35510 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 124 / Thursday, June 28, 2007 / Notices 

Reddy Medtech, Ltd., of Tamil Nadu, 

India; and Intellx, Inc., of Petoskey, 

Michigan. 

On June 30, 2006, the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued 

a final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) in 

which he ruled that there is no violation 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended. He found that certain valid 

claims were infringed, but concluded 

that there was no domestic industry 

under the economic prong of the 

domestic industry requirement. All 

parties petitioned for review of various 

parts of the final ID. 

On September 29, 2006, the 

Commission determined to review the 

issues of claim construction, 

infringement, invalidity due to 

anticipation, and domestic industry, 

and requested briefing on these issues 

and certain subissues. 71 FR 58875 (Oct. 

5, 2006). On December 5, 2006, the 

Commission determined to affirm in 

part, reverse in part, and remand in part 

the final ID. Among other things, the 

Commission reversed the ALJ’s finding 

of no domestic industry under the 

economic prong. The Commission also 

determined to extend the target date for 

completion of the investigation until 

June 5, 2007. The date was subsequently 

moved to June 21, 2007, by an 

unreviewed ID. 

On March 19, 2007, the ALJ issued his 

remand ID, in which he ruled that there 

is a violation of section 337 based on the 

infringement of certain valid claims and 

found that there is a domestic industry. 

In further briefing before the 

Commission, all parties claimed error. 

Upon consideration of the parties’

submissions and the record in this 

proceeding, the Commission has 

determined to reverse the ALJ’s finding 

of violation of section 337 and has 

terminated the investigation with a 

finding of no violation. In reaching this 

conclusion, the Commission has 

reversed the ALJ’s finding that the 

accused products infringe certain claims 

of U.S. Patent No. 5,082,004, as well as 

his finding that certain claims of that 

patent are invalid as anticipated by the 

prior art. 

The authority for this notice is 

contained in section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 

1337, and in section 210.45(c) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.45(c)). 

Issued: June 21, 2007. 

By order of the Commission. 

William R. Bishop, 

Acting Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–12519 Filed 6–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review 

[EOIR No. 162] 

Codes of Conduct for the Immigration 

Judges and Board Members 

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Immigration 

Judge; Board of Immigration 

Appeals,Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (EOIR) is proposing 

newly formulated Codes of Conduct for 

the immigration judges of the Office of 

the Chief Immigration Judge and for the 

Board members of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals. EOIR is seeking 

public comment on the codes before 

final publication. 

DATES: Comment date: Comments may 

be submitted not later than July 30, 

2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Kevin Chapman, Acting 

General Counsel, Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg 

Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia 

22041. To ensure proper handling, 

please reference EOIR Docket No. 162 

on your correspondence. This mailing 

address may also be used for paper, 

disk, or CD–ROM submissions. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Kevin 

Chapman, Acting General Counsel, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, 

Falls Church, Virginia 22041; telephone 

(703) 305–0470 (not a toll free call). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kevin Chapman, Acting General 

Counsel, Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg 

Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia 

22041; telephone (703) 305–0470 (not a 

toll free call). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 9, 2006, the Attorney General 

directed a comprehensive review of the 

Immigration Courts and the Board of 

Immigration Appeals. This review was 

undertaken in response to concerns 

about the quality of decisions being 

issued by the immigration judges and 

the Board and about reports of 

intemperate behavior by some 

immigration judges. The Deputy 

Attorney General and the Associate 

Attorney General assembled a review 

team that, over the course of several 

months, conducted hundreds of 

interviews, administered an online 

survey, and analyzed thousands of 

documents to assess the adjudicative 

process in the Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (EOIR). 

On August 9, 2006, the Attorney 

General announced that the review was 

complete, and he directed that a series 

of measures be taken to improve 

adjudications by the immigration judges 

and the Board. One of these measures 

required the EOIR Director to draft a 

Code of Judicial Conduct specifically 

applicable to immigration judges and 

the members of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals. The Director was 

then, after consultation with the 

Counsel for Professional Responsibility 

and the Director of the Office of 

Attorney Recruitment and Management, 

to submit that code to the Deputy 

Attorney General. 

That has been accomplished and what 

follow are the Code of Judicial Conduct 

for immigration judges and the Code of 

Judicial Conduct for members of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals. The 

Department is seeking comments from 

the public before final publication. Once 

published, these Codes will be available 

on-line to counsel and litigants who 

appear before the Immigration Courts 

and the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

Dated: June 20, 2007. 

Kevin A. Ohlson, 

Acting Director, EOIR 

United States Department of Justice 

Code of Judicial Conduct for 

Immigration Judges 

Preamble 

In Order to Preserve the Integrity and 

Professionalism of the Immigration 

Court System, an Immigration Judge 

Shall Observe High Standards of Ethical 

Conduct, Act in a Manner that Promotes 

Public Confidence in the Impartiality of 

the Immigration Judge Corps, and Avoid 

Impropriety and the Appearance of 

Impropriety in All Activities. 

Canons 

Canon I. An immigration judge shall 

comply with the canons contained in 

this Code of Judicial Conduct for 

Immigration Judges. 

Canon II. An immigration judge shall 

comply with the standards of conduct 

applicable to all attorneys in the 

Department of Justice, including the 

Standards of Ethical Conduct for 

Employees of the Executive Branch, 

codified in Title 5 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, and the Department’s 

supplemental regulations codified at 5 

CFR part 3801 and 28 CFR part 45. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 124 / Thursday, June 28, 2007 / Notices 35511 

Canon III. An immigration judge shall 

comply with the provisions of the rules 

or code(s) of professional responsibility 

of the state(s) where the immigration 

judge is a member of the bar and the 

state(s) where the immigration judge 

performs his or her duties. 

Canon IV. If an immigration judge 

requests ethical guidance from the 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, Office of General Counsel, the 

Professional Responsibility Advisory 

Office, or the Office of Government 

Ethics, the immigration judge shall 

comply with the resulting ethics 

opinion. 

Canon V. An immigration judge shall 

be faithful to the law and maintain 

professional competence in it. 

Canon VI. An immigration judge shall 

act impartially and shall not give 

preferential treatment to any 

organization or individual when 

adjudicating the merits of a particular 

case. 

Canon VII. An immigration judge 

shall avoid any actions that, in the 

judgment of a reasonable person, would 

create the appearance that he or she is 

violating the law or applicable ethical 

standards. 

Canon VIII. An immigration judge 

shall not be swayed by partisan 

interests, public clamor, or fear of 

criticism. 

Canon IX. An immigration judge shall 

be patient, dignified and courteous to 

litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others 

with whom the judge deals in his or her 

official capacity and shall not, in the 

performance of official duties, by words 

or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice. 

Canon X. An immigration judge shall 

act in a professional manner toward the 

parties and their representatives before 

the court, and toward others with whom 

the immigration judge deals in an 

official capacity. 

Canon XI. An immigration judge shall 

refrain from any conduct, including but 

not limited to financial and business 

dealings, that tends to reflect adversely 

on impartiality, demeans the judicial 

office, interferes with the proper 

performance of judicial duties, or 

exploits the immigration judge’s official 

position. 

Canon XII. An immigration judge 

shall not hold membership in any 

organization that practices invidious 

discrimination on the basis of race, sex, 

religion, national origin, or disability. 

Canon XIII. An immigration judge 

shall not publicly disclose or use for any 

purpose unrelated to adjudicatory 

duties nonpublic information acquired 

in a judicial capacity. 

Canon XIV. An immigration judge 

shall not, while a proceeding is pending 

or impending, make any public 

comment that might reasonably be 

expected to affect its outcome or impair 

its fairness, or make any nonpublic 

comment that might substantially 

interfere with a fair hearing. 

Canon XV. An immigration judge 

shall not initiate, consider, or permit ex 

parte communications about the 

substance of a pending or impending 

case unless authorized by precedent, 

statute, or regulation. Communications 

about purely ministerial matters, such 

as a request for an extension of time, 

shall not be regarded as ex parte 

communications, provided the judge 

makes provision promptly to notify all 

other parties of the substance of the 

communication and allows an 

opportunity to respond. An immigration 

judge’s communications with other 

employees of the Department of Justice 

shall not be considered ex parte 

communications unless those 

employees are witnesses in a pending or 

impending proceeding before the 

immigration judge and the 

communication involves that 

proceeding. 

Canon XVI. An immigration judge 

shall follow judicial precedent and 

agency policy regarding recusal when 

deciding whether to remove himself or 

herself from a particular case. 

Commentary 

This Code of Judicial Conduct for 

Immigration Judges (the ‘‘Code’’) is 

being promulgated in order to maintain 

and promote the highest ethical 

standards of the Immigration Judge 

Corps. The canons contained in this 

Code are binding on all immigration 

judges and are effective immediately 

upon the approval of the Deputy 

Attorney General or his or her designee. 

Violations of these canons may serve as 

the basis for disciplinary action, but 

may not be used in any other 

proceeding, and may not be used to 

challenge the rulings of an Immigration 

Judge. This Code does not create any 

rights or interests for any party outside 

of the Department of Justice, nor may 

violations furnish the basis for civil 

liability, injunctive relief or criminal 

prosecution. 

This Code supplements, and does not 

supersede, the personnel disciplinary 

rules, ethics rules, and management 

policies of the Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, the Department of 

Justice, and/or the United States 

government. Similarly, this Code does 

not affect the applicability or scope of 

the provisions of the Standards of 

Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch 

Employees, or the rules or code(s) of 

professional responsibility applicable to 

the immigration judge. An immigration 

judge is subject to the rules or code(s) 

of professional responsibility in the 

state(s) where he or she is a member of 

the bar and the rules or code(s) of the 

state(s) where he or she performs his or 

her duties. See 28 U.S.C. 530B. 

Immigration judges are encouraged to 

seek ethics opinions when confronted 

with the complex questions that may 

arise when professional responsibility 

rules conflict. 

The canons contained in this Code are 

authoritative. The commentary portions 

of the Code are not intended as a 

statement of additional rules. 

Commentary is made to provide, by 

explanation and example, more detailed 

guidance about the applicability of 

specific sections and to further facilitate 

an understanding and use of the Code. 

An immigration judge who manifests 

bias or engages in unprofessional 

conduct in any manner during a 

proceeding may impair the fairness of 

the proceeding and may bring into 

question the impartiality of the 

immigration court system. An 

immigration judge must be alert to avoid 

behavior, to include inappropriate 

demeanor, that may be perceived as 

prejudicial. The test for appearance of 

impropriety is whether the conduct 

would create in the mind of a 

reasonable person with knowledge of 

the relevant facts the belief that the 

immigration judge’s ability to carry out 

adjudicatory responsibilities with 

integrity, impartiality, and competence 

is impaired. 

Prohibitions against behaving with 

impropriety or the appearance of 

impropriety apply to both the 

professional and personal conduct of an 

immigration judge. An immigration 

judge must be mindful that even private 

conduct and associations can reflect 

upon the immigration judge’s office and 

affect the public’s confidence in the 

immigration court system. Accordingly, 

an immigration judge should not, for 

example, be a member of an 

organization that practices invidious 

discrimination on the basis of race, sex, 

religion or national origin. Membership 

of an immigration judge in such an 

organization may give rise to 

perceptions that the judge’s impartiality 

is impaired. Whether an organization 

practices invidious discrimination is 

often a complex question to which 

immigration judges should be sensitive. 

The requirement that immigration 

judges abstain from public comment 

regarding a pending or impending 

proceeding continues during any 

appellate process and until final 

disposition of the matter. The 

requirement does not prohibit 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

35512 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 124 / Thursday, June 28, 2007 / Notices 

immigration judges from making 

appropriate comments in open court or 

in written filings in the course of their 

official duties. Comments made to other 

Department of Justice employees in the 

course of official business do not 

constitute ‘‘public’’ comments. 

United States Department of Justice 

Code of Judicial Conduct for Members 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

Preamble 

In Order to Preserve the Integrity and 

Professionalism of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (the ‘‘Board’’), a 

Member of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (‘‘Board Member’’) Shall 

Observe High Standards of Ethical 

Conduct, Act in a Manner that Promotes 

Public Confidence in the Impartiality of 

the Board, and Avoid Impropriety and 

the Appearance of Impropriety in All 

Activities. 

Canons 

Canon I. A Board Member shall 

comply with the canons contained in 

this Code of Judicial Conduct for 

Members of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals. 

Canon II. A Board Member shall 

comply with the standards of conduct 

applicable to all attorneys in the 

Department of Justice, including the 

Standards of Ethical Conduct for 

Employees of the Executive Branch 

codified in Title 5 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, and the Department’s 

supplemental regulations codified at 5 

CFR part 3801 and 28 CFR part 45. 

Canon III. A Board Member shall 

comply with the provisions of the rules 

or code(s) of professional responsibility 

of the state(s) where the Board Member 

is a member of the bar and the state(s) 

where the Board Member performs his 

or her duties. 

Canon IV. If a Board Member requests 

ethical guidance from the Executive 

Office for Immigration Review, Office of 

General Counsel, the Professional 

Responsibility Advisory Office, or the 

Office of Government Ethics, the Board 

Member shall comply with the resulting 

ethics opinion. 

Canon V. A Board Member shall be 

faithful to the law and maintain 

professional competence in it. 

Canon VI. A Board Member shall act 

impartially and shall not give 

preferential treatment to any 

organization or individual when 

adjudicating the merits of a particular 

case. 

