specific improvements were considered, studied, and analyzed. In reviewing these alternatives, all courses of action that could reasonably accomplish the Project purposes were considered. Attempts were made to identify the economic, social, and environmental values affected by each alternative. Both structural and nonstructural alternatives were considered. The alternatives considered reasonable alternatives to accomplish the project's objectives were
(1)Water Resources Restoration Alternative,
(2)No Action Alternative. 3. *Conclusions* —The following conclusions were reached after carefully reviewing the proposed Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project in light of all national goals and policies, particularly those expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act, and after evaluating the overall merit of possible alternatives to the Project: a. The Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project will employ reasonable and practicable means that are consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act while permitting the application of other national policies and interests. These means include, but are not limited to, a Project planned and designed to minimize adverse effects on the natural environment while accomplishing an authorized Project purpose. Project features designed to preserve existing environmental values for future generations include:
(1)Replacement of inadequately sized or failed culverts with larger culverts or bridges to restore tidal flushing to salt marshes;
(2)reconstruction of failed fish passageways, replacement of collapsed or improperly aligned curves, or removing restrictions at bridges to provide full access to upstream spawning and nursery areas for anadromous fish; and
(3)installation of catch basins and infiltration systems or other cost-effective alternatives to treat stormwater runoff, reduce bacteria loading to tidal receiving waters, and help keep shellfish beds open. b. The Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project was planned using a systematic interdisciplinary approach involving integrated uses of the natural and social sciences and environmental design arts. All conclusions concerning the environmental impact of the Project and overall merit of existing plans were based on a review of data and information that would be reasonably expected to reveal significant environmental consequences of the proposed Project. These data included studies prepared specifically for the Project and comments and views of all interested Federal, State, and local agencies and individuals. The results of this review constitute the basis for the conclusions and recommendations. The Project will not affect any cultural resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Nor will the Project affect any species of fish, wildlife, or plant or their habitats that have been designated as endangered or threatened. c. In studying and evaluating the environmental impact of the Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project, every effort was made to express all significant environmental values quantitatively and to identify and give appropriate weight and consideration of nonquantifiable environmental values. d. Wherever legitimate conflicts of scientific theory and conclusions existed and conclusions led to different views, persons qualified in the appropriate environmental disciplines were consulted. Theories and conclusions appearing to be most reasonable scientifically acceptable, or both, were adopted. e. Every possible effort has been made to identify those adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the Project is constructed. f. The long-term and short-term resource uses, long-term productivity, and the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources are described in the final EIS. g. All reasonable and viable alternatives to Project features and to the Project itself were studied and analyzed with reference to national policies and goals, especially those expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal water resource development legislation under which the Project was planned. Each possible course of action was evaluated as to its possible economic, technical, social, and overall environmental consequences to determine the tradeoffs necessary to accommodate all national policies and interests. Some alternatives may tend to protect more of the present and tangible environmental amenities than the proposed Project will preserve. However, no alternative or combination of alternatives will afford greater protection of the environmental values while accomplishing the other Project goals and objectives. h. I conclude, therefore, that the proposed Project will be the most effective means of meeting national goals and is consistent in serving the public interest by including provisions to protect and enhance the environment. I also conclude that the recommended plan is the environmentally preferable plan. 4. *Recommendations* —Having concluded that the proposed Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project uses all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of the national policy, to meet the goals established in the National Environmental Policy Act, that the Project will thus serve the overall public interest, that the final EIS has been prepared, reviewed, and accepted in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act as implemented by Departmental regulations for the preparation of environmental impact statements, and that the Project meets the needs of the Project's sponsoring local organizations, I propose to implement the Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project. Christine Clarke, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. [FR Doc. E6-21847 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service The Secretary of Agriculture's Determination of the Primary Purpose of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Small Renewables Initiative Program AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA. ACTION: Notice of determination. SUMMARY: The Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS)is providing public notice that the Secretary of Agriculture has determined the cost-share payments made under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Small Renewables Initiative Program are primarily for the purpose of protecting or restoring the environment. NRCS was assigned technical and administrative responsibility for reviewing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Program and making appropriate recommendations for the Secretary's determination of primary purpose. This determination is in accordance with Section 126 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (26 U.S.C. 126), and permits recipients of cost-share payments to exclude from gross income to the extent allowed by the Internal Revenue Service. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Philip F. Holahan, Deputy Executive Director and General Counsel, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, 75 North Drive, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 or Branch Chief, Environmental Improvement Programs, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 126(a)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code, gross income does not include the “excludable portion” of payments received under any program of a State under which payments are made to individuals primarily for the purpose of protecting or restoring the environment. In general, a cost-share payment for selected conservation practices is exempt from Federal taxation, if it meets three tests:
(1)It was for a capital expense,
(2)it does not substantially increase the operator's annual income from the property for which it is made, and
(3)the Secretary of Agriculture certified that the payment was made primarily for conserving soil and water resources, protecting or restoring the environment, improving forests, or providing habitat for wildlife. The Secretary of Agriculture evaluates a conservation program on the basis of criteria set forth in 7 CFR part 14, and makes a “primary purpose” determination for the payments made under the program. The objective of the determinations made under part 14 is to provide maximum conservation, environmental, forestry improvement, and wildlife benefits to the general public from the operation of applicable programs. Final determinations are made on the basis of program, category of practices, or individual practices. Following a primary purpose determination by the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Treasury determines if the payments made under the conservation program substantially increase the annual income derived from the property benefited by the payments. Determination The Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation uses the Small Renewables Initiative Program to offer cost-share incentives for the installation of small renewable energy systems, totaling not more that 10kw of capacity per installation. The objectives of the program are met through a market-based incentive structure that is designed to provide a level of support that will promote the installation of renewables, and encourage a paradigm shift toward increased adoption of renewable energy technologies and energy-efficient, high-performance design elements in Massachusetts buildings. By promoting renewable energy sources, the Small Renewables Initiative Program reduces the negative environmental impacts generally associated with more traditional methods of electricity generation. As provided for by Section 126 of the Internal Revenue Code, the Secretary examined the authorizing legislation, regulations, and operating procedures regarding the identified programs. In accordance with the criteria setout in 7 CFR part 14, the Secretary has determined the cost-share payments made under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Small Renewables Initiative Program are primarily for the purpose of protecting and restoring the environment. A “Record of Decision” has been prepared and is available upon request from the Branch Chief, Environmental Improvement Programs, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. Signed in Washington, DC. Arlen L. Lancaster, Chief. [FR Doc. E6-21845 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-351-806) Silicon Metal from Brazil: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On January 3, 2006, the Department of Commerce initiated and the International Trade Commission instituted a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil. As a result of the review, the International Trade Commission determined that revocation of the order on silicon metal from Brazil would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. Therefore, the Department of Commerce is revoking this antidumping duty order. EFFECTIVE DATE: February 16, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janis Kalnins or Minoo Hatten, Office 5, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1392 and
(202)482-1690, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is silicon metal from Brazil containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Also covered by this order is silicon metal from Brazil containing between 89.00 and 96.00 percent silicon by weight but which contains more aluminum than the silicon metal containing at least 96.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent silicon by weight. Silicon metal is currently provided for under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS)as a chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a metal. Semiconductor grade silicon (silicon metal containing by weight not less than 99.99 percent silicon and provided for in subheading 2804.61.00 of the HTS) is not subject to the order. Although the HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive. Background On February 16, 2001, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the continuation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil resulting from the first sunset review of this order. *See Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders on Silicon Metal From Brazil and China and on Silicomanganese From Brazil and China, and Continuation of Suspended Antidumping Duty Investigation on Silicomanganese From Ukraine* , 66 FR 10669 (February 16, 2001). Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.218, the Department initiated and the International Trade Commission
(ITC)instituted the second sunset review of the order on silicon metal from Brazil on January 3, 2006. *See Initiation of Five-Year (Sunset) Reviews* , 71 FR 91 (January 3, 2006); *Institution of Five-Year Reviews Concerning the Antidumping Duty Orders on Silicon Metal from Brazil and China* , 71 FR 138 (January 3, 2006). As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margin likely to prevail were the order to be revoked. *See Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China and Brazil: Final Results of the Expedited Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders* , 71 FR 26334 (May 4, 2006). On December 11, 2006, the ITC determined pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act that revocation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See *Silicon Metal From Brazil and China* , 71 FR 71554 (December 11, 2006), and ITC Publication 3892 (December 2006) entitled *Certain Silicon Metal from Brazil and China: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-471 and 472 (Second Review).* Determination to Revoke As a result of the determination by the ITC that revocation of this antidumping duty order is not likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is revoking the order on silicon metal from Brazil, pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act. Pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(i), the effective date of revocation is February 16, 2006 (i.e., the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of the notice of continuation of the antidumping duty order). The Department will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after February 16, 2006, the effective date of revocation of the antidumping duty order. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of this order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review. This five-year sunset review and notice are in accordance with section 751(d)(2) and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 14, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21848 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A-570-806) Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (“Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) that revocation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing this notice of continuation of the antidumping duty order. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 21, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Quigley or Juanita Chen, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:
(202)482-4047 or
(202)482-1904. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On January 3, 2006, the Department initiated sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders on silicon metal from the PRC and Brazil pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”). *See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews* , 71 FR 91 (January 3, 2006). As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the antidumping duty orders would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and notified the ITC of the magnitude of margins likely to prevail were the orders to be revoked. *See Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China and Brazil: Final Results of the Expedited Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders* , 71 FR 26334 (May 4, 2006). On November 15, 2006, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time, but that revoking the existing antidumping duty order on silicon metal from Brazil would not. *See Silicon Metal From Brazil and China* , 71 FR 71554 (December 11, 2006); *see also Silicon Metal From Brazil and China* , (Investigations Nos. 731-TA-471 and 472 (Second Review)), Publication 3892 (December 2006). Scope of the PRC Order The merchandise covered by this order is silicon metal containing at least 96.00 but less than 99.99 percent of silicon by weight. All of the foregoing are constructed of steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. The merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 2804.69.10 and 2804.69.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) as a chemical product, but is commonly referred to as a metal. HTSUS items numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope remains dispositive. In response to a request from petitioners, on February 3, 1993, the Department clarified that silicon metal, with a high aluminum content and a silicon content of at least 89.00 percent but less than 99.99 percent, is within the scope of the order. *See Notice of Scope Rulings* , 58 FR 27542 (May 10, 1993). Determination As a result of the determinations by the Department and the ITC that revocation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department hereby orders the continuation of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the PRC. U.S. Customs and Border Protection will continue to collect antidumping duty cash deposits at the rates in effect at the time of entry for all imports of subject merchandise. The effective date of continuation of this order will be the date of publication in the **Federal Register** of this Notice of Continuation. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, the Department intends to initiate the next five-year review of this order not later than November 2011. This five-year (sunset) review and notice are in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 14, 2006. David M. Spooner Assistant Secretary for Import Administration [FR Doc. E6-21849 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-570-848 Notice of Extension of the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews: Silicon Metal from the People's Republic of China AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 21, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton or Mike Quigley, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202)482-1386 and
(202)482-4047, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Department received timely requests from Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd. (“Shanghai Jinneng”) and Jiangxi Gangyuan Silicon Industry Co., Ltd. (“Jiangxi Gangyuan”) in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c) for new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on silicon metal from the People's Republic of China. On July 25, 2006, the Department found that the requests for review with respect to Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Guangyuan met all of the regulatory requirements set forth in 19 CFR 351.214(b) and initiated these new shipper antidumping duty reviews covering the period June 1, 2005, through May 30, 2006. *See Silicon Metal From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews* , 71 FR 42084 (July 25, 2006). Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary Results Section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(1) require the Department to issue the preliminary results of a new shipper review within 180 days after the date on which the new shipper review was initiated and final results of a review within 90 days after the date on which the preliminary results were issued. The Department may, however, extend the deadline for completion of the preliminary results of a new shipper review to 300 days if it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated. *See* 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). The Department has determined that the review is extraordinarily complicated as the Department must gather additional publicly available information on surrogate values to use for a highly complex and technical process involving specialized inputs, evaluate the complex corporate structures of both respondents, issue additional supplemental questionnaires, and conduct verifications of both respondents. Based on the timing of the case and the additional information that must be gathered and verified, the preliminary results of this new shipper review cannot be completed within the statutory time limit of 180 days. Accordingly, the Department is extending the time limit for the completion of the preliminary results of the new shipper reviews of Shanghai Jinneng and Jiangxi Guangyuan by 120 days from the original January 14, 2007, deadline. The preliminary results for both new shipper reviews will now be due May 14, 2007, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2). The final results will, in turn, be due 90 days after the date of issuance of the preliminary results, unless extended. This notice is published pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: December 14, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21851 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of Foreign Government Subsidies on Articles of Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 21, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maura Jeffords or Eric Greynolds, AD/CVD Operations, Office 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone:
(202)482-3146 or 6071, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 702 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (“the Act”) requires the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, and to publish an annual list and quarterly updates of the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide the Department's quarterly update of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the period July 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006. The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies (as defined in section 702(h) of the Act) being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available. The Department will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed. The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act. Dated: December 12, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. APPENDIX SUBSIDY PROGRAMS ON CHEESE SUBJECT TO AN IN-QUOTA RATE OF DUTY Country Program(s) Gross 1 Subsidy ($/lb) Net 2 Subsidy ($/lb) 25 European Union Member States 3 European Union Restitution Payments $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Canada Export Assistance on Certain Types of Cheese $ 0.31 $ 0.31 Norway Indirect
(Milk)Subsidy $ 0.00 $ 0.00 *Consumer Subsidy* *$ 0.00* *$ 0.00* Total $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Switzerland Deficiency Payments $ 0.00 $ 0.00 1 Defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(5). 2 Defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(6). 3 The 25 member states of the European Union are: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. [FR Doc. E6-21883 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am] Billing Code: 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 121506B] Endangered Species; File No. 1420-01 AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice; issuance of permit. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr. Doug Peterson (Permit Holder and Principal Investigator), Warnell School of Forest Resources (Fisheries Division), University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602 (File No. 1420-01) has been issued a modified permit to conduct scientific research on shortnose sturgeon ( *Acipenser brevirostrum* ). ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13 th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; phone (727)824-5312; fax (727)824-5309. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Malcolm Mohead or Brandy Hutnak, (301)713-2289. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 10, 2005, notice was published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 68398) that a request for a scientific research permit to take shortnose sturgeon had been submitted by Dr. Doug Peterson. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* ) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226). Dr. Peterson is authorized to conduct a study of shortnose sturgeon in the Altamaha River, Georgia, to collect information on the status of the population of shortnose sturgeon in the Altamaha River and Estuary. The goals and methods employed in the modification will be consistent with the original permit and provide critical data on stock status, life history, and survival rates as well as to identify specific habitat requirements of the various life stages of shortnose sturgeon in the Altamaha River. In his initial application, Dr. Peterson's request for an annual take of 200 adults and juvenile shortnose sturgeon was based on previous studies that suggested the Altamaha River population contained less than 1,000 total individuals. After 2 years of study, Dr. Peterson made two revised estimates supporting 5,000 and 6,320 individuals respectively in the Altamaha River. Therefore, to obtain a more meaningful population estimate with a reasonable confidence interval, Dr. Peterson is authorized to increase the number of shortnose to be marked and released annually to 1,000, an increase of 800 sturgeon. Additionally, 12 adult shortnose sturgeon annually (from the 1000 per year above) are permitted in the take for sex ratio determination by laparoscopic methods and for performing blood work. The remaining adult and juvenile fish (up to 30 total) scheduled to receive an internal radio-sonic tracking transmitter, are also authorized to be examined laparoscopically for sex ratio verification. Lastly, the annual incidental lethal take of adult or juvenile sturgeon is increased from 0 to 2 animals. Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit
(1)was applied for in good faith,
(2)will not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species which is the subject of this permit, and
(3)is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Dated: December 18, 2006. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. E6-21861 Filed 12-21-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [I.D. 121506A] Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of a Status Review under the Endangered Species Act for the Atlantic White Marlin AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Notice of initiation of a status review under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); request for information. SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce the initiation of a status review for the Atlantic white marlin ( *Tetrapturus albidus* ), and we solicit information on the status of and threats to the species. DATES: Information regarding the status of and threats to the Atlantic white marlin must be received by February 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit information on the Atlantic white marlin by any one of the following methods: • Fax: 727-824-5309, Attention: Dr. Stephania Bolden • Mail: Information on paper, disk or CD-ROM should be addressed to the Assistant Regional Administrator for Protected Resources, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 13 th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • E-mail: *whitemarlin.info@noaa.gov* . Include in the subject line the following identifier: white marlin review FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Stephania Bolden, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office
(727)824-5312, or Ms. Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources
(301)713-1401. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background We conducted a status review of the Atlantic white marlin under the ESA and published a 12-month determination that listing was not warranted (67 FR 57204; September 9, 2002). As a result of subsequent litigation and a settlement agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity, we agreed to initiate a status review following the 2006 stock assessment by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT); the 2006 ICCAT white marlin stock assessment can be found at *www.iccat.int* . Atlantic white marlin are billfish (Family: Istiophoridae) found throughout tropical and temperate waters of the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent seas. White marlin, along with other billfish and tunas, are managed internationally by the member nations of the ICCAT. At this time we announce commencement of a new status review for the Atlantic white marlin, and request information regarding the status of and threats to the species, pursuant to the terms of the aforementioned settlement agreement. Request for Information To support this status review, we are soliciting information relevant to the status of and threats to the species, including, but not limited to, information on the following topics:
(1)historical and current abundance and distribution of the species and congeners throughout the species range;
(2)potential factors for the species' decline throughout the species range;
(3)rates of capture and release of the species from both recreational and commercial fisheries;
(4)post-release mortality;
(5)life history information (size/age at maturity, growth rates, fecundity, reproductive rate/success, etc.);
(6)morphological and molecular information to assist in determining taxonomy of this species and congeners;
(7)threats to the species, particularly:
(a)present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range;
(b)over-utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(c)disease or predation,
(d)inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or
(e)other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence; and
(8)any ongoing conservation efforts for the species. See DATES and ADDRESSES for guidance on and deadlines for submitting information. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 *et seq.* Dated: December 18, 2006. Donna Wieting, Deputy Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. [FR Doc. 06-9812 Filed 12-18-06; 2:45 pm]
Connectionstraces to 25
Traces to 25 documents
U.S. Code
20 references not yet in our index
  • 17 CFR 270
  • 15 USC 80a
  • 25 CFR 547
  • 28 CFR 571
  • 18 USC 4205(g)
  • 28 CFR 1.1-1
  • 28 CFR 542
  • 28 CFR 572
  • 42 CFR 72
  • 599 F.2d 622
  • 46 CFR 147
  • 47 CFR 147
  • 29 CFR 1911
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 7 USC 1621-1627
  • 7 CFR 36
  • 7 CFR 1
  • 7 CFR 205.662
  • 7 CFR 205.665
  • 7 CFR 14
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Request for additional comment
U.S.C.§ 2701
U.S.C.§ 3582
C.F.R.§ 571.61
C.F.R.§ 571.63
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 605
U.S.C.§ 552
U.S.C.§ 301
F. App'x599 F.2d 622
Cite17 CFR 270
Cite15 USC 80a
Cites 45 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.