Notices. Request for public comment

13,000 words·~59 min read·/register/2006/10/16/06-8692

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

BILLING CODE 4410-02-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request October 10, 2006. The Department of Labor

(DOL)has submitted the following public information collection request

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained from RegInfo.gov at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number)/e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov.* Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Employment Standards Administration (ESA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, telephone: 202-395-7316/fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not toll-free numbers), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register.** The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* The Secretary of Labor's Opportunity, Exemplary Voluntary Effort (EVE), and Exemplary Public Interest Contribution

(EPIC)Awards. *OMB Number:* 1215-0201. *Frequency:* Annually. *Type of Response:* Reporting. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business and other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 39. *Estimated Number of Annual Responses:* 39. *Estimated Average Response Time:* 114 hours. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 4,460. *Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs:* $0. *Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* $0. *Description:* The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is responsible for the administration of the Secretary of Labor's Opportunity Award, Exemplary Voluntary Effort (EVE), and Exemplary Public Interest Contribution

(EPIC)Awards. These Awards shall be presented annually to Federal contractors and non-profit organizations whose activities support the mission of the OFCCP. This information collection will be utilized in an effort to select recipients for the Secretary of Labor's Opportunity, EVE, and EPIC Awards. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-17122 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-23-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request October 9, 2006. The Department of Labor

(DOL)has submitted the following public information collection requests

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained from RegInfo.gov at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number)/e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov* . Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, telephone: 202-395-7316 / fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not toll-free numbers), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Employee Benefits Security Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* Notice of Special Enrollment Rights under Group Health Plans. *OMB Number:* 1210-0101. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Type of Response:* Third party disclosure. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profit and not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 2,493,046. *Number of Annual Responses:* 8,568,282. *Total Burden Hours:* 1. *Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs:* $0. *Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* $77,115. *Description:* Section 734 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which was added by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-191, Aug. 21, 1996) (HIPAA), gives the Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services

(ICR)covers the requirement in the implementing regulations under section 701(f) for a special enrollment notice. This information collection implements the disclosure obligation of a plan to inform all employees, at or before the time they are initially offered the opportunity to enroll in the plan, of the plan's special enrollment rules. The regulations require plans and their issuers to provide all employees with a notice describing their special enrollment rights, whether or not they enroll. This provision is necessary to make sure that employees are informed of their special enrollment rights before they take any action that may affect those rights, so that they will be able to aware of and able to exercise their rights within any 30-day enrollment period following a special enrollment event. Absent the notice requirement, there is a risk that employees will not know in advance that they have special enrollment rights and will not be able to take timely action to enroll in group health coverage following a special enrollment event. *Agency:* Employee Benefits Security Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* Notice of Pre-Existing Condition Exclusion Under Group Health Plans. *OMB Number:* 1210-0102. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Type of Response:* Third party disclosure. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 747,914. *Number of Annual Responses:* 3,832,337. *Total Burden Hours:* 5,714. *Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs:* $0. *Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* $1,120,709. *Description:* Section 734 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which was added by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-191, Aug. 21, 1996) (HIPAA), gives the Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services

(HHS)and the Secretary of the Treasury, (collectively, the Departments) the authority to promulgate necessary or appropriate regulations to carry out the provisions of Part 7 of ERISA (the HIPAA provisions). The portability provisions of Part 7 limit the extent to which group health plans and their health insurance issuers can restrict health coverage based on pre-existing conditions for individuals who previously had health coverage and make it easier for such individuals to continue their health coverage when they change jobs by limiting the ability of group health plans and health insurance issuers to exclude coverage based on a pre-existing condition. The provisions limit all pre-existing condition exclusion periods to twelve months (or eighteen months for certain individuals who enroll late in the plan). Further, a group health plan must reduce the twelve- or eighteen-month exclusion period by the length of an individual's previous “continuous health coverage.” Continuous health coverage, in this context, means health coverage without any significant breaks in coverage. A significant break in coverage is any period without coverage that lasts for 63 days or more. Following a significant break in coverage, an individual is not entitled to any credit for prior coverage to reduce a preexisting condition exclusion period. The Departments issued Interim Final Rules for Health Insurance Portability for Group Health Plans on April 8, 1997 (67 FR 16894), and Final Regulations for Health Coverage Portability for Group Health Plans and Group Health Insurance Issuers under HIPAA Titles I & IV on December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78720). *See* 29 CFR 2590.701-1 through 701-7. These regulations impose certain information collection and other requirements mandated by portability provisions enacted in Section 701 of HIPAA. In order to offset burdens on plans and issuers, the regulations require participants to demonstrate their prior creditable coverage in some circumstances. In order to help balance the burdens shifted to the participants, the regulations provide the following protections relating to providing prior creditable coverage and preexisting condition exclusions: General Notice Plans and issuers that impose preexisting condition exclusion periods must give employees eligible for coverage, as part of any enrollment application, a general notice that describes the plan's preexisting condition exclusion, including that the plan will reduce the maximum exclusion period by the length of an employee's prior creditable coverage. If there are no such enrollment materials, the notice must be provided as soon after a request for enrollment as is reasonably possible. The final regulation includes sample language for the general notice. *See* 29 CFR 2590.701-3(c). This language is likely to reduce the cost of providing the notice. Plans that use the alternative method of crediting coverage provided in the regulations must disclose their use of that method at the time of enrollment and describe how it operates. They must also explain that a participant has a right to establish prior creditable coverage through a certificate or other means and to request a certificate of prior coverage from a prior plan or issuer. Finally, plans or issuers must offer to assist the participant in obtaining a certificate from prior plans or issuers, if necessary. *See* 29 CFR 2590.701-4(c)(4). Individual Notice Before a plan or issuer may impose a preexisting condition exclusion on a particular participant or dependent, it must give the individual written notice describing the length of the preexisting condition exclusion that will be imposed and the length of offsetting prior coverage the plan has recognized (individual notice). The individual notice must also describe the basis for the plan's decision regarding prior creditable coverage, an explanation of the individual's right to submit additional evidence of creditable coverage, and any appeal procedure established by the plan or issuer. The notice need not identify any medical conditions that could be subject to the exclusion. The general notice and the individual notice both protect individuals by informing them of their Part 7 rights, enabling them to take any necessary corrective action, exercise their rights, and to understand the plan's provisions and how they plan to his or her personal situation. The information collections covered by this ICR are mandated third party disclosures of information by group health plans and issuers to individuals eligible for group health coverage and/or participants in such plans against whom preexisting condition exclusions may be imposed. The information is necessary to enable individuals to understand and exercise their rights under Part 7 of ERISA. No information is required to be provided to the government under these regulations. *Agency:* Employee Benefits Security Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* Establishing Creditable Coverage under Group Health Plans. *OMB Number:* 1210-0103. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Type of Response:* Third party disclosure. *Affected Public:* Private Sector: Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions. *Number of Respondents:* 2,493,046. *Number of Annual Responses:* 16,250,284. *Total Burden Hours:* 75,306. *Total Annualized Capital/Startup Costs:* $0. *Total Annual Costs (operating/maintaining systems or purchasing services):* $11,456,011. *Description:* Section 734 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), which was added by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-191, Aug. 21, 1996) (HIPAA), provides that the Secretary of Labor, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services

(HHS)and the Secretary of the Treasury, (collectively, the Departments) may promulgate such regulations (including interim final rules) as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of Part 7 of ERISA (the HIPAA provisions). In addition, section 701(e)(3) of ERISA, added by HIPAA (with parallel provisions added to the Public Health Service Act

(PHSA)and the Internal Revenue Code (the Code)), requires that the Secretary of Labor issue rules to ensure that group health plans, health insurance issuers, and other specified entities provide certain required disclosures to individuals regarding their health care coverage in order to prevent adverse effects on the individual's subsequent health coverage. These required disclosures include individual certifications of prior health coverage (certificates) and, upon the request of a plan that counts or “credits” prior health coverage in determining subsequent coverage for specific categories of benefits, additional information about coverage under these categories of benefits (called the “alternative method” of crediting coverage). In order to effectuate these and other purposes, the Department issued Interim Final Rules for Health Insurance Portability for Group Health Plans on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16894), and Final Regulations for Health Coverage Portability for Group Health Plans and Group Health Insurance Issuers under HIPAA Titles I & IV on December 30, 2004 (69 FR 78720) (final HIPAA portability regulations). The HIPAA portability provisions limit the extent to which group health plans and their health insurance issuers can restrict health coverage based on preexisting conditions for individuals that were previously covered by health coverage. The provisions limit all preexisting condition exclusion periods to twelve months, or eighteen months for certain individuals who enroll in the plan after their initial opportunity to enroll. Further, the twelve- or eighteen-month exclusion period must be reduced by the length of an individual's prior continuous health coverage, as reflected in certificates or demonstrated through other means. “Continuous health coverage” means coverage that did not have any significant breaks in coverage. A significant break in coverage, for this purpose, is defined as a period of 63 days or more. Following a significant break in coverage, prior health coverage is no longer “creditable,” that is, entitled to be taken as a credit to reduce a plan's preexisting condition exclusion period. Section 701(e) of ERISA requires group health plans and health insurance issuers to provide certificates of an individual's prior health coverage on termination of coverage, at the time an individual would lose coverage in the absence of continuation coverage (“COBRA”), and when an individual loses coverage after COBRA coverage ceases. Certificates must also be provided on request and may be requested at any time while an individual is covered by the plan and for 24 months after coverage ceases. (Certificates must also be provided by other entities that provide creditable coverage, like Medicare and Medicaid.) The certificate must show the number of days of creditable coverage earned by the individual and also include an educational statement describing the Part 7 rights. The regulations provide model language for the educational statement. In addition, the regulations require a group health plan to establish written procedures governing the process for requesting a certificate. The individual who receives a certificate may present it to his or her new group health plan in order to receive credit for prior health coverage under the new plan. The certificate provides assurance to the individual's new group health plan or its health insurance issuer that the individual had health coverage for a certain number of days that should be credited toward reducing any preexisting condition exclusion periods under the new health plan. Because participants may be required to demonstrate creditable coverage and the status of their dependents in some circumstances in order to assert rights under Part 7, the regulations provide the following protections:

(a)If an individual is required to demonstrate dependent status, the plan or issuer is required to treat the individual as having furnished a certificate showing the dependent status if the individual attests to such dependency and the period of such status, and the individual cooperates with the plan's or issuer's efforts to verify the dependent status. ( *See* 29 CFR 2590.701-5(a)(5)(ii).)

(b)A plan is required treat an individual as having furnished a certificate if the individual attests to the period of creditable coverage, presents relevant corroborating evidence, and cooperates with the plan's efforts to verify the individual's coverage. ( *See* 29 CFR 2590.701-5(c).) This ICR also covers an information collection requirement imposed under the regulations in connection with the alternative method of crediting coverage established by the regulations. The regulations permit a plan to adopt, as its method of crediting prior health coverage, provisions that impose different preexisting condition exclusion periods with respect to different categories of benefits, depending on prior coverage in that category. In such a case, the regulations require former plans to provide additional information upon request to new plans in order to establish an individual's length of prior creditable coverage within that category of benefits. This information collection implements statutorily prescribed requirements necessary to permit individuals to establish prior creditable health coverage and to enable group health plans and issuers to verify creditable coverage. Group health plans and the plans' health insurance issuers are required to issue certificates as proof of prior creditable health coverage. These certificates assist individuals in retaining prior health coverage upon changes in employment or in other circumstances when coverage end and enable plans. A model certificate, which includes a model educational statement (“Statement of HIPAA Rights”), appears in the Final Regulations. The model certificate contains the minimum information required for such a certification. The information is used by participants in group health plans and by group health plans and health coverage issuers to establish an individual's rights to group health coverage under Part 7. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E6-17123 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,820] Airfoil Technologies International—Ohio; A Subsidiary Of Airfoil Technologies International, LLC; Mentor, OH; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration By letter dated August 25, 2006, the United Steel Workers, Local 1-826 (the Union), requested administrative reconsideration regarding the Department's Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to the workers of the subject firm. The determination for Airfoil Technologies International—Ohio, A Subsidiary of Airfoil Technologies International, LLC, Mentor, Ohio was issued on August 7, 2006. The Notice of determination was published in the **Federal Register** on August 28, 2006 (71 FR 50947). The denial was issued based on the Department's finding that the subject workers do not produce an article as required by the Trade Act of 1974. Workers are engaged in the remanufacturing of jet engine components as a service to commercial airlines, original equipment manufacturers and the military. In the request for reconsideration, the Union alleges that the subject workers are engaged in the production of an article and that production shifted from the subject facility to an affiliated facility in Singapore. During the reconsideration investigation, the subject company provided new information that the subject workers do not service jet engine components only; rather, the subject workers repair and remanufacture fan blades. The new information also revealed that a meaningful portion of the fan blades are produced for sale rather than repair. Workers who repair fan blades are not separately identifiable from workers who remanufacture fan blades. The subject company also confirmed that the subject facility began closure procedures in 2006 and that fan blade production is shifting to an affiliated facility in Singapore (the production shift will be completed in early 2007). In accordance with section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

(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 October 26, 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 October 26, 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 3rd day of October, 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [TAA Petitions Instituted Between 9/25/06 and 9/29/06] TA-W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution Date of petition 60130 AJS Controls, Inc.

(Comp)Sidney, NY 09/25/06 09/21/06 60131 New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (NUMMI) (State) Fremont, CA 09/25/06 09/22/06 60132 Mansfield Plumbing Products

(Wkrs)Perrysville, OH 09/25/06 09/25/06 60133 Rosboro (Union) Springfield, OR 09/26/06 09/23/06 60134 Alatech Healthcare, LLC

(Comp)Slocomb, AL 09/26/06 09/25/06 60135 Rothtec Engraving Corp.

(Wkrs)Charlotte, NC 09/26/06 09/24/06 60136 Owens-Illinois (Union) Godfrey, IL 09/26/06 09/25/06 60137 Mudd Jeans, LLC

(Wkrs)New York, NY 09/26/06 09/11/06 60138 Quaker Fabric Corporation of Fall River (State) Fall River, MA 09/26/06 09/25/06 60139 Pechiney Plastic Packaging, Inc.

(Comp)San Leandro, CA 09/26/06 09/18/06 60140 TAP Holdings, LLC

(Comp)Los Angeles, CA 09/26/06 09/19/06 60141 ESCO Company, Limited Partnership

(Comp)Muskegon, MI 09/26/06 09/19/06 60142 PPG Industries

(Wkrs)Lexington, NC 09/26/06 09/22/06 60143 Bloomsburg Mills

(Comp)New York, NY 09/26/06 09/25/06 60144 Ethan Allen Operations, Inc.

(Comp)Atoka, OK 09/26/06 09/08/06 60145 Schutt Sports

(Wkrs)Salem, IL 09/26/06 09/20/06 60146 Jabil

(Comp)Auburn Hills, MI 09/26/06 09/26/06 60147 Superior Lumber Company

(Wkrs)Glendale, OR 09/27/06 09/25/06 60148 Monadnock Specialty Coatings, LLC

(Comp)Binghamton, NY 09/27/06 09/26/06 60149 Bloch Washington

(Comp)Seattle, WA 09/27/06 09/21/06 60150 Celestica

(Comp)Westminster, CO 09/27/06 09/25/06 60151 CEP Products

(Comp)Lapeer, MI 09/27/06 09/15/06 60152 Aimsworth Engineered (State) Grand Rapids, MN 09/27/06 09/27/06 60153 Saint-Gobain Containers

(Wkrs)El Monte, CA 09/27/06 09/19/06 60154 Lucas Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc (State) Southold, NY 09/27/06 09/27/06 60155 Technicolor Video Cassette of Michigan

(Wkrs)Livonia, MI 09/27/06 09/23/06 60156 Thermo Electron RMSI

(Comp)Santa Fe, NM 09/27/06 09/27/06 60157 Visteon (Union) Connersville, IN 09/27/06 09/22/06 60158 Geneva Steel LLC

(COMP)Lindon, UT 09/28/06 09/27/06 60159 Brown International Corporation

(Wkrs)Covina, CA 09/28/06 09/27/06 60160 Multi-Fineline Electronix, Inc.

(Wkrs)Anaheim, CA 09/28/06 09/28/06 60161 Wright and Lato Inc. (Union) E. Orange, NJ 09/28/06 09/26/06 60162 Ison Transport Inc.

(COMP)Ontonagon, MI 09/29/06 09/28/06 60163 Gallman Wire Technologies

(COMP)Gallman, MS 09/29/06 09/28/06 60164 ZF Boge Elastametall

(COMP)Paris, IL 09/29/06 09/28/06 60165 Emerson Climate Technologies

(COMP)Murfreesboro, TN 09/29/06 09/18/06 60166 Up North Industries

(Wkrs)Petoskey, MI 09/29/06 09/28/06 60167 Andrew Massachusetts

(COMP)Amesbury, MA 09/29/06 09/26/06 60168 Korn Industries Inc.

(COMP)Sumter, SC 09/29/06 09/20/06 60169 Cognex Corporation

(COMP)Natick, MA 09/29/06 09/19/06 60170 AET Films Incorporated (Union) Covington, VA 09/29/06 09/29/06 60171 Nisource/Columbia Gas Transmission

(Wkrs)Charleston, WV 09/29/06 09/27/06 [FR Doc. E6-17114 Filed 10-13-06; 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 September 25 through September 29, 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 issued 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-59,910; Allied Poly Industries, Hayward, CA: August 3, 2005.* *TA-W-59,971; Mar/Tron, Inc., Flippin, AR: August 28, 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-59,965; Jones Apparel of Texas II, Ltd., El Paso, TX: August 21, 2005.* *TA-W-59,966; ABB, Inc., Lewisburg, WV: August 28, 2005.* 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-58,937; Rexam, Inc., d//b/a Precise Technology/PGH Tool Shop, North Versailles, PA: February 28, 2005.* *TA-W-59,183; Gehl Company, West Bend, WI: April 10, 2005.* *TA-W-59,953; Corinthian, Inc., Cutting Department, Corinth, MS: August 24, 2005.* *TA-W-60,010; Placement Pros. Maverick Technology and Manpower, Working On-Site at Maytag Corporation, Herrin, IL: September 5, 2005.* *TA-W-60,027; West Point Home, Bed Products Division, Opelika, AL: September 7, 2005.* *TA-W-60,037; Ethan Allen Operations, Inc., Spruce Pine, NC: September 7, 2005.* *TA-W-60,070; RAD Electronics, Inc., dba RAD Technologies, Hillsboro, OR: September 12, 2005.* *TA-W-60,098; AME Corporation, Towaco, NJ:* September 18, 2005. *TA-W-59,903; Acore Door Company, Coldwater, MI: August 14, 2005.* *TA-W-59,921; Weyerhaeuser Co., Specialty Packaging Facility, Valley View, OH: August 10, 2005.* *TA-W-59,922; Hiatt Metal Products Co., Muncie, IN:* August 17, 2005. *TA-W-59,928; Diversco Integrated Services, Bed Products Division, Calhoun Falls, Plnat, Calhoun Falls, SC: August 16, 2005.* *TA-W-59,957; Jonette Jewelry Co., East Providence, RI: August 25, 2005.* *TA-W-60,001; Butts Manufacturing Co., Garden Grove, CA:* August 24, 2005. *TA-W-60,007; GKN, Sinter Metals Division, Salem, IN: September 1, 2005.* *TA-W-60,025; Modine Manufacturing, Automotive Div., Logansport, IN: September 6, 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-59,866; Troy Design, Inc., On-Site at General Motors Corp., Engineering Design Interiors Surfacing, Warren, MI: August 4, 2005.* *TA-W-60,013; Hutchinson FTS, Byrdstown, TN: September 5, 2005.* *TA-W-60,017; Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Kimberly-Clark Global Sales, Inc., Neenah, WI: September 6, 2005.* *TA-W-60,018; Great Western Malting, Vancouver, WA: September 6, 2005.* *TA-W-60,038; Carbone Kirkwood, LLC, Farmville, VA: August 31, 2005.* *TA-W-60,039; Hamilton Sundstrand, Actuation Systems Enterprise Group, Rockford, IL: August 31, 2005.* *TA-W-60,065; Suntron Midwest Operations, Div. of Suntron Corp., Olathe, KS: September 12, 2005.* *TA-W-60,093; Carhartt, Inc., Madisonville Cutting Division, Madisonville, KY: September 14, 2005.* *TA-W-59,945; Sheaffer Manufacturing Co., LLC, A Subdivision of BIC Corporation, Fort Madison, IA: September 24, 2006.* *TA-W-60,036; Crane Plumbing, Monroe, GA: September 7, 2005.* *TA-W-60,040; ADVO, Graphics Print Department, Milwaukee, WI: September 1, 2005.* *TA-W-60,099; Metaldyne Corp., Greenville, NC: September 11, 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-59,856; Kimball International, Kimball Electronics Group Division, Jasper, IN: August 2, 2005.* *TA-W-59,967; GAC Chemical Corp., General Alum New England, Searsport, ME: August 16, 2005.* *TA-W-60,020; Venus Accessories, Ltd., Long Island City, NY: August 14, 2005.* *TA-W-60,044; Degussa Engineered Carbons, LP, Belpre, OH: September 1, 2005.* *TA-W-60,063; Fisher and Company, A Division of Fisher Corp., Troy, MI: September 5, 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. *TA-W-59,910; Allied Poly Industries, Hayward, CA: August 3, 2005.* *TA-W-59,966; ABB, Inc., Lewisburg, WV.* The Department as determined that criterion

(2)of section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable. *TA-W-59,971; Mar/Tron, Inc., Flippin, AR.* *TA-W-59,965; Jones Apparel of Texas II, Ltd., El Paso, TX.* The Department as determined that criterion

(3)of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse. *None.* 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-59,942; Distinctive Designs Furniture USA, Fiber Department, Granite Falls, NC.* *TA-W-59,972; National Apparel, San Francisco, CA.* *TA-W-60,073; Leviton Manufacturing Co., Southern Devices Division, Morganton, NC.* *TA-W-60,083; QPM Aerospace, Portland, OR.* *TA-W-60,094; Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., Union City Plant, Union City, TN.* *TA-W-60,101; Siemon Company (The), Watertown, CT.* 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-60,011; OSRAM Sylvania, Inc., Central Falls, RI.* 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-59,744; AGX Corporation, New York, NY.* *TA-W-59,818; Sun Chemical Corp., North American Inks (NAI), Winston-Salem, NC.* *TA-W-59,876; Glide Lumber, LLC, Glide, OR.* *TA-W-59,898; Fenton Art Glass Company, Williamstown, WV.* *TA-W-59,940; Liberty Throwing Co., Inc., Kingston, PA.* *TA-W-60,071; J and S Industries LLC, Livonia, MI.* *TA-W-60,074; Rebtex Company, Inc., East Greenwich, RI.* 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 under a free trade agreement or a beneficiary country under a preferential trade agreement, or there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports). *None.* The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. *TA-W-59,995; Bess Manufacturing Co., Bensalem, PA.* *TA-W-59,998; Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp., Concord, CA.* *TA-W-60,087; Wachovia Bank, Disbursement Operating Services, Philadelphia, PA.* 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 from September 25 through September 29, 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: October 5, 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17102 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,463] Ash Grove Cement Company Rivergate Lime Plant; Portland, OR; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration On August 7, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Ash Grove Cement Company, Rivergate Lime Plant, Portland, Oregon (subject firm). The Department's Notice of Affirmative Determination was published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56169). Although the petition states that the subject firm produces calcium oxide, the investigation revealed that ground limestone, ground dolomite, and calcium hydroxide are produced as well as calcium oxide. The subject workers are not separately identifiable by product line. The petitioner (the subject firm) requested that the Department consider TA-W-59,463 as both a primary and secondary petition. The petition for the workers of the subject firm was denied because there was no shift of production and the “contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The “contributed importantly” test is generally demonstrated through increased imports by either the subject firm or its customers of those articles produced by the subject worker group. The investigation revealed that although calcium oxide production had ceased, there was no shift of production from the subject facility to a country that is party to a free trade agreement with the United States, or a country that is named as a beneficiary under the Andean Trade Preference Act, the African Growth and Opportunity Act or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. The investigation also revealed that neither the subject firm nor its customers increased imports of calcium oxide during the relevant period. Because the determination did not state whether the subject worker group is eligible for TAA as workers of a secondarily-affected firm, the Department issued the Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration. In the initial petition, the company official asserts that the subject firm supplied calcium oxide to Oregon Steel Mills (TAA certified on May 9, 2003; TA-W-50,706). In the request for reconsideration, the company official stated that “calcium oxide produced at the plant is sold for a variety of end uses but is primarily used in the iron and steel making industry.” The company official also asserts that the closure of Oregon Steel Mills, Portland, Oregon in May 2003 (one of two major customers) and the subject firm's inability to secure another high-volume customer led to the closure of the calcium oxide line and the workers' separations. During the reconsideration investigation, the company official confirmed that calcium oxide production ceased at the subject facility on May 31, 2006. Calcium oxide constituted a meaningful portion of production at the subject facility. During the reconsideration investigation, the company official provided new information that indicated that there are several major declining calcium oxide customers during the relevant period. In response to this new information, the Department carefully reviewed previously-submitted information and conducted a new survey to determine whether these customers had increased import purchases of calcium oxide while declining their purchases from the subject firm during the relevant period. The reconsideration investigation revealed no increased imports of calcium oxide by these customers. For certification on the basis of the workers' firm being a secondary upstream supplier, the subject firm must have customers that are TAA certified during the relevant period and the TAA certified customers must represent a significant portion of subject firm's business during the relevant period. In addition, the subject firm would have to produce a component part of the product that was the basis for the customers' certification. Because the TAA certification for Oregon Steel Mills, Portland, Oregon had expired on May 9, 2005, that customer cannot be a basis for certification of the subject firm as an affected secondary upstream supplier. Further, since Oregon Steel Mills, Portland, Oregon ceased production in May 2003, that customer cannot have represented a significant portion of the subject firm's business during the relevant period. As such, the subject workers are not eligible for TAA under secondary impact. 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, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. Conclusion After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Ash Grove Cement Company, Rivergate Lime Plant, Portland, Oregon. Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of September, 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17105 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,833] The Baxter Corporation; Shelby, NC; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated September 27, 2006, petitioners requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on August 28, 2006 and published in the **Federal Register** on September 21, 2006 (71 FR 55217). 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 petition for the workers of the Baxter Corporation, Shelby, North Carolina engaged in production of jacquard textile harnesses was denied because the “contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met, nor was there a shift in production from that firm to a foreign country in 2004, 2005 or January through July 2006. The “contributed importantly” test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's customers. The survey revealed no imports of jacquard textile harnesses during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import jacquard textile harnesses nor did it shift production to a foreign country during the relevant period. The petitioner states that the affected workers lost their jobs as a direct result of a loss of customers in the textile industry. The petitioner alleges that major declining customers of the subject firm were negatively impacted by increased imports of various textiles, thus they decreased their purchases of jacquard textile harnesses from the Baxter Corporation, Shelby, North Carolina. The petitioner also states that several of the subject firm's customers were certified eligible for TAA based on an increase in imports of various textile products. The petitioner concludes that because sales and production of jacquard textile harnesses at the subject firm have been negatively impacted by increasing presence of foreign imports of textile products on the market, workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA. In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider imports that are like or directly competitive with those produced at the subject firm. The Department conducted a survey of the subject firm's major declining customers regarding their purchases of jacquard textile harnesses. The survey revealed that the declining customers did not increase their imports of jacquard textile harnesses during the relevant period. Imports of textiles cannot be considered like or directly competitive with jacquard textile harnesses produced by Baxter Corporation, Shelby, North Carolina and imports of textiles are not relevant in this investigation. The fact that subject firm's customers shifted their production abroad or were import impacted is relevant to this investigation if determining whether workers of the subject firm are eligible for TAA based on the secondary upstream supplier of trade certified primary firm impact. For certification on the basis of the workers' firm being a secondary upstream supplier, the subject firm must produce a component part of the article that was the basis for the customers' TAA certification. In this case, however, the subject firm does not act as an upstream supplier, because jacquard textile harnesses do not form a component part of various fabrics, yarn and other textile products. Thus the subject firm workers are not eligible under secondary impact. 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, day 5th of October, 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17118 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,006] Bosch Sumter Plant; Automotive Technology Chassis Division Including Onsite Leased Workers From Huffmaster Company, IH Services and Olsten Staffing; Sumter, SC; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on September 22, 2006, applicable to workers of Bosch Sumter Plant, Automotive Technology Chassis Division, including onsite leased workers from Huffmaster Company, IH Services, and Olsten Staffing, Sumter, South Carolina. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on October 2, 2006 (71 FR 58011-58012). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produce automotive brakes and brake boosters. The review shows that this same worker group was certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under petition number TA-W-55,227, which expired on August 2, 2006. In order to avoid an overlap in worker group coverage, the Department is amending the current certification for workers of Bosch Sumter Plant, Automotive Technology Chassis Division, including onsite leased workers from Huffmaster Company, IH Services, and Olsten Staffing, Sumter, South Carolina, to change the impact date from September 22, 2005 to August 3, 2006. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,006 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Bosch Sumter Plant, Automotive Technology Chassis Division, Sumter, South Carolina, including onsite leased workers of Huffmaster Company, IH Services and Olsten Staffing, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 3, 2006 through September 22, 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 4th day of October, 2006. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17110 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,183] Gehl Company; West Bend, WI; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration On August 2, 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 August 11, 2006 (71 FR 46243-46244). The previous investigation initiated on April 11, 2006, resulted in a negative determination issued on June 7, 2006, based on the finding that imports of agricultural implements did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. The denial notice was published in the **Federal Register** on July 14, 2006 (71 FR 40160). To support the request for reconsideration, the company official supplied additional information. Upon further review of the initial investigation and contact with subject firm's company official, the Department conducted additional survey of subject firm's declining customers. The survey revealed that subject firm customers increased their reliance on import purchases of agricultural implements during the relevant period. The investigation also revealed that sales and production at the subject firm declined during the relevant time period. In accordance with section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance

(ATAA)for older workers. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of section 246 of the Trade Act must be met. The Department has determined in this case that the requirements of section 246 have been met. A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at Gehl Company, West Bend, Wisconsin, contributed importantly to the declines in sales or production and to the total or partial separation of workers at the subject firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Gehl Company, West Bend, Wisconsin, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after April 10, 2005 through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed in Washington, DC, this 29th day of September 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17104 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,947 and TA-W-59,947A] Hamrick's Incorporated, Plants 1 and 2, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Phillips Staffing, Gaffney, SC; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on September 14, 2006, applicable to workers of Hamrick's Incorporated, Plant 1 and Plant 2 located in Gaffney, South Carolina, including on-site leased workers from Phillips Staffing. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56170-56172). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in employment related to the production of sweaters, pants and skirts. The workers at Plant 1 cut the fabric while the workers at Plant 2 sew the fabric. The review shows that all workers of Hamrick Industries, Inc., Gaffney, South Carolina were certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under petition number TA-W-55,139, which expired on July 7, 2006. In order to avoid an overlap in worker group coverage, the Department is amending the current certification for workers of Hamrick's Incorporated, Plant 1 and Plant 2 located in Gaffney, South Carolina, to change the impact date from August 1, 2005 to July 8, 2006. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-59,497 and TA-W-59,497A is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Hamrick's Incorporated, Plant 1, Gaffney, South Carolina (TA-W-59,947), Hamrick's Incorporated, Plant 2, Gaffney, South Carolina (TA-W-59,947), including on-site workers of Phillips Staffing, who became totally separated from employment on or after July 8, 2006 through September 14, 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 10th day of October, 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17119 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,904] Hartz & Company, Inc., HL Hartz and Sons, Frederick, Maryland; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on September 11, 2006, applicable to workers of Hartz & Company, Inc., Frederick, Maryland. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56170-56171). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produced men's and women's suits and bottoms. The review of the file showed that wages for some of the workers of the subject firm were reported to the Unemployment Insurance

(UI)tax account for HL Hartz and Sons. The intent of the certification is to provide coverage to all workers of the subject firm impacted by increased imports. Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to include workers of the firm whose wages are paid by HL Hartz and Sons. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-59,904 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Hartz & Company, Inc., HL Hartz and Sons, Frederick, Maryland, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 14, 2005 through September 11, 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 in Washington, DC, this 4th day of October 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17109 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,059] Hoover Precision Products, Inc., Washington, IN; Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Hoover Precision Products, Inc., Washington, Indiana. The application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued. TA-W-60,059; Hoover Precision Products, Inc., Washington, Indiana, (October 3, 2006). Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of October 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17120 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,745] Jantzen, LLC; A Subsidiary of Perry Ellis International; Seneca, SC; Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Jantzen, LLC, A Subsidiary of Perry Ellis International, Seneca, South Carolina. The application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued. TA-W-59,745; Jantzen, LLC, A Subsidiary of Perry Ellis, International, Seneca, South Carolina, (September 26, 2006). Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of September 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17107 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,503] Kentucky Derby Hosiery Company Currently Known as Gildan Inc., Plant 8; Hillsville, VA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on January 20, 2006, applicable to all workers of Kentucky Derby Hosiery Company, Plant 8 located in Hillsville, Virginia. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on February 3, 2006 (71 FR 5894-5896). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produce knit socks. New information provided by the State and a company official confirm that the subject firm was sold to Gildan Inc. in July 2006 and workers continued to produce knit socks. Furthermore, worker separations have occurred under the new ownership. Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to reflect the successor firm's name. It is the Department's intent to provide coverage to all workers of the subject firm adversely affected by increased imports. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-58,503 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Kentucky Derby Hosiery Company, currently known as Gildan Inc., Plant 8, Hillsville, Virginia, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 12, 2004, through January 20, 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 in Washington, DC, this 10th day of October, 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17115 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,121] Leggett & Platt, Inc.; Branch 0003 & 3609; Ennis, TX; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on September 21, 2006 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Leggett & Platt, Inc., Branch 0003 & 3609, Ennis, Texas. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of October 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17121 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,749] Mileage Plus, Inc.; Tucson Call Center, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of United Airlines Tucson, AZ; Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C), an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Mileage Plus, Inc., Tucson Call Center, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of United Airlines, Tucson, Arizona. The application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued. TA-W-59,749; Mileage Plus, Inc., Tucson Call Center, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of United Airlines, Tucson, Arizona, (October 5, 2006). Signed at Washington, DC this 10th day of October 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17116 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,072] MJJ Brilliant Jewelers Inc.; New York, NY; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on September 13, 2006 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at MJJ Brilliant Jewelers Inc., New York, New York. The subject firm is a jewelry wholesaler and does not manufacture jewelry. Two of the three petitioning workers were separated well before the impact date of September 12, 2005. Therefore, the petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 29th day of September, 2006. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17112 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,131] New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. Fremont, California; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on September 25, 2006 in response to a worker petition filed by the state agency on behalf of workers at New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc., Fremont, California. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of October, 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17113 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,790] Premier Turbines; Division of Dallas Airmotive, Inc.; Neosho, MO; Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Premier Turbines, Division of Dallas Airmotive, Inc., Neosho, Missouri. The application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued. TA-W-59,790; Premier Turbines, Division of Dallas Airmotive, Inc., Neosho, Missouri, (September 26, 2006). Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of September 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17108 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,937] Rexam, Inc., D/B/A Precise Technology PGH Tool Shop, North Versailles, PA; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration On June 14, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application on Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on June 26, 2006 (71 FR 36365). The previous investigation initiated on March 1, 2006, resulted in a negative determination issued on April 6, 2006, based on the finding that imports of injection molded products did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. The denial notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 18, 2006 (71 FR 19900). To support the request for reconsideration, the petitioner supplied additional information regarding production at the Tool Shop at the subject facility and company imports of like or directly competitive products with those produced at the Tool Shop. Upon further contact with the subject firm's company official, it was revealed that workers employed at the Tool Shop manufactured injection tools and were separately identifiable from other workers at the subject firm. Having conducted a detailed investigation on reconsideration, it was revealed that the subject firm ceased production of injection tools manufactured by the Tool Shop, while increasing its reliance on imports of injection tools during the relevant time period. In accordance with section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance

(ATAA)for older workers. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of section 246 of the Trade Act must be met. The Department has determined in this case that the requirements of section 246 have been met. A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at Rexam, Inc., d/b/a Precise Technology, Pgh Tool Shop, contributed importantly to the declines in sales or production and to the total or partial separation of workers at the subject firm. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Rexam, Inc., d/b/a Precise Technology, Pgh Tool Shop, engaged in the production of injection tools, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 28, 2005 through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed in Washington, DC, this 28th day of September, 2006. Elliott S. Kushner Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17103 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-60,054] Schiffer Dental Care Products Agawam, MA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on September 12, 2006 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Schiffer Dental Care Products, Agawam, Massachusetts. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of October 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17111 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,533] Yakima Resources, LLC; Yakima, Washington; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration On September 12, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Yakima Resources, LLC, Yakima, Washington (the subject firm). The Department's Notice of Affirmative Determination was published in the **Federal Register** on September 21, 2006 (71 FR 55219). Workers produce plywood. The petition for the workers of the subject firm was denied because there was no shift of production and the “contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The “contributed importantly” test is generally demonstrated through increased imports by the subject firm or its customers. The investigation revealed neither a shift of production abroad nor an increase in imports of plywood during the relevant period. In the request for reconsideration, the Western Council of Industrial Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (the Union) alleged that the Department had failed to investigate increased imports of oriented strand board (OSB), which is like and directly competitive with plywood. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department asked both the subject firm and the subject firm's sole customer of plywood whether they had increased import purchases of OSB. Both respondents answered in the negative. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), the subject worker group must be certified eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). Since the subject workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. Conclusion After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Yakima Resources, LLC, Yakima, Washington. Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of September, 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-17106 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. ICR-1218-1008(2006)] Standard on Ethylene Oxide (EtO); Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's

(OMB)Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Labor. ACTION: Request for public comment. SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements contained in its Ethylene Oxide

(EtO)Standard (29 CFR 1910.1047). The Standard protects employees from the adverse health effects that may result from occupational exposure to EtO, including carcinogenic, mutagenic, genotoxic, reproductive, neurologic, and sensitization hazards to employees. DATES: Comments must be submitted by the following dates: *Hard Copy:* Your comments must be submitted (postmarked or received) by December 15, 2006. *Facsimile and electronic transmission:* Your comments must be received by December 15, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by OSHA Docket No. ICR-1218-0108(2006), by any of the following methods: *Regular mail, express delivery, hand-delivery, and messenger service:* Submit your comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-2350 (OSHA's TTY number is

(877)899-5627). OSHA Docket Office and Department of Labor hours are 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t. *Facsimile:* If your comments are 10 pages or fewer in length, including attachments, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at

(202)693-1648. *Electronic:* You may submit comments through the Internet at *http://ecomments.osha.gov/.* Follow instructions on the OSHA Web page for submitting comments. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read or download comments or background materials, such as the complete Information Collection Request

(ICR)(containing the Supporting Statement, OMB—83-I Form, and attachments), go to OSHA's Web page at *http://www.OSHA.gov.* In addition, the ICR, comments and submissions are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. You also may contact Jamaa Hill at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR. For additional information on submitting comments, please see the “Public Participation” heading in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamaa Hill or Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone

(202)693-2222. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent ( *i.e.,* employer) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95)(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of the 1970 (the Act) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The principal paperwork provisions of the EtO Standard require employers to notify employees of their EtO exposures, implement a written compliance program, administer medical examinations, provide examining physicians with specific information, ensure that employees receive a copy of their medical examination results, maintain employees' exposure-monitoring and medical records for specific periods, and provide access to these records by OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the affected employees, and their authorized representatives. II. Special Issues for Comment OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues: • Whether the proposed information collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful; • The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and • Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information collection and transmission techniques. OSHA is proposing to decrease the existing burden hour estimate and to extend OMB's approval of the collection of information requirements contained in the EtO Standard. The Agency is requesting a decrease in burden hours for the collection of information contained in the EtO Standard from 43,972 hours to 42,732 hours. This 1,240-hour decrease mainly results from decrease in the number of hospitals (which are major EtO consumers). The agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these information collection requirements. *Type of Review:* Extension of a currently approved information collection requirement. *Title:* Ethylene Oxide Standard (29 CFR 1910.1047). *OMB Number:* 1218-0108. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profits. *Number of Respondents:* 5,474. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Total Responses:* 209,256. *Average Time per Response:* Time per response ranges from 5 minutes (.08 hour) to provide information to the examining physician to 2 hours for employees to receive medical examinations. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 42,732. *Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance):* $6,595,597. III. Public Participation—Submission of Comments on this Notice and Internet Access to Comments and Submissions You may submit comments and supporting materials in response to this notice by

(1)hard copy,

(2)FAX transmission (facsimile),

(3)electronically through the OSHA Web page (see the section titled ADDRESSES above). Because of security-related problems, there may be a significant delay in the receipt of comments by regular mail. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office at

(202)693-2350 (TTY

(877)889-5627) for information about security procedures concerning the delivery of submissions by express delivery, hand delivery, and courier service. All comments, submissions, and background documents are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the above address. Comments and submissions posted on OSHA's Web page are available at *http://www.OSHA.gov.* Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not available through the OSHA Web page and for assistance using the Web page to locate docket submissions. Electronics copies of this **Federal Register** notice, as well as other relevant documents, are available on OSHA's Web page. Since all submissions become public, private information such as social security numbers should not be submitted. IV. Authority and Signature Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 *et seq.* ) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR 65008). Signed at Washington, DC, on October 10, 2006. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor. [FR Doc. 06-8692 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 8

Traces to 8 documents

CFR

U.S. Code

5 references not yet in our index