Canon VII. A Board Member shall 

avoid any actions that, in the judgment 

of a reasonable person, would create the 

appearance that he or she is violating 

the law or applicable ethical standards. 

Canon VIII. A Board Member shall not 

be swayed by partisan interests, public 

clamor, or fear of criticism. 

Canon IX. A Board Member shall not, 

in the performance of official duties, by 

words or conduct, manifest bias or 

prejudice. 

Canon X. A Board Member shall act 

in a professional manner toward the 

parties and their representatives before 

the Board, and toward others with 

whom the Board Member deals in an 

official capacity. 

Canon XI. A Board Member shall 

refrain from any conduct, including but 

not limited to financial and business 

dealings, that tends to reflect adversely 

on impartiality, demeans the judicial 

office, interferes with the proper 

performance of judicial duties, or 

exploits the Board Member’s official 

position. 

Canon XII. A Board Member shall not 

hold membership in any organization 

that practices invidious discrimination 

on the basis of race, sex, religion, 

national origin, or disability. 

Canon XIII. A Board Member shall not 

publicly disclose or use for any purpose 

unrelated to adjudicatory duties 

nonpublic information acquired in a 

judicial capacity. 

Canon XIV. A Board Member shall 

not, while a proceeding is pending or 

impending, make any public comment 

that might reasonably be expected to 

affect its outcome or impair its fairness, 

or make any nonpublic comment that 

might substantially interfere with a fair 

hearing. 

Canon XV. A Board Member shall not 

initiate, consider, or permit ex parte 

communications about the substance of 

a pending or impending case unless 

authorized by precedent, statute, or 

regulation. Communications about 

purely ministerial matters, such as a 

request for an extension of time, shall 

not be regarded as ex parte 

communications, provided the Board 

Member makes provision promptly to 

notify all other parties of the substance 

of the ex parte communication and 

allows an opportunity to respond. A 

Board Member’s communications with 

other employees of the Department of 

Justice shall not be considered ex parte 

communications unless those 

employees are witnesses or counsel 

involved in a pending or impending 

proceeding before the Board Member, 

and the communication involves that 

proceeding. 

Canon XVI. A Board Member shall 

follow judicial precedent and agency 

policy regarding recusal when deciding 

whether to remove himself or herself 

from a particular case. 

Commentary 

This Code of Judicial Conduct for 

Members of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (the ‘‘Code’’) is being 

promulgated in order to maintain and 

promote the highest ethical standards of 

the Board of Immigration Appeals. The 

canons contained in this Code are 

binding on all Board Members and are 

effective immediately upon the approval 

of the Deputy Attorney General or his or 

her designee. Violations of these canons 

may serve as the basis for disciplinary 

action, but may not be used in any other 

proceeding, and may not be used to 

challenge the rulings of a Board 

Member. This Code does not create any 

rights or interests for any party outside 

of the Department of Justice, nor may 

violations furnish the basis for civil 

liability, injunctive relief or criminal 

prosecution. 

This Code supplements, and does not 

supersede, the personnel disciplinary 

rules, ethics rules, and management 

policies of the Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, the Department of 

Justice, and/or the United States 

government. Similarly, this Code does 

not affect the applicability or scope of 

the provisions of the Standards of 

Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch 

Employees, or the rules or code(s) of 

professional responsibility applicable to 

the Board Member. A Board Member is 

subject to the rules or code(s) of 

professional responsibility in the state(s) 

where he or she is a member of the bar 

and the rules or code(s) of the state(s) 

where he or she performs his or her 

duties. See 28 U.S.C. 530B. Board 

Members are encouraged to seek ethics 

opinions when confronted with the 

complex questions that may arise when 

professional responsibility rules 

conflict. 

The canons contained in this Code are 

authoritative. The commentary portions 

of the Code are not intended as a 

statement of additional rules. 

Commentary is made to provide, by 

explanation and example, more detailed 

guidance about the applicability of 

specific sections and to further facilitate 

an understanding and use of the Code. 

A Board Member who manifests bias 

or engages in unprofessional conduct in 

any manner during a proceeding may 

impair the fairness of the proceeding 

and may bring into question the 

impartiality of the immigration court 

system and the Board of Immigration 

Appeals. A Board Member must be alert 

to avoid behavior, to include 

inappropriate demeanor, that may be 

perceived as prejudicial. The test for 

appearance of impropriety is whether 

the conduct would create in the mind of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 124 / Thursday, June 28, 2007 / Notices 35513 

a reasonable person with knowledge of 

the relevant facts the belief that the 

Board Member’s ability to carry out 

adjudicatory responsibilities with 

integrity, impartiality, and competence 

is impaired. 

Prohibitions against behaving with 

impropriety or the appearance of 

impropriety apply to both the 

professional and personal conduct of a 

Board Member. A Board Member must 

be mindful that even private conduct 

and associations can reflect upon the 

Board Member’s office and affect the 

public’s confidence in the immigration 

court system and the Board of 

Immigration Appeals. Accordingly, a 

Board Member should not, for example, 

be a member of an organization that 

practices invidious discrimination on 

the basis of race, sex, religion or 

national origin. Membership of a Board 

Member in such an organization may 

give rise to perceptions that the Board 

Member’s impartiality is impaired. 

Whether an organization practices 

invidious discrimination is often a 

complex question to which Board 

Members should be sensitive. 

The requirement that Board Members 

abstain from public comment regarding 

a pending or impending proceeding 

continues during any appellate process 

and until final disposition of the matter. 

The requirement does not prohibit 

Board Members from making 

appropriate comments in open court or 

in written filings in the course of their 

official duties. Comments made to other 

Department of Justice employees in the 

course of official business do not 

constitute ‘‘public’’ comments. 

[FR Doc. 07–3174 Filed 6–27–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

June 25, 2007. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) has 

submitted the following public 

information collection requests (ICR) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 

44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Copies of these 

ICRs, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained from 

RegInfo.gov at http://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/PRAMain or by contacting 

Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is 

not a toll-free number) / e-mail: 

king.darrin@dol.gov. 

Comments should be sent to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 

202–395–7316 / Fax: 202–395–6974 

(these are not toll-free numbers), within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. 

The OMB is particularly interested in 

comments which: 

• Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

• Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

• Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• 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, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of currently approved collection. 

Title: Occupational Noise Exposure 

(29 CFR 1910.95). 

OMB Number: 1218–0048. 

Type of Response: Recordkeeping and 

third-party disclosure. 

Affected Public: Public Sector: 

Business or other for-profits. 

Number of Respondents: 379,512. 

Number of Annual Responses: 

16,610,221. 

Estimated Time per Response: Varies 

from 2 minutes to notify employees 

when noise exposure exceeds the 8-hour 

time-weighted average of 85 decibels to 

1 hour for employees in small 

establishments to take audiometric 

examinations. 

Total Burden Hours: 2,853,730. 

Total Annualized capital/startup 

costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (operating/ 

maintaining systems or purchasing 

services): $40,993,579. 

Description: The purpose of the 

Occupational Noise Standard and its 

information collection requirements are 

to provide protection to employees from 

adverse health effects associated with 

occupational exposure to noise. The 

standard requires employers to establish 

and maintain accurate records of 

employee exposure to noise and 

audiometric testing performed in 

compliance with this standard. 

Agency: Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of currently approved collection. 

Title: Asbestos in General Industry (29 

CFR 1910.1001). 

OMB Number: 1218–0133. 

Type of Response: Recordkeeping. 

Affected Public: Public Sector: 

Business or other for-profits. 

Number of Respondents: 243. 

Number of Annual Responses: 65,048. 

Estimated Time per Response: Varies 

from 5 minutes to maintain records to 

1.5 hours for employees to receive 

training or medical evaluations. 

Total Burden Hours: 23,849. 

Total Annualized capital/startup 

costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (operating/ 

maintaining systems or purchasing 

services): $1,625,000. 

Description: The Asbestos Standard 

requires employers to train employees 

about the hazards of asbestos, to 

monitor employee exposure, to provide 

medical surveillance, and to maintain 

accurate records of employee exposure 

to asbestos. These records are used by 

employers, employees, and the 

Government to ensure that employees 

are not harmed by exposure to asbestos 

in the workplace. 

Agency: Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of currently approved collection. 

Title: Construction Fall Protection 

Plans and Training Requirements (29 

CFR 1926.502 and 1926.503). 

OMB Number: 1218–0197. 

Type of Response: Recordkeeping. 

Affected Public: Public Sector: 

Business or other for-profits. 

Number of Respondents: 301,178. 

Number of Annual Responses: 

6,039,818. 

Estimated Time per Response: Time 

per response ranges from 5 minutes to 

certify a safety net to 1 hour to develop 

a fall protection plan. 

Total Burden Hours: 484,082. 

Total Annualized capital/startup 

costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (operating/ 

maintaining systems or purchasing 

services): $0. 

Description: The Fall Protection 

Systems Criteria and Practices Standard 

(29 CFR 1926.502) allows employers to 

develop alternative procedures to 

conventional fall protection systems 

when the systems are infeasible or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES