Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 64125

other evasive actions that could impede

or compromise the investigation.

(2) From subsection (d) because

release of investigative records to an

individual who is the subject of an

investigation could interfere with

pending or prospective law enforcement

proceedings, constitute an unwarranted

invasion of the personal privacy of third

parties, reveal the identity of

confidential sources, or reveal sensitive

investigative techniques and

procedures.

(3) From subsections (d)(2), (3), and

(4) because amendment or correction of

investigative records could interfere

with pending or prospective law

enforcement proceedings, or could

impose an impossible administrative

and investigative burden by requiring

the Review Board continuously to

retrograde its investigations attempting

to resolve questions of accuracy,

relevance, timeliness, and

completeness.

(4) From subsection (e)(1), because it

is often impossible to determine

relevance or necessity of information in

the early stages of an investigation. The

value of such information is a question

of judgment and timing; what appears

relevant and necessary when collected

may ultimately be evaluated and viewed

as irrelevant and unnecessary to an

investigation.

(5) From subsection (e)(4)(G) and (H),

because the Review Board is claiming

an exemption for subsections (d)

(Access to Records) and (f) (Agency

Rules) of the Act, these subsections are

inapplicable to the extent that these

systems of records are exempted from

subsections (d) and (f).

(6) From subsection (f) because

procedures for notice to an individual

pursuant to subsection (f)(1) as to the

existence of records pertaining to the

person dealing with an actual or

potential investigation must be

exempted because such notice to an

individual would be detrimental to the

successful conduct of a pending or

future investigation. In addition, mere

notice of an investigation could inform

the subject or others that their activities

either are, or may become, the subject of

an investigation and might enable the

subjects to avoid detection or to destroy

assassination records. Since the Review

Board is claiming an exemption for

subsection (d) of the Act (Access to

Records) the rules require pursuant to

subsection (f)(2) through (5) are

inapplicable to these systems of records

to the extent that these systems of

records are exempted from subsection

(d).

(c) The systems of records entitled

‘‘Employment Applications’’ and

‘‘Personal Security Files’’ consist in part

of investigatory material compiled by

the Review Board for the purpose of

determining suitability, eligibility, or

qualifications for Federal civilian

employment or Federal contracts, the

release of which would reveal the

identity of a source who furnished

information to the Government under an

express promise that the identity of the

source would be held in confidence.

Therefore, to the extent that information

in these systems falls within the

coverage of Exemption (k)(5) of the

Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), these

systems of records are eligible for

exemption from the requirements of

subsection (d)(1), because release would

reveal the identity of a source who

furnished information to the

Government under an express promise

of confidentiality. Revealing the identity

of a confidential source could impede

future cooperation by sources, and

could result in harassment or harm to

such sources.

Dated: December 8, 1995.

David G. Marwell,

Executive Director, Assassination Records

Review Board.

[FR Doc. 95–30384 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6118–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Patent and Trademark Office

37 CFR Part 10

[Docket No. 9511277–5277–01]

RIN 0651–AA65

Cross-Appeals in Patent and

Trademark Office Disciplinary

Proceedings

AGENCY: Patent and Trademark Office,

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Patent and Trademark

Office (PTO) is amending a rule of

practice in disciplinary cases to provide

a time period for filing a cross-appeal to

the Commissioner of Patents and

Trademarks after the initial decision of

the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

This amendment will simplify the

appeals practice in disciplinary cases by

eliminating the need to file contingent

appeals.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 16, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen L. Bovard, 703–308–5316.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PTO

issued a second notice of proposed

rulemaking to amend a rule of practice

in practitioner disciplinary proceedings.

60 FR 4395, Jan. 23, 1995. Under the

existing practice, after the ALJ’s initial

decision, a party (either the respondent

or the Director of the Office of

Enrollment and Discipline) might be

obliged to file a contingent appeal to

protect cross-appealable issues in the

event the opposing party filed an

appeal. The amended rule provides a

time period for the party to file a crossappeal after the opposing party has

appealed to the Commissioner from the

ALJ’s initial decision.

No comment to the second notice of

proposed rulemaking was received. The

proposed rule is adopted.

Other Considerations

This rule change conforms with the

requirements of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),

Executive Orders 12612 and 12866, and

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,

44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

The Assistant General Counsel for

Legislation and Regulation of the

Department of Commerce has certified

to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the

Small Business Administration that the

rule change will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities (Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5

U.S.C. 605(b)). The principal impact of

the rule change is to provide a time

period to file a cross-appeal in a PTO

disciplinary proceeding. See the first

notice of proposed rulemaking. 58 FR at

38996.

The PTO has determined that the rule

change has no Federalism implications

affecting the relationship between the

National Government and the States as

outlined in Executive Order 12612. The

rule change is not significant for the

purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The rule change will not impose a

burden under the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,

since no recordkeeping or reporting

requirements within the coverage of the

Act are placed upon the public.

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 10

Administrative practice and

procedure, Inventions and patents,

Lawyers, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Pursuant to the authority contained in

35 U.S.C. 6, the PTO amends 37 CFR

part 10 as follows:

PART 10—REPRESENTATION OF

OTHERS BEFORE THE PATENT AND

TRADEMARK OFFICE

1. The authority citation for 37 CFR

part 10 continues to read as follows:
64126 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 500; 15 U.S.C. 1123; 35

U.S.C. 6, 31, 32, 41.

2. Section 10.155 is amended by

revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

§ 10.155 Appeal to the Commissioner.

(a) Within thirty (30) days from the

date of the initial decision of the

administrative law judge under

§ 10.154, either party may appeal to the

Commissioner. If an appeal is taken, the

time for filing a cross-appeal expires 14

days after the date of service of the

appeal pursuant to § 10.142 or 30 days

after the date of initial decision of the

administrative law judge, whichever is

later. An appeal or cross-appeal by the

respondent will be filed and served with

the Director in duplicate and will

include exceptions to the decisions of

the administrative law judge and

supporting reasons for those exceptions.

If the Director files the appeal or crossappeal, the Director shall serve on the

other party a copy of the appeal or

cross-appeal. The other party to an

appeal or cross-appeal may file a reply

brief. A respondent’s reply brief shall be

filed and served in duplicate with the

Director. The time for filing any reply

brief expires thirty (30) days after the

date of service pursuant to § 10.142 of

an appeal, cross-appeal or copy thereof.

If the Director files a reply brief, the

Director shall serve on the other party

a copy of the reply brief. Upon the filing

of an appeal, cross-appeal, if any, and

reply briefs, if any, the Director shall

transmit the entire record to the

Commissioner.

* * * * *

Dated: December 7, 1995.

Bruce A. Lehman,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce and

Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.

[FR Doc. 95–30340 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA141–1–7247; FRL–5326–7]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California—

Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving certain

provisions in the state implementation

plan (SIP) revision submitted by the

State of California. The California Air

Resources Board (CARB) adopted these

provisions on November 15, 1994, as

part of ‘‘The 1994 California State

Implementation Plan for Ozone.’’ The

portions of the SIP approved today are

commitments by the CARB to adopt

regulations for various mobile source

and consumer product categories by

particular dates to achieve specific

emission reductions of volatile organic

compounds (VOC) and oxides of

nitrogen (NOX) in order to attain the

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) for ozone.

The effect of EPA’s approval of these

commitments is to incorporate the

commitments into the federally

approved SIP. EPA is approving the

commitments under provisions of the

Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’)

regarding EPA actions on SIP submittals

and general rulemaking authority

because these revisions strengthen the

SIP.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This approval is

effective on January 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Materials relevant to this

rulemaking are available for review at

the following location: Office of Federal

Planning (A–1–2), Air and Toxics

Division, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Interested persons may make an

appointment with Ms. Virginia Petersen

at (415) 744–1265, to inspect the docket

at EPA’s San Francisco office on

weekdays between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.

A copy of the SIP submittal is also

available for inspection at the address

listed below: California Air Resources

Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento,

California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia

Barrow (415) 744–2434, at the Office of

Federal Planning (A–1–2), Air and

Toxics Division, U.S. EPA, Region IX,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California, 94105–3901.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

21, 1995 (60 FR 43421), EPA proposed

to approve certain State commitments

included in Volume II of the California

Ozone SIP, ‘‘The Air Resources Board’s

Mobile Source and Consumer Products

Elements.’’ These commitments were

originally submitted on November 15,

1994, were subsequently updated,

corrected, and resubmitted on December

29, 1994, and were found to be complete

on January 30, 1995 and April 18, 1995,

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51

Appendix V.1

EPA is today finalizing approval of

the State’s commitments listed below, in

advance of CARB adoption of

regulations. EPA is finalizing SIP

approval of these enforceable CARB

commitments under section 110(k)(3)

and 301(a) for their strengthening effect.

The CARB commitments approved

today are as follows:

Measure M3, Accelerated Ultra-Low

Emission Vehicle (ULEV) requirement

for Medium-Duty Vehicles (MDVs),

adoption 1997, implementation 1998–

2002, South Coast reductions in 2010—

32 tons per day (tpd) NOX, 4 tpd

reactive organic gases (ROG). These

reductions will be achieved by an

increase in MDV ULEVs, as currently

defined by CARB, from 10 percent of

sales of new MDVs in 1998 model year

to 100 percent in 2002 and later model

years.

Measure M5, Heavy-Duty Vehicles

(HDVs)—NOX regulations, adoption

1997, implementation 2002, South Coast

reductions in 2010–56 tpd NOX, 4 tpd

ROG. These reductions will be achieved

by CARB adoption of a 2.0 gram per

brake horsepower-hour NOX exhaust

emission standard for new heavy-duty

truck engines sold in California

beginning in 2002, or by

implementation of alternative measures

which achieve equivalent or greater

reductions. Alternatives under

consideration include expanded

introduction of alternative-fueled and

low-emission diesel engines through

demand-side programs and incentives,

retrofit of aerodynamic devices, reduced

idling, and speed reduction.

Measure M8, Heavy-Duty Gasoline

Vehicles (HDGVs)—lower emission

standards, adoption 1997,

implementation 1998–2002, South Coast

reductions in 2010—3 tpd NOX. These

reductions will be achieved by

application of 3-way catalyst technology

in HDGVs will obtain 50 percent

reductions of NOX and ROG emissions

from these engines.

Measure M11, Industrial Equipment,

Gas & LPG—three-way catalyst

technology, adoption 1997,

implementation 2000–2004, South Coast

reductions in 2010—14 tpd NOX, 29 tpd

ROG. Emission standards for new

engines greater than 25 hp and less than

175 hp will be phased in beginning in

2000, based on the use of closed-loop 3-

way catalyst systems, which are

expected to reduce ROG by 75 percent

and NOX by at least 50 percent.

Measure CP–2, Mid-Term Consumer

Products (‘‘Phase II’’), adoption July

1997, reductions in 2005—25 percent

reduction beyond currently adopted

CARB regulations, South Coast

reductions in 2010—34 tpd ROG.