Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 67129 

FOAM BLOWING UNACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTES

End-use Substitute Decision Comments 

Replacements for HCFC–141b in the following rigid polyurethane applications: HCFC–22, HCFC–142b .... Unacceptable 1 ....... Alternatives exist with lower 

or zero-ODP. 

—Commercial Refrigeration 

—Sandwich Panels 

—Slabstock and Other Foams 

Replacements for CFCs in the following foam applications: HCFC–22, HCFC–142b .... Unacceptable 2 ....... Alternatives exist with lower 

or zero-ODP. 

—Rigid polyurethane and polyisocyanurate laminated 

boardstock 

—Rigid polyurethane appliance 

—Rigid polyurethane spray and commercial refrigeration, and sandwich panels 

—Rigid polyurethane slabstock and other foams 

—Polystyrene extruded insulation boardstock and billet 

—Phenolic insulation board and bunstock 

—Flexible polyurethane 

—Polystyrene extruded sheet 

1The unacceptability determination is effective on January 1, 2010 for existing users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as of November 4, 2005 of 

this proposed rule. 2The unacceptability determination is effective on January 1, 2010 for existing users of HCFC–22 and HCFC–142b as of November 4, 2005 of 

this proposed rule. 

[FR Doc. 05–21927 Filed 11–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

45 CFR Part 703 

Membership Requirement of State 

Advisory Committees 

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule change 

in the State Advisory Committee (SAC) 

membership criteria with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The United States 

Commission on Civil Rights proposes to 

amend its regulation on the SAC 

membership criteria to ensure both 

diversity and nondiscrimination are 

considered in its SAC member 

appointment process. 

DATES: Comments should be received on 

or before December 5, 2005 to be 

considered in the formulation of final 

rule. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about 

the proposed rule change in the SAC 

membership criteria to: U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights, Office of 

General Counsel, Attn: Christopher 

Byrnes, Acting Deputy General Counsel, 

624 Ninth Street, NW., Suite 620, 

Washington, DC 20425. If you prefer to 

send your comments via e-mail, use the 

following address: cbyrnes@usccr.gov. 

You must include the term ‘‘SAC 

Membership Comments’’ in the subject 

line of your electronic message. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Byrnes, Acting Deputy 

General Counsel, Telephone: (202) 376–

7700 or via e-mail: cbyrnes@usccr.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 31, 2005, the U.S. Commission 

on Civil Rights approved the proposed 

rule for public comments. The 

Commission invites you to submit 

comments regarding the proposed 

change in the SAC membership criteria. 

Please clearly identify the specific 

proposed criteria each comment 

addresses. 

We will announce the final SAC 

membership criteria in a notice in the 

Federal Register. We will determine the 

final regulation on SAC membership 

criteria after considering responses to 

this notice and other information 

available to the Commission. 

List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 703 

Advisory committees, Organization 

and functions (Government agencies). 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Commission on Civil 

Rights proposes to amend 45 CFR part 

703 as follows: 

PART 703—OPERATIONS AND 

FUNCTIONS OF STATE ADVISORY 

COMMITTEES 

1. The authority citation for Part 703 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1975a(d). 

2. Revise § 703.5 to read as follows: 

§ 703.5 Membership. 

(a) Subject to exceptions made from 

time to time by the Commission to fit 

special circumstances, each Advisory 

Committee shall consist of at least 11 

members appointed by the Commission. 

Members of the Advisory Committees 

shall serve for a fixed term to be set by 

the Commission upon the appointment 

of a member subject to the duration of 

Advisory Committees as prescribed by 

the charter, provided that members of 

the Advisory Committee may, at any 

time, be removed by the Commission. 

(b) No person is to be denied an 

opportunity to serve on a State Advisory 

Committee because of race, age, sex, 

religion, national origin, or disability. 

The Commission shall encourage 

membership on the State Advisory 

Committee to be broadly diverse. 

(c) State Advisory Committee 

members shall represent a diversity of 

skills and experiences, including, but 

not limited to, social science research, 

legal research and analysis, and 

statistical analysis. Educators, lawyers, 

business and labor leaders, social 

scientists, researchers, and news 

gatherers are some of the more 

important professions or activities or 

avocations that should be represented 

on the State Advisory Committees. The 

State Advisory Committees should also 

contain people knowledgeable of the 

State’s governmental machinery and 

public service sector, and people 

involved in and drawn from such 

influential sectors as business and 

financial communities, organized labor, 

the news media, and religious groups. 

(d) Each State Advisory Committee 

should contain men or women who 

have demonstrated an interest in the 

civil rights issues of color, race, religion, 

sex, age, disability, and national origin 

and in voting rights. 

(e) Both political parties should be 

represented in each State Advisory 

Committee. 

67130 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 213 / Friday, November 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: October 31, 2005. 

Kenneth L. Marcus, 

Staff Director/Acting General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 05–21986 Filed 11–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 

[Docket No. 040525161–5274–05; I.D. No. 

052104F] 

RIN No. 0648–AR93 

Endangered and Threatened Species: 

Request for Comment on Alternative 

Approach to Delineating 10 

Evolutionarily Significant Units of West 

Coast Oncorhynchus mykiss 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comment. 

SUMMARY: In June 2004, we (NMFS) 

proposed that 10 Evolutionarily 

Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast 

Oncorhynchus mykiss be listed as 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We 

have reconsidered the preliminary 

decision to apply the Pacific salmon 

ESU Policy to these stocks and seek 

comment on our proposed application 

of the joint NMFS/U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) ‘‘Policy 

Regarding the Recognition of Distinct 

Vertebrate Population Segments under 

the ESA’’ (DPS Policy) to the 

delineation of Oncorhynchus mykiss 

distinct population segments (DPSs). 

DATES: All comments must be received 

no later than 5 p.m. Pacific standard 

time on December 5, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

and information by any of the following 

methods. Please identify submittals as 

pertaining to the ‘‘Proposed Steelhead 

DPSs and Listings.’’

• E-mail: 

SteelheadDPS.nwr@noaa.gov. Include 

‘‘Proposed Steelhead DPSs and 

Listings’’ in the subject line of the 

message. 

• Internet: Comments may also be 

submitted electronically through the 

Federal e-Rulemaking portal at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Mail: Submit written comments and 

information to Chief, NMFS, Protected 

Resources Division, 1201 NE Lloyd 

Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, Oregon 

97232. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: You may 

hand-deliver written comments to our 

office during normal business hours at 

the street address given above. 

• Fax: 503–230–5441 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Craig Wingert, NMFS, Southwest 

Region, (562) 980–4021, Dr. Scott 

Rumsey, NMFS, Northwest Region, 

(503) 872–2791, or Marta Nammack, 

NMFS, Office of Protected Resources, 

(301) 713–1401. Copies of the Federal 

Register notices, additional steelheadrelated documents, and a list of all the 

references cited in this notice are 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.nwr.noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Policies for Delineating Species under 

the ESA 

Section 3 of the ESA defines the term 

species to include ‘‘any subspecies of 

fish or wildlife or plants, and any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature’’

[emphasis added]. In 1991 we issued a 

policy for making species 

determinations for Pacific salmon (‘‘ESU 

Policy;’’ 56 FR 58612; November 20, 

1991). Under this policy a group of 

Pacific salmon populations is 

considered an ESU if it is substantially 

reproductively isolated from other 

conspecific populations, and it 

represents an important component in 

the evolutionary legacy of the biological 

species. Under that policy, the 

biological ESU is considered to be a 

‘‘distinct population segment’’ and thus 

a ‘‘species’’ under the ESA. In 1996, we 

and FWS adopted a joint policy for 

recognizing DPSs under the ESA (DPS 

Policy; 61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). 

The DPS Policy adopts similar but 

slightly different criteria from the ESU 

Policy for determining when a group of 

organisms constitutes a DPS: it must be 

discrete from other populations, and it 

must be significant to its taxon. A group 

of organisms is discrete if it is 

‘‘markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, and behavioral factors.’’

Although the ESU Policy does not 

specifically apply to steelhead, the DPS 

Policy states that NMFS will continue to 

implement the ESU Policy with respect 

to Pacific salmonids (inclusive of O. 

mykiss). 

Previous Federal ESA Actions Related to 

West Coast Steelhead 

In 1996, we completed a 

comprehensive status review of West 

Coast steelhead (Busby et al., 1996) that 

resulted in proposed listing 

determinations for 10 steelhead ESUs, 5 

as endangered and 5 as threatened 

species (61 FR 41541; August 9, 1996). 

On August 18, 1997, we listed five of 

the ESUs, two as endangered and three 

as threatened (62 FR 43937) and 

announced a 6–month extension of final 

listing determinations for the other five 

ESUs, pursuant to section 4(b)(6)(B)(I) of 

the ESA (62 FR 43974). On March 10, 

1998, we proposed to list two additional 

steelhead ESUs as threatened (63 FR 

11798). On March 19, 1998, we listed as 

threatened two of the steelhead ESUs 

that were deferred in August 1997 and 

designated the other three proposed 

ESUs as candidate species (63 FR 

13347). On March 25, 1999, we listed as 

threatened the two ESUs proposed in 

March 1998 (64 FR 14517). On February 

11, 2000, we proposed to list the 

Northern California steelhead ESU as 

threatened (65 FR 6960) and listed that 

ESU as threatened on June 7, 2000 (65 

FR 36074). Under these listing 

decisions, there are currently 10 listed 

steelhead ESUs, two endangered 

(Southern California and Upper 

Columbia River) and eight threatened 

(South-Central California, Central 

California Coast, California Central 

Valley, Northern California, Upper 

Willamette River, Lower Columbia 

River, Middle Columbia River, and 

Snake River Basin). 

In our 1997 steelhead listings (62 FR 

43937), we noted uncertainties about 

the relationship of resident and 

anadromous O. mykiss, yet concluded 

that the two forms are part of a single 

ESU where the resident and 

anadromous O. mykiss have the 

opportunity to interbreed. FWS 

disagreed that resident O. mykiss should 

be included in the steelhead ESUs and 

advised that the resident fish not be 

listed. Accordingly, we decided to list 

only the anadromous O. mykiss at that 

time. That decision was followed in 

each of the subsequent steelhead listings 

described in the preceding paragraph. 

In 2001, the U.S. District Court in 

Eugene, Oregon, set aside the 1998 

threatened listing of the Oregon Coast 

coho ESU (Alsea Valley Alliance v. 

Evans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Or. 

2001)) (Alsea decision). In the Oregon 

Coast coho listing (63 FR 42587; August 

10, 1998), we did not include in the 

listing 10 hatchery stocks determined to 

be part of the Oregon Coast coho ESU. 

The court upheld our policy of