76598 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

applicant’s race, religion, nationality,

membership in a particular social group,

or political opinion. In cases involving

a persecutor with mixed motivations,

the applicant must establish that the

applicant’s protected characteristic is

central to the persecutor’s motivation to

act against the applicant. Both direct

and circumstantial evidence may be

relevant to the inquiry. Evidence that

the persecutor seeks to act against other

individuals who share the applicant’s

protected characteristic is relevant and

may be considered but shall not be

required.

(c) Membership in a particular social

group.

(1) A particular social group is

composed of members who share a

common, immutable characteristic, such

as sex, color, kinship ties, or past

experience, that a member either cannot

change or that is so fundamental to the

identity or conscience of the member

that he or she should not be required to

change it. The group must exist

independently of the fact of persecution.

In determining whether an applicant

cannot change, or should not be

expected to change, the shared

characteristic, all relevant evidence

should be considered, including the

applicant’s individual circumstances

and information country conditions

information about the applicant’s

society.

(2) When past experience defines a

particular social group, the past

experience must be an experience that,

at the time it occurred, the member

either could not have changed or was so

fundamental to his or her identity or

conscience that he or she should not

have been required to change it.

(3) Factors that may be considered in

addition to the required factors set forth

in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, but

are not necessarily determinative, in

deciding whether a particular social

group exists include whether:

(i) The members of the group are

closely affiliated with each other;

(ii) The members are driven by a

common motive or interest;

(iii) A voluntary associational

relationship exists among the members;

(iv) The group is recognized to be a

societal faction or is otherwise a

recognized segment of the population in

the country in question;

(v) Members view themselves as

members of the group; and

(vi) The society in which the group

exists distinguishes members of the

group for different treatment or status

than is accorded to other members of

the society.

(d) Firm resettlement. An alien is

considered to be firmly resettled if, prior

to arrival in the United States, he or she

entered into another country with, or

while in that country received, an offer

of permanent resident status,

citizenship, or some other type of

permanent resettlement unless he or she

establishes:

(1) That his or her entry into that

country was a necessary consequence of

his or her flight from persecution, that

he or she remained in that country only

as long as was necessary to arrange

onward travel, and that he or she did

not establish significant ties in that

country; or

(2) That the conditions of his or her

residence in that country were so

substantially and consciously restricted

by the authority of the country of refuge

that he or she was not in fact resettled.

In making his or her determination, the

asylum officer or immigration judge

shall consider the conditions under

which other residents of the country

live, the type of housing made available

to the refugee, whether permanent or

temporary, the types and extent of

employment available to the refugee,

and the extent to which the refugee

received permission to hold property

and to enjoy other rights and privileges,

such as travel documentation including

a right of entry or reentry, education,

public relief, or naturalization,

ordinarily available to others resident in

the country.

4. Section 208.16 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b)(1) and

(b)(1)(ii)(B) to read as follows:

§ 208.16 Withholding of removal under

section 241(b)(3) of the Act and withholding

of removal under the Convention Against

Torture.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) Past threat to life or freedom. (i)

If the applicant is determined to have

suffered past persecution in the

proposed country of removal on account

of race, religion, nationality,

membership in a particular social group,

or political opinion, it shall be

presumed that the applicant’s life or

freedom would be threatened in the

future in the country of removal on the

basis of the original claim. This

presumption may be rebutted if an

asylum officer or immigration judge

finds by a preponderance of the

evidence that paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A) or

(B) of this section applies. If the

applicant’s fear of future threat to life or

freedom is unrelated to the past

persecution, the applicant bears the

burden of establishing that it is more

likely than not that he or she would

suffer such harm. Although a

presumption of future persecution is

raised by a finding of past persecution,

this does not relieve the applicant of the

burden of producing testimonial

evidence, or where reasonably available

to the applicant, documentary evidence,

relating to future persecution, including

to a fundamental change in

circumstances or the reasonableness of

internal relocation.

(i) * * *

(ii) * * *

(B) When the immigration judge or

Board finds that the applicant has failed

to establish past persecution, the

questions of fundamental change in

circumstances and reasonable internal

relocation shall be deemed reserved and

the Service shall not be required to

present evidence to preserve the issues.

If that finding is set aside, the Service

and the applicant shall be permitted on

remand to submit evidence and

argument on the questions of

fundamental change in circumstances

and reasonable internal relocation

before any ruling on these matters is

issued.

* * * * *

Dated: November 22, 2000.

Janet Reno,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 00–30602 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

29 CFR Part 1910

[Docket No. H–052G]

Occupational Exposure to Cotton Dust

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: OSHA is proposing to amend

the Cotton Dust Standard to add batch

kier washed cotton to the types of

washed cotton granted partial

exemption from the Cotton Dust

Standard, because those methods greatly

reduce the risk of byssinosis when that

cotton is spun and woven. This

amendment is based on the

recommendation of the industry/

government/union Task Force for

Byssinosis Prevention and supported by

published studies and government,

union, and industry experts.

Because OSHA believes the

amendment is not controversial, the

Agency is issuing it as a direct final rule

published in the Final Rules section of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules 76599

today’s Federal Register. If no

significant adverse comment is received

on the direct final rule, OSHA will

confirm the effective date of the final

rule. If significant adverse comment is

received, OSHA will withdraw the

direct final rule and proceed with

rulemaking on this proposal. A

subsequent Federal Register document

will be published to announce OSHA’s

action.

DATES: Written comments and requests

for a hearing on this proposed rule must

be submitted or sent electronically by

February 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments and requests for

a hearing may be sent in quadruplicate

to Docket No. H–052G, Docket Office,

Room N2625; Occupational Safety and

Health Administration, U.S. Department

of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.,

Washington D.C. 20210 (202–693–2350).

Alternatively, one paper copy and one

disc (31⁄2 inch floppy in WordPerfect

6.0, 8.0 or ASCII) may be sent to the

Docket mailing address; or one copy

faxed to 202–693–1648 and 3 paper

copies mailed to the Docket mailing

address; or one copy E-mailed to

ecomments.osha.gov and one paper

copy mailed to the Docket mailing

address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Steven Bayard, Director of Office Risk

Assessment, Occupational Safety and

Health Administration, U.S. Department

of Labor, Room N–3718, 200

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone:

(202) 693–2275.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

OSHA is today publishing a Direct

Final Rule (DFR) adding batch kier

washing to the types of washed cotton

receiving partial exemption from the

Cotton Dust Standard. A complete

discussion of that amendment is

published in the preamble to the DFR.

The DFR is published in the Final Rules

section of today’s Federal Register. That

discussion includes the scientific basis

for the amendment, the regulatory text,

and other supporting information. That

discussion is incorporated as part of this

proposal.

Public Participation

Any persons with significant adverse

comments must submit those comments

to the DFR by the dates specified in that

document published in the Final Rules

section of today’s Federal Register.

Interested persons are requested to

submit written data, views and

arguments concerning this proposal.

These comments must be received by

February 5, 2001 and submitted in

quadruplicate to the Docket No. H–

052G, Docket Office; Room N2625;

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration; U.S. Department of

Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W.,

Washington DC 20210.

Alternatively, one paper copy and one

disc (31⁄2 inch floppy in WordPerfect

6.0, 8.0 or ASCII) may be sent to that

address, or one copy faxed to (202) 693–

1648 and 3 paper copies mailed to the

Docket mail address or one copy Emailed to ecomments.osha.gov and one

paper copy mailed to the Docket mail

address.

All written comments received within

the specified comment period will be

made a part of the record and will be

available for public inspection and

copying at the above Docket Office

address.

OSHA requests comments on all

issues related to granting cotton mildly

washed in the batch kier system partial

exemption from OSHA’s cotton dust

standard and findings that there are no

negative economic, environmental or

other regulatory impacts. OSHA is not

requesting comment on any other issues

nor opening the record for any other

issues except for this amendment to

paragraph (n)(4).

Additionally, under section 6(b)(3) of

the OSH Act and 29 CFR 1911.11,

interested persons may file objections to

the proposal and request an informal

hearing. The objections and hearing

requests should be submitted in the

same manner as comments to the Docket

Office at the above address and must

comply with the following conditions:

1. The objection must include the

name and address of the objector;

2. The objections must be mailed by

January 22, 2001;

3. The objections must specify with

particularity the grounds upon which

the objection is based;

4. Each objection must be separately

numbered; and

5. The objections must be

accompanied by a detailed summary of

the evidence proposed to be adduced at

the requested hearing.

Interested persons who object to the

proposed amendment or have changes

to recommend may, of course, make

those objections and their

recommendations in their written

comments and OSHA will fully

consider them. There is no need to file

formal ‘‘objections’’ separately unless

the interested person requests a public

hearing.

OSHA recognizes that there may be

interested persons who through their

knowledge of health or their experience

in the operations involved, would wish

to endorse or support the amendment.

OSHA welcomes such supportive

comments, in order that the record of

this rulemaking may present a balanced

picture of the public response on the

issues involved.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1910

Cotton dust, Hazardous substances,

Occupational safety and health,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority and Signature

This document was prepared under

the direction of Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary of Labor for

Occupational Safety and Health, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20210.

This action is taken pursuant to

sections 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C

653, 655, 657), section 4 of the

Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.

553), Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 3–

2000 (65 FR 50017) and 29 CFR part

1911. Part 1910, Title 29, Code of

Federal Regulations, is proposed to be

amended as set forth below.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of

December, 2000.

Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

Part 1910 of Title 29 of the Code of

Federal Regulations is hereby proposed

to be amended as set forth below:

PART 1910—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Subpart

Z of Part 1910 is proposed to be

amended to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 4, 6 and 8 of the

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970

(29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of Labor’s

Order No. 12–71 (36 FR 8754), 8–76 (41 FR

25059), 9–83 (48 FR 35736), 6–96 (62 FR

111), or 3–2000 (65 FR 50017), as applicable;

and 29 CFR part 1911.

All of subpart Z issued under sec. 6 (b) of

the Occupational Safety and Health Act,

except those substances that have exposure

limits listed in Tables Z–1, Z–2, and Z–3 of

29 CFR 1910.1000. The latter were issued

under sec. 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 655(a)).

Section 1910.1000 Z–1, Z–2, Z–3, and

1910.1043(n) also issued under 5 U.S.C. 553,

Section 1910.1000 Tables Z–1, Z–2, and Z–

3 not issued under 29 CFR part 1911 except

for the arsenic (organic compounds),

benzene, and cotton dust listings.

Section 1910.1001 also issued under

section 107 of the Contract Work Hours and

Safety Standards Act ( 40 U.S.C. 333) and 5

U.S.C. 553.

Section 1910.1002 not issued under 29

U.S.C. 655 or 29 CFR part 1911; also issued

under 5 U.S.C. 553.

Sections 1910.1018, 1910.1029 and

1910.1200 are also issued under 29 U.S.C.

653.

76600 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 236 / Thursday, December 7, 2000 / Proposed Rules

2. OSHA proposes to amend

§ 1910.1043 by revising paragraph

(n) (4) as follows:

§ 1910.1043 Cotton dust.

* * * * *

(n) * * *

* * * * *

(4) Higher grade washed cotton. The

handling or processing of cotton classed

as ‘‘low middling light spotted or

better’’ (color grade 52 or better and leaf

grade code 5 or better according to the

1993 USDA classification system) shall

be exempt from all provisions of the

standard except the requirements of

paragraphs (h) medical surveillance,

(k) (2) through (4) recordkeeping—

medical records, and Appendices B, C,

and D of this section, if they have been

washed on the following systems.

