Notices. Notice
14,116 words·~64 min read·
/register/2006/03/02/06-1990·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request February 24, 2006. The Department of Labor
(DOL)has submitted the following public information collection requests
(ICRs)to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Department of Labor (DOL). To obtain documentation, contact Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Occupational Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension of currently approved collection. *Title:* Cadmium in Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.1127). *OMB Number:* 1218-0186. *Frequency:* On occasion; Quarterly; Biennially; Semi-annually; and Annually. *Type of Response:* Recordkeeping and Third party disclosure. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit; Federal Government; and State, Local, or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 10,000. *Number of Annual Responses:* 331,889. *Estimated Time Per Response:* Varies from 2 minutes for a secretary to compile and maintain training records to 1.5 hours to administer employee medical examinations. *Total Burden Hours:* 39,331. *Total Annualized capital/startup costs:* $0. *Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* $1,657,460. *Description:* The standard requires employers to monitor employee exposure to cadmium, to provide medical surveillance to employees, to train employees about the hazards of cadmium in the workplace, and to establish and maintain accurate employee and exposure records. These records are used by employers, employees, physicians, and the Government to ensure that employees are not being harmed by exposure to Cadmium. *Agency:* Occupational Safety and Health Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension of currently approved collection. *Title:* Cadmium in General Industry (29 CFR 1910.1027). *OMB Number:* 1218-0185. *Frequency:* On occasion; Quarterly; Biennially; Semi-annually; and Annually. *Type of Response:* Recordkeeping and Third party disclosure. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit; Federal Government; and State, Local, or Tribal Government. *Number of Respondents:* 53,161. *Number of Annual Responses:* 342,451. *Estimated Time Per Response:* Varies from five minutes for several provisions ( *e.g.* , maintaining an employee's exposure-monitoring or medical-surveillance record, providing information about an employee to the physician) to 1.5 hours to review and update a compliance program or administer an employee medical examination. *Total Burden Hours:* 121,177. *Total Annualized capital/startup costs:* $0. *Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* $6,190,817. *Description:* The standard requires employers to monitor employee exposure to cadmium, to provide medical surveillance, to train employees about the hazards of cadmium in the workplace, and to establish and maintain accurate records of employee exposure to cadmium. These records are used by employers, employees, physicians and the Government to ensure that employees are not being harmed by exposure to cadmium. Ira L. Mills, Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-2980 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR [OMB Number 1230-0002] Office of Disability Employment Policy; Solicitation of Nominations for the Secretary of Labor's New Freedom Initiative Award The Secretary of Labor's New Freedom Initiative Award presented by Secretary Elaine L. Chao, United States Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210: 1. *Subject:* The Secretary of Labor's New Freedom Initiative Award. 2. *Purpose:* To outline the eligibility criteria, the nomination process and the administrative procedures for the New Freedom Initiative Award, and to solicit the Secretary of Labor's New Freedom Initiative Award nominations. 3. *Originator:* Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP). 4. *Background:* To encourage the use of public-private partnerships, the Secretary of Labor will present the Secretary of Labor's New Freedom Initiative Award. Initiated in 2002, this award is made annually to individual(s), non-profit organization(s), or business(es), that have, through programs or activities, demonstrated exemplary and innovative efforts in furthering the employment objectives of President George W. Bush's New Freedom Initiative. See *http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/freedominitiative/freedominitiative.html.* By increasing access to assistive technologies, and by utilizing innovative training, hiring, and retention strategies, the recipient(s) will have established and instituted comprehensive strategies to enhance the ability of Americans with disabilities to enter and advance within the 21st Century workforce and to participate in daily community life. 5. *Eligibility Criteria:* The following criteria apply to the New Freedom Initiative Award Nominees: A. The nominees must be individuals, businesses, or non-profit organizations whose activities exemplify the goals of President George W. Bush's New Freedom Initiative, which include the Office of Disability Employment Policy's mission of increasing employment opportunities for youth and adults with disabilities. Nominations may be submitted by other persons and entities with the knowledge and permission of the nominee. Self-nomination is also encouraged. B. Nominees must have developed and implemented a multi-faceted program directed toward increasing employment opportunities for people with disabilities through increased access to assistive technologies, and use of innovative training, hiring, and retention techniques. C. Federal, State and local government organizations are not eligible for this award. 6. *Nomination Submission Requirements:* A. The single program or multiple programs for which the individual or company is being nominated must demonstrate a commitment to people with disabilities, and clearly show measurable results in terms of significantly enhancing employment opportunities for people with disabilities. The programs or activities may also address such issues as the widening skills gap among persons with disabilities, a diversified 21st Century workforce, and discrimination based on disability. B. The nomination packages should be limited to only that information relevant to the nominee's program(s). Nomination packages should be no longer than twenty
(20)typed pages double-spaced. A page is 8.5 x 11 (on one side only) with one-inch margins (top, bottom, and sides). C. Nomination packages must include the following for consideration: 1. An executive summary prepared by or on behalf of the nominee, which clearly identifies the specific activities, program(s), or establishment under nomination and fully describes the results achieved. 2. A full description of the specific activities, program(s), or establishment for which the nomination is being submitted. 3. Specific data on training, placements, resources expended and other relevant information that will facilitate evaluation of the nominee's submission. 4. A description of how the program(s) and/or activities that are the subject of the nomination have had a positive and measurable impact on the employment of people with disabilities. 5. A data summary on the nominee. See section 6(D). 6. A report detailing any unresolved violations of State or Federal law, as determined by compliance evaluations, complaint investigations, or other Federal inspections and investigations. In addition, the nominee must report any pending Federal or State enforcement actions, and any corrective actions or consent decrees that have resulted from litigation under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA)or the laws enforced by the Department of Labor (DOL). D. A data summary on the Nominee will include the following: 1. Name(s) of the individual, organization or business being nominated. 2. Full street address, telephone number and e-mail address where applicable. 3. Name of highest ranking official(s) (where appropriate). 4. Name of executive(s) responsible for human resources, equal employment opportunity, and/or disability awareness at nominee's establishment and/or corporate office (where appropriate). 5. Name of parent company (where appropriate). 6. Name, street address, telephone number and e-mail address of CEO or President of parent company (where appropriate). 7. Name, title, street address, telephone number and e-mail address of a contact person. 8. Number of employees at the establishment or business being nominated (where appropriate). 9. Name and description of principal program(s) or service(s). E. Timing and Acceptable Methods of Submission of Nominations: Nomination packages must be submitted to Secretary of Labor's New Freedom Initiative Award, Office of Disability Employment Policy, Room S-1303, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 by May 31, 2006. Any application received after 4:45 p.m. EDT on May 31, 2006, will not be considered unless it was received before the award is made and: 1. It was sent by registered or certified mail no later than May 26, 2006. 2. It is determined by the Government that the late receipt was due solely to mishandling by the Government after receipt at the U.S. Department of Labor at the address indicated; or 3. It was sent by U.S. Postal Service Express Mail Next Day Service—Post Office to Addressee, not later than 5 p.m. EDT at the place of mailing, May 30, 2006. The only acceptable evidence to establish the date of mailing of a late application sent by registered or certified mail is the U.S. Postal Service postmark on the envelope or wrapper and on the original receipt from the U.S. Postal Service. If the postmark is not legible, an application received after the above closing time and date will be processed as if mailed late. “Postmark” means a printed, stamped, or otherwise placed impression (not a postage meter machine impression) that is readily identifiable without further action as having been applied and affixed by an employee of the U.S. Postal Service on the date of mailing. Therefore, applicants should request that the postal clerk place a legible hand cancellation “bull's-eye” postmark on both the receipt and the envelope or wrapper. The only acceptable evidence to establish the time of receipt at the U.S. Department of Labor is the date/time stamp of the Office of Disability Employment Policy on the application wrapper or other documentary evidence or receipt maintained by that office. Applications sent by other delivery services, such as Federal Express, UPS, e-mail, etc., will also be accepted; however, the applicant bears the responsibility of timely submission. Confirmation of receipt of your application can be made by contacting Margaret Roffee of the Office of Disability Employment Policy, *nfinomination@dol.gov* , telephone
(202)693-7880,
(866)ODEP-DOL, TTY
(202)693-7881, prior to the closing deadline. 7. *The Administrative Review Process:* A. The ODEP Steering Committee will perform preliminary administrative review to determine the sufficiency of all submitted application packages. B. An Executive Evaluation Committee made up of representatives appointed by the Assistant Secretary of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, from Department of Labor employees will perform secondary review. C. The Secretary of Labor will conduct the final review and selections. 8. *Other Factors to be Considered During the Administrative Review Process:* A. If a nominee merges with another company during the evaluation process, only that information relative to the nominated company will be evaluated, and the award, if any, will be limited to the nominated company. B. Prior receipt of this award will not preclude a nominee from being considered for the New Freedom Initiative Award in subsequent years. Programs and activities serving as the basis of a prior award, however, may not be considered as the basis for a subsequent award application. 9. *Procedures Following Selection:* A. Awardees will be notified of their selection via the contact person identified in the application package at least six weeks prior to the awards ceremony. Non-selected nominees will also be notified within 45 days of the selection of the awardees. B. As a precondition to acceptance of the award, the nominee agrees to: 1. Submit to ODEP for review a two-minute video of the program(s) or activity(ies) for which it is being recognized within 30 days of notification of award selection; 2. Participate in any New Freedom Initiative workshops hosted by ODEP in conjunction with or within 12 months following the awards ceremony. C. The awardee may also display an exhibit or showcase of the program(s)/activity(ies) for which it is being recognized at the awards ceremony, with contents of the display submitted to ODEP for review within 30 days of notification of award selection. D. Materials developed by the awardees in conjunction with section 11(B) and
(C)will be subject to legal review at the Department of Labor to ensure compliance with applicable ethics standards. 10. *Location:* The awards ceremony will generally be held during the month of October at a location to be determined by the Secretary of Labor. Paperwork Reduction Act Notice (Pub. L. 104-13): Persons are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)control number. This collection of information is approved under OMB Number 1230-0002 (Expiration Date: December 31, 2008). The obligation to respond to this information collection is voluntary; however, only nominations that follow the nomination procedures outlined in this notice will receive consideration. The average time to respond to this information of collection is estimated to be 10 hours per response; including the time for reviewing instructions, researching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Submit comments regarding this estimate; including suggestions for reducing response time to the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy, Room S-1303, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Please reference OMB Number 1230-0002. We are very interested in your thoughts and suggestions about your experience in preparing and filing this nomination packet for the Secretary of Labor's New Freedom Initiative Award. Your comments will be very useful to the Office of Disability Employment Policy in making improvements in our solicitation for nominations for this award in subsequent years. All comments are strictly voluntary and strictly private. We would appreciate your taking a few minutes to tell us—for example, whether you thought the instructions were sufficiently clear; what you liked or disliked; what worked or didn't work; whether it satisfied your need for information or if it didn't, or anything else that you think is important for us to know. Your comments will be most helpful if you can be very specific in relating your experience. We value your comments, and would really like to hear from you. Please send any comments you have to Margaret Roffee at *nfinomination@dol.gov* or via mail to the Office of Disability Employment Policy, Room S-1303, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of February, 2006. Roy Grizzard, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-2979 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-23-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-57,794] Cognis Corporation, Cincinnati, OH; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By letter dated October 28, 2005, the United Steelworkers of America, Local 14340, 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 determination was signed on September 29, 2005. The Department's Notice of negative determination was published in the **Federal Register** on October 31, 2005 (70 FR 62345). The negative determination was based on the findings that there was no shift of specialty chemical production abroad by the subject firm and no increased imports of specialty chemicals during the relevant period. Workers produce specialty chemicals, including fatty acids, glycerin, and ozone acids, and are not separately identifiable by product line. The Department carefully reviewed the Union's request for reconsideration and, based on new information provided by the Union representative, has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation. 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 at Washington, DC, this 29th day of November 2005. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-2971 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-57,896] Cranford Woodcarving, Inc. Including Workers Whose Wages Were Paid by Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., a Subsidiary of The McCrorie Group Plants 1, 4, and 7, Including On-Site Leased Workers of Express Personnel, Hickory, NC; 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), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on November 22, 2005, applicable to workers of Cranford Woodcarving, Inc., a subsidiary of The McCrorie Group, Plants 1, 4, and 7, including on-site leased workers of Express Personnel, Hickory, NC. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on December 15, 2005 (70 FR 74367). At the request of a company official, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of wood components (e.g., carvings and turnings); they are not separately identifiable by articles produced. Information provided by the company shows that Tri-State Employment Service, Inc., was contracted by Cranford Woodcarving, Inc., to provide payroll function and benefit services to workers on-site at the Hickory, NC location of Cranford Woodcarving, Inc. Information also shows that all workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance
(UI)tax account for Tri-State Employment Service, Inc. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers whose wages were reported by Tri-State Employment Service, Inc., at Cranford Woodcarving, Inc., a subsidiary of The McCrorie Group, Plants 1, 4, and 7, Hickory, NC. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Cranford Woodcarving, Inc., were adversely affected by increased customer imports. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-57,896 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Cranford Woodcarving, Inc. including workers whose wages were reported by Tri-State Employment Service, Inc., a subsidiary of the McCrorie Group, Plants 1, 4, and 7, including on-site leased workers of Express Personnel, Hickory, North Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after September 2, 2004, through November 22, 2007, 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 at Washington, DC, this 17th day of February 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-2974 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-55,607; TA-W-55,607a; and TA-W-55,607b] Creo Americas, Inc., U.S. Headquarters, a Subsidiary of Creo, Inc., Billerica, MA, Including Employees of Creo Americas, Inc. Located in New York, NY, and Highland Lakes, NJ; Amended Notice of Revised Determination on Remand In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Revised Determination on Remand on April 5, 2005, applicable to workers of Creo Americas, Inc., U.S. Headquarters, a subsidiary of Creo, Inc., Billerica, Massachusetts. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 25, 2005 (70 FR 21247). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that a worker separation occurred involving an employee of the Billerica, Massachusetts facility of Creo Americas, Inc., U.S. Headquarters, a subsidiary of Creo, Inc., located in Highland Lakes, New Jersey. Mr. Jeffrey Blank provided customer service support for the production of professional imaging and software production at the West Virginia and Washington states facilities of the subject firm. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include an employee of the Billerica, Massachusetts facility of Creo Americas, Inc., U.S. Headquarters, a subsidiary if Creo, Inc. located in Highland Lakes, New Jersey. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Creo Americas, Inc., U.S. Headquarters, a subsidiary of Creo, Inc., Billerica, Massachusetts Atlas Textile Company, Inc., Commerce, California who were adversely affected by a shift in production to Canada. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-55,607 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Creo Americas, Inc., U.S. Headquarters, a subsidiary of Creo, Inc., Billerica, Massachusetts (TA-W-55,607), including employees of Creo Americas, Inc., U.S. Headquarters, a subsidiary of Creo, Inc., Billerica, Massachusetts, located in New York, New York (TA-W-55,607A) and located in Highland Lakes, New Jersey (TA-W-55,607B), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after September 7, 2003, through April 5, 2007, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC this 14th day of February 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-2973 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-53,648] International Business Machines Corporation Tulsa, OK; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) remanded to the Department of Labor (Department or DOL) for further investigation *Former Employees of International Business Machines Corporation* v. *Elaine Chao, U.S. Secretary of Labor,* No. 04-00079. In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the results of the remand investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance. The group eligibility requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers under Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be satisfied in either of two ways: I. Section (a)(2)(A) All of the Following Must Be Satisfied A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) Both of the Following Must Be Satisfied A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. The initial investigation to determine the eligibility of workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)was initiated on November 26, 2003 in response to a petition filed by a group of three workers. In an attachment to the original petition, petitioner Brenda Betts stated that International Business Machines Corporation
(IBM)was transferring the accounting services performed at the subject facility to India and that “Indians had been training at the [Tulsa] center all summer.” (AR at 3). In addition, she included two news articles indicating IBM was exploring transferring more white collar jobs overseas (AR at 8-12), as well as her layoff notice from IBM, which indicates that the “resource action” (layoffs) were “due to the need to rebalance skills, eliminate redundancies and deliver greater efficiencies.” (AR at 7; *see also* AR at 16 and SAR at 361). The Department's initial negative determination regarding the former IBM employees was issued on December 2, 2003 and published in the **Federal Register** on January 16, 2004. 69 FR 2622. The Department based that determination on finding that the workers did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Rather, the workers had provided accounting services. AR at 31. On February 6, 2004, the petitioners requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination of their eligibility to apply for TAA. In that request, the petitioners stated that “these are jobs performing work for British Petroleum [BP] and have been covered under the NAFTA/TRA act since 1999;” that BP was shifting production of oil to foreign sources; and that BP “has approved moving this accounting work to Bangalore, India and that “about 250 [IBM accounting] jobs have already been moved to India.” AR at 32. By letter dated February 11, 2004, the petitioners also appealed the original negative determination with the USCIT. By the time DOL learned of the CIT appeal, the reconsideration investigation was well underway. Concerned with the procedural complexity of a situation in which petitioners had appealed while administrative review had not been completed, the Department requested a voluntary remand so that the Department could issue its decision on the request for reconsideration. On March 30, 2004, the CIT granted the Department's request. DOL promptly issued its negative determination on the request for reconsideration, on March 31, 2004. The notice of negative determination was published in the **Federal Register** on April 16, 2003 (67 FR 20644). The negative determination was based on DOL's findings that the workers' firm did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act and that the workers did not provide services in direct support of an affiliated TAA certified firm. On May 14, 2004, the Department filed its second consent motion for voluntary remand, so that DOL could re-assess the eligibility of the petitioning worker group in light of the Department's revised service worker policy. Prior to April 2004, DOL certified petitioning service workers only where they had supported production at an affiliated TAA *certified* facility. Under the revised policy, workers who supported production at a TAA *certifiable* 1 facility would be eligible for TAA benefits. 1 The use of the term “certifiable” broadens the set of circumstances under which petitions from workers whose work supports the production of a trade-impacted article would be granted. In particular, the production workers whose activity is supported by affiliated support workers do not, themselves, have to be certifiable. Rather, the Department determines the support workers' eligibility using the sales, production, and import numbers for the *article* in question and the employment numbers for the support workers. Thus, the article produced could be trade-impacted, yet the production workers not certifiable, where the production workers did not experience an employment decline, while workers who supported production could be certified if it was established that increased imports of the article in question contributed importantly to their separation from employment. Therefore, the second voluntary remand investigation focused on establishing whether the subject worker group supported production at an affiliated *certifiable* production facility. The Department issued a negative determination on remand, on August 2, 2004. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on August 10, 2004 (69 FR 48527) (SAR 263-269). The determination was based on findings that the workers at the subject facility did not produce or support the production of an article by IBM and were not under the control of BP. Therefore, the Department concluded that the work performed by the former IBM employees could not be considered as in support of production at a BP facility. On December 2, 2005, the CIT remanded this proceeding with instructions for additional investigation and analysis and directed that the Department complete the remand process within 60 days, by February 6, 2006. This remand determination is submitted in compliance with those directives. The CIT concluded that the then-existing record supported the conclusion that the separated workers were controlled by BP. Opinion at 29-31. Accordingly, the Court directed the Department to reevaluate the existing record and to conduct such additional investigation “as is necessary to fully develop the evidentiary record * * *.” Opinion at 42. In particular, the Court instructed DOL to “consider whether—in light BP's continued presence there—the Accounting Facility may constitute an ‘appropriate subdivision’ of BP * * *.” Opinion at 54, n. 53. Further, the Court directed DOL to “explain, *inter alia,* both its policy and its practice concerning “control” as a criterion for certification of leased workers” (Opinion at 28 n.18) and to “clearly articulate and apply a standard for ‘control’ that is consistent with this opinion (clarifying and updating that set forth in its new Leased Worker Policy).” Opinion at 43. Further, the Court directed DOL to “explain the origins of and legal bases for” the criteria used to determine the former employees' eligibility for benefits. Opinion at 62. The Court's instructions have been addressed, as set forth below. 2 2 The Department has revised its leased worker policy so that DOL no longer maintains that the former IBM employees can be certified only if they are employed at a BP production facility. Accordingly, the CIT's direction for the Department to explain or justify its former position is moot. Opinion at 51-52, 54. In order to determine who exercised operational control over the workers of IBM's Tulsa Accounting Center, the Department reviewed the existing record and requested additional information from IBM, BP, and the petitioners regarding the day to day business activities of the workers of the IBM Tulsa facility. Opinion at 42, 58. To that end, DOL promptly sent out a series of questionnaires, following up as necessary through e-mail and by telephone. For example, the Department issued its first set of questions to BP and IBM on December 12, 2005 and received the first responses on December 19 and December 20, respectively. As documented in the SAR, DOL obtained cooperation from multiple IBM and BP officials, whose responsibilities and access to pertinent information made them sufficiently informed to be proper sources for the investigation. SAR 742, 761-764, 846. Further, DOL obtained a copy of the contract (SAR at 396-439) between BP and Pricewaterhouse Coopers
(PwC)(which IBM replaced when it acquired PwC in 2002), which included the Service Level Agreement/Operating Level Agreement
(SLA)as “Schedule 1”. Opinion at 58, SAR at 440-719. 3 In order to determine who exercised actual, operational control over the separated IBM workers, DOL used the text of these documents as a starting point, not the endpoint, for its inquiries. 3 DOL also obtained a copy of IBM's Annual Report for 2003 (SAR at 270-395), which documented the manner in which IBM “rebalanced” its staffing after acquiring PwC. SAR at 360-361 and 377. That information corroborates the other record evidence which indicates that the staffing reductions at IBM's Tulsa Accounting Center had nothing to do with BP. The Court has referred to record evidence that “casts some doubt on IBM's motivation [AR 8-11 and 32].” Opinion at 36. In light of the Court's concern, the Department took steps to verify all input received from any one of the information sources by forwarding it to the other sources for review and comment. AR at 32. Consistent with the spirit of the CIT Opinion (at 63), the former IBM employees were kept fully informed and accorded every possible opportunity to participate in the remand investigation. SAR at 851-1000. Through these means, the Department sought to develop a true understanding of the “real-world” relationship between the former IBM employees, IBM management, and BP employees/management. DOL's efforts have been exhaustively documented in the SAR. Fully mindful of the remedial purposes of the Trade Act, the Department has carefully reviewed all record evidence in preparing its remand determination. Based on IBM's and BP's consistent cooperation and responsiveness to the Department's inquiries and careful review of the materials provided, DOL has determined that the information received from BP and IBM is credible and worthy of reliance. As a preliminary matter, DOL recognizes that the petitioners, but not necessarily all former IBM employees at the Tulsa facility, had been BP employees prior to being outsourced to PwC in 2000 and that the outsourcing did not result in changes to their work assignments. DOL further understands that IBM's acquisition of PwC had no impact on the petitioners' work assignments. In addition, DOL recognizes that, in 1999, the Department certified accountants formerly employed by BP in Tulsa as eligible for TAA because their work had been performed in support of trade-impacted production activity at BP facilities. The Department can understand the former IBM employees' frustration and concerns about the fact that workers doing similar work for BP were certified in 1999. However, there are two critical differences between the situation in 1999 and that in 2003. First, the passage of time can change the basis for the employer's personnel decisions. The reasons that led to the layoffs in 1999 are simply different from those present in 2003. Thus, even if plaintiffs were deemed to be under BP's control, they could not be certified. Second, there is the simple fact of the outsourcing. These IBM workers, unlike their colleagues from 1999, are not employees of BP. They are employees of IBM. While that fact does not irrevocably exclude them from coverage (the “control” analysis below will address that issue) the reality of the change in employer cannot be ignored. Outsourcing changes the nature of the relationship between a worker and his former employer. Benefits that workers would have been entitled to receive from their old employer are often lost. For example, the plaintiffs would not be entitled to claim benefits under BP's health insurance program. By the same measure, it would be reasonable to conclude that entitlement to TAA benefits would not follow the outsourced PwC/IBM workers if their new employer controlled their work and if their new employer was not producing an article. In any case, DOL has made every effort to explore whether the plaintiffs were under the operational control of BP as the first step if determining if they are entitled to certification. As documented through the contract (SAR at 396-439) and other record evidence, the outsourcing that occurred in 2000 did result in the shift of operational control from BP to PwC/IBM. For example, contract Article XII, section 12.1, *General Responsibilities for PwC Employees,* states, in pertinent part: [Business Confidential] SAR at 425. Further, [Business Confidential] SAR at 426. Further, the SLA consistently provides [Business Confidential] SAR at 442,453,521-525. [Business Confidential] SAR at 442,453,521-525. [Business Confidential] SAR at 526. Such conditions are consistent with a client (BP)-service provider (PwC/IBM) relationship. The uncontested fact that the petitioners provided services for BP after they were outsourced (SAR at 956, 998) does not necessarily mean that those workers were still, in effect, BP employees or under BP's control. In any service provider-client relationship, some degree of oversight and direction is exercised by the client. Thus, the client's exercise of *some* control does not establish that a “client” shares or has exclusive *operational* control over workers employed by an unaffiliated service provider, for the purposes of TAA certification. The following answer in IBM's response to the fifth set of questions submitted by the Department captures IBM's understanding of the relationship between BP and the IBM employees: [Business Confidential] SAR at 790. In addition, as a practical matter, the BP accountants certified for TAA benefits in 1999 and the IBM accountants who were denied benefits in 2003 were in fundamentally different situations. As direct employees of BP, the BP accountants were indisputably eligible because their work supported their employer's production of trade-impacted articles during the relevant period. Determining the eligibility of the IBM accountants, on the other hand, is a far more complicated matter. 4 For the former IBM employees to be found eligible, the Department must be able to establish that “client” BP, not “employer” IBM, exercised effective operational control over the workers' performance of their duties. In essence, DOL must determine whether the outsourcing of BP workers effectively transferred control over those workers to PwC/IBM. 4 [Business Confidential] SAR at 761. The Department will therefore focus on articulating and applying objective criteria for determining whether BP has exercised operational control over the former IBM workers. Opinion at 28. In the process of developing the criteria for review, the Department has reviewed the leased worker policy articulated in DOL's January 24, 2004 memorandum. Based on that review, the Department has determined that it is appropriate to revise that policy, as an interim response to the issues raised in this proceeding, so that DOL policy more fully reflects potential real-world situations. The Department retains the discretion to further revise this policy, so that the subject of “operational control” can continue to receive close scrutiny as DOL undertakes rulemaking to update the regulations implementing the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act. Given the time constraints imposed by the mandated remand period, this remand determination constitutes the “public document” (Opinion at 43) through which the Department announces its updated “leased worker policy.” Further, in response to the CIT's remand instructions (Opinion at 28, n. 18); the Department has re-evaluated the significance of “the existence of a standard contract between the contractor firm and the subject firm which should be considered sufficient evidence to prove the existence of a joint employer relationship.” *Id.* (citing the January 24, 2004 memorandum at SAR 261). Given the Department's focus on ascertaining *operational,* rather than formal, control, DOL has determined that the existence of a contract between the employer (such as a staffing agency, leasing agency or contractor) of a worker group and a producing firm is not an essential prerequisite for the Department to determine that the workers in question are, in effect, joint employees or leased workers of the producing firm. The presence or absence of a contract would simply be one element, albeit an important one, in the Department's analysis. While a contract, where one exists, may provide strong evidence about the intended nature of the employment relationship between two firms, the Department will also review the operational conditions in which workers of an independent firm perform their functions for a producing firm. In all situations, however, for certification, workers must still have been engaged in activities related to production of an article produced by a firm. In developing the criteria for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, DOL referred to pertinent case law; to the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 3121(d)); to Revenue Ruling 87-41; and to Restatement (Second) of Agency § 2, *Master; Servant; Independent Contractor* and § 220, *Definition of Servant* (1958). The Department found the case law related to the “economic realities” test particularly useful. For example, the Supreme Court, held in *Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.* v. *Darden,* 503 U.S. 318, 323-324
(1992)(a case arising under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act): In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party. *Id.* (additional citations omitted). Based on its review of relevant law, the Department has developed seven criteria that will be applied to determine the extent to which a worker group engaged in activities related to the production of an article by a producing firm is under the operational control of the producing firm. The body of law involving joint employment or independent contractor status is complex and difficult to apply. The Department has sought to distill that body of law into some basic principles, thus creating a test that is useable within the short statutory timeframes that govern TAA investigations. Applying the criteria to the record evidence, DOL has sought to determine what constitute the “practical realities” (Opinion at 40, n. 33) of the relationship between the former IBM workers and BP. The Seven Criteria Are as Follows 1. Whether the subject workers were on-site or off-site of a facility of a production firm. 2. Whether the subject workers performed tasks that were part of the producing firm's core business functions, as opposed to independent, discrete projects that were not part of the producing firm's core business functions. 3. Whether the production firm has the discretion to hire, fire and discipline subject workers. 4. Whether the production firm exercises the authority to supervise the subject workers' daily work activities, including assigning and managing work, and determining how, where, and when the work of individual workers takes place. Factors such as the hours of work, the selection of work, and the manner in which the work is to be performed by each individual are relevant. 5. Whether the services of the worker group have been offered on the open market ( *e.g.* , do workers of the subject group perform work that supports other clients?). 6. Whether the production firm has been responsible for establishing wage rates and the payment of salaries to individual workers of the subject worker group. 7. Whether the production firm has provided skills training to subject workers. None of these factors is dispositive. The Department will look at such evidence as there is that goes to all these factors and will determine whether, on balance, the evidence supports a level of control by the producing firm that demonstrates that the workers of the contractor or secondary firm are, in fact, leased workers or joint employees of both firms. The Department recognizes that there may be cases in which evidence of every one of the criteria is not available. 1. *The former IBM workers were off-site of any facility of the producing firm.* While the leased worker policy articulated in the January 24, 2004 memorandum addressed only on-site leased workers, DOL has determined that there may be circumstances where off-site leased workers, as well as on-site leased workers, who provide support for production at a trade-impacted facility can satisfy the “operational control” criteria to be eligible for TAA benefits. The Department recognizes that co-location, while an important consideration when determining whether subject workers are controlled by a producing firm (Opinion at 45, 48-49), is not the conclusive factor. DOL considers co-location to create a strong presumption of control, so long as the workers are not engaged in activities completely unrelated to the work of the facility, such as selling extraneous items ( *e.g.* , food) on-site and so long as other evidence does not demonstrate that the workers worked independently of the producing firm. In the present case, the former IBM employees were not located at a BP facility of any kind. The fact that IBM employees worked in the same location as they had when employed by BP and that BP maintained staff ( *e.g.* , the BP Treasury unit) at the same street address where the former IBM employees had worked did not constitute co-location, because the IBM and BP facilities were completely separate, both physically (they were in different parts of the building) and functionally (for example, they had different telephone, computer and e-mail service). The information received from BP and IBM was consistent in that respect. SAR at 722, 742, 780, 791, 812, 834, 843). For example, [Business Confidential] SAR at 734. *See* also BP response. SAR at 843. 2. *The former IBM workers performed tasks that were not part of BP's core business functions.* While undeniably important, the accounting services performed by the workers in question are not part of BP's core business activities of oil and gas exploration and production, petroleum refining and marketing, and petrochemicals production, and are exactly the kind of non-core activities that many production firms have successfully outsourced or have performed by independent firms. SAR at 1003, 1009. [Business Confidential] (SAR at 1005) 5 5 [Business Confidential] (SAR at 1017). 3. *BP had no discretion to hire, fire or discipline the IBM workers.* The discretion to hire, fire and discipline workers is a strong indicator of the level of control exercised by a producing firm on the employees of another firm. This finding, which does not appear to be a matter of contention, is extensively documented. For example, [Business Confidential] SAR at 723. 4. *BP did not exercise the authority to supervise IBM workers' daily activities during the relevant period.* BP did not manage the individual IBM employees' work, nor did BP determine how, where, and when the work of individual workers took place. Moreover, the investigation confirmed that while IBM personnel did interact with BP personnel to some degree, that interaction was limited and not managerial in nature. As is normal in a service provider-client relationship, BP outlined the work requirements, and IBM decided, when, where, and who would do the work. For example, [Business Confidential] SAR at 735. [Business Confidential] SAR at 844. (emphasis added). The Department followed up on every asserted instance of BP having exercised operational control over the former IBM employees. For example, [Business Confidential] SAR at 923. DOL communicated Ms. McAdoo's statement to IBM and BP. SAR at 789, 843. [Business Confidential] SAR at 789. [Business Confidential] SAR at 843. Once again, in any service provider-client relationship there must be some degree of interaction and oversight on the part of the client, but this does not necessarily constitute “operational control.” The former IBM employers were, in turn, informed of the IBM and BP responses to Ms. McAdoo's statement. SAR at 979, 985. Further, DOL relayed a follow-up question, requesting, for example, more specific information about the “type of directions Twyla McAdoo received from Steve Funk?” The employees responded: [Business Confidential] SAR at 998. In addition, DOL did consider the other examples of “control” provided by the former IBM workers. SAR at 998. Those examples were, as follows: [Business Confidential] SAR at 998-999. [Business Confidential] SAR at 442, 453, 521-525. *See* also SAR at 843. Further, the apparent fact that [Business Confidential] A client would naturally wish to inform a service provider of the information needed for the service provider's personnel to do their jobs. The client would also, understandably, want to be kept informed of the activities of the service personnel. Thus, [Business Confidential] Those factors could just as easily be present where the relationship was that of client and independent service-provider. Further, the following question/response illustrates the extent to which BP's perception of the relationship differs from that presented by the former IBM employees: [Business Confidential] SAR at 844. Taken as a whole, the record evidence substantiates that, while there was interaction between BP personnel and the IBM personnel under the contract in question, the BP role was not supervisory or managerial in nature. Rather, the dealings between BP and IBM personnel were typical of what one might expect in a service provider-client relationship. The former IBM employees have stated that they were expressly required by BP to affirmatively hold themselves out as “doing business for BP” as evidence of an agency relationship between BP and IBM and, accordingly, evidence that BP controlled the IBM workers in question. SAR at 140. In fact, in response to a DOL question, BP stated: [Business Confidential] SAR at 844. [Business Confidential] SAR at 852. Thus, the fact that the workers in question were specifically required to clarify to the parties they did business with that they were IBM employees is further evidence of a distinct service provider-client relationship. Moreover, the fact that IBM management had to address the problem of IBM employees describing themselves as BP employees by instituting this requirement is evidence that, while the workers (specifically the ones outsourced from BP) may have felt close ties to BP, both BP and IBM sought to make it clear that they worked for IBM and not BP. Also cited as evidence of BP control of the workers is the petitioner's assertion that the subject facility was “a ‘shared’ facility, with BP maintaining a physical presence there even after the ‘outsourcing,’ ” including a treasury and main frame computer (Order at 30). According to both IBM and BP officials, however, the Tulsa facility was not shared. While there were some BP employees and a BP Treasury office (as well as offices for other un-affiliated firms) in the same building as the IBM workers, the BP office was located on a separate floor, had separate phone and e-mail systems from the IBM offices, and was not there for the purpose of controlling the IBM workers. SAR at 843. For example, BP has stated: [Business Confidential] SAR at 843. 6 6 [Business Confidential]. [Business Confidential] SAR at 734. IBM further clarified this point where it stated: [Business Confidential] SAR at 789. 5. *The services performed by IBM workers were performed for clients other than BP.* This fact does not appear to be in contention, and is another strong indicator that IBM, and not BP, controlled the workers in question. While the petitioners themselves may have worked only for BP, this is not the case for the entire worker group. IBM has stated [Business Confidential] SAR at 761. *See* also SAR at 723, 790. 6. *BP was not responsible for establishing wage rates or paying salaries to individual IBM workers.* This issue does not appear to be a matter of contention. The petitioners have indicated that PwC/IBM, not BP, set their wage rates and paid their salaries, once they were outsourced. SAR at 913. Therefore, the evidence generated for evaluation of this criterion indicates that BP did not exercise operational control over the former IBM employees. 7. *BP did not provide skills training to the workers of IBM.* This finding, which has been corroborated by both IBM and BP officials, is another strong indicator that IBM controlled the workers in question. [Business Confidential] Moreover, there is evidence that PwC/IBM provided training to the outsourced Tulsa employees, both to ensure both that they maintained the ability to perform the duties they had previously handled for BP and to help them acquire new skills for career development within their new firm. The “Pricewaterhouse Coopers Questions and Answers for Outsourcing” (SAR at 69) states: [Business Confidential] ( *Id.* ) (emphasis in original). Further, as instructed by the Court, DOL did consider the fact that the former IBM employees had been employed by BP, performing the same tasks as they subsequently performed for PwC/IBM after being outsourced. Opinion at 43, n. 38. While the situation presented is superficially similar to that presented in *Former Employees of Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc.* v. *USDOL* , 27 ITRD 2125, 2003 WL 716272 *10 (February 28, 2003) ( *See* SAR at 945), the IBM petitioners were not part of a subdivision that was “integrated into the [BP] corporate structure” ( *Id.* ) and did not report “directly to [BP] employees on all operational matters.” ( *Id.* ) Further, BP personnel did not manage “all job tasks, direct[] which employees could work at specific locations and specifically relocate[] the [IBM] subdivision along with certain [BP] facilities * * * to [BP's] facilities, evaluate[] [IBM] employee job performance, and advise[] which [IBM] employees should receive merit salary increases.” *Id.* 7 7 The Department has considered the issue of whether to characterize employee leasing firms as appropriate subdivisions of the producing firm. The Department believes that this mode of analysis does violence to the separate nature of independent corporations. This case is an excellent example. No one can reasonably suggest that IBM and BP are legally related. The Department believes its new leased worker policy, using an operational control analysis, arrives at the same result without doing violence to corporate legal formalities. Further, the situation of the petitioners in *Former Employees of Wackenhut Corp.* v. *USDOL* , Ct. No. 02-00758, is not precedent as it was decided under the former leased worker policy, which looked only at whether there was a contract and whether the workers were on-site. Conclusion After careful consideration of the record evidence, particularly that developed through the remand investigation, and the applicable Department policy, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility for trade adjustment assistance on the part of workers and former workers of International Business Machines Corporation, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Signed at Washington, DC this 6th day of February, 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-2989 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,838] Isabel Bloom LLC, Davenport, IA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 13, 2006 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Isabel Bloom LLC, Davenport, Iowa. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of February, 2006. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-2969 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,045] Lexel Company Including On-Site Leased Workers of Westaff, Inc., Hutsonville, IL; 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), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on December 6, 2005, applicable to workers of Lexel Company, including on-site leased workers of Westaff, Inc., Hutsonville, Illinois. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on December 21, 2005 (70 FR 75845). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of small electric motors (fractional H.P. electrical motors). A previous certification, TA-W-52,202, was issued on August 7, 2003, for workers of Lexel Company, Hutsonville, Illinois which did not include on-site leased workers of Westaff, Inc. That certification expired August 7, 2005. This certification is being amended to change the impact date for workers of Westaff, Inc., from August 8, 2005 to September 28, 2004 (one year prior to the September 28, 2005 petition date). The impact date for workers of Lexel Company remains August 8, 2005. Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to properly reflect this matter. The intent of the Department's certification is to clarify the period of eligibility to apply for all workers of Lexel Company, including on-site leased workers of Westaff, Inc., Hutsonville, Illinois, who were adversely affected by increased customer imports. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-58,045 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Lexel Company, Hutsonville, Illinois who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 8, 2005 through December 6, 2007, and including on-site leased workers of Westaff, Inc. at the Hutsonville site who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after September 28, 2004 through December 6, 2007, 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 at Washington, DC this 16th day of February, 2006. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-2975 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,816] Outokumpu Advanced Superconductors, Waterbury, CT Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 9, 2006 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Outokumpu Advanced Superconductors, Waterbury, Connecticut. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 17th day of February, 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-2968 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA)by (TA-W) number issued during the periods of February 2006. In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for directly-impacted (primary) worker adjustment assistance to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. one of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. the country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance as an adversely affected secondary group to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.
(1)Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2)the workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3)either-
(A)The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B)a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of (a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of Section 222 have been met. *TA-W-58,571; Parlex Corporation, Multi Layer Business Unit, Methuen, MA, January 4, 2005* *TA-W-58,597; Cooper Standard Automotive, North American Sealing Systems Division, Gaylord, MI, December 27, 2004* *TA-W-58,630; Swagelok Biopharm Services Company, North Tonawanda, NY, January 5, 2005* *TA-W-58,705; Daisy Outdoor Products, BB Production Div., Salem, MO, January 20, 2005* *TA-W-58,750; Robert Bosch Tool Corp., A Subsidiary of Robert Bosch Corp., Leased Production Workers From ESA/Resource, Heber Springs, AR, January 30, 2005* *TA-W-58,757; Swarovski North America Limited, Crystal Goods Div., Cranston, RI, January 30, 2005* *TA-W-58,757A; Swarovski North America Limited, Crystal Components Div., Cranston, RI, January 30, 2005* *TA-W-58,658; CMOR Manufacturing, Inc., Rocklin, CA, January 18, 2005* *TA-W-58,431; Clarion Sintered Metals, Ridgway, PA, November 30, 2004* *TA-W-58,491; Hanes Dye and Finishing Co., Winston-Salem, NC, October 9, 2005* * TA-W-58,570; Sierra Manufacturing Group, LLC, Including on-Site Lease Workers of Skill Span Staffing, Pocola, OK, January 3, 2005 * *TA-W-58,628; Five Rivers Electronic Innovations LLC, Color Television Product Line, Greeneville, TN, October 2, 2005* *TA-W-58,628A; Five Rivers Electronic Innovations LLC, Plastic Parts Product Line, Greeneville, TN, October 2, 2005* *TA-W-58,628B; Five Rivers Electronic Innovations LLC, Distribution Warehouse, Greeneville, TN, October 2, 2005* *TA-W-58,776; Flynn Enterprises, LLC, Elkton Laundry Division, Elkton, KY, January 27, 2005* *TA-W-58,564; Lizette Creations, Inc., Long Beach, CA, December 30, 2004* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of (a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of Section 222 have been met. *TA-W-58,550; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Financial Center of Excellence, Deerfield, IL, December 28, 2004* *TA-W-58,700; Deutsch Engineered Connecting Devices, Defense/Aerospace Div., Hemet, CA, January 5, 2005* *TA-W-58,437; Medsep Corporation, dba Pall Medical, A Subsidiary of Pall Corp., Leased Workers of Kelly Services, Covina, CA, November 30, 2004* *TA-W-58,594; Donaldson Company, Grinnell, IA, January 6, 2005* *TA-W-58,648; Fisher Hamilton L.L.C., Subsidiary of Fisher Scientific International, Inc., Two Rivers, WI, January 13, 2005* *TA-W-58,661; KEMET Electronics Corporation, Including Leased Workers of BPS, Staffmark and Phillips Staffing, Simpsonville, SC, February 24, 2006* *TA-W-58,661A; KEMET Electronics Corporation, Including Leased Workers of BPS, Staffmark and Phillips Staffing, Simpsonville, SC, February 24, 2006* *TA-W-58,679; Falcon Foam, a Division of Atlas Roofing Corp., Los Angeles, CA, January 19, 2005* *TA-W-58,696; Entrecap Corporation, dba Fing'rs, A Subsidiary of Pacific World Corporation, Camarillo, CA, January 3, 2005* *TA-W-58,704; Brunswick Bowling and Billiards Corp., A Subsidiary of Brunswick Corp., Leased Workers of Staffing Alliance, Muskegon, MI, January 23, 2005* *TA-W-58,752; Claireson Manufacturing Co., Division of Blauer Mfg. Co., Inc., Forrest City, AR, January 30, 2005* *TA-W-58,578; Bekaert Corporation, SSW-Muskegon Division, Muskegon, MI, January 4, 2005* *TA-W-58,581; Bernhardt Furniture Company, Design Division Plant #3, Lenoir, NC, January 4, 2005* The following certification has been issued. The requirement of supplier to a trade certified firm has been met. *TA-W-58,542; River City Plastic, Vicksburg, MI, December 9, 2004* *TA-W-58,633; Southern Hardwoods, Inc., Laurinburg, NC, January 10, 2005* The following certification has been issued. The requirement of downstream producer to a trade certified firm has been met. None Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified. The investigation revealed that criterion (a)(2)(A)(I.A) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A) (no employment decline) has not been met. *TA-W-58,566; Pentair Pool Products, Inc., Pool and Spa Division, Moorpark, CA.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.)(Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-58,733; Ranco North America, Division: Com-Trol, A Subsidiary of Invensys, Mansfield, OH.* *TA-W-58,653; AK Steel, Butler Works, Butler, PA.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.)(increased imports) and
(B)(II.B) (No shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-58,036; Liberty Carton, New England Division, Peabody, MA.* *TA-W-58,236; Natick Paperboard Corp., Paperboard Mill Div., Natick, MA.* *TA-W-58,585; Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Engineered Products Division, St. Marys, OH.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.)(Increased imports and
(B)(II.C) (has shifted production to a foreign country) have not been met. None The workers firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. *TA-W-58,569; OBG Distribution Company, LLC, Celina, TN.* *TA-W-58,632; Leyold Vacuum, USA, Tempe, AZ.* *TA-W-58,675; Outsource Partners International, Houston, TX.* *TA-W-58,743; Getronics, Call Center, Tampa, FL.* The investigation revealed that criteria
(2)has not been met. The workers firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier or downstream producer to trade-affected companies. *TA-W-58,718; Schoeller Arca Systems, Tacoma, WA.* Affirmative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determinations. In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(ii) have been met. I. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older. II. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable. III. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse). *TA-W-58,571; Parlex Corporation, Multi Layer Business Unit, Methuen, MA, January 4, 2005* *TA-W-58,597; Cooper Standard Automotive, North American Sealing systems Division, Gaylord, MI, December 27, 2004* *TA-W-58,630; Swagelok Biopharm Services Company, North Tonawanda, NY, January 5, 2005* *TA-W-58,705; Daisy Outdoor Products, BB Production Div., Salem, MO, January 20, 2005* *TA-W-58,750; Robert Bosch Tool Corp., A Subsidiary of Robert Bosch Corp., Leased Production Workers From ESA/Resource, Heber Springs, AR, January 30, 2005* *TA-W-58,757; Swarovski North America Limited, Crystal Goods Div., Cranston, RI, January 30, 2005* * TA-W-58,757A; Swarovski North America Limited, Crystal Components Div., Cranston, RI, January 30, 2005 * *TA-W-58,431; Clarion Sintered Metals, Ridgway, PA, November 30, 2004* *TA-W-58,491; Hanes Dye and Finishing Co., Winston-Salem, NC, October 9, 2005* *TA-W-58,570; Sierra Manufacturing Group, LLC, Including on-Site Leased Workers of Skill Span Staffing, Pocola, OK, January 3, 2005* *TA-W-58,628; Five Rivers Electronic Innovations LLC, Color Television Product Line, Greeneville, TN, October 2, 2005* *TA-W-58,628A; Five Rivers Electronic Innovations LLC, Plastic Parts Product Line, Greeneville, TN, October 2, 2005* *TA-W-58,628B; Five Rivers Electronic Innovations LLC, Distribution Warehouse, Greeneville, TN, October 2, 2005 * *TA-W-58,776; Flynn Enterprises, LLC, Elkton Laundry Division, Elkton, KY, January 27, 2005* *TA-W-58,564; Lizette Creations, Inc., Long Beach, CA, December 30, 2004* *TA-W-58,437; Medsep Corporation, dba Pall Medical, A Subisdiary of Pall Corp., Leased Workers of Kelly Services, Covina, CA, November 30, 2004* *TA-W-58,594; Donaldson Company, Grinnell, IA, January 6, 2005* *TA-W-58,648; Fisher Hamilton LLC, Subsidiary of Fisher Scientific International, Inc., Two Rivers, WI, January 13, 2005* *TA-W-58,661; KEMET Electronics Corporation, Including Leased Workers of BPS, Staffmark and Phillips Staffing, Simpsonville, SC, February 24, 2006* *TA-W-58,661A; KEMET Electronics Corporation, Including Leased Workers of BPS, Staffmark and Phillips Staffing, Simpsonville, SC, February 24, 2006* *TA-W-58,679; Falcon Foam, a Division of Atlas Roofing Corp., Los Angeles, CA, January 19, 2005* *TA-W-58,696; Entrecap Corporation, dba Fing'rs, A Subsidiary of Pacific World Corporation, Camarillo, CA, January 3, 2005* *TA-W-58,704; Brunswick Bowling and Billiards Corp., A Subsidiary of Brunswick Corp., Leased Workers of Staffing Alliance, Muskegon, MI, January 23, 2005* *TA-W-58,752; Claireson Manufacturing Co., Division of Blauer Mfg. Co., Inc., Forrest City, AR, January 30, 2005* *TA-W-58,578; Bekaert Corporation, SSW-Muskegon Division, Muskegon, MI, January 4, 2005* *TA-W-58,581; Bernhardt Furniture Company, Design Division Plant #3, Lenoir, NC, January 4, 2005* *TA-W-58,542; River City Plastic, Vicksburg, MI, December 9, 2004* *TA-W-58,633; Southern Hardwoods, Inc., Laurinburg, NC, January 10, 2005* Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified. Since the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. *TA-W-58,733; Ranco North America, Division: Com-Trol, A Subsidiary of Invensys, Mansfield, OH.* *TA-W-58,653; AK Steel, Butler Works, Butler, PA.* *TA-W-58,036; Liberty Carton, New England Division, Peabody, MA. * *TA-W-58,236; Natick Paperboard Corp., Paperboard Mill Div., Natick, MA.* *TA-W-58,585; Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Engineered Products Division, St. Marys, OH.* *TA-W-58,569; OBG Distribution Company, LLC, Celina, TN.* *TA-W-58,632; Leyold Vacuum, USA, Tempe, AZ. * *TA-W-58,675; Outsource Partners International, Houston, TX.* *TA-W-58,743; Getronics, Call Center, Tampa, FL.* *TA-W-58,718; Schoeller Arca Systems, Tacoma, WA.* The Department has determined that criterion
(1)of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm are 50 years of age or older. *TA-W-58,658; CMOR Manufacturing, Inc., Rocklin, CA.* The Department has determined that criterion
(2)of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable. *TA-W-58,550; Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Financial Center of Excellence, Deerfield, IL,* *TA-W-58,700; Deutsch Engineered Connecting Devices, Defense/Aerospace Div., Hemet, CA.* The Department has determined that criterion
(3)of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse. *None.* I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the month of February 2006. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address. Dated: February 24, 2006. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-2978 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,785] Saint Gobain Calmar, City of Industry, CA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 3, 2006 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Saint-Gobain Calmar, City of Industry, California. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 15th day of February 2006. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-2970 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,113] Unimatrix Americas, Greensboro, NC; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By letter dated January 4, 2006, 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 November 16, 2005, and published in the **Federal Register** on December 6, 2005 (70 FR 72655). The investigation revealed that the petitioning workers of this firm or subdivision do not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Act. The Department reviewed the request for reconsideration 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 at Washington, DC, this 22nd of February, 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-2972 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration Proposed Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations; Notification of Methane Detected in Mine Atmosphere ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA)is soliciting comments concerning the extension of the information collection related to the 30 CFR 57.22004(c), 57.22229, 5722230, 5722231, and 57.22239; Methane Detected in Mine Atmosphere. DATES: Submit comments on or before May 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments to U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, John Rowlett, Director, Management Services Division, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2134, Arlington, VA 22209-3939. Commenters are encouraged to send their comments on a computer disk, or via Internet E-mail to *Rowlett.John@dol.gov* , along with an original printed copy. Mr. Rowlett can be reached at
(202)693-9827 (voice), or
(202)693-9801 (facsimile). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact the employee listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Sections 103(c), (I), and
(j)of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 authorizes the inspection, recordkeeping and reporting requirements implemented in 30 CFR 57, Subpart T-Safety Standards for Methane in Metal and Nonmetal mines. Methane is a flammable gas found in underground mining. Methane is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas, and it tends to rise to the roof of a mine because it is lighter than air. Although methane itself is nontoxic, its presence reduces oxygen content by dilution when mixed with air, and consequently can act as an asphyxiant when present in large quantities. Methane mixed with air is explosive in the range of 5 to 15 percent, provided that 12 percent or more oxygen is present. The presence of dust containing volatile matter in the mine atmosphere may further enhance the explosion potential of methane in a mine. Metal and Nonmetal mine operators are required to notify MSHA as soon as possible if any of the following events occur:
(a)There is an outburst that results in 0.25 percent or more methane in the mine atmosphere;
(b)there is a blowout that results in 0.25 percent or more methane in the mine atmosphere;
(c)there is an ignition of methane;
(d)air sample results indicate 0.25 percent or more methane in the mine atmosphere of a Subcategory I-B, I-C, II-B, V-B, or Category VI mine. If methane reaches 2.0 percent in a Category IV mine; or methane reaches 0.25 percent in the mine atmosphere of a Subcategory I-B, II-B, V-B, and VI mines, MSHA shall be notified immediately. MSHA investigates these occurrences to determine that the mine is placed in the proper category. II. Desired Focus of Comments MSHA is particularly interested in comments that: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submissions of responses. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the employee listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice, or viewed on the Internet by accessing the MSHA home page *(http://www.msha.gov)* and then choosing “Statutory and Regulatory Information” and “Federal Register Documents.” III. Current Actions MSHA is seeking an extension of the information collection related to certification and notification of methane detected in mine atmosphere. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Mine Safety and Health Administration. *Title:* Methane Detected in Mine Atmosphere. *OMB Number:* 1219-0103. *Recordkeeping:* Certification of examinations shall be kept for at least one year. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Respondents:* 8. *Responses:* 416. *Total Burden Hours:* 36 hours. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining):* $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated at Arlington, Virginia, this 24th day of February, 2006. David L. Meyer, Director, Office of Administration and Management. [FR Doc. E6-2981 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration Proposed Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations; Safety Standards for Roof Bolts in Metal and Nonmetal Mines and Underground Coal Mines ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA)is soliciting comments concerning the extension of the information collection related to the 30 CFR 56.3203(a), 57.3203(a), and 75.204(a); Safety Standards for Roof Bolts in Metal and Nonmetal Mines and Underground Coal Mines. DATES: Submit comments on or before May 1, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send comments to U.S. Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration, John Rowlett, Director, Management Services Division, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2134, Arlington, VA 22209-3939. Commenters are encouraged to send their comments on a computer disk, or via Internet E-mail to *Rowlett.John@dol.gov,* along with an original printed copy. Mr. Rowlett can be reached at
(202)693-9827 (voice), or
(202)693-9801 (facsimile). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The employee listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background 30 CFR 56/57.3203 and 75.204 address the quality of rock fixtures and their installation. Roof and rock bolts and accessories are an integral part of ground control systems and are used to prevent the fall of roof, face, and ribs. These standards require that metal and nonmetal and coal mine operators obtain a certification from the manufacturer that rock bolts and accessories are manufactured and tested in accordance with the 1995 American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM)publication “Standard Specification for Roof and Rock Bolts and Accessories” (ASTM F432-95). II. Desired Focus of Comments MSHA is particularly interested in comments that: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submissions of responses. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the employee listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice, or viewed on the Internet by accessing the MSHA home page *(http://www.msha.gov)* and then choosing “Statutory and Regulatory Information” and “Federal Register Documents.” III. Current Actions MSHA is seeking to continue the requirement for mine operators to obtain certification from the manufacturer that roof and rock bolts and accessories are manufactured and tested in accordance with the applicable American Society for testing and Materials
(ASTM)specifications and make that certification available to an authorized representative of the Secretary. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Mine Safety and Health Administration. *Title:* Safety Standards for Roof Bolts in Metal and Nonmetal Mines and Underground Coal Mines. *OMB Number:* 1219-0121. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Respondents:* 854. *Estimated Time Per Respondent:* .05 hours. *Responses:* 3,376. *Total Burden Hours:* 169 hours. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* $0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining):* $0. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated at Arlington, Virginia, this 24th day of February, 2006. David L. Meyer, Director, Office of Administration and Management. [FR Doc. E6-2982 Filed 3-1-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings Agency Holding the Meeting: Mississippi River Commission. Time and Date: 9 a.m., April 3, 2006. Place: On board MISSISSIPPI V at River Park, Tiptonville, TN. Status: Open to the public. Matters to Be Considered:
(1)Summary report by President of the Commission on national and regional issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Commission programs and project on the Mississippi River and its tributaries;
(2)District Commander's overview of current project issues within the Memphis District; and
(3)Presentations by local organizations and members of the public giving views or comments on any issue affecting the programs or project of the Commission and the Corps of Engineers. Time and Date: 9 a.m., April 4, 2006. Place: On board MISSISSIPPI V at Mud Island, Memphis, TN. Status: Open to the public. Matters to Be Considered:
(1)Summary report by President of the Commission on national and regional issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Commission programs and projects on the Mississippi River and its tributaries;
(2)District Commander's overview of current project issues within the Memphis District; and
(3)Presentations by local organizations and members of the public giving views or comments on any issue affecting the programs or projects of the Commission and the Corps of Engineers. Time and Date: 1 p.m., April 5, 2006. Place: On board MISSISSIPPI V at City Front, Vicksburg, MS. Status: Open to the public. Matters to Be Considered:
(1)Summary report by President of the Commission on national and regional issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Commission programs and projects on the Mississippi River and its tributaries;
(2)District Commander's overview of current project issues within the Memphis District; and
(3)Presentations by local organizations and members of the public giving views or comments on any issue affecting the programs or projects of the Commission and the Corps of Engineers. Time and Date: 9 a.m., April 7, 2006. Place: On board MISSISSIPPI V at New Orleans District Dock, Foot of Prytania Street, New Orleans, LA. Status: Open to the public. Matters to Be Considered:
(1)Summary report by President of the Commission on national and regional issues affecting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Commission programs and projects on the Mississippi River and its tributaries;
(2)District Commander's overview of current project issues within the Memphis District; and
(3)Presentations by local organizations and members of the public giving views or comments on any issue affecting the programs or projects of the Commission and the Corps of Engineers. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Mr. Stephen Gambrell, telephone 601-634-5766. Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 06-1990 Filed 2-28-06; 11:54 am]
Connectionstraces to 7
5 references not yet in our index
- Pub. L. 104-13
- 26 USC 2813
- 503 U.S. 318
- 30 CFR 57
- 30 CFR 56
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104-13
Cite26 USC 2813
Cite30 CFR 57
Cite30 CFR 56
Cites 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources