Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 40933

approved as of June 24, 1997, and the

regulations in § 556.52 are revised to

reflect the approval. The basis of

approval is discussed in the freedom of

information summary.

In accordance with the freedom of

information provisions of 21 CFR part

20 and 514.11(e)(2)(ii), a summary of

safety and effectiveness data and

information submitted to support

approval of these applications may be

seen in the Dockets Management Branch

(HFA–305), Food and Drug

Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr.,

rm. 1–23, Rockville, MD 20857, between

9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday.

The agency has determined under 21

CFR 25.24(d)(1)(i) that this action is of

a type that does not individually or

cumulatively have a significant effect on

the human environment. Therefore,

neither an environmental assessment

nor an environmental impact statement

is required.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 556

Animal drugs, Foods.

Therefore, under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under

authority delegated to the Commissioner

of Food and Drugs and redelegated to

the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21

CFR part 556 is amended as follows:

PART 556—TOLERANCES FOR

RESIDUES OF NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

IN FOOD

1. The authority citation for 21 CFR

part 556 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 402, 512, 701 of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21

U.S.C. 342, 360b, 371).

2. Section 556.52 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 556.52 Apramycin.

A tolerance of 0.1 part per million is

established for parent apramycin

(marker residue) in kidney (target tissue)

of swine. The acceptable daily intake

(ADI) for total residues of apramycin is

25 micrograms per kilogram of body

weight per day.

Dated: July 21, 1997.

Robert C. Livingston,

Director, Office of New Animal Drug

Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.

[FR Doc. 97–20081 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND

HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

29 CFR Part 2200

Rules of Procedure for E–Z Trials

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Review Commission.

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: This document eliminates the

sunset provision from the procedures

governing the E–Z Trial program and

continues the E–Z Trial program as part

of the Commission Rules of Procedure,

as codified in Title 29 of the Code of

Federal Regulations as Part 2200. In

addition, this document implements

revisions to the procedural rules

governing the E–Z Trial program which

are intended to assist the E–Z Trial

process in meeting its objective of

allowing parties in less complex cases to

argue their cases before the Commission

with as few legal formalities as possible.

DATES: Effective July 31, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Earl

R. Ohman, Jr., General Counsel, (202)

606–5410, Occupational Safety and

Health Review Commission, 1120 20th

Street NW, 9th Floor, Washington DC

20036–3419.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June

24, 1997, the Occupational Safety and

Health Review Commission published

in the Federal Register (62 FR 34031)

proposed changes to the procedural

rules governing the E–Z Trial program.

The Commission would like to thank

those who took the time and interest to

submit comments.

The Secretary of Labor responded by

stating that it appears that many of the

concerns she initially had with the E–

Z Trial program can be avoided if the

Commission continues to exercise

sound judgment in the designation of

cases for E–Z Trial, to be receptive to

motions by either party to modify or

discontinue the procedure, and to

conduct pre-hearing conferences in such

a manner as to prevent surprises at trial.

The Secretary also expressed her wish

that the Commission remain open to

future modifications of the rule as it

gains experience with the E–Z Trial

program.

The Commission has evaluated the E–

Z Trial program during its pilot stage

and has decided to eliminate the sunset

provision of the E–Z Trial procedures

and to maintain E–Z Trial as part of the

Commission’s Rules of Procedure. The

Commission notes that E–Z Trial has

reduced the time necessary to try and

reach a decision in cases of the type

eligible for E–Z Trial from 423 days to

141 days—a two-thirds reduction. In

addition, feedback received from the

focus groups held concerning E–Z Trial

reflects that the program has realized

many of its other goals. The comments

received in response to the proposed

amendments raise issues which the

Commission hopes its modified

procedures adequately address and the

Commission remains open to future

modifications as the need may arise.

1. Eligibility for E–Z Trial

The Commission proposed amending

Rule 202 to make cases involving a

fatality or an allegation of willfulness

ineligible for E–Z Trial. The

Commission also proposed that cases

having an aggregate proposed penalty of

more than $10,000, but not more than

$20,000, may be considered for E–Z

Trial designation at the discretion of the

Chief Administrative Law Judge. The

Commission received no comments

specifically opposing these changes.

Accordingly, the Commission adopts

the proposed amendments.

2. Disclosure of Information

Currently, Rule 206 requires the

Secretary of Labor to disclose to the

employer copies of the narrative (Form

OSHA 1–A) and the worksheet (Form

OSHA 1–B), or their equivalents, within

12 working days after a case has been

designated for E–Z Trial. The

Commission proposed amending the

rule to require the Secretary to provide

the employer with reproductions of any

photographs or videotapes that the

Secretary intends to use at the hearing

within 30 calendar days of designation

for E–Z Trial.

One commentator suggested that the

Secretary should be required to disclose

all photographs or videotapes, not just

the ones the Secretary anticipates using

at the hearing. The commentator stated

that there may be photographs or

videotapes which would be helpful to

an employer’s defense, but which the

Secretary does not intend to use, and

noted that under the proposed rule, the

Secretary is not required to disclose

such evidence. While the Commission

expects that the Secretary would turn

over such material without being

required to do so, in order to make it

clear that no loophole exists in the E–

Z Trial procedures and because the E–

Z Trial process favors disclosure over

the traditional avenues of discovery, the

Commission has decided that the

Secretary should provide to the

employer as part of the disclosure

requirement any exculpatory evidence,

including photographs and videotapes.

Accordingly, the Commission has

revised Rule 206 to include the
40934 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 147 / Thursday, July 31, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

disclosure of any exculpatory material

the Secretary has in her possession.

3. Pre-hearing Conference

The proposed rule provides that the

pre-hearing conference be conducted as

soon as practicable after the employer

has received the narrative and

worksheet under the provisions of Rule

206. One commentator suggested that

the pre-hearing conference be held only

after the employer has also received any

photographs or videotapes so that the

employer has the benefit of all

mandatory disclosure before the prehearing conference. The commentator

expressed concern that allowing the prehearing conference to go forward

without the employer’s prior access to

any photographs or videotapes places

the employer in an unfair position.

Because Rule 207 requires the parties to

set forth an agreed statement of issues

and facts, witnesses and exhibits,

defenses, motions, and any other

pertinent matter including affirmative

defenses at the pre-hearing conference,

the commentator noted that an

employer may not be properly prepared

to do so without the photographs and

videotapes.

We acknowledge the interest in

having an employer fully prepared for

the pre-hearing conference, and we note

that under the proposed rule, there is no

requirement that the Judge hold the prehearing conference before the employer

receives any photographs or videotapes.

We expect that generally the pre-hearing

conference will be scheduled after the

employer is in receipt of any

photographs and videotapes. However,

the Commission has decided to adopt

the proposed rule which allows the

Judge to exercise his or her discretion to

conduct the pre-hearing conference at

any time after the employer is in receipt

of the narrative and the worksheet.

4. Hearing

One of the objectives of the E–Z Trial

process is to expeditiously adjudicate

less complex cases. As a result, the

Commission believes that cases

proceeding under the E–Z Trial process

should be exempt from Rule 60, which

requires that the parties be given notice

of the time, place, and nature of the

hearing at least thirty days in advance

of the hearing. Because the cases

designated for E–Z Trial contain

relatively few citation items and do not

involve complex matters of fact or law,

the Commission believes that the parties

will not be harmed by allowing the

Judge to schedule the hearing with less

than 30 days notice. Accordingly, the

Commission has revised Rule 209 to

reflect the exemption from Rule 60.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 2200

Administrative practice and

procedure, Hearing and appeal

procedures.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Occupational Safety and

Health Review Commission amends

Title 29, Chapter XX, Part 2200, Subpart

M of the Code of Federal Regulations as

follows:

PART 2200—RULES OF PROCEDURE

1. The authority citation for part 2200

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 661(g).

2. Section 2200.201 is amended by

removing paragraph (b) and the

designation for paragraph (a).

3. Section 2200.202 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 2200.202 Eligibility for E–Z Trial.

(a) Those cases selected for E–Z Trial

will be those that do not involve

complex issues of law or fact. Cases

appropriate for E–Z Trial would

generally include those with one or

more of the following characteristics:

(1) Relatively few citation items,

(2) An aggregate proposed penalty of

not more than $10,000,

(3) No allegation of willfulness or a

repeat violation,

(4) Not involving a fatality,

(5) A hearing that is expected to take

less than two days, or

(6) A small employer whether

appearing pro se or represented by

counsel.

(b) Those cases with an aggregate

proposed penalty of more than $10,000,

but not more than $20,000, if otherwise

appropriate, may be selected for E–Z

Trial at the discretion of the Chief

Administrative Law Judge.

4. Section 2200.206(a) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 2200.206 Disclosure of information.

(a) Disclosure to employer. (1) Within

12 working days after a case is

designated for E–Z Trial, the Secretary

shall provide the employer, free of

charge, copies of the narrative (Form

OSHA 1–A) and the worksheet (Form

OSHA 1–B), or their equivalents.

(2) Within 30 calendar days after a

case is designated for E–Z Trial, the

Secretary shall provide the employer

with reproductions of any photographs

or videotapes that the Secretary

anticipates using at the hearing.

(3) Within 30 calendar days after a

case is designated for E–Z Trial, the

Secretary shall provide to the employer

any exculpatory evidence in the

Secretary’s possession.

(4) The Judge shall act expeditiously

on any claim by the employer that the

Secretary improperly withheld or

redacted any portion of the documents,

photographs, or videotapes on the

grounds of confidentiality or privilege.

* * * * *

5. Section 2200.207(a) is amended by

revising the first sentence to read as

follows:

§ 2200.207 Pre-hearing conferences.

(a) When held. As early as practicable

after the employer has received the

documents set forth in § 2200.206(a)(1),

the presiding Judge will order and

conduct a pre-hearing conference.* * *

* * * * *

6. Section 2200.209(a) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 2200.209 Hearing.

(a) Procedures. As soon as practicable

after the conclusion of the pre-hearing

conference, the Judge will hold a

hearing on any issue that remains in

dispute. The hearing will be in

accordance with subpart E of these

rules, except for § 2200.60, 2200.73, and

2200.74 which will not apply.

* * * * *

Dated: July 25, 1997.

Earl R. Ohman, Jr.,

General Counsel.

[FR Doc. 97–20130 Filed 7–30–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7600–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 173–0044a; FRL–5867–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision,

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management District and Santa

Barbara County Air Pollution Control

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on revisions to the California

State Implementation Plan. The

revisions concern negative declarations

from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air

Quality Management District

(SMAQMD) and the Santa Barbara

County Air Pollution Control District

(SBCAPCD). The SMAQMD submitted

negative declarations for two source

categories that emit volatile organic

compounds (VOC): Plastic Parts