(i) On a continuous batt system or a

rayon rinse system including the

following conditions:

(A) With water;

(B) At a temperature of no less than

60° C;

(C) With a water-to-fiber ratio of no

less than 40:1; and

(D) With the bacterial levels in the

wash water controlled to limit bacterial

contamination of the cotton.

(ii) On a batch kier washing system

including the following conditions:

(A) With water;

(B) With cotton fiber mechanically

opened and thoroughly prewetted

before forming the cake;

(C) For low-temperature processing, at

a temperature of no less than 60° C with

a water-to-fiber ratio of no less than

40:1; or, for high-temperature processing

at a temperature of no less than 93° C

with a water-to-fiber ratio of no less

than 15:1;

(D) With a minimum of one wash

cycle followed by two rinse cycles for

each batch, using fresh water in each

cycle, and

(E) With bacteria levels in the wash

water controlled to limit bacterial

contamination of the cotton.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–31187 Filed 12–6–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Parts 1842 and 1852

Emergency Medical Services and

Evacuation

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

amend the NASA FAR Supplement

(NFS) by adding a prescription and

clause requiring contractors to make all

arrangements for emergency medical

services and evacuation for its

employees when performing a NASA

contract outside the United States or in

remote locations in the United States.

The clause also requires the contractor

to reimburse the Government for costs

that are incurred in cases where the

Government is requested by the

contractor, and the Government agrees

to provide the medical services or

evacuation.

DATES: Comments should be submitted

on or before February 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit written comments to Joseph Le

Cren, NASA Headquarters, Office of

Procurement, Contract Management

Division (Code HK), Washington, DC

20546. Comments also may be

submitted by e-mail to:

jlecren@hq.nasa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph Le Cren, (202) 358–0444, or

jlecren@hq.nasa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

There have been some cases where

contractor employees were required to

receive emergency medical services and

be evacuated while performing on

NASA contracts outside the United

States. Although not responsible for

providing the emergency medical or

evacuation services, NASA believed that

the interests of the contractor employees

were paramount. However, this resulted

in situations where NASA incurred

significant costs, which ultimately were

reimbursed by the contractor, but

possibly could have been disputed.

NASA desires to eliminate such

situations which could have a

significant adverse financial impact on

the agency. The proposed clause notifies

offerors and contractors that they are

responsible for making all arrangements

for providing emergency medical

services and evacuation, if necessary,

for their employees when performing

NASA contracts outside the United

States. The proposed clause also

recognizes that similar situations may

occur in remote locations in the United

States. In addition, the clause recognizes

that certain situations could arise where

the Government would be requested to

provide emergency medical services or

evacuate contractor employees. The

clause makes it clear that, if the

Government provides such services or

evacuation, the contractor will

reimburse the Government for the costs

incurred.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule is not expected to

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small

businesses within the meaning of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.) because of the small number of

contracts awarded to small businesses

involving contract performance outside

the United States or in remote locations

in the United States.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act does

not apply because the changes to the

NFS do not impose recordkeeping or

information collection requirements, or

collections of information from offerors,

contractors, or members of the public

which require the approval of the Office

of Management and Budget under 44

U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 42 and

52

Government procurement.

Tom Luedtke,

Associate Administrator for Procurement.

Accordingly, 48 CFR Parts 1842 and

1852 are proposed to be amended as

follows:

1. The authority citation for 48 CFR

Parts 1842 and 1852 continues to read

as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).

PART 1842—CONTRACT

ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT

PROCEDURES

2. Amend Part 1842 by adding section

1842.7003 to read as follows:

1842.7003 Emergency medical services

and evacuation.

The contracting officer must insert the

clause at 1852.242–78, Emergency

Medical Services and Evacuation, in all

solicitations and contracts when

employees of the contractor are required

to travel outside the United States or to

remote locations in the United States.

3. Amend Part 1852 by adding section

1852.242–78 to read as follows:

PART 1852—SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT

CLAUSES

1852.242–78 Emergency Medical Services

and Evacuation.

As prescribed in 1842.7003, insert the

following clause: