This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

59678 

Vol. 70, No. 197 

Thursday, October 13, 2005 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1219 

[No. FV–03–702] 

Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, 

and Information Order: Definition of 

‘‘Substantial Activity’’ 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a 

proposed rule published in the Federal 

Register March 18, 2003, which would 

have terminated the definition of 

‘‘substantial activity’’ under the Hass 

Avocado Promotion, Research, and 

Information Order (Order). The 

proposed action was expected to 

increase the number of importers 

eligible to serve on the Hass Avocado 

Board (Board). Based on comments 

received and other available 

information, termination of the 

definition would not be appropriate at 

this time. 

DATES: This proposed rule is withdrawn 

as of October 14, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marlene Betts, Research and Promotion 

Branch, FV, AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 

2535–S, Washington, DC 20250–0244, 

telephone (202) 720–9915, fax (202) 

205–2800, e-mail: 

Marlene.Betts@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Hass 

Avocado Promotion, Research, and 

Consumer Information Order (Order) is 

issued under the Hass Avocado 

Promotion, Research, and Information 

Act of 2000 (Act) [7 U.S.C. 7801–7813]. 

In determining who is eligible to serve 

as an importer member of the Board, the 

Act provides for a substantial activity 

test. In order to implement this 

provision, the Order needed to provide 

criteria to enable the Department to 

measure substantial activity. The 

Department determined that basing a 

person’s eligibility on the person’s 

business activity and which industry 

function (producing or importing) 

predominates was a reasonable measure 

that gave a clear and understandable 

benchmark (67 FR 7290). In order to 

serve as an importer member on the 

Board, an importer is defined as a 

person who is involved in, as a 

substantial activity, the importation of 

Hass avocados for sale or marketing in 

the United States. Section 1219.30(d) of 

the Order states that a substantial 

activity means that the volume of a 

person’s Hass avocado imports must 

exceed the volume of the person’s 

production or handling of domestic 

Hass avocados. 

This document withdraws the 

proposed rule published in the Federal 

Register March 18, 2003 [68 FR 12881], 

which would have terminated the 

definition of substantial activity under 

the Order. The proposed action was 

expected to increase the number of 

importers eligible to serve on the Hass 

Avocado Board (Board). Nine comments 

were received in a timely manner by the 

comment deadline. Seven commenters 

were importers of Hass avocados. Two 

commenters were Hass avocado 

industry organizations, one being the 

Hass Avocado Board. Seven of the nine 

commenters opposed changing the 

definition in the Order, while two were 

in support of the proposed rule change. 

Opposing commentors raised a 

number of issues including whether 

other factors limited the number of 

nominees in the earlier selection 

process rather than the definition of 

substantial activity. The commentors 

stated that the size and pool of the 

eligible importers (200) was more than 

adequate to fill the vacancies on the 

Board. Concern was expressed as to the 

relationship of producers and importers 

on the Board. 

The supporting commentors were of 

the view that the substantial activity 

requirement unnecessarily limited the 

potential pool of nominees for service 

on the Board and denied some of the 

most significant and most qualified 

individuals in the avocado industry to 

serve on the Board. 

Since the initial nomination process 

in 2002, there have been significant 

changes in the industry. For example, 

the number of states and the months of 

the year that the Mexican Hass avocado 

industry can bring avocados in the 

United States has changed, which can 

effect importer eligibility on the Board. 

Currently, the Department is in the 

process of appointing 2 importer 

members to the Board, this would fill all 

4 importer positions on the Board. 

However, nominations were not 

forthcoming from the industry for the 

alternate importer positions. 

Further, the Department believes that 

it would be appropriate to publish an 

advance notice of rulemaking so that the 

industry can provide comments and 

other pertinent information prior to the 

Department publishing any further 

rulemaking on this issue. An advance 

notice of rulemaking will be published 

in the Federal Register separately from 

this document. 

Based on comments received and 

other available information, termination 

of the definition would not be 

appropriate at this time. Therefore, the 

proposed rule regarding the termination 

of the definition of substantial activity 

published in the Federal Register March 

18, 2003 [68 FR 12881] is hereby 

withdrawn. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1219 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Advertising, Consumer 

Information, Hass avocados, Hass 

avocado promotion, Marketing 

agreements, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7801–7813. 

Dated: October 7, 2005. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–20530 Filed 10–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Bureau of Industry and Security 

15 CFR Chapter VII 

[Docket No. 050923247–5247–01] 

Effects of Foreign Policy-Based Export 

Controls 

AGENCY: Bureau of Industry and 

Security, Commerce. 

ACTION: Request for comments on 

foreign policy-based export controls. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Industry and 

Security (BIS) is reviewing the foreign 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 59679 

policy-based export controls in the 

Export Administration Regulations to 

determine whether they should be 

modified, rescinded or extended. To 

help make these determinations, BIS is 

seeking comments on how existing 

foreign policy-based export controls 

have affected exporters and the general 

public. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

November 14, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments (three 

copies) should be sent to Sheila 

Quarterman, Regulatory Policy Division, 

Bureau of Industry and Security, 

Department of Commerce, 14th Street & 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 2705, 

Washington, DC 20230. Include 

‘‘FPBEC’’ in the subject line of the 

message. Alternatively, comments may 

be e-mailed to Sheila Quarterman at 

squarter@bis.doc.gov. Also include 

‘‘FPBEC’’ in the subject line of the 

message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan 

Roberts, Director, Foreign Policy 

Division, Office of Nonproliferation and 

Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry 

and Security, Telephone: (202) 482–

4252. Copies of the current Annual 

Foreign Policy Report to the Congress 

are available at http:www.bis.doc.gov/ 

PoliciesAndRegulations/ 

05ForPolControls/index.htm and copies 

may also be requested by calling the 

Office of Nonproliferation and Treaty 

Compliance at the number listed above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Foreign policy based controls in the 

Export Administration Regulations 

(EAR) are implemented pursuant to 

section 6 of the Export Administration 

Act of 1979, as amended. The current 

foreign policy-based export controls 

maintained by the Bureau of Industry 

and Security (BIS) are set forth in the 

EAR, including in parts 742 (CCL Based 

Controls), 744 (End-User and End-Use 

Based Controls) and 746 (Embargoes 

and Special Country Controls). These 

controls apply to a range of countries, 

items, activities and persons, including: 

high performance computers (§ 742.12); 

certain general purpose microprocessors 

for ‘‘military end-uses’’ and ‘‘military 

end-users’’ (§ 744.17); significant items 

(SI): hot section technology for the 

development, production, or overhaul of 

commercial aircraft engines, 

components, and systems (§ 742.14); 

encryption items (§§ 742.15 and 744.9); 

crime control and detection 

commodities (§ 742.7); specially 

designed implements of torture 

(§ 742.11); certain firearms included 

within the Inter-American Convention 

Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and 

Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, 

Explosives, and Other Related Materials 

(§ 742.17); regional stability 

commodities and equipment (§ 742.6); 

equipment and related technical data 

used in the design, development, 

production, or use of certain rocket 

systems and unmanned air vehicles 

(§§ 742.5 and 744.3); chemical 

precursors and biological agents, 

associated equipment, technical data, 

and software related to the production 

of chemical and biological agents 

(§§ 742.2 and 744.4) and various 

chemicals included in those controlled 

pursuant to the Chemical Weapons 

Convention (§ 742.18); nuclear 

propulsion (§ 744.5); aircraft and vessels 

(§ 744.7); embargoed countries (part 

746); countries designated as supporters 

of acts of international terrorism 

(§§ 742.8, 742.9, 742.10, 742.19, 742.20, 

746.2, 746.3, and 746.7); certain entities 

in Russia (§ 744.10); individual 

terrorists and terrorist organizations 

(§§ 744.12, 744.13 and 744.14); certain 

persons designated by Executive Order 

13315 (‘‘Blocking Property of the 

Former Iraqi Regime, Its Senior Officials 

and Their Family Members’’) (§ 744.18); 

and certain sanctioned entities 

(§ 744.20). Attention is also given in this 

context to the controls on nuclearrelated commodities and technology 

(§§ 742.3 and 744.2), which are, in part, 

implemented under section 309(c) of the 

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act. 

Under the provisions of section 6 of 

the Export Administration Act of 1979, 

as amended (EAA), export controls 

maintained for foreign policy purposes 

require annual extension. Section 6 of 

the EAA requires a report to Congress 

when foreign policy-based export 

controls are extended. The EAA expired 

on August 20, 2001. Executive Order 

13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 

Comp., p. 783 (2002)), which has been 

extended by successive Presidential 

Notices, the most recent being that of 

August 2, 2005 (70 FR 45273, August 5, 

2005), continues the EAR and, to the 

extent permitted by law, the provisions 

of the EAA, in effect under the 

International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701–1706 

(2000). The Department of Commerce, 

insofar as appropriate, is following the 

provisions of section 6 in reviewing 

foreign policy-based export controls, 

requesting public comments on such 

controls, and submitting a report to 

Congress. 

In January 2005, the Secretary of 

Commerce, on the recommendation of 

the Secretary of State, extended for one 

year all foreign policy-based export 

controls then in effect. 

To assure maximum public 

participation in the review process, 

comments are solicited on the extension 

or revision of the existing foreign 

policy-based export controls for another 

year. Among the criteria considered in 

determining whether to continue or 

revise U.S. foreign policy-based export 

controls are the following: 

1. The likelihood that such controls 

will achieve the intended foreign policy 

purpose, in light of other factors, 

including the availability from other 

countries of the goods, software or 

technology proposed for such controls; 

2. Whether the foreign policy purpose 

of such controls can be achieved 

through negotiations or other alternative 

means; 

3. The compatibility of the controls 

with the foreign policy objectives of the 

United States and with overall United 

States policy toward the country subject 

to the controls; 

4. Whether reaction of other countries 

to the extension of such controls by the 

United States is not likely to render the 

controls ineffective in achieving the 

intended foreign policy purpose or be 

counterproductive to United States 

foreign policy interests; 

5. The comparative benefits to U.S. 

foreign policy objectives versus the 

effect of the controls on the export 

performance of the United States, the 

competitive position of the United 

States in the international economy, the 

international reputation of the United 

States as a supplier of goods and 

technology; and 

6. The ability of the United States to 

enforce the controls effectively. 

BIS is particularly interested in the 

experience of individual exporters in 

complying with the proliferation 

controls, with emphasis on economic 

impact and specific instances of 

business lost to foreign competitors. BIS 

is also interested in industry 

information relating to the following: 

1. Information on the effect of foreign 

policy-based export controls on sales of 

U.S. products to third countries (i.e., 

those countries not targeted by 

sanctions), including the views of 

foreign purchasers or prospective 

customers regarding U.S. foreign policybased export controls. 

2. Information on controls maintained 

by U.S. trade partners. For example, to 

what extent do they have similar 

controls on goods and technology on a 

worldwide basis or to specific 

destinations? 

3. Information on licensing policies or 

practices by our foreign trade partners 

which are similar to U.S. foreign policybased export controls, including license 

review criteria, use of conditions, 

requirements for pre and post shipment 

verifications (preferably supported by 

59680 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 197 / Thursday, October 13, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

examples of approvals, denials and 

foreign regulations). 

4. Suggestions for revisions to foreign 

policy-based export controls that would 

(if there are any differences) bring them 

more into line with multilateral 

practice. 

5. Comments or suggestions as to 

actions that would make multilateral 

controls more effective. 

6. Information that illustrates the 

effect of foreign policy-based export 

controls on the trade or acquisitions by 

intended targets of the controls. 

7. Data or other information as to the 

effect of foreign policy-based export 

controls on overall trade at the level of 

individual industrial sectors. 

8. Suggestions as to how to measure 

the effect of foreign policy-based export 

controls on trade. 

9. Information on the use of foreign 

policy-based export controls on targeted 

countries, entities, or individuals. 

BIS is also interested in comments 

relating generally to the extension or 

revision of existing foreign policy-based 

export controls. 

Parties submitting comments are 

asked to be as specific as possible. All 

comments received before the close of 

the comment period will be considered 

by BIS in reviewing the controls and 

developing the report to Congress. 

All information relating to the notice 

will be a matter of public record and 

will be available for public inspection 

and copying. In the interest of accuracy 

and completeness, BIS requires written 

comments. Oral comments must be 

followed by written memoranda, which 

will also be a matter of public record 

and will be available for public review 

and copying. 

The Office of Administration, Bureau 

of Industry and Security, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, displays 

these public comments on BIS’s 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Web 

site at http://www.bis.doc.gov/foia. This 

office does not maintain a separate 

public inspection facility. If you have 

technical difficulties accessing this Web 

site, please call BIS’s Office of 

Administration at (202) 482–0637 for 

assistance. 

Dated: October 6, 2005. 

Matthew S. Borman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–20477 Filed 10–12–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR PART 51 

[OAR–2005–0148; FRL–7982–9] 

Advance Notice To Solicit Comments, 

Data and Information for Determining 

the Emissions Reductions Achieved in 

Ozone Nonattainment and 

Maintenance Areas From the 

Implementation of Rules Limiting the 

VOC Content of AIM Coatings; 

Extension of Comment Period 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking; extension of the comment 

period. 

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the 

comment period for an advanced notice 

of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) 

published on August 31, 2005 (70 FR 

51694). In the August 31, 2005 ANPR, 

EPA solicited comments, data and 

information for determining how to 

calculate the reductions in volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) emissions 

achieved in ozone nonattainment and 

maintenance areas from the 

implementation of rules which limit the 

VOC content of architectural coatings 

(commonly referred to as architectural 

industrial maintenance, or AIM, 

coatings). In addition to submitting 

comments, data and information, 

interested parties may also request to 

meet with EPA to present their 

recommended approaches and 

rationales. Pursuant to requests of the 

Ozone Transport Commission and the 

California Air Resources Board, EPA is 

extending the comment period through 

December 16, 2005. 

DATES: Comments, data, and 

information must be submitted on or 

before December 16, 2005. Requests to 

meet with EPA should be made on or 

before November 28, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your written 

comments, data and information, 

identified by Docket ID No. OAR–2005–

0148, by one of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ 

edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s electronic 

public docket and comment system, is 

EPA’s preferred method for receiving 

comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

E-mail: Send electronic mail (e-mail) 

to EPA Docket Center at a-and-rDocket@epa.gov. 

Fax: Send faxes to the EPA Docket 

Center at (202) 566–1741. 

Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Attn: Docket ID No. OAR–2005–0148, 

Advance Notice for Information on 

Determining the Emissions Reductions 

Achieved from Limiting the VOC 

Content of Architectural Coating. Please 

include a total of two copies. 

Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket 

Center (Air and Radiation Docket), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 

West Building, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20004. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Docket’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

delivery of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. OAR–2005–0148. The 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change, and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through EDOCKET, 

regulations.gov or e-mail. The EPA 

EDOCKET and the federal 

regulations.gov websites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/ 

edocket. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute.