Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2006-07-31 · DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

13,951 words·~63 min read·/register/2006/07/31/06-6613·

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 JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(i), the Attorney General shall, prior to issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II and prior to issuing a regulation under 21 U.S.C. 952(a) authorizing the importation of such a substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
Therefore, in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on May 25, 2006, Aptuit, 10245 Hickman Mills Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64137, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)for registration as an importer of Marihuana (7360), a basic class of controlled substance in Schedule I. The company plans to import a finished pharmaceutical product containing cannabis extracts in dosage form for packaging for a clinical trial study. Any manufacturer who is presently, or is applying to be, registered with DEA to manufacture such basic classes of controlled substances may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 and in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47. Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL; or any being sent via express mail should be sent to DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must be filed no later than August 30, 2006. This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d),
(e)and (f). As noted in a previous notice published in the **Federal Register** on September 23, 1975, (40 FR 43745-46), all applicants for registration to import a basic class of any controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II are, and will continue to be required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21 CFR 301.34(b), (c), (d),
(e)and
(f)are satisfied. Dated: July 25, 2006. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12171 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on October 28, 2005, MGI Pharma, 6611 Tributary Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21224, made application to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of Cocaine (9041), a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedules II. The company plans to manufacture a cocaine derivative to be used in domestic and foreign clinical research studies. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL; or any being sent via express mail should be sent to DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must be filed no later than September 29, 2006. Dated: July 25, 2006. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12172 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on March 22, 2006, Penick Corporation, 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in Schedule II: Drug Schedule Cocaine
(9041)II Codeine
(9050)II Dihydrocodeine
(9120)II Oxycodone
(9143)II Hydromorphone
(9150)II Ecgonine
(9180)II Hydrocodone
(9193)II Morphine
(9300)II Thebaine
(9333)II Oxymorphone
(9652)II The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances as bulk controlled substance intermediates for distribution to its customers for further manufacture or to manufacture pharmaceutical dosage forms. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail should be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL; or any being sent via express mail should be sent to DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must be filed no later than September 29, 2006. Dated: July 25, 2006. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12173 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application Pursuant to section 1301.33(a) of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this is notice that on January 26, 2006, Roche Diagnostics Operations Inc., Attn: Regulatory Compliance, 9115 Hague Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46250, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in Schedule I and II: Drug Schedule Lysergic Acid Diethylamide
(7315)I Tetrahydrocannabinol
(7370)I Alphamethadol
(9605)I Phencyclidine
(7471)II Ecgonine
(9180)II Methadone
(9250)II Morphine
(9300)II The company plans to manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substances for use in diagnostic products. Any other such applicant and any person who is presently registered with DEA to manufacture such a substance may file comments or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). Any such written comments or objections being sent via regular mail may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative, Liaison and Policy Section (ODL); or any being sent via express mail should be sent to DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODL, 2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, Alexandria, Virginia 22301; and must be filed no later than September 29, 2006. Dated: July 25, 2006. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration. [FR Doc. E6-12174 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,628] Cadence Innovation, New Venture Industries, Grand Blanc, MI; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on June 26, 2006 in response to a petition filed by the United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America International Union 1C and Local Union 524, on behalf of workers of Cadence Innovation, New Venture Industries, Grand Blanc, Michigan. The petitioning worker group is covered by an active certification, TA-W-58,625 (amended July 6, 2006), which does not expire until February 23, 2008. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 7th day of July 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12202 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,815] Coating and Assembly, Inc., Mt. Pleasant, MI; Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; Correction This notice rescinds the notice of certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance applicable to TA-W-58,815, which was published in the **Federal Register** on April 13, 2006 (71 FR 19208-19210) in Document E-5518, Billing Code 4510-30-P. This rescinds the certification of eligibility for workers of TA-W-58,815, to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance and confirms eligibility to apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance as identified on page 19209 in the first column, the seventh TA-W-number listed. The Department appropriately published in the **Federal Register** April 13, 2006, page 19210, under the notice of Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance, the denial of eligibility applicable to workers of TA-W-58,815. The notice appears on page 19210 in the third column, the seventh TA-W-number listed. Signed in Washington, DC, this 24th day of July 2006. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12195 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-56,258] Collins And Aikman Products Company, Division 016, Roxboro, NC (Including Employees Working Out of Troy, MI); Notice of Revised Determination of Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on Reconsideration On February 24, 2005, workers and former workers of Collins and Aikman Products Company, Division 016, Roxboro, North Carolina (subject firm) were certified eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)but not Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The Notice of determination was published in the **Federal Register** on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16847). An amendment was issued on June 6, 2006 to include employees working out of Troy, Michigan. The Notice of amendment was published in the **Federal Register** on June 22, 2006 (71 FR 35951). Based on information produced on the initial investigation that workers the subject workers possess skills that are easily transferable, the workers were denied eligibility to apply for ATAA. Administrative reconsideration was not requested. After the Notice of amendment was issued, the Department received new information indicating that the subject workers may possess skills that are not easily transferable. As such, the Department reopened the investigation. Based on information obtain during the reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that the subject workers do not possess skills that are easily transferable. At least five percent of the workforce at the subject from is at least fifty years of age. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I conclude that the requirements of Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have been met for the workers of the subject firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Collins and Aikman Products Company, Division 016, Roxboro, North Carolina, including employees working out of Troy, Michigan, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 13, 2003 through February 24, 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 in Washington, DC, this 24th day of July, 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12198 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,925] Eaton Corporation, Everett, WA; Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; Correction This notice rescinds the notice of certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance applicable to TA-W-58,925, which was published in the **Federal Register** on April 12, 2006 (71 FR 18771-18773) in FR Document E6-5369, Billing Code 4510-30-P. This rescinds the certification of eligibility for workers of TA-W-58,925, to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance and confirms eligibility to apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance as identified on page 18772 in the first column, the fifth TA-W-number listed. The Department appropriately published in the **Federal Register** April 12, 2006, page 18773, under the notice of Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance, the denial of eligibility applicable to workers of TA-W-58,925. The notice appears on page 18773 in the first column, the third TA-W-number listed. Signed in Washington, DC, this 24th day of July 2006. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12191 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration TA-W-54,434 Gale Group, Inc., A Division of the Thompson Corporation, Belmont, CA; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand On June 2, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's motion for voluntary remand for further investigation in *Former Employees of Gale Group, Inc.* v. *U.S. Secretary of Labor,* Court No. 04-00374. These workers created electronic documents and performed electronic indexing services and occasionally wrote abstracts of articles. On May 20, 2004, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)for workers of Gale Group, A Division of the Thompson Corporation, Belmont, California (Gale Group). The negative determination was based on the investigation's finding that the workers did not produce an article in accordance with Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Trade Act). The Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance for the subject firm was published in the **Federal Register** on June 17, 2004 (69 FR 33940). In response to the petitioner's request for administrative reconsideration, the Department affirmed its finding that the subject workers did not produce an article within the meaning of the Trade Act. The Department's Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration was issued on July 16, 2004 and the Notice of Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration was published in the **Federal Register** on July 23, 2004 (69 FR 44064). The petitioners appealed the denial to the USCIT. The Department made a motion for voluntary remand for further investigation. The CIT granted the Department's motion in an October 25, 2004 Order. In response to that Order, the Department conducted a further investigation to determine whether the petitioners were eligible to apply for TAA. On January 27, 2005, the Department affirmed its conclusion that the workers did not produce an article within the meaning of the Trade Act. The Department's Notice was published in the **Federal Register** on February 8, 2005 (70 FR 6732). The CIT subsequently ruled that the Department's denial of TAA certification because the plaintiffs did not produce an “article” was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. The petitioners appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After the case reached the Court of Appeals the Department revised its policy to acknowledge that there are tangible and intangible articles. Products that would have been considered an article if embodied in a physical medium will now be considered an article for purposes of the Trade Act even if transmitted or stored electronically. Because it is the Department's practice to apply a new policy if doing so is in the best interest of the workers, the Department requested a voluntary remand from the Court of Appeals to determine whether, under the new policy, the petitioners are eligible to apply for TAA. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the CIT which remanded it to the Department. Upon review, the Department has determined that the subject workers produce an intangible article (electronic documents) and that, following the shift of production abroad, documents like or directly competitive with those produced at the subject firm were brought back into the United States. Conclusion After careful review of the facts generated through the remand investigation, I determine that a shift in production abroad of electronic documents like or directly competitive to that produced at the subject facility followed by increased imports contributed to the total or partial separation of a significant number or proportion of workers at the subject facilities. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Gale Group, A Division of the Thompson Corporation, Belmont, California, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 23, 2003, through two years from the issuance of this revised determination, are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of July 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12192 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,184] Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Consumer Products Division, Green Bay, WI; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on November 21, 2005, applicable to workers of Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Consumer Products Division, Green Bay, Wisconsin. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on December 15, 2005 (70 FR 74368). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of napkins, towels and tissue and are not separately identifiable by product line. New findings show that there was a previous certification, TA-W-55,156, issued on August 12, 2004, for workers of Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Consumer Products Division, Green Bay, Wisconsin who were engaged in employment related to the production of napkins, towels and tissue. That certification expires August 12, 2006. To avoid an overlap in worker group coverage, the certification is being amended to change the impact date from October 12, 2004 to August 13, 2006, for workers of the subject firm. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-58,184 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Consumer Products Division, Green Bay, Wisconsin, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 13, 2006, through November 21, 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 11th day of July 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12207 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,554] Georgia Pacific Corporation, Mason Street Opertions, Green Bay, WI; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on June 13, 2006 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Georgia Pacific Corporation, Mason Street Operations, Green Bay, Wisconsin (TA-W-59,554). The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 10th day of July, 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12205 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,436] Jacquard, LLC, Burlington House Division, Cliffside, NC; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By letter dated June 26, 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 June 13, 2006, and is pending publication in the **Federal Register** . The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that the subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a significant number or proportion of workers as required by section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Significant number or proportion of the workers in a firm or appropriate subdivision thereof, means that at least three workers with a workforce of fewer than 50 workers or five percent of the workers with a workforce of 50 or more. 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 20th of July 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12200 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,808] Lexmark International, Inc., Supply Chain Workforce, Printing Solutions & Services Division, Lexington, KY; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration On April 13, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Lexmark International, Inc., Supply Chain Workforce, Printing Solutions & Services Division, Lexington, Kentucky (subject firm). The Notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 24, 2006 (71 FR 21042). The subject workers are engaged in product planning, purchasing of components, support and engineering, logistics, operations, and vendor relations. In the initial investigation, the Department had determined that although production occurred within the firm or appropriate subdivision, the subject workers do not directly support this production. The Department had also found that the predominant cause of worker separations was Lexmark International, Inc.'s decision to position tasks to other domestic locations in order to be closer to their production partners and customers, who are located worldwide. Workers of Lexmark International, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky were certified as eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)on February 12, 2002 (TA-W-40,395) based on increased company imports of printers and inkjet cartridges. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner asserts that the subject workers supported the production of components
(ink)of articles produced by the subject firm (ink and printer cartridges) and that their support functions were shifted abroad when cartridge production shifted abroad. New information provided by the subject firm during the reconsideration investigation supports the finding that the subject workers purchased ink components which were used in the ink that was inserted into the ink cartridges which were used in the printers produced by the subject firm. As such, the workers are an integral part of ink and printer cartridge production. Under the statute, the subject worker group must be employed by a firm (or an appropriate subdivision) which produced an article domestically during the twelve month period prior to the petition date. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed that neither the subject firm nor Lexmark International, Inc. produced ink or cartridges domestically during the relevant perioid. Therefore, the Department determines that the subject workers are not employed by a company covered by the statute and are not eligible to apply for TAA. In addition, in accordance with section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA for older workers. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the subject worker group must be certified eligible to apply for TAA. Since the subject workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, they cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify revision of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of July 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12196 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,859] Midland Prints and Fabrics, Inc., Stenfield, NC; Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; Correction This notice rescinds the notice of certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance applicable to TA-W-58,859, which was published in the **Federal Register** on April 12, 2006 (71 FR 18771-18773) in FR Document E6-5369, Billing Code 4510-30-P. This rescinds the certification of eligibility for workers of TA-W-58,859, to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance and confirms eligibility to apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance as identified on page 18771 in the third column, the eleventh TA-W-number listed. The Department appropriately published in the **Federal Register** April 12, 2006, page 18773, under the notice of Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance, the denial of eligibility applicable to workers of TA-W-58,859. The notice appears on page 18773 in the first column, the second TA-W-number listed. Signed in Washington, DC, this 24th day of July 2006. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12190 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,929] Milprint, Inc., a Division of Bemis Company, Denmark, WI; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration On May 10, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject firm. The Notice was published in the **Federal Register** on May 17, 2006 (71 FR 28712). The workers produce flexible plastic packaging, used largely in confectionary and snack food markets, and paper for packaging cigarettes. Workers are not separately identifiable by product line. The petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA)filed on behalf of the workers of Milprint, Inc., A Division of Bemis Company, Denmark, Wisconsin (subject firm) was denied because the subject firm neither imported flexible plastic packaging or cigarette paper, nor shifted production of either article abroad during the relevant period. The investigation also revealed that the parent firm experienced increased sales of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject facility during the investigatory period. The petitioners had also filed as workers of a secondarily-affected company (supplied component parts for articles produced by a firm with a currently TAA-certified worker group). In the initial determination, the Department stated that the subject facility does not supply cigarette paper component parts to any TAA-certified firm in the relevant time period and that flexible plastic packaging is not a component part of confectionaries. In the request for reconsideration, the United Steel Workers, Local 7-1203 (Union) stated that cigarette packaging paper constituted ten percent of subject firm production and that it was supplied to a TAA-certified firm, P.H. Gladfether, Neenah, Wisconsin (TA-W-53,612). The Union also stated that flexible plastic packaging constituted ninety percent of subject firm production and that this article was supplied to TAA-certified companies: Farley's and Sather Candy (TA-W-51,546), Archibald Candy (TA-W-53,983), American Safety Razor (TA-W-57,323), and Bob's Candy (TA-W-57,772). To be certified as a secondarily-affected company, the subject firm must have a customer with a currently TAA-certified worker group and the subject firm produces a component part of the product that was the basis for the customer's certification. In addition, the TAA-certified customer must account for at least twenty percent of subject firm's sales or production or the loss of business with the customer contributed importantly to the workers' separations. According to the Union, cigarette paper production constituted only ten percent of subject firm production. Even if P.H. Gladfether, Neenah, Wisconsin was the subject firm's only customer of this product, sales to P.H. Gladfether would have accounted for less than twenty percent of overall sales or production of the subject firm. Further, P.H. Gladfether, Neenah, Wisconsin was not a major customer of the subject firm. Therefore, the Department determines P.H. Gladfether accounted for less than twenty percent of overall subject firm sales or production and the loss of business with this customer did not contribute importantly to the workers' separations. In order to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for TAA as secondarily-affected workers of a company that supplied flexible plastic packaging to a firm with a currently TAA-certified worker group, the Department requested the subject firm's 2005 sales figures for Farley's and Sather Candy, Archibald Candy, American Safety Razor, and Bob's Candy. The reconsideration investigation revealed that, during the relevant period, the subject firm conducted no business with three of the customers identified by the Union and conducted an insignificant amount of business with the fourth customer. As such, the Department determines that each customer accounted for less that twenty percent of overall subject firm sales or production and that the loss of business with each customer did not contribute importantly to the workers' separations. The Union also alleged in the request for reconsideration that flexible plastic packaging production had shifted abroad. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed that flexible plastic packaging production did not shift abroad but shifted to affiliated production facilities in Lancaster, Wisconsin and Lebanon, Pennsylvania. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify revision of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of July 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12208 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Investigations Regarding Certifications, of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act. The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved. The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than August 10, 2006. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than August 10, 2006. The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of July 2006. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [TAA petitions instituted between 7/10/06 and 7/14/06] TA-W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution Date of petition 59683 Morse Automotive Corp. (State) Arkadelphia, AR 07/10/06 07/07/06 59684 Whirlpool Corp. (State) Fort Smith, AR 07/10/06 07/07/06 59685 Laidlaw Corporation
(Comp)Metropolis, IL 07/10/06 07/07/06 59686 Maxtor Corp.
(Comp)Shrewsbury, MA 07/10/06 07/07/06 59687 Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.
(Wkrs)Philadelphia, PA 07/10/06 05/11/06 59688 Pace Industries Inc.
(Comp)Harrison, AR 07/12/06 07/11/06 59689 Alliance Group Technologies Co. Kokkomo, Inc.
(Comp)Peru, IN 07/12/06 07/10/06 59690 Thomson Micron, LLC (State) Ronkonkoma, NY 07/12/06 07/10/06 59691 Russell Corporation
(Comp)Brundidge, AL 07/12/06 07/07/06 59692 Hooker Furniture Corp.
(Comp)Roanoke, VA 07/12/06 07/10/06 59693 Bowne
(Wkrs)Cleveland, OH 07/12/06 07/10/06 59694 Telect, Inc.
(Comp)Liberty Lake, WA 07/12/06 07/10/06 59695 Newell Rubbermaid
(Comp)Centerville, IA 07/12/06 06/29/06 59696 Metrobility Optical Systems
(Wkrs)Merrimack, NH 07/12/06 07/10/06 59697 Scharf and Breit, Inc.
(Comp)Franklin Sq., NY 07/12/06 07/10/06 59698 American Fast Print Limited
(Comp)Greenville, SC 07/12/06 07/11/06 59699 Excell Data Corporation (State) Bellevue, WA 07/12/06 07/10/06 59700 RMG Foundry LLC
(USW)Mishawaka, IN 07/12/06 07/10/06 59701 Pilgrim Home and Hearth, LLC
(Comp)Fairfield, CA 07/12/06 07/11/06 59702 Automatic Products Int'l., LTD (State) St. Paul, MN 07/12/06 07/11/06 59703 Demers Leather Sales Inc.
(Comp)Lewiston, ME 07/12/06 07/11/06 59704 South Park Pleating, Inc.
(Wkrs)Oakland, CA 07/12/06 07/11/06 59705 Computer Sciences Corporation
(Wkrs)Sterling, VA 07/13/06 06/27/06 59706 Eaton Filtration LLC
(Comp)Elizabeth, NJ 07/13/06 07/12/06 59707 Welch Allyn, Inc.
(Comp)San Diego, CA 07/13/06 07/11/06 59708 Mar Bax Shirt Company Inc. (State) Gassville, AR 07/13/06 07/12/06 59709 Stimson Lumber Company
(Wkrs)St. Helens, OR 07/13/06 07/11/06 59710 Oxbow Machine Products
(Wkrs)Livonia, MI 07/13/06 06/20/06 59711 KPMG (State) Charlotte, NC 07/13/06 07/12/06 59712 American Sunroof Company
(UAW)Lansing, MI 07/13/06 06/23/06 59713 State Farm Insurance
(Wkrs)Parsippany, NJ 07/13/06 06/14/06 59714 Jakel Inc.
(Wkrs)Murray, KY 07/13/06 06/26/06 59715 Salisbury Manufacturing Corp.
(Comp)Salisbury, NC 07/13/06 06/28/06 59716 Pinnacle Frames and Accents, Inc. (State) Piggott, AR 07/13/06 07/13/06 59717 Kent Sporting Goods (State) Madison, GA 07/13/06 07/12/06 59718 Monroe Staffing Services, LLC (State) Wallingford, CT 07/14/06 07/13/06 59719 Eaton Corporation
(Comp)Hastings, NE 07/14/06 07/11/06 59720 MacDermid, Inc. (State) Waterbury, CT 07/14/06 07/13/06 59721 Mercury Marine (IAMAW) Fond du Lac, WI 07/14/06 07/13/06 59722 Joan Fabrics Corporation
(Comp)Lowell, MA 07/14/06 07/13/06 59723 C and D Technologies
(Comp)Huguenot, NY 07/14/06 07/13/06 59724 Centris Information Service
(Comp)Longview, TX 07/14/06 07/06/06 59725 Agilent Technologies
(Wkrs)Wilmington, DE 07/14/06 07/13/06 [FR Doc. E6-12185 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,583] Nibco, Inc., South Glens Falls, NY; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on June 20, 2006, in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at NIBCO, Inc., South Glens Falls, New York. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of July 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12204 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,039] Nortel, Xpm Gnps, Design and Support, Research Triangle Park, NC; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated May 25, 2006, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The denial notice applicable to workers of Nortel, XPM GNPS, Design and Support, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina was signed on April 26, 2006 and published in the **Federal Register** on May 11, 2006 (71 FR 27520). Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:
(1)If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered that the determination complained of was erroneous;
(2)If it appears that the determination complained of was based on a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(3)If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The TAA petition filed on behalf of workers at Nortel, XPM GNPS, Design and Support, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina engaged in research and development organization that was responsible for development of software in support of all releases related to XPM was denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Act. The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its interpretation of work performed at the subject facility as providing a service and further conveys that workers of the subject firm “created a new filmware load for the Calls Modem Resource (aka CMR)” and that “it is a new product which is only sent to paying customers.” A company official was contacted for clarification in regard to the nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The official stated that workers of the subject firm were not directly involved in the work that went into the aforementioned load. Furthermore, the changes that were made in the firmware load were a direct result of a reported problem in the field and were not made to provide a feature to the field. The official further clarified that the firmware was not sold but given to the field and that the production of the modified firmware was not moved to a foreign facility but started and remained offshore, once the changes to it were implemented. The official stated that the loads are being built in a foreign country and the workers of the subject firm support this offshore production. The sophistication of the work involved is not an issue in ascertaining whether the petitioning workers are eligible for trade adjustment assistance, but whether they produce an article within the meaning of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. Research, development and technical support of the existing software or offshore production of the software is not considered production of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. Petitioning workers do not produce an “article” within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974. The investigation on reconsideration supported the findings of the primary investigation that the petitioning group of workers does not produce an article. Service workers can be certified only if worker separations are caused by a reduced demand for their services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision whose workers produce an article domestically, who meet the eligibility requirements, or if the group of workers are leased workers who perform their duties at a facility that meets the eligibility requirements. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of July, 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12199 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,807A] Panasonic Shikoku Electronics Sales of America, Portland, OR; Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; Correction This notice rescinds the notice of certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance applicable to TA-W-58,807A, which was published in the **Federal Register** on April 12, 2006 (71 FR 18771-18773) in FR Document E6-5369, Billing Code 4510-30-P. This rescinds the certification of eligibility for workers of TA-W-58,807A, to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance and confirms eligibility to apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance as identified on page 18771 in the third column, the tenth TA-W-number listed. The Department appropriately published in the **Federal Register** April 12, 2006, page 18773, under the notice of Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance, the denial of eligibility applicable to workers of TA-W-58,807A. The notice appears on page 18773 in the first column, the first TA-W-number listed. Signed in Washington, DC, this 24th day of July 2006. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12189 Filed 7-28-06; 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 and Alternative Trade 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 period of July 2006. In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, 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 for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, 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 or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. 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. 1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older. 2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable. 3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry ( *i.e.* , conditions within the industry are adverse). 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 section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-59,395; Rowe Furniture Corporation, Poplar Bluff, MO: April 27, 2005* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-59,605; Fuji Photo Film, Inc., Administration Department, Greenwood, SC: June 21, 2005.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met. *None* . The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act have been met. *None* . Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 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 section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-59,576; Springs Global U.S. Inc., Chester, SC: June 14, 2005* *TA-W-59,584; Republic Conduit, Elyria, OH: June 16, 2005* *TA-W-59,596; Gujarat Glass International (GGI), Park Hills, MO: June 20, 2005* *TA-W-59,618; Carboloy, Inc., Mfg. Div., Warren, MI: June 19, 2005* *TA-W-59,625; P.W. Minor & Son Inc., Batavia, NY: June 14, 2005* *TA-W-59,472; Graftech International, UCAR Carbon Company, Carbon Electrode Division, Columbia, TN: May 19, 2005* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-59,504; Eaton Corporation/Eaton Hydraulic Operations, Screw-In Cartridge Valve Production, Petersburg, IL: June 2, 2005* *TA-W-59,504A; Eaton Corporation/Eaton Hydraulic Operations, Manifolds for Hydraulic Control Production, Petersburg, IL: June 2, 2005* *TA-W-59,531; Prostolite Wire Corporation, Ford Strategic Business Unit, Tifton, GA: June 30, 2006* *TA-W-59,564; Greatbatch-Sierra, Inc., Carson City, NV: June 13, 2005* *TA-W-59,580; SSA Global Technologies, Inc., Solutions Management and Development Div., Chicago, IL: June 15, 2005* *TA-W-59,621; Irving Tissue, Inc, Fort Edward, NY: June 23, 2005* *TA-W-59,650; Pendleton Woolen Mills Inc., Bellevue, NE: June 27, 2005* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-59,597; Fisher Dynamics, St. Clair Shores, MI: June 21, 2005* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) and section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *None* . Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified. The Department as determined that criterion
(1)of section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm are 50 years of age or older. *None* . The Department as determined that criterion
(2)of section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable. *None* . The Department as determined that criterion
(3)of section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse. *TA-W-59,395; Rowe Furniture Corporation, Poplar Bluff, MO* *TA-W-59,605; Fuji Photo Film, Inc., Administration Department, Greenwood, SC* Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified. Since the workers of the firm are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met. *TA-W-59,611; Tree Frog Studios, Hendersonville, NC* *TA-W-59,679; American Standard, Inc., Paintsville, KY* 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-59,504B; Eaton Corporation/Eaton Hydraulic Operations, Hydraulic Remote Control Production, Petersburg, IL* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-59,358; Cenveo-Waterbury, Waterbury, CT* *TA-W-59,512; Royal Precision, Inc., FM Precision Golf Mfg. Corp., A Subsidiary of Royal Associates, Torrington, CT.* *TA-W-59,590; Kenda Knits, Inc., Clover, SC.* The investigation revealed that the predominate cause of worker separations is unrelated to criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.C) (shift in production to a foreign country). *TA-W-59,570; Non Metallic Components, Inc., Cuba City, WI* *TA-W-59,589; JB-DM Jewelry, LLC, Los Angeles, CA* The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. *TA-W-59,483; B.C. Moore & Sons, Buying Office, Cheraw, NC* *TA-W-59,553; Convergys Corporation, Hillsboro, OR* *TA-W-59,581; VF Imagewear, Martinsville, VA* *TA-W-59,582; Convergys Corp., Customer Management Group, Hillsboro, OR* *TA-W-59,616; Sure Fit, Inc., Catalog Call Center, Allentown, PA* *TA-W-59,653; Utility Craft, Inc., dba Wood-Armfield Furniture, Retail Store, High Point, NC* *TA-W-59,653A; Utility Craft, Inc., dba Wood-Armfield Furniture, Retail Store, High Point, NC* *TA-W-59,672; Anage, Inc., New York, NY* The investigation revealed that criteria of section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers' firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA. *None* . I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the month of July 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: July 24, 2006. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12201 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,956] Sony Technology Center Pittsburgh, Mount, PA; Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; Correction This notice rescinds the notice of certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance applicable to TA-W-58,956, which was published in the **Federal Register** on April 12, 2006 (71 FR This rescinds the certification of eligibility for workers of TA-W-58,956, to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance and confirms eligibility to apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance as identified on page 18772 in the first column, the fourteenth TA-W-number listed. The Department appropriately published in the **Federal Register** April 12, 2006, page 18773, under the notice of Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance, the denial of eligibility applicable to workers of TA-W-58,956. The notice appears on page 18773 in the first column, the fifth TA-W-number listed. Signed in Washington, DC, this 24th day of July 2006. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12193 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,763] Spartech Polycom, Washington, PA; Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance; Correction This notice rescinds the notice of certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance applicable to TA-W-58,763, which was published in the **Federal Register** on April 4, 2006 (71 FR 16832-16834) in FR Document E6-4858, Billing Code 4510-30-P. This rescinds the certification of eligibility for workers of TA-W-58,763, to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance and confirms eligibility to apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance as identified on page 16833 in the second column, the eighth TA-W-number listed. The Department appropriately published in the **Federal Register** April 4, 2006, page 16834, under the notice of Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance, the denial of eligibility applicable to workers of TA-W-58,763. The notice appears on page 16834 in the first column, the twelfth TA-W-number listed. Signed in Washington, DC, this 24th day of July 2006. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12194 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,230] Stolt Sea Farm, a Subsidiary of Stolt-Nielsen, S.A., Currently Known as Marine Harvest U.S., Inc., Acquired by True North Foods, U.S., Inc., Including On-Site Temporary Workers of Hamilton Connections and Adecco, Stratford, CT; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on May 18, 2006, applicable to workers of Stolt Sea Farm, a subsidiary of Stolt-Nielsen, S.A., including on-site leased workers of Hamilton Connections and Adecco, Stratford, Connecticut. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on June 9, 2006 (71 FR 33488). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers processed Atlantic salmon. On December 30, 2005, True North Foods, U.S., Inc. purchased certain U.S. East Coast operating assets of Marine Harvest U.S., Inc., formerly known as Stolt Sea Farm. Information also shows that all workers separated from employment at Stolt Sea Farm had their wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance
(UI)tax account for True North Foods U.S., Inc. Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to properly reflect this matter. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Stolt Sea Farm, a subsidiary of Stolt-Nielsen, S.A., currently known as Marine Harvest U.S., Inc., acquired by True North Foods, U.S., Inc. who were adversely affected by a shift in production to New Brunswick, Canada. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-59,230 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Stolt Sea Farm, a subsidiary of Stolt-Nielsen, S.A., currently known as Marine Harvest U.S., Inc., acquired by True North Foods, U.S., Inc., including on-site temporary workers of Hamilton Connections and Adecco, Stratford, Connecticut, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after April 17, 2005, through May 18, 2008, 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 6th day of July 2006. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12206 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,094] The U.S. Baird Corporation, Stratford, CT, Including Employees of the U.S. Baird Corporation, Stratford, CT Located in TA-W-59,094A Tallahasse, FL, TA-W-59,094B Jenison, MI, TA-W-59,094C Middleville, MI, TA-W-59,094D Englewood, OH; 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 Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on June 1, 2006, applicable to workers of The U.S. Baird Corporation, Stratford, Connecticut. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on June 22, 2006 (71 FR 35949). At the request of a State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that worker separations have occurred involving four employees of the Stratford, Connecticut facility of The U.S. Baird Corporation located in Tallahassee, Florida, Jenison, Michigan, Middleville, Michigan and Englewood, Ohio. Mr. John Mitteer, Mr. Don Farmer, Mr. Eric Shogren and Mr. James Glaser provided management and sales function services for the production of multiple transfer presses, wire forming machines and wire bending machines produced by the subject company. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include employees of the Stratford, Connecticut facility of The U.S. Baird Corporation located in Tallahassee, Florida, Jenison, Michigan, Middleville, Michigan and Englewood, Ohio. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of The U.S. Baird Corporation, Stratford, Connecticut who were adversely affected by increased customer imports. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-59,094 is hereby issued as follows: “All workers of The U.S. Baird Corporation (TA-W-59,094), and including employees of The U.S. Baird Corporation, Stratford, Connecticut, located in Tallahassee, Florida (TA-W-59,094A), Jenison, Michigan (TA-W-59,094B), Middleville, Michigan (TA-W-59,094C) and Englewood, Ohio (TA-W-59,094D), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after March 27, 2005, through June 1, 2008, 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 19th day of July 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-12197 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION [MCC FR 06-10] Notice of Quarterly Report (April 1, 2006-June 30, 2006) AGENCY: Millennium Challenge Corporation. SUMMARY: The Millennium Challenge Corporation
(MCC)is reporting for the quarter April 1, 2006 through June 30, 2006 with respect to both assistance provided under Section 605 of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-199, Division D (the Act)), and transfers of funds to other federal agencies pursuant to Section 619 of that Act. The following report shall be made available to the public by means of publication in the **Federal Register** and on the Internet Web site of the MCC ( *www.mcc.gov* ) in accordance with Section 612(b) of the Act. Assistance Provided Under Section 605 Projects Obligated Objectives Quarterly disbursements Measures Country: Madagascar Year: 2006 Quarter 3 Total obligation: $109,733,000 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Madagascar Total Quarterly disbursement: $5,392,000 Land Tenure Project $37,803,000 Increase Land Titling and Security $5,392,000 Legislative proposal (“loin de cadrage”) reflecting the PNF submitted to Parliament and passed. Percentage of land documents inventoried, restored, and/or digitized. Average time and cost required to carry out property-related transactions at the local and/or national land services offices. Time/cost to respond to information request, issue titles and to modify titles after the first land right. Number of land disputes reported and resolved in the target zones and sites of implementation. Percentage of land in the zones that is demarcated and ready for titling. Promote knowledge and awareness of land tenure reforms among inhabitants in the zones (surveys). Finance Project $35,888,000 Increase Competition in the Financial Sector $0 Submission to Parliament and passage of new laws recommended by outside experts and relevant commissions. CPA Association
(CSC)list of accountants registered. Maximum check clearing delay. Volume of funds in payment system and number of transactions. Public awareness of new financial instruments (surveys). Report of credit and payment information to a central database. Number of holders of new denomination T-bill holdings, and T-bill issuance outside Antananarivo as measured by Central Bank report of redemption date. Volume of production covered by warehouse receipts in the zones. Volume of MFI lending in the zones. MFI portfolio-at-risk delinquency rate. Number of new bank accounts in the zones. Agricultural Business Investment Project $17,683,000 Improve Agricultural Projection Technologies and Market Capacity in Rural Areas $0 Number of rural producers receiving or soliciting information from ABCs about the opportunities. Zones identified and description of beneficiaries within each zone submitted. Number of cost-effective investment strategies developed. Number of plans prepared. Number of farmers and business employing technical assistance received. Program Administration* and Control, Monitoring and Evaluation $18,399,000 $0 Projects Obligated Objective Disbursements Measures Country: Honduras Year: 2006: Quarter 3 Total obligation: $215,000,000 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA-Honduras Total Quarterly disbursement: $0 Rural Development Project $72,195,000 Increase the productivity and business skills of farmers who operate small and medium-size farms and their employees $0 Hours of technical assistance delivered to Program Farmers (thousands). Funds lent by MCA-Honduras to financial institutions (cumulative). Hours of technical assistance to financial institutions (cumulative). Lien Registry equipment installed. Kilometers of farm-to-market road upgraded (cumulative). Transportation Project $125,700,000 Reduce transportation costs between targeted production centers and national, regional and global markets $0 Kilometers of highway upgraded. Kilometers of secondary road upgraded. Number of weight stations built. Program Administration* and Control, Monitoring and Evaluation $17,105,000 $0 Projects Obligated Objectives Quarterly Disbursements Measures Country: Cape Verde Year: 2006 Quarter 3 Total obligation: $110,078,000 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Cape Verde Total Quarterly disbursement: $0 Watershed and Agricultural Support $10,848,000 Increase agricultural production in three targeted watershed areas on three islands $0 Productivity: Horticulture (tons per hectare). Value-added for farms and agribusiness (millions of dollars). Infrastructure Improvement $78,760,000 Increase integration of the internal market and reduce transportation costs $0 Volume of goods shipped between Praia and other islands (tons). Mobility Ratio: Percentage of beneficiary population who take at least 5 trips per month. Savings on transport costs from improvements (million dollars). Private Sector Development $7,200,000 Spur private sector development on all islands through increased investment in the priority sectors and through financial sector reform $0 Value added in priority sectors above current trends (escudos). Volume of private investment in priority sectors above current trends. Program Administration* and Control, Monitoring and Evaluation $13,270,000 $0 Projects Obligated Objective Disbursements Measures Country: Nicaragua Year: 2006 Quarter 3 Total obligation: $174,925,000 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Nicaragua Total Quarterly disbursement: $1,483,000 Property Regularization Project $26,400,000 Increase Investment by strengthening property rights $99,000 Automated registry-cadastre database installed. Number of parcels with a registered title, rural and urban (total of 21,000 and 22,000, rural and urban, respectively). Projected areas demarcated. Number of projected area management plans implemented. Number of conflicts resolved by program mediation. Transportation Project $92,800,000 Reduce transportation costs between Leon and Chinandega and national, regional and global markets $0 N-1 Road: Kilometers of roads upgraded. Secondary Roads: Kilometers of secondary road upgraded. Rural Business Development Project $33,500,000 Increase the value added of farms and enterprises in the region $307,000 Rural business development centers: Value of TA and support services delivered to program businesses. Improvement of water supply for farming and forest production: Watershed Management Action Plan. Funds disbursed for improvement of water supply for farming and forest production projects. Program Administration,* Due Diligence, Monitoring and Evaluation $22,225,000 $1,077,000 Projects Obligated Objective Disbursements Measures Country: Georgia Year: 2006 Quarter 3 Total obligation: $294,693,000 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Georgia Total Quarterly disbursement: $3,603,000 Regional Infrastructure Rehabilitation $211,700,000 Key Regional Infrastructure Rehabilitated $1,379,000 Reduction in journey time: Akhalkalaki-Ninotsminda-Teleti (hours). Reduction in vehicle operating costs (cumulative). Increase in internal regional traffic volumes (cumulative). Decreased technical losses. Reduction in the production of greenhouse gas emissions measured in tons of CO <sup>2</sup> equivalent. Increase in collection rate of GGIC. Number of household beneficiaries served by RID projects (cumulative). Actual operations and maintenance expenditures (USD). Regional Enterprise Development $47,500,000 Enterprises in Regions Developed $346,000 Increase in annual revenue in portfolio companies (in 1,000 USD). Increase in number of portfolio company employees and number of local suppliers. Increase in portfolio companies' wages and payments to local suppliers (in 1,000 USD). Jobs created. Increase in aggregate incremental net revenue to project assisted firms (in 1,000 USD and cumulative over five years). Direct household net income (in 1,000 USD cumulative over five years). Direct household net income for market information initiative beneficiaries (in 1,000 USD cumulative over five years). Number of beneficiaries. Program Administration,* Due Diligence, Monitoring and Evaluation $35,493,000 $1,878,000 Projects Obligated Objective Disbursements Measures Country: Vanuatu Year: 2006 Quarter 3 Total obligation: $65,690,000 Entity to which the assistance is provided: MCA Vanuatu Total Quarterly disbursement: $1,127,000 Transportation Infrastructure Project $60,690,000 Facilitate transportation to increase tourism and business development $0 Traffic volume (average annual daily traffic). Days road is closed (number per annum). Number of S-W Bay, Malekula flights cancelled due to flooding (per annum). Time of wharf (hours/vessel). Program Administration,* Due Diligence, Monitoring and Evaluation $5,000,000 $1,127,000 *Program administration funds are used to pay items such as salaries, rent, and the cost of office equipment. 619 Transfer funds—U.S. Agency to which funds were transferred Amount Country Description of program or project USAID $20,000,000 FY04 funding Threshold Countries Implementation of Threshold Country Plan. USAID $135,000,000 FY05 funding Threshold Countries Implementation of Threshold Country Plan. Dated: July 25, 2006. Frances C. McNaught, Vice President, Congressional and Public Affairs, Millennium Challenge Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-12156 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9210-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [ Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425] Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81 issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC), for operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2, located in Burke County, Georgia. The proposed amendment would revise, Technical Specification
(TS)5.5.9, “Steam Generator
(SG)Tube Surveillance Program,” to incorporate changes in the SG inspection scope for VEGP, Unit 1 during Refueling Outage 13 and the subsequent operating cycle and for Unit 2, during Refueling Outage 12 and the subsequent operating cycle. The proposed changes modify the inspection requirements for portions of SG tubes within the tubesheet region of the SGs. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not
(1)involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or
(2)create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or
(3)involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below: 1. Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? No. The previously analyzed accidents are initiated by the failure of plant structures, systems, or components. The proposed changes that alter the SG inspection criteria do not have a detrimental impact on the integrity of any plant structure, system, or component that initiates an analyzed event. The proposed changes will not alter the operation of, or otherwise increase the failure probability of any plant equipment that initiates an analyzed accident. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. Of the applicable accidents previously evaluated, the limiting transients with consideration to the proposed changes to the SG tube inspection criteria, are the SG tube rupture
(SGTR)event and the steam line break
(SLB)accident. During the SGTR event, the required structural integrity margins of the SG tubes will be maintained by the presence of the SG tubesheet. SG tubes are hydraulically expanded in the tubesheet area. Tube rupture in tubes with cracks in the tubesheet is precluded by the constraint provided by the tubesheet. This constraint results from the hydraulic expansion process, thermal expansion mismatch between the tube and tubesheet and from the differential pressure between the primary and secondary side. Based on this design, the structural margins against burst discussed in Regulatory Guide
(RG)1.121, “Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR SG Tubes,” are maintained for both normal and postulated accident conditions. The proposed changes do not affect other systems, structures, components or operational features. Therefore, the proposed changes result in no significant increase in the probability of the occurrence of a SGTR accident. At normal operating pressures, leakage from primary water stress corrosion cracking (PWSCC) below the proposed limited inspection depth is limited by both the tube-to-tubesheet crevice and the limited crack opening permitted by the tubesheet constraint. Consequently, negligible normal operating leakage is expected from cracks within the tubesheet region. The consequences of an SGTR event are affected by the primary-to-secondary leakage flow during the event. Primary-to-secondary leakage flow through a postulated broken tube is not affected by the proposed change since the tubesheet enhances the tube integrity in the region of the hydraulic expansion by precluding tube deformation beyond its initial hydraulically expanded outside diameter. The probability of a SLB is unaffected by the potential failure of a SG tube as this failure is not an initiator for a SLB. The consequences of a SLB are also not significantly affected by the proposed changes. During a SLB accident, the reduction in pressure above the tubesheet on the shell side of the SG creates an axially uniformly distributed load on the tubesheet due to the reactor coolant system pressure on the underside of the tubesheet. The resulting bending action constrains the tubes in the tubesheet thereby restricting primary-to-secondary leakage below the midplane. The hydraulically expanded tube-to-tubesheet joints in Model F SGs are not leaktight without the tube end weld. Considerations were also made with regard to the potential for primary-to-secondary leakage during postulated faulted conditions. However, the leak rate during postulated accident conditions would be expected to be less than that during normal operation for indications near the bottom of the tubesheet based on an evaluation [by the Westinghouse Electric Company dated July 11, 2006] which shows that while the driving pressure increases by about a factor of almost two, the flow resistance increases because the tube-to-tubesheet contact pressure also increases. Depending on the depth within the tubesheet, the relative increase in resistance could easily be larger than that of the pressure potential. Therefore, the leak rate under normal operating conditions could exceed its allowed value before the accident condition leak rate would be expected to exceed its allowed value. This approach is termed an application of the “bellwether principle.” While such a decrease in the leak rate is expected, the postulated accident leak rate could conservatively be taken to be bounded by twice the normal operating leak rate if the increase in contact pressure is ignored. Since normal operating leakage is limited by the TS changes proposed in SNC letter NL-06-0124 and by NEI 97-06 to less than 0.10 gpm [gallons per minute], (150 gpd [gallons per day]) throughout one SG in the VEGP Units 1 and 2 SGs, the attendant accident condition leak rate, assuming all leakage to be from lower tubesheet indications, would be bounded by 0.20 gpm in the faulted SG which is less than the accident analysis assumption of 0.35 gpm to the affected SG included in Section 15.1.5 of the VEGP Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Hence it is reasonable to omit any consideration of inspection of the tube, tube end weld, bulges/overexpansions or other anomalies below 17 inches from the top of the hot leg tubesheet. Based on the above discussion, the proposed changes do not involve an increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed license amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? No. The proposed changes do not involve the use or installation of new equipment and the currently installed equipment will not be operated in a new or different manner. No new or different system interactions are created and no new processes are introduced. The proposed changes will not introduce any new failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators not already considered in the design and licensing bases. Based on this evaluation, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. 3. Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? No. The proposed changes maintain the required structural margins of the SG tubes for both normal and accident conditions. Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI)97-06, “Steam Generator Program Guidelines,” and Regulatory Guide
(RG)1.121, “Bases for Plugging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubes,” are used as the bases in the development of the limited tubesheet inspection depth methodology for determining that SG tube integrity considerations are maintained within acceptable limits. RG 1.121 describes a method acceptable to the NRC for meeting General Design Criteria
(GDC)14, “Reactor coolant pressure boundary,” GDC 15, “Reactor coolant system design,” GDC 31, “Fracture prevention of reactor coolant pressure boundary,” and GDC 32, “Inspection of reactor coolant pressure boundary,” by reducing the probability and consequences of a SGTR. RG 1.121 concludes that by determining the limiting safe conditions for tube wall degradation the probability and consequences of a SGTR are reduced. This RG uses safety factors on loads for tube burst that are consistent with the requirements of Section III of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME)Code. Application of the limited tubesheet inspection depth criteria will preclude unacceptable primary-to-secondary leakage during all plant conditions. The methodology for determining leakage provides for large margins between calculated and actual leakage values in the proposed limited tubesheet inspection depth criteria. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant hazards consideration under the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the **Federal Register** a notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently. Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.* If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:
(1)The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;
(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;
(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and
(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment. Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed by:
(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;
(2)courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;
(3)E-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, hearingdocket@nrc.gov; or
(4)facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at
(301)415-1101, verification number is
(301)415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by E-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov.* A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Arthur H. Domby, Esquire, Troutman Sanders, NationsBank Plaza, 600 Peachtree Street, NE., Suite 5200, Atlanta, GA 30308-2216, the attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated July 20, 2006, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of July 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Christopher Gratton, Sr. Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-12169 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION SUNSHINE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DATE: Week of July 24, 2006. PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. STATUS: Public and Closed. Additional Matters To Be Considered Week of July 24, 2006 Thursday, July 27, 2006 3 p.m. Discussion of Management Issues (closed—ex. 2). *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Michelle Schroll,
(301)415-1662. Additional Information By a vote of 5-0 on July 24 and 25, 2006, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that “Discussion of Management Issues (closed—ex 2)” be held July 27, 2006 and by a vote of 4-1 that the meeting be held on less than one week's notice to the public. Commissioner Jaczko did not vote to hold the meeting on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: *www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html.* The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, Deborah Chan, at 301-415-7041, TDD: 301-415-2100, or by e-mail at *DLC@nrc.gov.* Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to *dkw@nrc,gov,* Dated: July 26, 2006 Sandy Joosten, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 06-6613 Filed 7-27-06; 12:58 pm]
Connectionstraces to 11
5 references not yet in our index
  • 21 CFR 301.34(b)
  • 26 USC 2813
  • 29 CFR 90.18(c)
  • Pub. L. 108-199
  • 10 CFR 2
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
U.S.C.§ 958
U.S.C.§ 952
C.F.R.§ 1301.34
C.F.R.§ 1301.43
C.F.R.§ 1316.47
U.S.C.§ 823
C.F.R.§ 1301.33
U.S.C.§ 2273
C.F.R.§ 50.91
Cite21 CFR 301.34(b)
Cite26 USC 2813
Cite29 CFR 90.18(c)
Cites 16 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.