Notices. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

6,137 words·~28 min read·/register/2004/04/16/04-8399·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4410-02-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-53,918] BMC Software, Inc., Houston, TX; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application of February 9, 2004, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The denial notice applicable to workers of BMC Software, Inc., Houston, Texas was signed on January 20, 2004, and published in the **Federal Register** on March 12, 2004 (69 FR 11888).

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:

(1)If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;

(2)If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or

(3)If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at BMC Software, Inc., Houston, Texas engaged in design and development of software. The petition was denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning of section 222 of the Act. The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its interpretation of work performed at the subject facility as a service. As proof, the petitioner submitted three URL locations of the BMC Web site which contain references to BMC products and product lines. The petitioner emphasizes that because the Web site uses the word “product” in regards to BMC software, the Department should consider workers of BMC Software, Inc. as production workers. A company official was contacted for clarification in regard to the nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The official stated that workers of BMC Software, Inc., Houston, Texas are software developers. The official further clarified that software developed at the subject firm is not mass-produced on media devices and is not sold off-the-shelf. The developers mostly customize software for individual users and provide services to support the software. The company official further stated that due to significant restructuring actions to reduce ongoing operational expenses, BMC Software, Inc. implemented large reduction of worldwide workforce, which included some of the workers of the subject firm. The sophistication of the work involved is not an issue in ascertaining whether the petitioning workers are eligible for trade adjustment assistance, but rather only whether they produced an article within the meaning of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Software design and developing are not considered production of an article within the meaning of section 222 of the Trade Act. Petitioning workers do not produce an “article” within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974. Formatted electronic software and codes are not tangible commodities, that is, marketable products, and they are not listed on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), as classified by the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), Office of Tariff Affairs and Trade Agreements, which describes articles imported to the United States. To be listed in the HTS, an article would be subject to a duty on the tariff schedule and have a value that makes it marketable, fungible and interchangeable for commercial purposes. Although a wide variety of tangible products are described as articles and characterized as dutiable in the HTS, informational products that could historically be sent in letter form and that can currently be electronically transmitted, are not listed in the HTS. Such products are not the type of products that customs officials inspect and that the TAA program was generally designed to address. The petitioner also alleges that imports impacted layoffs, asserting that because workers lost their jobs due to a transfer of job functions overseas, petitioning workers should be considered import impacted. The petitioning worker group is not considered to have been engaged in production, thus any foreign transfer of their job duties is irrelevant within the context of eligibility for trade adjustment assistance. Only in very limited instances are service workers certified for TAA, namely the worker separations must be caused by a reduced demand for their services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision whose workers produce an article and who are currently under certification for TAA. The investigation revealed no such affiliations. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed in Washington, DC, this 31st day of March, 2004. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E4-860 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-53,291B; TA-W-53,291D; and TA-W-53,291E] Cone Mills Corporation, Cone White Oak, LLC, Division and Corporate Headquarters, Greensboro, NC, Including Sales and Marketing Employees of Cone Mills Corporation Corporate Headquarters Operating at Various Locations in the States of: New York and Virginia; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on December 3, 2003, applicable to workers of Cone Mills Corporation, Cone White Oak, LLC Division and Corporate Headquarters, Greensboro, North Carolina. The notice will be published soon in the **Federal Register** . At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that worker separations have occurred involving employees of the Greensboro, North Carolina facility of Cone Corporation, Corporate Headquarters operating at various locations in the States of New York and Virginia. These employees provide sales and marketing support function services for the production of textile prints and finished denim produced by the subject firm. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include sales and marketing employees of the Cone Mills Corporation, Corporate Headquarters, Greensboro, North Carolina, operating at various locations in the States of New York and Virginia. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Cone Mills Corporation who were adversely affected by increased imports. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-53,291B is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Cone Mills Corporation, Cone White Oak, LLC Division and Corporate Headquarters, Greensboro, North Carolina (TA-W-53,291B), including sales and marketing employees of Cone Mills Corporation, Corporate Headquarters, Greensboro, North Carolina, operating at various locations in the states of New York (TA-W-53,291D) and Virginia (TA-W-53,291E), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 14, 2002, through December 3, 2005, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed in Washington, DC this 26th day of March, 2004. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E4-864 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-54,143] Elizabeth Weaving, Inc., Blacksburg, SC; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on March 2, 2004, applicable to workers of Elizabeth Weaving, Inc., located in Grover, North Carolina. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 6, 2004 (69 FR 18110). At the request of the State Agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The State provided information citing that the subject firm is located in Blacksburg, South Carolina, not Grover, North Carolina which is the mailing address for Elizabeth Weaving, Inc. Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to reflect this matter. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-54,143 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Elizabeth Weaving, Inc., Blacksburg, South Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 21, 2003, through March 2, 2006, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of March, 2004. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E4-859 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-53,597] Fashion Technologies, Gaffney, SC; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application postmarked January 31, 2004, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on December 30, 2003, and published in the **Federal Register** on February 6, 2004 (69 FR 5866). The Department reviewed the request and has determined that the petitioner has provided additional information. Therefore, the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974. Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. Signed in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of March, 2004. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E4-863 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-51,191] Getronics Wang Company, LCC, Valley View, OH; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the Secretary of Labor's motion for a voluntary remand for further investigation in *Former Employees of Getronics Wang Co., LLC* v. *Elaine Chao, U.S. Secretary of Labor* , No. 03-00529. The Department's initial determination regarding Getronics Wang Co. LLC (hereafter “Getronics”) was issued on April 23, 2003, and published in the **Federal Register** on May 7, 2003 (68 FR 24503). The negative determination was based on the finding that the workers did not produce an article within the meaning of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Workers performed data processing and related services for an unaffiliated company. By letter dated June 2, 2003, the petitioner requested administrative reconsideration. The Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration was signed on June 13, 2003, and published in the **Federal Register** on July 7, 2003 (68 FR 40300). The determination was based on the findings that the workers did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act and that the workers were not service providers in direct support of a Trade Adjustment Assistance

(TAA)certified firm. The remand investigation revealed that Getronics has a contract to provide on site services with a TAA certified company, LTV Steel Company, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio (TA-W-40,786; certified March 21, 2002). Conclusion After careful review of the additional facts obtained on the current remand, I conclude that the subject worker group provided services, the worker group is co-located with a trade-certified firm, and there is a contract between the subject firm and the trade-certified firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Trade Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Getronics Wang Co., LLC, Valley View, Ohio, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 3, 2002, through two years from the issuance of this revised determination, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed in Washington, DC this 2nd day of April, 2004. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E4-857 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment And Training Administration [TA-W-53,648] International Business Machines Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application of February 6, 2004, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The denial notice applicable to workers of International Business Machines Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma was signed on December 2, 2003, and published in the **Federal Register** on January 16, 2004 (69 FR 2622). Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:

(1)If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;

(2)If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or

(3)If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at International Business Machines Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma, engaged in accounting services. The petition was denied because the workers' firm does not produce an article within the meaning of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Indeed, IBM does not produce an article at the Tulsa facility. The petitioner refers to the British Petroleum Accounting Center operated by IBM which was certified eligible for TAA in 1999. The petitioner further states that layoffs at the subject firm can be attributed to the decision of British Petroleum to shift its oil production abroad, consequently, the petitioning workers should be eligible for trade adjustment assistance. A company official was contacted in regard to these allegations. The official stated that there is no affiliation between the subject facility and British Petroleum. It was also revealed that International Business Machines Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma provides accounting services to British Petroleum at many locations in the United States and abroad out of its own facility in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The fact that service workers have customers or clients that may be eligible for trade adjustment assistance does not automatically make the service workers eligible for TAA. Before service workers can be considered eligible for TAA, they must be in direct support of an affiliated facility currently certified for TAA or employed on a contractual basis at a location currently certified for TAA. This is not the case for the workers at International Business Machines Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma. The petitioner further alleges that “the center in Tulsa, OK has previously been covered under the TRA program,” thus petitioning workers of the subject firm should also be eligible for TAA. The same workers have been providing the same accounting services at the same Tulsa location for a number of years. However, the identity of their employer has changed twice over the pertinent period. Thus, the Department's records indicate workers, including accountants then working at the Tulsa facility, at AMOCO Exploration and Production, and AMOCO Shared Services, operating in the state of Oklahoma, were certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance on February 19, 1999 (TA-W-36,309N). That certification was amended on March 14, 1999, to reflect new ownership and a name change to BP/AMOCO, AMOCO Exploration and Production, AMOCO Shared Services, A/K/A AMOCO Production Company, Inc., operating in the state of Oklahoma. Workers certified in that instance were determined to be “engaged in activities related to exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas.” That certification expired February 19, 2001. Thus, there is no current certification of eligibility for workers at the Tulsa facility. The previous certification has no bearing on the determination of eligibility at this time. Department records show no previous certifications for the Tulsa facility on the part of the current owner of the Tulsa facility, International Business Machines Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma. The petitioner finally states that International Business Machines Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma has moved a significant number of jobs to India. Accounting services do not constitute production according to the eligibility requirements for trade adjustment assistance. Thus, the alleged shift of jobs to India is irrelevant to this investigation. Only in very limited instances are service workers certified for TAA. The worker separations must be caused by a reduced demand for their services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision whose workers produce an article and who are currently under certification for TAA. Unlike the workers at the Tulsa, Oklahoma location employed under the AMOCO corporate umbrella, workers at International Business Machines, Tulsa, Oklahoma do not perform services for a parent or controlling firm or subdivision currently under certification for TAA. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed in Washington, DC, this 31st day of March, 2004. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E4-862 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-52,050] Merrill Corporation, St. Paul, MN; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration on Remand The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the Secretary of Labor's motion for a voluntary remand for further investigation in *Former Employees of Merrill Corporation* v. *Elaine Chao, U.S. Secretary of Labor* , Court No. 03-00662. The Department's initial negative determination for the workers of Merrill Corporation (hereafter “Merrill”) was issued on July 22, 2003. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on July 10, 2003 (68 FR 43373). The determination was based on the finding that workers did not produce an article within the meaning of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. The Department determined that the subject worker group was not engaged in the production of an article, but rather engaged in activities related to document management services. On September 9, 2003, the petitioner applied to the U.S. Court of International Trade for administrative reconsideration, asserting that the subject firm produces an article (documents) and that the workers are engaged in this production. The petitioner asserted that “[t]ypesetting is an industry that uses raw material (text data) to produce a finished product of economic value”; that workers received text files containing raw data which were sent electronically or in printed form (which had to be converted to an electronic format) and “typeset the information into an electronic format”; and that the file was sent to be printed and/or filed electronically with the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). On remand, the Department conducted an investigation to determine whether the company produces an article. In the investigation, the Department reviewed previously-submitted information and requested additional information from the petitioner and the company regarding the functions of the subject worker group and the operations of the company. The remand investigation revealed that the subject company does not produce an “article” within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974. The nature of the company is service-oriented. Merrill describes itself as a “communication and document services company providing printing, photocopying and document management services to the financial, legal, and corporate markets. Merrill's services integrate traditional composition, imaging and printing services with online document management and distribution technology for the preparation and distribution of * * * materials.” (Administrative Record, page 12) A company official reiterated that “Merrill helps clients to prepare required disclosure documents required by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).” (Supplemental Administrative Record, page 10) Merrill helps its clients prepare and electronically file disclosure documents required by the SEC, such as prospectuses, annual reports and proxy statements. While the documents are valuable as financial records and references, they have no intrinsic value beyond the value of the materials upon which they are recorded (the paper, CD-Rom, floppy disk, *etc* .) and merely state the economic conditions or status of a company. The petitioner's submission states that clients submit text files either electronically or in printed form to Merrill's customer service, and that Merrill would either send the electronic files to the typesetters or convert the printed files into electronic files before sending them to the typesetters. If typesetters receive an unconverted file, they would use proprietary computer applications to convert the file to a form compatible to the program used to manipulate the information into the appropriate format to meet clients' needs and the SEC's filing specifications. The company's submission is similar to the petitioner's, but supports the position that no article is produced. According to the company, clients send their documents to Customer Service Group offices which are located throughout the United States and the United Kingdom. The documents are either in electronic or paper form. The Customer Service Group offices then send the documents to the Typesetting Center in St. Paul, Minnesota. The documents may be sent electronically or in print form (and later converted into an electronic format). At the Typesetting Center, typesetters use proprietary software to type, edit and format documents to satisfy client needs and meet the SEC's specifications. Proofreaders audit the documents for accuracy before the documents are filed electronically with the SEC. If a client requests a printed copy of the document, a Customer Services Group office will arrange for the printing. Throughout the Trade Act, an article is often referenced as something that has a value that makes it marketable, fungible and interchangeable for commercial purposes. The SEC filings are public records and the documents are not sold or marketed individually or as a component to an article. Because the documents have no commercial value and the company is a service provider, the workers do not produce an article. Conclusion After reconsideration on remand, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Merrill Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota. Signed in Washington, DC this 2nd day of April, 2004. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E4-866 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-53,778] Park-Ohio, Inc., Geneva Rubber Division, Geneva, OH; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application of January 31, 2004, the United Steelworkers of America, Local Union 905L requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The denial notice was signed on January 12, 2004, and published in the **Federal Register** on February 6, 2004 (69 FR 5866). Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:

(1)If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;

(2)If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or

(3)If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Park-Ohio, Inc., Geneva Rubber Division, Geneva, Ohio engaged in the production of conduits and grommets, was denied because criterion

(2)was not met. Companywide sales and production of conduits and grommets increased in 2002 compared to 2001 and further increased in January-November 2003 compared to the same period in 2002. In addition, Park-Ohio, Inc. shifted production of conduits and grommets from the subject facility to another domestic location. In the request for reconsideration, the union alleged that sales and production at the subject facility could not have increased in 2003, because production in Geneva, Ohio was terminated in June of 2003. It was determined during the original investigation that Park-Ohio, Inc., Geneva Rubber Division, Geneva, Ohio did indeed stop its production in June of 2003. However, all production from this facility was transferred to a new facility in Cleveland, Ohio. The company official was requested to provide companywide sales and production figures for injection rubber molded products which combined both Geneva and Cleveland facilities. Analysis of this data determined that sales and production at Park-Ohio, Inc. increased during the relevant period. The union official also alleges that Park-Ohio, Inc. did not shift production from the subject facility domestically, but is shifting it to China and Mexico. Upon further review of the original investigation and petitioner's correspondence it was revealed that the same union representative who signed a request for reconsideration, also filed the petition for TAA. In the letter attached with the original petition, the union representative states that “* * * Park-Ohio Industries illegally moved our work to another facility in Cleveland * * *”, which contradicts the petitioner's later allegations that there was no domestic shift in production. Furthermore, the Department received several statements from the company official of Park-Ohio, Inc. that confirm all production of conduits and grommets was shifted from the subject facility to a new facility in Cleveland, Ohio. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed in Washington, DC, this 26th day of March, 2004. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E4-861 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-54,149] Schott Scientific Glass, Inc., Parkersburg, WV; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on February 23, 2004, applicable to workers of Schott Scientific Glass, Inc., Parkersburg, West Virginia. The notice will be published soon in the **Federal Register** . At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produce tubing and are not separately identifiable by product line. New findings show that there was a previous certification, TA-W-40,263, issued on February 20, 2002, for workers of Schott Scientific Glass, Inc., Parkersburg, West Virginia who were engaged in employment related to the production of tubing. That certification expired February 20, 2004. To avoid an overlap in worker group coverage, the certification is being amended to change the impact date from February 2, 2003 to February 21, 2004, for workers of the subject firm. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-54,149 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Schott Scientific Glass, Inc., Parkersburg, West Virginia, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 21, 2004, through February 23, 2006, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223, and alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1074. Signed in Washington, DC, this 1st day of April, 2004. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E4-858 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-52,777] Steelcase, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan; Amended Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on December 11, 2003, applicable to workers of Steelcase, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on January 7, 2004 (69 FR 943-944). At the request of a state representative, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that leased workers of RCM Technologies were employed at Steelcase, Inc. at the Grand Rapids, Michigan location of the subject firm. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include leased workers of RCM Technologies working at Steelcase, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at Steelcase, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan who were adversely affected by increased imports. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-52,777 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Steelcase, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan, including leased workers of RCM Technologies, working at Steelcase, Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 12, 2002, through December 11, 2005, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed in Washington, DC this 30th day of March, 2004. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E4-865 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-13-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment Standards Administration Wage and Hour Division Minimum Wages for Federal and Federally Assisted Construction; General Wage Determination Decisions General wage determination decisions of the Secretary of Labor are issued in accordance with applicable law and are based on the information obtained by the Department of Labor from its study of local wage conditions and data made available from other sources. They specify the basic hourly wage rates and fringe benefits which are determined to be prevailing for the described classes of laborers and mechanics employed on construction projects of a similar character and in the localities specified therein. The determination in these decisions of prevailing rates and fringe benefits have been made in accordance with 29 CFR part 1, by authority of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal statutes referred to in 29 CFR part 1, appendix, as well as such additional statutes as may from time to time be enacted containing provisions for the payment of wages determined to be prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The prevailing rates and fringe benefits determined in these decisions shall, in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing statutes, constitute the minimum wages payable on Federal and federally assisted construction projects to laborers and mechanics of the specified classes engaged on contract work of the character and in the localities described herein. Good cause is hereby found for not utilizing notice and public comment procedure thereon prior to the issuance of these determinations as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay in the effective date as prescribed in that section, because the necessity to issue current construction industry wage determinations frequently and in large volume causes procedures to be impractical and contrary to the public interest. General wage determination decisions, and modifications and supersedes decisions thereto, contain no expiration dates and are effective from their date of notice in the **Federal Register** , or on the date written notice is received by the agency, whichever is earlier. These decisions are to be used in accordance with the provisions of 29 CFR parts 1 and 5. Accordingly, the applicable decision, together with any modifications issued, must be made a part of every contract for performance of the described work within the geographic area indicated as required by an applicable Federal prevailing wage law and 29 CFR part 5. The wage rates and fringe benefits, notice of which is published herein, and which are contained in the Government Printing Office

(GPO)document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts,” shall be the minimum paid by contractors and subcontractors to laborers and mechanics. Any person, organization, or governmental agency having an interest in the rates determined as prevailing is encouraged to submit wage rate and fringe benefit information for consideration by the Department. Further information and self-explanatory forms for the purpose of submitting this data may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Division of Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-3014, Washington, DC. 20210. Modification to General Wage Determination Decisions The number of the decisions listed to the Government Printing Office document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts” being modified are listed by Volume and State. Dates of publication in the **Federal Register** are in parentheses following the decisions being modified. Volume I None Volume II Delaware DE030005 (Jun. 13, 2003) Maryland MD030030 (Jun. 13, 2003) MD030047 (Jun. 13, 2003) MD030050 (Jun. 13, 2003) MD030053 (Jun. 13, 2003) Pennsylvania PA030001 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030002 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030003 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030004 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030007 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030008 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030010 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030011 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030013 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030014 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030015 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030017 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030018 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030019 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030020 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030023 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030024 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030027 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030030 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030032 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030038 (Jun. 13, 2003) PA030040 (Jun. 13, 2003) Volume III Alabama AL030004 (Jun. 13, 2003) AL030006 (Jun. 13, 2003) AL030008 (Jun. 13, 2003) AL030017 (Jun. 13, 2003) AL030033 (Jun. 13, 2003) Kentucky KY030001 (Jun. 13, 2003) KY030003 (Jun. 13, 2003) KY030025 (Jun. 13, 2003) KY030029 (Jun. 13, 2003) South Carolina SC030033 (Jun. 13, 2003) Volume IV Illinois IL030001 (Jun. 13, 2003) IL030007 (Jun. 13, 2003) IL030016 (Jun. 13, 2003) Minnesota MN030009 (Jun. 13, 2003) Ohio OH030001 (Jun. 13, 2003) OH030002 (Jun. 13, 2003) OH030003 (Jun. 13, 2003) OH030029 (Jun. 13, 2003) OH030032 (Jun. 13, 2003) OH030036 (Jun. 13, 2003) Wisconsin WI030001 (Jun. 13, 2003) WI030019 (Jun. 13, 2003) Volume V Kansas KS030006 (Jun. 13, 2003) KS030007 (Jun. 13, 2003) KS030008 (Jun. 13, 2003) KS030009 (Jun. 13, 2003) KS030012 (Jun. 13, 2003) KS030013 (Jun. 13, 2003) KS030015 (Jun. 13, 2003) KS030018 (Jun. 13, 2003) KS030019 (Jun. 13, 2003) KS030020 (Jun. 13, 2003) KS030022 (Jun. 13, 2003) KS030023 (Jun. 13, 2003) KS030026 (Jun. 13, 2003) Missouri MO030001 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030002 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030004 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030006 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030007 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030008 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030011 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030012 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030019 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030020 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030043 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030045 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030050 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030052 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030054 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030055 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030056 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030058 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030060 (Jun. 13, 2003) MO030061 (Jun. 13, 2003) Nebraska NE030001 (Jun. 13, 2003) NE030003 (Jun. 13, 2003) NE030005 (Jun. 13, 2003) NE030007 (Jun. 13, 2003) NE030009 (Jun. 13, 2003) NE030010 (Jun. 13, 2003) NE030011 (Jun. 13, 2003) New Mexico NM030001 (Jun. 13, 2003) NM030005 (Jun. 13, 2003) NM030011 (Jun. 13, 2003) Volume VI Alaska AK030001 (Jun. 13, 2003) AK030005 (Jun. 13, 2003) AK030006 (Jun. 13, 2003) Colorado CO030005 (Jun. 13, 2003) CO030006 (Jun. 13, 2003) CO030011 (Jun. 13, 2003) CO030012 (Jun. 13, 2003) CO030013 (Jun. 13, 2003) CO030016 (Jun. 13, 2003) Oregon OR030001 (Jun. 13, 2003) OR030002 (Jun. 13, 2003) OR030003 (Jun. 13, 2003) Washington WA030001 (Jun. 13, 2003) WA030003 (Jun. 13, 2003) WA030005 (Jun. 13, 2003) WA030007 (Jun. 13, 2003) WA030008 (Jun. 13, 2003) Volume VII None General Wage Determination Publication General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts, including those noted above, may be found in the Government Printing Office

(GPO)document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts”. This publication is available at each of the 50 Regional Government Depository Libraries and many of the 1,400 Government Depository Libraries across the country. General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts are available electronically at no cost on the Government Printing Office site at *www.access.gpo.gov/davisbacon.* They are also available electronically by subscription to the Davis-Bacon Online Service ( *http://davisbacon.fedworld.gov* ) of the National Technical Information Service

(NTIS)of the U.S. Department of Commerce at 1-800-363-2068. This subscription offers value-added features such as electronic delivery of modified wage decisions directly to the user's desktop, the ability to access prior wage decisions issued during the year, extensive Help Desk Support, etc. Hard-copy subscriptions may be purchased from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402,

(202)512-1800. When ordering hard-copy subscription(s), be sure to specify the State(s) of interest, since subscriptions may be ordered for any or all of the six separate volumes, arranged by State. Subscriptions include an annual edition (issued in January or February) which includes all current general wage determinations for the States covered by each volume. Throughout the remainder of the year, regular weekly updates will be distributed to subscribers. Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of April, 2004. John Frank, Acting Chief, Branch of Construction Wage Determinations. [FR Doc. 04-8399 Filed 4-15-04; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 3

Traces to 3 documents

U.S. Code

statutes-at-large