August 29, 2005 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

On February 2, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated a sunset review of the antidumping duty order on fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway (Salmon from Norway) (70 FR 5415) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). On the basis of substantive responses filed by domestic and respondent interested parties, the Department determined to conduct a full review. As a result of this review, the Department preliminarily finds that revocation of the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice.

On March 26, 2004, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained the Department of Commerce's (the Department) third remand determination of the Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Italy, 64 FR 73244 (December 29, 1999) (Italian Plate). See ILVA Lamiere e Tubi S.p.A. v. United States, Court No. 00- 03-00127, Slip. Op. 04-29 (CIT, March 26, 2004) (ILVA v. United States). The Department appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). On February 10, 2005, the Federal Circuit affirmed the CIT's decision in a non- precedential judgment. See Ilva Lamiere E Tubi S.r.L. and Ilva S.p.A. v. United States, Court No. 04-1415 (February 10, 2005). Because all litigation in this matter has concluded, the Department is issuing the amended final determination in Italian Plate in accordance with the CIT's decision.

Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a model safety evaluation (SE) relating to the elimination of the license condition involving reporting of violations of other requirements (typically in License Condition 2.C) in the operating license of some commercial nuclear power plants. The NRC staff has also prepared a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) determination relating to this matter. The purpose of these models is to permit the NRC to efficiently process amendments that propose to delete the reporting requirement. Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the models apply could then request amendments, confirming the applicability of the SE and NSHC determination to its reactors. The NRC staff is requesting comment on the model SE and model NSHC determination prior to announcing their availability for referencing in license amendment applications.

Pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. APP. 1), notice is hereby given of an open meeting of the Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship (ACA).

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will host a meeting of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards (ISCORS) on September, 27, 2005, in Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of ISCORS is to foster early resolution and coordination of regulatory issues associated with radiation standards. Agencies represented on ISCORS include the NRC, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Transportation, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Representatives from the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Office of Management and Budget, State Department, Illinois Bureau of Radiation Safety, and Pennsylvania Bureau of Radiation Protection may be observers at meetings. The objectives of ISCORS are to: (1) Facilitate a consensus on allowable levels of radiation risk to the public and workers; (2) promote consistent and scientifically sound risk assessment and risk management approaches in setting and implementing standards for occupational and public protection from ionizing radiation; (3) promote completeness and coherence of Federal standards for radiation protection; and (4) identify interagency radiation protection issues and coordinate their resolution. ISCORS meetings include presentations by the chairs of the subcommittees and discussions of current radiation protection issues. Committee meetings normally involve pre-decisional intra-governmental discussions and, as such, are normally not open for observation by members of the public or media. ISCORS has adopted the practice of opening one of its meetings each year to all interested members of the public. There will be time on the agenda for members of the public to provide comments. The final agenda for the September meeting will be posted on the ISCORS Web site, https://www.iscors.org, shortly before the meeting. Participants are encouraged to (1) notify the contact below for pre-registration and (2) allow sufficient time for security screening prior to accessing the meeting.

The Licensing Implementation Working Group of the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) will meet to discuss matters relating to specific issues of towing safety. The meeting will be open to the public.

In accordance with the Agency's May 24, 1995, ``Guidance on Agreements with Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Property,'' notice is hereby given of a proposed prospective purchaser agreement (``PPA'') with the United States Environmental Protection Agency; Suffolk County, New York; the State of New York; and an as-of-yet unnamed ``Auction Purchaser'' regarding a 0.9-acre parcel of real property (the ``Property'') included within the Circuitron Corporation Superfund Site, located at 82 Milbar Boulevard in East Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York (the ``Site''). Under the PPA, Suffolk County would market the Property at auction, with a portion of the proceeds to be paid to EPA in reimbursement of response costs it incurred at the Site. Also under the PPA, the United States and the State would covenant not to sue or take administrative action against Suffolk County and its departments and agencies, and the Auction Purchaser, under Sections 106 or 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (``CERCLA''). EPA also agrees to release the CERCLA Section 107(l) lien against the Property, and waive any lien or right to perfect any lien it may have on the Property now and in the future under Section 107(r) of CERCLA. By publication of this Notice, a thirty (30) day period has been established in which the Agency will accept written comments relating to the PPA agreement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the PPA if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the agreement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Office of Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, 290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is extending the comment period and time to request a hearing on the Federal Register Notice of proposed rulemaking entitled ``Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of Embutramide into Schedule III'' published on July 29, 2005 (70 FR 43809).

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``ANDAs: Impurities in Drug Products; Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls Information.'' This draft guidance provides recommendations on what chemistry, manufacturing, and controls information sponsors should include regarding reporting, identification, qualification, and setting acceptance criteria for impurities that are classified as degradation products in drug products when submitting an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) or supplement to support changes in drug substance synthesis or process, formulation of the drug product, the manufacturing process, or components of the container/closure system.

This notice announces the availability, and opportunity for public review and comment, of the environmental assessment (EA) that supports the Department of Energy's (DOE) application to the Department of the Interior, filed with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), for a Public Land Order to withdraw public lands within and surrounding the Caliente Rail Corridor. As applied for, the withdrawal would preclude surface entry and new mining claim locations for a 20 year period.

NMFS is prohibiting retention of yellowfin sole in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). NMFS is requiring that catch of yellowfin sole in this area be treated in the same manner as prohibited species and discarded at sea with a minimum of injury. This action is necessary because the 2005 total allowable catch (TAC) of yellowfin sole in the BSAI has been reached.

This notice announces the final decision regarding Self- Determination and Self-Governance language to be negotiated into funding agreements for 2006 regarding fiduciary trust records management. The Federal Register notice published on February 2, 2005 (70 FR 5457) presented a proposed policy on fiduciary trust records management for Self-Determination (Title I) and Self-Governance (Title IV) Tribes/Consortia and language to be negotiated into 2006 Title I and Title IV funding agreements. The February 2, 2005, notice also announced three consultation meetings and an invitation to submit written comments on the proposed policy and funding agreement language. Final Decision: After reviewing numerous comments and suggestions, both written and oral, the Department decided not to institute the proposed policy on fiduciary trust records management for Title I and Title IV Tribes/Consortia; rather, the Department will negotiate with each Tribe/Consortium a specific section in the funding agreement that addresses Tribe's/Consortium's and the Secretary's respective responsibilities regarding the management of fiduciary trust records. This specific section will include the definition of ``fiduciary trust records,'' ``Indian trust assets,'' and ``management.'' The language to be negotiated into the 2006 Title I and Title IV funding agreements regarding fiduciary trust records management is the following and will replace the three options used in the past. The Tribe/Consortium and Secretary agree to the following: The Tribe/Consortium agrees to: (a) Preserve, protect and manage all fiduciary trust records, created and/or maintained by the Tribes/Consortia during their management of trust programs in their Title IV agreements. (A fiduciary trust record is any document that reflects the existence of an Indian trust asset and was used in the management of an Indian trust asset. An Indian trust asset refers to lands, natural resources, monies or other assets held in trust at a particular time by the Federal Government for a Tribe, Alaska natives or that are or were at a particular time restricted against alienation, for individual Indians. Management includes actions that influence, affect, govern, or control an Indian trust asset. The following are examples not considered to be fiduciary trust records: General administrative, personnel or travel records; education records; law enforcement records; health records; law making unrelated to Indian trust assets; tribal council resolutions and laws unrelated to Indian trust assets; and tribal elections.) (b) Make available to the Secretary all fiduciary trust records maintained by the Tribe/Consortium, provided that the Secretary gives reasonable oral or written advance request to the Tribe/Consortium. Access shall include visual inspection and, at the expense of the Secretary, the production of copies (as agreed upon between the parties), and shall not include the removal of the records without tribal approval; and (c) Store and permanently retain all inactive fiduciary trust records at the Tribe/Consortium or allow such records to be removed and stored at the American Indian Records Repository (AIRR) in Lenexa, Kansas, at no cost to the Tribe/Consortium. The Secretary agrees to: (a) Allow the Tribe/Consortium to determine what records it creates to implement the trust programs assumed under its Title IV agreement, except that the Tribe/Consortium must create and maintain the information required by statute and regulation. No additional record keeping requirements are required by this agreement. (b) Store all inactive fiduciary trust records at the American Indian Records Repository (AIRR) at no cost to the Tribe/Consortium when the Tribe/Consortium no longer wishes to keep the records. Further, the Tribe/Consortium will retain legal custody and determine access to these records. Such records shall not be treated as Federal records for purposes of chapter 5 of Title 5 of the United States Code unless expressly agreed to by the Tribe; (c) Create and manage a single tribal storage and retrieval system for all fiduciary trust records stored at AIRR (No records will be accepted at AIRR until such a retrieval system exists); and (d) Provide filing equipment and technical assistance for Tribes/ Consortia in preserving, protecting and managing their fiduciary trust records from available funds appropriated for this purpose. Summary of Comments: The final decision above is the result of a nearly 2-year consultation process by the Department with some Title I and IV Tribes/Consortia. This process included: Conducting pre-scoping telephone conversations with tribal leaders, staff and consultants; holding a scoping meeting as part of a 2-day conference on Indian trust records management at Haskell Indian Nations University; forming a Tribal Fiduciary Trust Records Management Workgroup; conducting four workgroup meetings; transmitting a tribal leader letter soliciting comments on the proposed policy language to be presented for consultation; and engaging in discussions with Tribal leaders and staff at the Fall 2004, Self-Governance Conference. This process culminated with three consultation meetings held in Nashville, Tennessee; Portland, Oregon; and Phoenix, Arizona that were attended by approximately 60 tribal leaders, staff and consultants. In addition, written comments were received from 14 tribes, tribal organizations or tribal consultants some of whom attended the consultation meetings. The comments received can be grouped into the following four major categories: Category 1: New funding agreement language is not needed because existing compact and funding agreement language sufficiently provides for the maintenance of records of trust programs managed by the Tribes/ Consortia, and Tribes/Consortia should not be required to implement a Federal policy on fiduciary trust records management through their funding agreements. The Department respectfully disagrees. The Department believed that the three options available to Tribes/ Consortia in the past are too vague and do not specifically address the Secretary's primary concerns that fiduciary trust records not be destroyed and that the Secretary have the right to access those records if needed in her capacity as trustee delegate. The Department does agree with the comments that a Federal policy does not need to be instituted through the Departmental Manual. Instead the Department has chosen to negotiate language with each Tribe/Consortium into its funding agreement to address fiduciary trust records management. Category 2: The definition of ``fiduciary trust records'' is too broad and vague and the Department should produce a specific list of what fiduciary trust records should be maintained and preserved by the Tribe/Consortium. The definition is purposely broad in recognition of tribal sovereignty. It allows Tribes/Consortia the flexibility to create those records they believe are necessary to properly manage their trust assets through their Title I or Title IV funding agreements. For the Department to create a list of fiduciary trust records would have been both overly restrictive for some Tribes/ Consortia and overly expansive for others. A Department-generated list to be used by all Tribes/Consortia would have been restrictive in that it could deter tribes from creating certain records they feel were appropriate and at the same time it could be expansive by ``requiring'' Tribes/Consortia to create fiduciary trust records they did not believe were necessary for effective management of their trust assets. The Department's concern is that whatever trust records are created be properly protected and available to the Secretary. Category 3: The funding agreement language creates an unfunded mandate because no funding is being provided, and the language requires Tribes/Consortia to maintain record facilities and administer and monitor a records policy. The Department believes that the language proposed for negotiation does not require Tribes/Consortia to create and keep any additional records beyond those they now keep; namely, those that are required by statute or regulation or those records the Tribe/Consortium chooses to create in the management of its own trust resources. The language does not require a tribe to have any other kind of record keeping system other than the ones they currently operate. Before becoming a Title I or Title IV Tribe/Consortium, a Tribe/ Consortium had to demonstrate that it had a functional record keeping system and this language does not expand that requirement. Further, while the language does indicate that Tribes/Consortia are to preserve, protect and manage all fiduciary trust records and that all fiduciary trust records are to be kept permanently, once the Tribe/Consortium chooses that it no longer wants to house their inactive fiduciary trust records at their facility, the Secretary has offered to store those records, at the Secretary's expense, at the American Indian Records Repository. Finally, the Secretary is willing to provide to the Tribes/ Consortia equipment, training and technical assistance, subject to availability of appropriated funds for that purpose. Category 4: A potential problem exists for Tribes/Consortia in storing records at AIRR in that outside interests might gain access to Tribal/Consortium trust records through the Freedom of Information Act because the Tribal/Consortium trust records are held on the Tribe's/ Consortium's behalf by the Department in a Federal facility. To accommodate this concern, language was inserted stating that the Tribe/ Consortium retains legal custody and determines access to those records. Further, language was inserted stating that such records shall not be treated as Federal records for purposes of chapter 5 of Title 5 of the United States Code, unless expressly agreed to by the Tribe.

This rule adjusts the fee for filing appeals of, and motions to reopen or reconsider, any decision under the immigration laws in any type of proceeding other than those described at 8 CFR 1003.1(b), over which the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in the Department of Justice (DOJ) has appellate jurisdiction. The rule also adds a non- substantive modification to the language of the fee regulation in order to enhance clarity. This rule applies to fees for appeals and motions relating to the types of cases under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO). The AAO is an appellate office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The BIA remains a component of DOJ, and has appellate jurisdiction over the orders of immigration judges, denials of relative immigrant visa petitions (Form I-130), and decisions involving administrative fines and penalties. This rule does not apply to, or affect in any manner, the fees associated with the BIA. Appeals from denials of all other types of applications, such as Applications for Temporary Protected Status (Form I-821), and petitions, such as Petitions for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant (Form I-360), and any subsequently filed motions, are under the jurisdiction of the AAO. The fees, deposited into the Immigration Examinations Fee Account (IEFA), are adjusted from $110 to $385 to recover the full costs associated with the processing of an appeal, motion to reopen or motion to reconsider. Federal statutes authorize USCIS to establish and collect fees to recover the full cost of processing immigration benefit applications, rather than supporting these services with tax revenue. Finally, the rule replaces a reference in the regulations to an obsolete form with a reference to the revised version of that form.

On May 13, 2005, the Ecology Center of Ann Arbor, Michigan, petitioned EPA under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to establish regulations prohibiting the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and improper disposal of lead wheel balancing weights. For the reasons set forth in this notice, EPA has denied the petition to initiate rulemaking. In this notice, the Agency elaborates the reasons for its denial and the type of information it may need.

In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (``Act''), 42 U.S.C. (7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed Consent Decree to address a lawsuit filed by Our Children's Earth Foundation and the Sierra Club (collectively ``Plaintiffs''): Our Children's Earth Found. et al. v. U.S. EPA, No. C 05-00094 CW (N.D. Cal.). On or about January 6, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that EPA had failed to perform a non-discretionary duty to review and, if appropriate, revise the new source performance standards (``NSPS'') for petroleum refineries and equipment leaks as required by Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7411(b)(1)(B). Under the terms of the proposed Consent Decree, deadlines are established for EPA to review and, if appropriate, revise the NSPS standards for Subparts J, VV and GGG, 40 CFR 60.100-109, 60.480-498, 60.590-593.

The definition of ``District Director of Customs'' has been amended to reflect the change in title. Also, references to the Customs Service have been changed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. A definition has been added for the ``North Atlantic Treaty Organization'' and another definition for ``major non-NATO ally.'' The recordkeeping requirement has been revised to include maintaining records in an electronic format and reproduction of readable documents. No need for multiple copies of supporting documentation for electronic license applications. Also, registration documents are not releasable to the public.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Aeronautics Research Advisory Committee, announces a forthcoming meeting of the Council of Deans Subcommittee.