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 · 2007-05-03 · DEPARTMENT OF LABOR · Notices

Notices. Notice

19,819 words·~90 min read·/register/2007/05/03/07-2200

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

BILLING CODE 4410-02-M DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,361] Bayer Clothing Group Inc.; Target Sales Corporation; Atlanta, GA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 23, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Bayer Clothing Group Inc., Target Sales Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn.
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 27th day of April, 2007. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-8469 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-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 May 14, 2007. 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 May 14, 2007.
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 26th day of April 2007. Ralph DiBattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [TAA petitions instituted between 4/16/07 and 4/20/07] TA-W Subject Firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution Date of petition 61313 EBM Textiles LLC
(Comp)Connelly Springs, NC 04/16/07 04/13/07 61314 Tridon
(Comp)Smyrna, TN 04/16/07 03/19/07 61315 Double-H Boots Co.
(Comp)Womelsdorf, PA 04/16/07 04/12/07 61316 Sklar Peppler (State) Portland, OR 04/16/07 04/13/07 61317 Spacelabs Medical
(Wkrs)Irvine, CA 04/16/07 04/06/07 61318 Epic Technologies, LLC
(Comp)Johnson City, TN 04/17/07 04/16/07 61319 Sherwood Harsco Gassery
(USWA)Washington, PA 04/17/07 04/09/07 61320 TK Holdings, Inc./Moses Lake Inflator Operation
(Comp)Moses Lake, WA 04/17/07 04/16/07 61321 Starkey East Labs (State) Mt. Laural, NJ 04/17/07 04/16/07 61322 Oregon Cutting Systems Group
(Comp)Clackamas, OR 04/18/07 04/17/07 61323 Rapid Die & Engineering, Inc
(Comp)Grand Rapids, MI 04/18/07 04/17/07 61324 Ford Motor Company
(UAW)Wixom, MI 04/18/07 04/12/07 61325 Metro Furniture
(Comp)Oakland, CA 04/18/07 04/17/07 61326 Dana Corporation
(UAW)Syracuse, IN 04/18/07 04/12/07 61327 Freightliner LLC
(UAW)Mt. Holly, NC 04/18/07 04/13/07 61328 H.C. Starck, Inc.
(Wkrs)Latrobe, PA 04/18/07 04/16/07 61329 Fleetwood Travel Trailors of California (State) Rialto, CA 04/18/07 04/16/07 61330 Valeo Electrical Systems
(IUE)Rochester, NY 04/18/07 04/10/07 61331 Fiber Tech Group, Inc (State) Rogers, AR 04/18/07 04/17/07 61332 Cooper Tire and Rubber Company ( ) Texarkans, AR 04/18/07 04/17/07 61333 Coats American, Inc.
(Comp)Marble, NC 04/18/07 04/16/07 61334 Cinram Manufacturing LLC
(Comp)Olyphant, PA 04/18/07 04/17/07 61335 Mr. Gasket, Inc.
(Comp)Carson City, NV 04/18/07 04/16/07 61336 Tecumseh Power (Other) New Holstein, WI 04/19/07 04/16/07 61337 MYOB U.S. Inc.
(Wkrs)Denville, NJ 04/19/07 04/18/07 61338 Willow Hill Industries, LLC
(Comp)Willoughby, OH 04/19/07 04/18/07 61339 Klote International Corp. (State) Maryville, TN 04/19/07 04/18/07 61340 Tube Specialties Co. Inc. (State) Troutdale, OR 04/19/07 04/18/07 61341 Carrier Access Corp.
(Wkrs)Roanoke, VA 04/20/07 04/19/07 61342 APL, Limited
(Wkrs)Oakland, CA 04/20/07 04/19/07 61343 Wentworth Corp. dba Liberty Textiles
(Comp)Eden, NC 04/20/07 04/19/07 61344 Three-l Industries (State) Monroe, LA 04/20/07 04/19/07 61345 Acvato Services
(Wkrs)Melbourne, FL 04/20/07 04/05/07 61346 Northland Tool Corp.
(Comp)Traverse City, MI 04/20/07 04/17/07 61347 Wellman Inc.
(Comp)Fort Mill, SC 04/20/07 04/11/07 61348 Nortech Systems (State) Bemidji, MN 04/20/07 04/19/07 61349 Revere Copper Products, Inc.
(Comp)New Bedford, MA 04/20/07 04/19/07 [FR Doc. E7-8462 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,624] Fairchild Semiconductor International; Mountain Top, PA; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand On March 13, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) remanded to the Department of Labor for further investigation *Former Employees of Fairchild Semiconductor Corp.* v. *United States Secretary of Labor* (Court No. 06-00215). In the January 11, 2006 petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), the company official alleged that with regards to “discrete semiconductor devices” produced at Fairchild Semiconductor International, Mountaintop, Pennsylvania (subject firm), production “deteriorated because of a transfer of production” abroad and that its customers are “purchasing similar devices from other suppliers with locations in foreign countries such as Korea and China.” AR 3-4. The initial investigation revealed that semiconductor wafers were produced at the subject firm during the relevant period, AR 27-28, 30, 42, the subject firm shifted semiconductor wafer production to China, AR 27-28, and the subject firm did not import semiconductor wafers after the shift. AR 7, 27, 59. The Department did not conduct a customer survey because the subject firm exported 100% of its semiconductor wafers. AR 46. Thus, since the subject firm had no domestic customer base, there could be no increased customer imports of semiconductor wafers that are like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm. On February 28, 2006, the Department issued a negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for TAA and ATAA for those workers of the subject firm. AR 41. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the **Federal Register** on March 24, 2006 (71 FR 14954). AR 55. By application dated March 20, 2006, the petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination. The request for reconsideration stated that the subject firm produces “semiconductor wafer chips” and that semiconductor wafer chips are like or directly competitive with discrete semiconductor devices. AR 57. By letter dated April 26, 2006, the Department dismissed the petitioner's request for reconsideration, stating that discrete semiconductor devices are not like or directly competitive with semiconductor wafer chips and that the subject firm was not directly impacted by increased imports of semiconductor wafers. AR 60. The Department's Dismissal of the Application for Reconsideration for the subject firm was issued on May 1, 2006. AR 63. The Department's Notice of dismissal was published in the **Federal Register** on May 10, 2006 (71 FR 27292). AR 64. In a letter filed with the USCIT on June 21, 2006, the Plaintiff sought judicial review. In the complaint, the Plaintiff made several allegations, including that: semiconductor wafer production shifted to Asia, imports of “like products” have increased, the shift of semiconductor wafer production abroad was due to the need to be cost-competitive, and the workers should be certified for TAA like their predecessors (workers covered by TA-W-53,335 certification issued December 2, 2003). On March 13, 2007, the USCIT directed the Department to explain why the Plaintiffs should be treated differently from their “similarly-situated predecessors” (semiconductor devices producers who were certified under TA-W-53,335). The USCIT also directed the Department to determine whether the subject workers are eligible to apply for TAA and to support the determination. Worker Group Covered by TA-W-58,624 Are Different From Workers Covered by TA-W-53,335 If the subject workers “comprised 100 percent of the remaining subdivision of workers covered by defendant's previous certification[s]” as alleged in the complaint, issuing a negative determination to them may seem unjustified. However, characterizing the subject workers as members of the worker group certified under TA-W-53,335 is not accurate because the subject workers at issue here produced a different article from the article produced by the previous TAA-certified workers. Based on the investigation here, the subject workers were semiconductor wafer producers during the relevant period of the investigation under TA-W-58,624. The accurate characterization of the subject workers is based on the article that the subject firm produced during the relevant period of January 2005 through December 2005—semiconductor wafers, not semiconductor devices. As stated in the previous TA-W-53,335 determination, the worker group covered by the certification consisted of workers engaged in the production of semiconductor devices because the workers were not separately identifiable by product line. While semiconductor wafers were also produced at the subject firm during the investigation period for TA-W-53,335, the workers producing the component part (semiconductor wafers) were not separately identifiable from those workers producing the finished article (semiconductor devices). As such, workers who may have been producing semiconductor wafers used in the firm's production of semiconductor devices were treated along with the firm's other workers as “workers producing semiconductor devices.” When the subject firm ceased producing semiconductor devices during 2003, it became engaged in the production of another article— semiconductor wafers, a component part of those semiconductor +devices. Once the distinction is made between the worker groups investigated in TA-W-53,335 and TA-W-58,624 (workers producing semiconductor devices versus workers producing semiconductor wafers), it is apparent that the determinations are not inconsistent and do not result in disparate treatment of the two worker groups. Whether Workers Are Eligible To Apply for TAA Under TA-W-58,624 There are two ways for a worker group to be certified eligible to apply for TAA as workers of a primary firm under section 222(a) of the Act: I. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm (or appropriate subdivision of the firm) have become, or are threatened to become, totally or partially separated; sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and increases (absolute or relative) of imports of articles produced by such workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision thereof contributed importantly to such total or partial separation, or threat thereof, and to such decline in sales or production; or II. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm (or appropriate subdivision of the firm) have become, or are threatened to become, totally or partially separated, and 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 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, is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act or 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. Under the definition codified at 29 CFR 90.2, “increased imports” means that imports have increased, absolutely or relative to domestic production, compared to a representative base period. The regulation also establishes the representative base period as the one-year period preceding the relevant period. The relevant period is the twelve month period preceding the petition date. As stated earlier, the relevant period for TA-W-58,624 is January 2005 through December 2005 when the subject firm produced semiconductor wafers, and the subject workers were engaged in the production of semiconductor wafers. On remand, the Department determined that a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm was totally separated and that both sales and production of semiconductor wafers at the subject firm have decreased absolutely. Therefore, the remaining two issues regarding the certification of the subject workers under Section 222(a) are whether there were either
(1)increased imports during the relevant period (January 2005 through December 2005) of articles like or directly competitive with semiconductor wafers produced by the subject workers or
(2)actual or likely imports of articles like or directly competitive with semiconductor wafers produced by the subject workers following the subject firm's shift of semiconductor wafers production abroad. The Department affirms its previous determination that increased imports of finished semiconductor devices cannot be the basis for certification of a petition applicable to workers engaged in the production of semiconductor wafers because those two articles are neither like nor directly competitive with each other. Under the Department's interpretation of “like or directly competitive,” (29 CFR 90.2) “like” articles are those articles which are substantially identical in inherent or intrinsic characteristics and “directly competitive” articles are those articles which are substantially equivalent for commercial purposes (essentially interchangeable and adapted to the same uses), even though the articles may not be substantially identical in their inherent or intrinsic characteristics. While semiconductor wafers are a component part of semiconductor devices, they are not substantially identical in inherent or intrinsic characteristics. Further, because semiconductor wafers are a component part of semiconductor devices, they are not substantially equivalent to each other for commercial purposes. In addition, the semiconductor wafer has to be further processed before it can be used as a component part of the semiconductor device. During the remand investigation, the Department also considered whether the subject worker group qualifies as adversely affected secondary workers as suppliers of component parts to a manufacturing firm primarily affected by increased imports or a shift of production abroad. In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a certification of eligibility for secondary workers to apply for adjustment assistance, the following group eligibility requirements under Section 222(b) must be met:
(1)A significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;
(2)The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and
(3)Either—
(A)The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B)A loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph
(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. As previously stated, the subject firm did not have any domestic customers that purchased semiconductor wafers produced by the subject workers during the relevant period because all semiconductor wafer production was exported. AR 46. Therefore, the subject company did not have any customers that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits. As such, the Department determines that the subject worker group did not consist of adversely affected secondary workers. In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of the subject workers' eligibility to apply for ATAA. Since the subject workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified for ATAA. Conclusion After reconsideration on remand, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Fairchild Semiconductor International, Mountaintop, Pennsylvania. Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of April 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-8466 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-52,050] Merrill Corporation; St. Paul, MN; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand On March 28, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) remanded *Former Employees of Merrill Corporation* v. *Elaine Chao, U.S. Secretary of Labor* , Court No. 03-00662, to the Department of Labor (Department) for further investigation. The Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance for workers and former workers of Merrill Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota (subject firm) was issued on July 2, 2003 and published in the **Federal Register** on July 22, 2003 (68 FR 43373). The first negative determination on remand was issued on April 2, 2004 and published in the **Federal Register** on April 16, 2004 (69 FR 20645). The second negative remand determination was issued on November 17, 2005 and published in the **Federal Register** on December 7, 2005 (70 FR 72857). In these determinations, the Department determined that the workers' electronic creations do not constitute “articles” for purposes of the Trade Act of 1974 (the Act) and that the shift of the workers' functions to India was irrelevant. On March 24, 2006, the Department revised its policy to recognize tangible and intangible articles and reiterated its policy that workers who produce an article incidental to the provision of a service are not, for the purposes of the Act, engaged in production. The third negative determination on remand was issued on August 24, 2006 and published in the **Federal Register** on September 5, 2006 (71 FR 52346). The Department applied the revised article policy to the case at hand and determined that the workers produce electronic documents. The Department concluded, however, that each document was unique, and there were not articles “like or directly competitive” to any document. The Department also determined that the workers' application should be denied because the production of the electronic documents was incidental to the provision of a service. In its March 28, 2007 opinion, the USCIT disagreed with the Department's policy and the third remand determination, and remanded the matter to the Department. During the immediate investigation, the Department carefully reviewed the record and has determined that Merrill Corporation has a distinct subdivision producing printed matter sold to Merrill clients and another subdivision that provides services. The Department further determines that the subject worker group is affiliated with both subdivisions. Therefore, the subject worker group made articles not only incidental to the provision of a service. The Department determines that production of the electronic documents produced by the subject worker group shifted from the subject firm to India and, following the shift, the subject firm increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject worker group. Conclusion After careful review of the facts, I determine that the shift of electronic document production to India followed by increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at the subject facility contributed to the total or partial separation of a significant number or proportion of workers at the subject facility. I also determine that the electronic documents were not produced solely incidental to the production of an article. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Merrill Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 10, 2002, 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 23rd day of April 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-8465 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,236] Precision Technologies Incorporated; Reno, PA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 3, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Precision Technologies Incorporated, Reno, Pennsylvania. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April 2007. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-8468 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,238] Quality Transparent Bag Company, Inc.; Bay City, MI; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 3, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Quality Transparent Bag Company, Inc., Bay City, Michigan. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April, 2007. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-8464 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,188] Randstad, Working On-Site At Merrill Lynch, Equity Research; New York, NY; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 27, 2007 in response to a worker petition filed by a state agency representative on behalf of workers of Randstad, working on-site at Merrill Lynch, Equity Research, New York, New York. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April 2007. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-8463 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,176] Schoeller Arca Systems; Detroit, MI; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 26, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers Schoeller Arca Systems, Detroit, Michigan. The workers at the subject firm produce foldable containers. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April 2007 Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-8467 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration Proposed Information Collection Request Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations; Health Standards for Diesel Particulates (Underground Coal) ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. DATES: Submit comments on or before July 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments to, Debbie Ferraro, Management Services Division, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2171, Arlington, VA 22209-3939. Commenters are encouraged to send their comments on computer disk, or via e-mail to *Ferraro.Debbie@DOL.GOV.* Ms. Ferraro can be reached at
(202)693-9821 (voice), or
(202)693-9801 (facsimile). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The employee listed in the “ ADDRESSES ” section of this notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Mine Safety and Health Administration's
(MSHA)standards and regulations for diesel particulate in underground coal mines serve to protect coal miners who work on and around diesel-powered equipment. The internal combustion engines that power diesel equipment expose miners to potential health risks from exposure to diesel exhaust emissions. These standards and regulations contain information collection requirements for underground coal mine operators. II. Desired Focus of Comments MSHA is particularly interested in comments that: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submissions of responses. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the employee listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice, or viewed on the Internet by accessing the MSHA home page ( *http://www.msha.gov* ) and then choosing “Rules and Regs” and “Federal Register Documents.” III. Current Actions Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration is soliciting comments concerning the extension of the information collection requirements related to the 30 CFR 75.1915/72.503, § 72.510, § 72.520, and as a result of § 72.500, diesel manufacturers affected under Part 7 or Part 36. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Mine Safety and Health Administration. *Title:* Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground Coal Miners. *OMB Number:* 1219-0124. *Recordkeeping:* The information gathered is required to be recorded, maintained for the period specified, and made accessible, upon request, to authorized representatives of the Secretary of Labor and miners' representatives. This may be done in a traditional manner by recording on paper, or electronically by computer. *Frequency:* On Occasion. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Respondents:* 165. *Total Burden Hours:* 623. *Total Burden Cost:* $6,409. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated at Arlington, Virginia, this 27th day of April, 2007. David L. Meyer, Director, Office of Administration and Management. [FR Doc. E7-8432 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2007-0038] Electrical Reliability Services, Inc.
(ERS)(Formerly Electro-Test, Inc.); Application for Renewal of Recognition AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice announces the application of Electrical Reliability Services, Inc. (formerly Electro-Test, Inc.) for renewal of its recognition, and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to deny renewal of its request. DATES: You must submit information or comments, or any request for extension of the time to comment, by the following dates: • *Hard copy:* Postmarked or sent by July 2, 2007. • *Electronic transmission or facsimile:* Sent by July 2, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods: *Electronically:* You may submit comments electronically at *http://www.regulations.gov,* which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions on-line for making electronic submissions. *Fax:* If your submissions, including attachments, are not longer than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at
(202)693-1648. *Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger or courier service:* You must submit three copies of your comments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0038 (formerly NRTL2-94), U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t. *Instructions:* All submissions must include the Agency name and the OSHA docket number (OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2007-0038; formerly NRTL2-94). Submissions, including any personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *http://www.regulations.gov.* *Docket:* To read or download submissions or other material in the docket, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* or the OSHA Docket Office at the address above. All documents in the docket are listed in the *http://www.regulations.gov* index, however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly available to read or download through the Website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. *Extension of Comment Period:* Submit requests for extensions concerning this notice to the Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210. Or, fax to
(202)693-1644. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MaryAnn Garrahan, Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210, or phone
(202)693-2110. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA)is giving notice that Electrical Reliability Services, Inc. (formerly Electro-Test, Inc.)
(ETI)has applied for renewal of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). (OSHA will refer to this NRTL by its former name throughout this notice.) OSHA's current scope of recognition for ETI may be found in the following Web page: *http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/ers.html.* OSHA has reviewed ETI's renewal application and has preliminarily determined that ETI is not “independent” (29 CFR 1910.7(b)(3)), a prerequisite to initial and continued NRTL recognition. For this reason, OSHA is proposing to deny ETI's application. OSHA requests comments on this preliminary determination, in accordance with Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. Any comments must be received by July 2, 2007. The most recent application processed by OSHA specifically related to ETI's recognition granted an expansion of recognition. The final notice for this expansion was published on March 9, 1999 (64 FR 11500). The only other **Federal Register** notice related to ETI's recognition that OSHA published covered its recognition as an NRTL, which OSHA granted as described below. The current address of the only ETI site recognized by OSHA is: Electro-Test, Inc., 6900 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 416, Pleasanton, CA 94566. II. Background a. The NRTL Program and Application Process Many of OSHA's safety standards require that equipment or products used in places of employment covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 be tested and certified to help ensure they can be used safely ( *see,* *e.g.* , 29 CFR 1910, Subpart S). In general, this testing and certification must be performed by an NRTL. In order to ensure that the testing and certification are done appropriately, OSHA implemented the NRTL Program. The NRTL Program establishes the criteria that an organization must meet in order to be and remain recognized as an NRTL. The NRTL Program requirements are set forth at 29 CFR 1910.7, “Definition and requirements for a nationally recognized testing laboratory.” To be recognized by OSHA, an organization must:
(1)Have the appropriate capability to test, evaluate, and approve products to assure their safe use in the workplace;
(2)be completely independent of the manufacturers, vendors, and major users of the products for which OSHA requires certification;
(3)have internal programs that ensure proper control of the testing and certification process; and
(4)have effective reporting and complaint handling procedures. OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has met the legal requirements in Section 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. OSHA requires NRTLs to submit a detailed application when applying for recognition under the program. Once granted, an NRTL's recognition is for a period of five years, near the conclusion of which the NRTL must apply for renewal of recognition. Appendix A to Section 1910.7 establishes the renewal process. This process provides NRTLs with several opportunities to present information to the Agency to justify their continued recognition under the program. The regulations provide for OSHA staff to make a preliminary finding as to whether an NRTL continues to meet the program requirements (Appendix A.1.B). If the staff makes a negative finding, OSHA notifies the applicant of this in writing and allows a reasonable period for a response (Appendix A.1.B.3). After receipt of this written notification, the applicant may either:
(1)submit a revised application; or
(b)request that the original application be forwarded to the Assistant Secretary of OSHA to determine whether the renewal application warrants approval ( *Id.* ). After these initial steps, the Assistant Secretary of OSHA makes a preliminary finding as to whether the applicant has met the requirements for renewal of recognition (Appendix A.1.B.4). The Agency notifies the applicant of the preliminary decision and publishes a **Federal Register** notice informing the public, which also provides the public an opportunity to comment on the applicant's ability to meet the recognition requirements (Appendix A.1.B.5). After the public comment period, the Assistant Secretary may make a final decision on the renewal application. Alternatively, if there is public objection, the Assistant Secretary may initiate a special review of the information submitted during the public comment period and may supplement the record by either reopening the public comment period or convening an informal hearing (Appendix A.1.B.7). At the conclusion of this process, a final decision is made by the Assistant Secretary and published in the **Federal Register** ( *Id.* ). b. ETI's Application ETI applied to OSHA for its initial recognition in November 1992. At that time, it was a privately held organization, incorporated in California. After processing the application, including performing the necessary on-site assessments, OSHA announced its preliminary finding on the application in a notice published in the **Federal Register** on June 9, 1995 (60 FR 30595). At the time and unknown to OSHA, ETI was in the process of being acquired by Emerson Electric Company (Emerson). The acquisition of ETI by Emerson was consummated on October 4, 1995. The notice to recognize ETI as an NRTL was published in the **Federal Register** on October 6, 1995, and ETI provided written notification of the acquisition by letter dated October 16, 1995. In that notification, ETI stated that, as a result of the acquisition, it would report to a new Board of Directors. This new Board consisted of one person who worked directly for Emerson (“Corporate Development”) and one who worked for another subsidiary of Emerson (“Customer Service & Support”), the latter named as the new Chairman of the Board. Emerson is a global manufacturer of electrical, electromechanical, and electronic products and systems. It is a Fortune 500 company with more than 60 divisions that operate over 270 manufacturing locations around the world. In 2006, Emerson received over $20 billion in revenues. The electrical products manufactured by Emerson's subsidiaries, divisions, and units, are the types of products for which OSHA requires NRTL approval. In its October 16 letter informing OSHA of the acquisition, ETI stated that the “acquisition will provide [ETI] the necessary capital to accelerate its growth as a nationwide organization” ( *see* Exhibit 9-1). In December 1999, ETI submitted its renewal application. It stated that the ownership and independence of ETI had not changed since 1995. Two individuals closely associated with Emerson remained on the ETI Board of Directors, a “Vice President Emerson Electric” and a “Director Corporate Development Emerson Electric.” The Chairman of the Board was the “Vice President of Emerson Electric” ( *see* Exhibit 16-1). On April 19, 2000, OSHA first informed ETI that the information supplied in its application did “not meet the policy on independence” ( *see* Exhibit 16-4). In that letter, OSHA asked ETI to respond and submit additional documentation regarding its independence: “Please provide a statement to explain or clarify how ETI does meet the [independence] policy. As a minimum, your statement * * * must present clear and convincing information showing that the particular relationship is not applicable to ETI or, if it is applicable, showing how ETI still meets the requirement for complete independence.” OSHA also attached its policy on independence (described below). ETI responded to OSHA on May 17, 2000 ( *see* Exhibit 16-5). The company informed OSHA that it was changing its policies and procedures to address the independence requirement by including the following statement in its proposals regarding NRTL work: “In accordance with [ETI's] corporate policy and due to [ETI's] affiliation with Emerson Electric, to prevent the appearance of any conflict of interest we will not knowingly perform any listing or product recognition projects for other Emerson companies.” (Hereinafter this is referred to as the “corporate no-testing policy.”) The May 17 letter indicated no changes to ETI's Board of Directors. It also did not explain how ETI intended to implement its corporate no-testing policy. OSHA again responded to ETI and reiterated its concerns about independence:
(1)ETI had described no policies or procedures to implement the corporate no-testing policy;
(2)two ETI Board members were still associated with Emerson; and
(3)ETI had received significant financing from Emerson when it was acquired ( *see* Exhibit 16-6). ETI responded by providing OSHA some internal procedures it implemented for the corporate no-testing policy. It also informed OSHA that it was changing its Board of Directors. However, one of the members of the new Board was President of an Emerson subsidiary, albeit one that ETI claimed manufactured no products. Another member was the former Chairman of ETI's Board, who had since retired from Emerson ( *see* Exhibit 16-7). OSHA again carefully reviewed ETI's ownership situation and the efforts it took to address the independence issue. OSHA concluded, however, that ETI simply did not comply with its independence policy. In November 2004, OSHA formally informed ETI of the negative finding and indicated that ETI could either submit a revised application for further review or submit the original application to the Assistant Secretary with a statement of reasons supporting application approval. That letter, and accompanying **Federal Register** notice document, set forth in detail the reasons for the negative finding. The notice explained how ETI's ownership situation violated the independence policy and how ETI had not addressed the “fundamental relationship of concern, i.e., its ownership by a manufacturer of the types of products that must be approved by NRTLs and from which NRTLs must be ‘completely independent’ ” ( *see* Exhibit 16-8). Upon receipt of this letter, ETI requested additional time to respond to OSHA, which the Agency granted. The company also asked for more information from the Agency to further explain OSHA's negative finding on independence. OSHA responded on July 7, 2005 ( *see* Exhibit 16-9). It reiterated the reasons for denial, and further explained OSHA's independence policy. On September 1, 2005 ( *see* Exhibit 16-10), ETI submitted its original application to the Assistant Secretary for review, along with a supplemental statement of reasons supporting the application. c. The NRTL Independence Policy OSHA requires NRTLs to be “completely independent” of manufacturers of equipment being tested (29 CFR 1910.7(b)(3)). This independence requirement is fundamental to the third-party testing and certification system. When OSHA instituted the NRTL program, it intended to extend the practices that two NRTLs—Underwriters Laboratories
(UL)and Factory Mutual Research Corporation (FMRC)—had instituted in their testing and certification programs. UL and FMRC were at the time, and still are, not affiliated with manufacturers of the equipment they certify. In many ways, “independence” is the cornerstone of the NRTL program, which is designed to ensure that certain dangerous equipment is tested and certified as safe by organizations that have no affiliation with manufacturers of the products or employers that might use the products in the workplace. The NRTL Program application guide that was in effect when ETI applied for recognition in 1992 addressed independence by specifying the following: “Written evidence of the independence of the applicant should be presented to achieve objectivity and preclude conflict of interest and to meet the provisions of 29 CFR 1910.7, i.e., *the NRTL may not be owned by manufacturers or suppliers of the product(s) to be tested and certified* ” ( *Affiliation,* page 2, A Guide For Applying As A Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (Exhibit 17-1) (emphasis added)). ETI's application letter claimed that it followed the guide in preparing its application. In December 1999, OSHA finalized a Directive implementing certain policies and procedures of the NRTL program. In the Directive, OSHA further interpreted the independence requirement ( *see* NRTL Program Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines—CPL 01-00-003—CPL 1-0.3 (NRTL Program Directive), Appendix C.V). The Directive stated that in order to meet the independence requirement, NRTLs “must be free from commercial, financial and other pressures that could compromise the results of its testing and certification processes.” The Directive makes clear that NRTLs must avoid these pressures from manufacturers of equipment. 1 1 NRTLs, including ETI, were given the opportunity to comment on an early draft of the key policies in the Directive, including the independence policy. ETI provided no comments on it (Exhibit 17-2). Under its independence policy, OSHA presumes that “pressures” exist if there is a substantial relationship between the NRTL and a manufacturer “of products that must be certified which could compromise the objectivity and impartiality in determining the results of its testing and certification processes.” Substantial, for purposes of the policy, “means of such a nature and extent as to exert undue influence on the testing and certification processes.” The policy recognizes that certain relationships between an NRTL and a manufacturer of products that need to be certified can affect the objectivity of an NRTL's testing and certification processes. A laboratory that has these relationships generally would not be independent and could not be recognized by OSHA as an NRTL. The Directive also sets forth a non-exclusive list of relationships that are “substantial” for purposes of the policy: • The NRTL is a supplier or major user of products that an NRTL must certify, or is organizationally affiliated with such a supplier or major user; • The NRTL significantly finances, invests in, sells product design, similar services or products to a supplier or major user of products that an NRTL must certify; • The NRTL is owned in excess of two percent (2%) by a supplier or major user of products that an NRTL must certify, or their major owners; • The NRTL receives significant financing from a supplier or major user of products that an NRTL must certify, or their major owners; • A person holding a substantial position with the NRTL has a significant financial interest in a supplier or major user of products that an NRTL must certify, or is a director or key personnel of either. OSHA has determined that if a laboratory has these relationships it would not be free from undue influences on its testing and certification operations and OSHA presumes that pressures exist in these situations. As stated, however, this is a non-exclusive list; OSHA may determine in a specific case that other relationships would be “substantial” for purposes of the policy. Applicants can rebut the presumption that such pressures exist by clear and convincing evidence. OSHA intended this rebuttal to provide applicants an opportunity to clarify their organizational relationships and explain how the nature of those relationships does not create pressures. If the applicant cannot rebut the presumption, then the applicant would not meet the independence requirement. In some limited situations, the policy allows OSHA to prescribe “conditions” on NRTLs for initial or continued recognition even when the Agency determines that pressures exist. Such conditions, however, “must be consistent with the policy,” in that they must effectively eliminate the pressures stemming from the substantial relationship. The Directive also provides examples of conditions OSHA may consider imposing:
(1)Restricting the suppliers for whom the NRTL may test and certify products; or
(2)restricting the type of products the NRTL may test and certify. Whether imposing conditions on an applicant is appropriate is a judgment made by the Agency on a case-by-case basis. OSHA has discretion whether to impose conditions in a particular case. The independence policy does not require OSHA to impose conditions; it only allows for conditions to be imposed. In most cases, pressures stemming from a substantial relationship could not be effectively eliminated and thus OSHA could not impose conditions “consistent with the policy.” OSHA's ability to impose conditions is limited to those rare instances when the substantial relationships cause only “minimal” pressures. In analyzing these situations, OSHA must carefully examine the ownership situation, the types of products at issue, the scope and magnitude of the NRTL's operations and the operations of manufacturers or employers using the products, as well as other factors. OSHA also must consider the degree to which it can monitor NRTL compliance with any conditions. This is particularly important. OSHA typically audits NRTLs once a year to ensure they continue to meet the NRTL requirements and to maintain the quality of their testing and certification operations. If imposing conditions on an NRTL would be impossible for OSHA to audit effectively, on that basis alone conditions would not be appropriate. OSHA intends its policy on NRTL independence to be a straightforward approach for judging the NRTL's compliance with the Agency's independence requirement under 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA cannot perform in-depth analyses of an applicant's or NRTL's ownership or financial relationships and interests. The applicant or NRTL has the burden of showing it is independent, and, in considering if it meets the requirement, those relationships must present none or only minor pressures. For the reasons set forth below, OSHA preliminarily finds that ETI does not meet OSHA's NRTL independence requirement. There is a substantial relationship between ETI and Emerson, one of the leading global manufacturers of electric and electronic equipment. This relationship creates pressures that could compromise the results of ETI's testing and certification processes, which have not been rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. In addition, there are no conditions that OSHA could impose to mitigate the pressures. And, even if such conditions could be imposed, OSHA has preliminarily concluded that it could not effectively monitor ETI's compliance with them. In making this preliminary determination regarding ETI's independence, the Agency emphasizes that this determination does not include any positive or negative finding about ETI's other technical capabilities that would be needed to support continued recognition. III. Preliminary Finding of Non-Independence a. ETI Has a “Substantial Relationship” With Emerson ETI is wholly-owned by Emerson. Emerson is a manufacturer of electrical and electronic products, many of which require NRTL certification if used in the workplace. Under the NRTL independence policy, this constitutes a “substantial relationship”: ETI is organizationally affiliated with—and is owned in excess of two percent by—a supplier of products requiring NRTL certification. ETI does not dispute that it has a substantial relationship with Emerson. Because there is a substantial relationship, OSHA presumes that pressures exist that could compromise the results of its testing and certification processes and that ETI is not independent. b. ETI Has Failed To Rebut the Presumption of Pressures ETI has attempted to rebut the presumption of pressures. In various letters to the Agency ETI has explained why it believes it is not subject to pressures from Emerson that could compromise the results of its testing and certification processes. ETI states that it has decision making independence from Emerson, as well as economic independence. Furthermore, it contends that the organizational relationship between ETI and any Emerson manufacturing company is indirect and, as a result, should raise fewer concerns that pressures exist. Finally, ETI claims that it has taken a variety of steps to ensure that it does not test or certify any products from Emerson. The Agency has carefully considered this information; however, it finds that the presumption of pressures has not been adequately rebutted. 1. ETI's Independence From Emerson ETI states that it “receives no financing whatsoever from Emerson, [and] [t]here is no evidence in the record suggesting that Emerson wields any decision making influence on ETI” (ETI's Statement of Reasons, p. 6 (Exhibit 16-10)). ETI suggests that it is a completely separate entity that operates independently from Emerson. OSHA is not convinced by these statements. ETI's statements that Emerson possesses no decision making influence over ETI do not address the fundamental aspect of control that a parent company has over a “controlled” subsidiary (e.g., a wholly-owned or majority-owned subsidiary). According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, control is the “possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a person, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise” (17 CFR 230.405). The parent company of a wholly-owned subsidiary has ultimate control over the subsidiary even though it may delegate some aspects of that control to the subsidiary. Control can be exerted through changes in policy, changes to the leadership of the wholly-owned subsidiary, and even buying and selling the subsidiary. As the Supreme Court has stated in the antitrust context: A parent and its wholly owned subsidiary have a complete unity of interest. Their objectives are common, not disparate: their general corporate actions are guided or determined not by two separate corporate consciousnesses, but one. They are not unlike a multiple team of horses drawing a vehicle under the control of a single driver. With or without a formal “agreement,” the subsidiary acts for the benefit of the parent, its sole shareholder. * * * *[T]he parent may assert full control at any moment if the subsidiary fails to act in the parent's best interests* . *Copperweld Corp. et al.* v. *Independence Tube Corp.,* 467 U.S. 752, 771-72
(1984)(emphasis added). At any time, Emerson has the power to dictate ETI's actions. ETI does not have decision making independence. ETI's claims of economic independence from Emerson are also unpersuasive. First, acquisition itself is a form of financing. The cash or other assets of the purchased company are maintained and typically enhanced by the purchasing company. In fact, after the acquisition of ETI by Emerson, ETI stated that “[t]he acquisition will provide [ETI] the necessary *capital to accelerate its growth as a nationwide organization* ” ( *see* Exhibit 9-1) (emphasis added)). Second, while ETI states that to date it has received no additional financing from Emerson (since the initial acquisition), this could change at any time. OSHA has received no assurances from Emerson that it will refrain from making financial contributions to ETI. 2 In fact, on its Web page ETI suggests the opposite: “As a wholly-owned subsidiary [of Emerson], we have direct access to the combined resources of one of the world's most respected industrial leaders” ( *see* Exhibit 17-3). 2 Even if such assurances were provided, OSHA would be unable to verify that no financial contributions occurred, given the technical (non-financial) nature of OSHA's audits and the vast scope of Emerson's operations. 2. ETI's Organizational Relationship to Emerson ETI also contends that Emerson is simply a holding company, which owns only a “few” subsidiaries that manufacture products that require NRTL certification (ETI's Statement of Reasons, p. 6. (Exhibit 16-10)). For this reason, ETI contends that its relationship with Emerson “is indirect and, as a result, should raise a significantly less concern that pressures could be exerted on the NRTL” ( *Id* .). Furthermore, ETI suggests that because no member of its Board of Directors is directly affiliated with an Emerson owned manufacturer, there is little opportunity for pressures to be exerted on ETI. OSHA finds that the organizational relationship between ETI and Emerson does not rebut the presumption of pressures. When ETI was first purchased, ETI's Board, which includes a total of only three members, consisted of two Emerson executives: Director Corporate Development Emerson; and President, Customer Service & Support, a subsidiary of Emerson Electric Co. As stated above, ETI changed its Board of Directors in response to concerns raised by OSHA. Even so, the replacement Board still consisted of two individuals closely affiliated with Emerson: One was a former longtime Emerson employee who was a Vice President of Emerson; and one was the President of an Emerson-owned subsidiary. The third member was ETI's President. As a result, these changes in the Board of Directors provided little organizational separation between ETI and Emerson. With the exception of the retired Emerson employee, the Board of Directors still included a director who was part of the Emerson family of companies. Even the retired member had considerable ties to Emerson and its management from his many years of working with the company in a variety of capacities. Due to these close associations, comprising a majority on the ETI Board of Directors, the potential remains for Emerson to influence ETI's testing and certification operations, as would be expected with a wholly-owned subsidiary. At the very least, these associations make Emerson privy to the Board's deliberations on behalf of ETI. Furthermore, it is clear that ETI is an integral part of Emerson's operations. ETI is part of the Emerson Process Management TM brand platform of Emerson. Emerson Process Management TM is one of the largest Emerson brand platforms with over 20 divisions and subdivisions. ETI is considered a “division” of Emerson and is highlighted on Emerson's Web pages. ETI itself describes its important role in Emerson's operations: “Within the Emerson family of companies, we are an integral part of the Asset Optimization team of Emerson Process Management which aggregates the service divisions of over 100 Emerson companies. Our goal is to create solutions to optimize the process industry” ( *see* Exhibit 17-3). Emerson's Web pages emphasize a close relationship between Emerson and ETI. For example, Service Data Sheets put out by ETI include the Emerson Process Management TM logo, copyright information, and address ( *see* Exhibit 17-4). When ETI announced its name change to Electrical Reliability Services, it stated: “While our new identity symbolizes our comprehensive solutions offering, it also demonstrates our relationship to our parent company, Emerson. As part of Emerson's Asset Optimization Division, Electrical Reliability Services provides you with full access to Emerson's vast technical and human resources” ( *see* Exhibit 17-5). OSHA is not convinced that ETI's relationship with Emerson is so distant that pressures do not and will not exist that could compromise the results of its testing and certification processes. 3. Corporate No-Testing Policy ETI has established a policy that no NRTL testing, evaluation or certification work will be knowingly completed for Emerson owned companies. The policy states further that “[t]he ownership of each client will be verified as not being part of Emerson prior to [ETI] submitting a proposal and on an ongoing basis for as long as the listing relationship between the client and [ETI] exists” ( *see* Exhibit 16-7, Attachment 2, page 1). This is a key aspect of ETI's rebuttal. ETI contends that it will have no pressures because it will not knowingly test or certify any products produced by Emerson companies. While OSHA appreciates the steps taken by ETI, these policy changes do not rebut the presumption of pressures. First, ETI's policy does not address the fundamental ownership situation of ETI and the control that Emerson can assert over its operations. At any time, Emerson can change ETI's policies, including the corporate no-testing policy. The bottom line is that ETI is owned in excess of 2% by a major supplier of products that must be NRTL approved when used in the workplace. This relationship and the control that can be asserted are not addressed by the corporate no-testing policy. Second, ETI's corporate no-testing policy appears to deal only with final products manufactured by Emerson, and not component parts. Emerson-owned and affiliated companies produce countless electrical components used by other manufacturers in final products, and use major components or products of other manufacturers in Emerson's electrical final products. The corporate no-testing policy does not affect this part of Emerson's business, which is a major area of pressures that could be exerted on ETI. Even if other organizations perform the testing now, this does not prevent Emerson from establishing a policy in the future that instead relies on ETI testing for components if Emerson found this to be beneficial for itself and affiliated organizations. Third, the policy does not appear to cover contractors hired by Emerson or the other affiliations and joint ventures Emerson has throughout the world. According to Emerson Web pages, Emerson operations in China alone consist of “30 wholly owned and joint venture facilities” ( *see* Exhibit 17-6). OSHA anticipates that the number and scope of these relationships will only increase as Emerson continues to grow its sales and manufacturing presence around the world, in such areas as Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe ( *see* Exhibit 17-7). Products from these operations could enter the U.S. market and thus U.S. workplaces. ETI's corporate no-testing policy in no way alleviates the pressures that can result from these relationships. Furthermore, Emerson's operations are so vast that OSHA seriously doubts ETI's ability to effectively enforce its own policy. ETI says that Emerson has a “significant” number of subsidiaries, a “few” of which manufacture products requiring NRTL certification. OSHA reviewed Emerson's 2006 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and it shows that Emerson has over 800 subsidiaries in countries throughout the world ( *see* Exhibit 17-8). Emerson owns over 270 manufacturing sites and employs approximately 128,000 people worldwide. Emerson's product lines are also vast. The company's 10-K provides just a snapshot of the variety of products Emerson companies manufacture, including: electrical distribution conduit and cable fittings, plugs and receptacles; industrial lighting, and controls; uninterruptible AC and DC power systems; cooling products for computers, telecommunications, and other equipment; refrigeration products in industrial applications; electric motors, HVAC equipment, furnaces, fans, heat pumps; professional tools such as wet-dry vacuums; and other assorted power tools that can be used in the workplace. Some of these products fit within the two test standards included in ETI's current scope of recognition. For example, Emerson produces power conversion units, which can be tested pursuant to UL 508C Power Conversion Equipment. ETI is currently recognized to test products in accordance with that test standard. ETI has also requested that OSHA expand its NRTL recognition to add new test standards that would also include other Emerson products. Given the vast nature of Emerson's operations, OSHA believes it is virtually impossible for ETI to effectively enforce its corporate no-testing policy. It would also be virtually impossible for OSHA to monitor ETI's corporate no-testing policy. OSHA typically audits its NRTLs annually to ensure they are complying with the NRTL regulations and procedures, as well as their own internal policies and procedures. These audits are technical in nature and focus on the quality of the NRTL's testing and certification operations. OSHA does not have, nor did it ever intend to have, the resources to enable it to audit ETI's corporate no-testing policy, especially given the vast scope of Emerson's operations. The number of subsidiaries and other affiliated companies, manufacturing facilities, and the broad array of products manufactured by Emerson and its affiliated organizations, would prohibit OSHA from effectively performing its audit functions. To add to an already complex situation, OSHA's ability to audit would be made more difficult because of the changing nature of Emerson's operations. Emerson is continually buying and selling new companies. For example, according to its 2005 Annual Report ( *see* Exhibit 17-9, page 18): The Company acquired Do+Able, a manufacturer of ready-to-assemble storage products, and Numatics, a manufacturer of pneumatic and motion control products, and several smaller businesses during 2005. * * * During 2004, the Company acquired the North American outside plant and power systems business of Marconi Corporation PLC, as well as several other small businesses for a total of approximately $414 million in cash. Emerson describes as part of its business focus to “seek to grow through emphasis on “strategic acquisitions and divestitures * * * that better position our company in terms of markets and breadth of product offerings” ( *see* Exhibit 17-10). Based solely upon the nature of Emerson's continually changing holdings, it would be almost impossible for OSHA to continually monitor ETI's adherence to the corporate no-testing policy. For all of these reasons, OSHA finds that ETI has failed to rebut the presumption of pressures. One of the largest electrical manufacturers in the world wholly owns an NRTL that tests the types of equipment that the manufacturer produces. This does not satisfy OSHA's requirement that NRTLs be “completely independent.” c. OSHA Cannot Impose Conditions on ETI While OSHA has considered its ability to impose conditions in this case, and discussed this with ETI, OSHA has concluded that conditions are not appropriate. The relationship between Emerson and ETI is such that imposing conditions would not be consistent with the independence policy. As described above, OSHA's independence policy permits conditions to be imposed only in those circumstances where there are minimal pressures and the conditions would not negate the underlying independence requirement. The extent to which conditions may be imposed in a situation of a manufacturer-owned NRTL depends upon the ownership situation, the scope of testing of the NRTL, and the scope of the products manufactured, among other things. In this case, Emerson wholly owns ETI; this is not a situation where a manufacturer owns only a small, minority percentage of an NRTL and thus could exert only minimal pressures over the NRTL. Furthermore, the scope of products that Emerson produces is enormous. Emerson produces a litany of products that require NRTL certification, as described above. In addition, the types of products that ETI tests cover the products that Emerson produces. ETI is currently recognized to test products according to the following test standards: UL 508 Electric Industrial Control Equipment; UL 508C Power Conversion Equipment. These standards include the products that Emerson companies produce. ETI has also requested that it be recognized to test products according to several other test standards that include other products produced by Emerson. Given these circumstances, OSHA cannot impose conditions without negating the fundamental requirement that NRTLs be independent of “any manufacturers or vendors of equipment or materials being tested for [equipment requirements]” (29 CFR 1910.7(b)(3)). Finally, when imposing conditions, OSHA must consider whether it can reasonably monitor an NRTL's compliance with those conditions. OSHA is simply not equipped to monitor the various aspects of ETI's ownership relationships and affiliations with the numerous subsidiaries of Emerson. As noted earlier, the Agency's policy on independence provides a straightforward, practical approach to determining whether an organization meets the requirement for independence. OSHA is not requiring through the policy that its staff analyze actual or potential business activities or determine possible activities that cause actual or potential conflicts and pressures. This information is beyond the reach of OSHA's auditing capabilities under the NRTL Program. d. OSHA Has Taken a Consistent Position on Independence ETI contends that OSHA has applied a stricter definition of independence in ETI's case than it has in other cases (ETI's Statement of Reasons, pp. 5-6 (Exhibit 16-10)). In particular, it suggests that OSHA treated another NRTL—Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (Intertek)—differently than it treated ETI. It also suggests that OSHA has taken different positions on independence in its dealings with ETI over the last several years. OSHA disagrees. The Agency has consistently applied its independence policy across the board to all NRTLs and throughout its dealings with ETI. OSHA did not apply a different standard for independence in its dealings with Intertek. Intertek's parent had acquired, and merged into Intertek's overall laboratory operations, a small manufacturer of laboratory test equipment, Compliance Design. In discussing this ownership situation in the context of an application for expansion of recognition, OSHA stated: In accordance with OSHA policy, if [Intertek] were to certify the type of products manufactured or sold by Compliance Design, then [Intertek] would not meet the requirement in 29 CFR 1910.7 for complete independence. Also, [Intertek's] parent company is Intertek Testing Services, Ltd. (ITSLtd). If [Intertek] were to certify a type of product for an entity owned by ITSLtd, and that entity is also a supplier of that type of product, then [Intertek] would not be “completely independent” (65 FR 71124, November 29, 2000). In short, Intertek was not independent because its parent company owned a manufacturer of equipment that, under certain circumstances, needed NRTL approval. In the case of Intertek, however, OSHA was able to impose a condition to effectively eliminate the pressures stemming from Intertek's relationship with Compliance Design. 3 The condition included a no-testing policy for Compliance Design, and for any manufacturer affiliated with Intertek. OSHA had no information showing that Intertek or its parent owned any other manufacturing interest but imposed the broader condition as a precaution. This condition could be imposed because, unlike ETI's situation, the manufacturer at issue was very small and produced just one type of product. Intertek could enforce the no-testing policy, and, due to the very small nature of the operations of Compliance Design, OSHA was able to effectively monitor Intertek's compliance with the policy. In fact, Intertek's relationship to Compliance Design was brought to light in the report of an audit of Intertek. ETI's case, on the other hand, is much different. Emerson's operations are so vast—with 800 subsidiaries, 270 manufacturing locations, and countless products manufactured—that there are no conditions that could mitigate all the pressures and that OSHA could effectively monitor. 4 3 OSHA announced the removal of the condition on January 28, 2002 (67 FR 3913), after Intertek informed OSHA that the unit had ceased operation. 4 The only other instance where OSHA imposed a condition on an NRTL with a known conflict related to independence was for Wyle Laboratories, Inc. At the time of its recognition, Wyle was part of an organization with a division that manufactured and distributed electronic enclosure cabinets. Like Intertek, OSHA was able to impose a condition that Wyle not test or certify any equipment that utilized an electronic enclosure manufactured by Wyle. This condition was easy for Wyle and OSHA to monitor since the only product at issue was electrical enclosure cabinets. OSHA notes that the condition is no longer in place since, in 1997, Wyle informed OSHA that it had sold this division. In addition, OSHA has previously informed laboratories that they could not become NRTLs because they were owned by a manufacturer. In a recent case, a laboratory applied but stopped the application process after it better understood OSHA's concerns over its relationship with its owner-manufacturer, a manufacturer of computer and telecommunications hardware products. OSHA has applied its policy fairly and its determinations regarding ETI's independence are consistent with the Agency's previous positions. ETI also argues in its rebuttal statement that a draft fax it received from OSHA staff constituted an “interpretation” of the independence requirement that is at odds with OSHA's current interpretation. In December 2001, OSHA staff sent a draft fax to ETI that detailed some preliminary findings and conclusions about ETI's lack of independence. These preliminary findings in many ways mirrored OSHA's other correspondence with ETI. It expressed concerns about the vast nature of Emerson's operations, the Board of Directors of ETI, and the fact that neither ETI nor OSHA could effectively monitor the corporate no-testing policy ( *see* Exhibit 17-11). It also listed some conditions that ETI could consider as it was evaluating the independence criteria and its relationship with Emerson. The draft fax is not a statement of Agency policy ( *Miller* v. *Youakim,* 440 U.S. 125, 146 n.25 (1979)). It was intended as a discussion piece between OSHA and ETI. It is not signed by an Agency official and is clearly marked draft on each page. ETI knew at the time that the document was simply a draft that was sent out to solicit comment from ETI. This is supported by the fact that ETI made no attempts to implement any of the suggestions included in the draft. In fact, ETI never formally responded to the draft. OSHA's official statements regarding ETI's ownership situation have been entirely consistent. Starting with the first correspondence related to the independence issue, OSHA has consistently stated that ETI was not independent because it was wholly owned by Emerson: • See Exhibit 16-5: “Under our policy on independence, Emerson would be a ‘supplier' of products that must be certified by an NRTL. As described in our policy, since Emerson owns ETI and two of its officers are Directors of ETI, ETI would fail to meet the requirement for complete independence of an NRTL, under paragraph (b)(3) of 29 CFR 1910.7.” • See Exhibit 16-6: “After consulting with attorneys in the Department of Labor's Office of the Solicitor, we believe that the information in your May 17 letter does in fact confirm that ETI does not meet our independence requirement.” • See Exhibit 16-8: “The independence requirement in § 1910.7 is intended to prevent relationships that could unduly influence and thereby compromise the NRTL's testing and certification process. OSHA considers an NRTL not to be independent if it is owned by a manufacturer of the type of products for which OSHA requires certification by NRTLs.” • See Exhibit 16-9: “The fundamental reason for denial is ETI's ownership by Emerson Electrical Corporation (Emerson), a manufacturer of a wide variety of equipment that OSHA requires to be approved (i.e., tested and certified) by NRTLs. As such, this violates the NRTL requirement for independence set forth under 29 CFR 1910.7(b).” As these statements demonstrate, OSHA has consistently informed ETI that its ownership by Emerson violated the independence requirement. OSHA has provided ETI several opportunities to rebut the presumption of pressures. ETI simply has not met its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that pressures do not and will not exist that could compromise the results of its testing and certification processes. Request for Renewal of Recognition ETI seeks renewal of its recognition for the site that OSHA has previously recognized. ETI also seeks renewal of its recognition for testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the following two test standards, which OSHA has previously recognized for ETI. Each of these standards is an “appropriate test standard,” within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c): UL 508 Industrial Control Equipment; UL 508C Power Conversion Equipment. The designations and titles of these test standards were current at the time of the preparation of this notice. Preliminary Finding Following a review of the application file and other pertinent information, and for the reasons summarized above, OSHA has determined that ETI has not met all the requirements for renewal of its recognition. OSHA staff, therefore, recommended to the Assistant Secretary that the application be denied. The Assistant Secretary has made a preliminary finding that ETI fails to meet all the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for the renewal of its recognition, and, therefore, OSHA proposes to deny renewal of that recognition. This preliminary negative finding does not constitute OSHA's final decision on the application for renewal. As stated above, OSHA welcomes public comments, in sufficient detail, as to whether ETI has met the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for the renewal of its recognition as a NRTL. Your comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. Should you need more time to comment, you must request it in writing, including reasons for the request. OSHA must receive your written request for extension no later than the last date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 30 days, unless the requester justifies a longer period. We may deny a request for extension if it is not adequately justified. You may obtain or review copies of the ETI request, the on-site review report, ETI's statement of reasons, other pertinent documents, and all submitted comments, as received, by contacting the Docket Office, Room N2625, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, at the above address. Docket No. NRTL2-94 contains all materials in the record concerning the ETI application. The NRTL Program staff will review all timely comments and, after resolution of issues raised by these comments, will recommend whether to grant the ETI renewal request. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the renewal and, in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings that are prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR Section 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the **Federal Register** . Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April, 2007. Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health. [FR Doc. E7-8455 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Office [Docket No. 2007-4] Notice of Intent to Audit AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Public notice. SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress is announcing receipt of a notice of intent to audit 2005 statements of account concerning the eligible nonsubscription transmissions of sound recordings made by Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) under statutory licenses. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tanya M. Sandros, Acting General Counsel, P.O. Box 70977, Southwest Station, Washington, DC 20024-0977. Telephone:
(202)707-8380. Telefax:
(202)252-3423. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 106(6) of the Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, gives the copyright owner of a sound recording the right to perform a sound recording publicly by means of a digital audio transmission, subject to certain limitations. Among these limitations are certain exemptions and a statutory license which allows for the public performance of sound recordings as part of “eligible nonsubscription transmissions.” 1 17 U.S.C. 114. A music service that operates under the section 114 statutory license may also make any necessary ephemeral reproductions to facilitate the digital transmission of the sound recording under a second license set forth in section 112(e) of the Copyright Act. Use of these licenses requires that services make payments of royalty fees to and file reports of sound recording performances with SoundExchange. SoundExchange is a collecting rights entity that was designated by the Librarian of Congress to collect statements of account and royalty fee payments from services and distribute the royalty fees to copyright owners and performers entitled to receive such royalties under sections 112(e) and 114(g) following a proceeding before a Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (“CARP”)—the entity responsible for setting rates and terms for use of the section 112 and section 114 licenses prior to the passage of the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004 (“CRDRA'”), Pub. L. No. 108-419, 118 Stat. 2341 (2004). *See* 69 FR 5695 (February 6, 2004). 1 An “eligible nonsubscription transmission” is a noninteractive digital audio transmission which, as the name implies, does not require a subscription for receiving the transmission. The transmission must also be made as a part of a service that provides audio programming consisting in whole or in part of performances of sound recordings the primary purpose of which is to provide audio or entertainment programming, but not to sell, advertise, or promote particular goods or services. *See* 17 U.S.C. 114(j)(6). This Act, which the President signed into law on November 30, 2004, and which became effective on May 31, 2005, amends the Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, by phasing out the CARP system and replacing it with three permanent Copyright Royalty Judges (“CRJs”). Consequently, the CRJs carry out the functions heretofore performed by the CARPs, including the adjustment of rates and terms for certain statutory licenses such as the section 114 and 112 licenses. However, section 6(b)(3) of the Act states in pertinent part: [t]he rates and terms in effect under section 114(f)(2) or 112(e) . . . on December 30, 2004, for new subscription services [and] eligible nonsubscription services . . . shall remain in effect until the later of the first applicable effective date for successor terms and rates . . . or such later date as the parties may agree or the Copyright Royalty Judges may establish. Successor rates and terms for the licenses are scheduled to be published in the **Federal Register** on Tuesday, May 1, 2007. However, these successor rates and terms carry an effective date beginning on January 1, 2006. Accordingly, the terms of the section 114 and 112 licenses as previously constituted are still in effect for any request to audit 2005 statements of account. One of the previously constituted terms, set forth in § 262.6 of title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, states that SoundExchange, as the Designated Agent, may conduct a single audit of a Licensee for the purpose of verifying their royalty payments. As a preliminary matter, the Designated Agent is required to submit a notice of its intent to audit a Licensee with the Copyright Office and serve this notice on the service to be audited. 37 CFR 262.6(c). On December 23, 2005, SoundExchange filed with the Copyright Office a notice of intent to audit Microsoft for the years 2002, 2003, and 2004. *See* 72 FR 624 (January 5, 2006). Subsequently, on March 29, 2007, SoundExchange filed a second notice of intent to audit Microsoft, 2 pursuant to § 262.6(c), notifying the Copyright Office of its intent to expand its current audit to cover 2005. This notice of intent to audit was received by the Copyright Office on April 2, 2007. Section 262.6(c) requires the Copyright Office to publish a notice in the Federal Register within thirty days of receipt of the filing announcing the Designated Agent's intent to conduct an audit. 2 A copy of the new Notice of Intent to Audit Microsoft is posted on the Copyright Office Web site at http://www.copyright.gov/carp/microsoft-notice2.pdf In accordance with this regulation, the Office is publishing today's notice to fulfill this requirement with respect to the notice of intent to audit filed by SoundExchange on March 29, 2007. Dated: April 30, 2007 Tanya M. Sandros, Acting General Counsel. [FR Doc. E7-8515 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-30-S NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice: (07-033)] Notice of Information Collection AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of information collection. SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Mr. Walter Kit, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Mr. Walter Kit, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., JE0000, Washington, DC 20546,
(202)358-1350, *Walter.Kit-1@nasa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract The NASA Explorer Schools
(NES)seeks a clearance to collect data from educators to determine eligibility and selection of schools to participate in their three year project. To lessen the impact on educators who will complete the project application, the application period must be open during the times when they are less likely to be needed in the classroom ( *e.g.* , summer break) and can obtain any required school board approvals. II. Method of Collection NASA will utilize a Web-base on-line form to collect this information. III. Data *Title:* NASA Explorer Schools Project Application. *OMB Number:* 2700-XXXX. *Type of review:* Emergency Request for Clearance by June 15, 2007. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Estimated Number of Respondents:* 130. *Estimated Time per Response:* 1 hour. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 130. *Estimated Total Annual Cost:* $0. IV. Request for Comments Comments are invited on:
(1)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility;
(2)the accuracy of NASA's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information;
(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record. Gary Cox, Acting Deputy Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. E7-8387 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION National Science Board—Committee on Nominating for NSB Elections Sunshine Act Meetings; Notice The National Science Board's Committee on Nominating for NSB Elections, pursuant to NSF regulations (45 CFR part 614), the National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of National Science Board business and other matters specified, as follows: Date and Time: Friday, May 4, 2007 at 10:30. Subject Matter: Discussion of candidates for the National Science Board Executive Committee. Status: Closed. This meeting will be held by teleconference originating at the National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Please refer to the National Science Board Web site ( *http://www.nsf.gov/nsb* ) for information or schedule updates, or contact: Ann Ferrante, National Science Board Office, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone:
(703)292-7000. Russell Moy, Attorney-Advisor. [FR Doc. E7-8418 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)Review; Comment Request AGENCY: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. 1. *Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:* Revision. 2. *The title of the information collection:* “NRC Forms 366, 366A, 366B, ‘Licensee Event Report”. 3. *The form number if applicable:* NRC Forms 366, 366A, 366B. 4. *How often the collection is required:* On occasion, as defined reactor events are reportable as they occur. 5. *Who will be required or asked to report:* Holders of operating licenses for commercial nuclear power plants. 6. *An estimate of the number of annual responses:* 400. 7. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* 104. 8. *An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 32,000 (25,600 reporting + 6,400 record keeping). This is estimated to be 80 hours for each of 400 reports annually. 9. *An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13 applies:* Not applicable. 10. *Abstract:* With NRC Forms 366, 366A, and 366B, the NRC collects reports of the types of reactor events and problems that are believed to be significant and useful to the NRC in its efforts to identify and resolve possible threats to the public safety. These forms are designed to provide the information necessary for engineering studies of operational anomalies and trends and patterns analysis of abnormal occurrences. The same information is used for other analytic procedures that aid in identifying accident precursors. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html.* The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by June 4, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. Margaret A. Malanoski, Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0104), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to *Margaret_A._Malanoski@omb.eop.gov* or submitted by telephone at
(202)395-3122. The NRC Clearance Officer is Margaret A. Janney, 301-415-7245. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of April, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Margaret A. Janney, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E7-8436 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. *The title of the information collection:* NRC Survey of Public Response to Emergencies. 2. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-XXXX (New Collection). 3. *How often the collection is required:* This is a one-time collection. 4. *Who is required or asked to report:* Members of the public that reside within 10 mile Emergency Planning Zones of nuclear power plant. 5. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* This is a one-time collection of 800 completed surveys. 6. *The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* One-time event. 277 hours ((completed surveys 800 × .333 hrs per response = 267 hrs) + (uncompleted surveys 120 × .083 hrs per response = 10 hrs)). 7. *Abstract:* As part of NRC's effort to review and improve emergency response program areas, a telephone survey will be conducted to assess the satisfaction of the pubic with existing protective action strategies, the effectiveness in which these strategies are conveyed to the public, and the public response to the possibility of modifying protection action strategies. The survey will produce statistical descriptions of customer satisfaction and acceptance of emergency response planning and protective actions. The response to the surveys will be used by the NRC in the development of new or modified protective action strategies including the types of strategies implemented and the means for which the information on protective actions may be disseminated to the public. The response may also support quality improvement in the existing emergency planning information in other areas indirectly related to protective actions. Submit, by July 2, 2007, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html.* The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Margaret A. Janney, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-5 F52, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7245, or by Internet electronic mail to *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of April, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Margaret A. Janney, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E7-8438 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. *The title of the information collection:* 10 CFR Part 35, “Medical Use of Byproduct Material”. 2. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0010. 3. *How often the collection is required:* Reports of medical events, doses to an embryo/fetus or nursing child, or leaking sources are reportable on occurrence. A certifying entity desiring to be recognized by the NRC must submit a one-time request for recognition. 4. *Who is required or asked to report:* Physicians and medical institutions holding an NRC license authorizing the administration of byproduct material or radiation therefrom to humans for medical use. 5. *The number of annual respondents:* 8,751. 6. *The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 987,764 hours. 7. *Abstract:* 10 CFR Part 35, “Medical Use of Byproduct Material,” contains NRC's requirements and provisions for the medical use of byproduct material and for issuance of specific licenses authorizing the medical use of this material. These requirements and provisions provide for the radiation safety of workers, the general public, patients, and human research subjects. 10 CFR Part 35 contains mandatory requirements that apply to NRC licensees authorized to administer byproduct material or radiation therefrom to humans for medical use. The information in the required reports and records is used by the NRC to ensure that public health and safety is protected, and that the possession and use of byproduct material is in compliance with the license and regulatory requirements. Submit, by July 2, 2007, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html.* The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirement may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Margaret A. Janney (T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7245, or by Internet electronic mail to *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of April, 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Margaret A. Janney, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E7-8439 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-354] PSEG Nuclear LLC; 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 (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-57 issued to PSEG Nuclear (the licensee) for operation of the Hope Creek Generating Station (Hope Creek) located in Salem County, New Jersey. The proposed amendment would increase the authorized maximum power level from 3339 megawatts thermal
(MWt)to 3840 MWt, an increase of approximately 15 percent. 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 change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. The CPPU [Constant Pressure Power Uprate] analyses, which were performed at or above CPPU power levels, included a review and evaluation of the structures, systems, and components
(SSCs)that could be affected by the proposed change. The proposed amendment does not change the design function or operation of the affected SSCs. Plant specific analyses were performed in the following areas: Reactor Core and Reactor Internals (e.g., steam dryer), Reactor Coolant System and associated systems, Containment, Emergency Core Cooling Systems, Control and Instrumentation Systems, Electrical Systems, Balance of Plant Systems, and Radwaste Systems. The results of the analyses, which included evaluating the increase in the likelihood of an SSC malfunction, concluded that the SSCs are capable of performing their design functions at CPPU conditions. Comprehensive evaluations were performed on the steam dryer and other reactor internals for both operational and structural performance. Predicted steam dryer peak and alternating stress ratios remain within allowable levels. The existing margins to steam dryer alternating stress limits and the steam dryer monitoring program during power ascension provide assurance that steam dryer integrity will be maintained. Vibration evaluations at CPPU conditions were performed on the Reactor Internal components and Reactor Coolant and associated system piping. These included the Main Steam, Feedwater and Reactor Recirculation systems piping and supports. The results of the vibration analyses demonstrate that operation at CPPU conditions will not result in any detrimental effects. System values will remain within allowable American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code) limits. In addition, the ASME Code and regulatory guidelines require vibration test data be taken on high-energy piping during initial CPPU startup. The vibration start-up test program will validate the vibration analyses that were performed, demonstrating adequate performance of the SSCs. Engineered Safety Features
(ESF)were evaluated at CPPU conditions using NRC-approved methods. The Emergency Core Cooling Systems
(ECCS)were evaluated to ensure they are capable of performing their design function during loss-of-coolant-accidents (LOCA). Adequate net positive suction head is maintained without reliance on post-accident containment pressure. CPPU does not result in an increase or decrease in the available water sources, and does not result in any change in the maximum nominal reactor operating pressure. The CPPU evaluations demonstrate that the ECCS performance satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR [Part] 50 Appendix K. Balance-of-plant
(BOP)systems and equipment were also evaluated for CPPU operation. The resulting evaluations demonstrate adequate performance with limited modifications that were or will be made to BOP components. These analyses, which included evaluating the increased likelihood of an SSC malfunction, confirm acceptable performance of plant SSCs under CPPU conditions. On this basis, PSEG concludes that there is no significant change in the ability of the SSCs to preclude or mitigate the consequences of accidents. The probability (frequency of occurrence) of postulated Design Basis Accidents (DBA), and other Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) evaluated accidents, occurring is not affected by the increased power level, and Hope Creek continues to comply with the regulatory and design basis criteria established for plant equipment. The changes in consequences of hypothetical accidents, which are assumed to occur at 102% of the CPPU RTP [Rated Thermal Power], compared to those previously evaluated, are in all cases insignificant. The CPPU accident evaluations do not exceed any of the NRC-approved acceptance limits. The spectrum of hypothetical accidents and transients has been investigated, and is shown to meet the plant's currently licensed regulatory criteria. Consequently, there is no significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The impact of CPPU on the radiological consequences of postulated DBAs, operational transients and other UFSAR accidents was evaluated. The magnitude of the potential consequences is dependent upon the quantity of fission products released to the environment, the atmospheric dispersion factors and the dose exposure pathways. The atmospheric dispersion factors and the dose exposure pathways are not changed by CPPU operation. The only factor which could influence the magnitude of the consequences is the quantity of activity released to the environment. For CPPU, the Control Rod Drop Accident (CRDA), Loss-of-Coolant Accident (LOCA), Fuel Handling Accident (FHA), Main Steamline Break Accident (MSLBA) and instrument line break accident
(ILBA)were reanalyzed. The DBA that has historically been limiting from a radiological criterion is the LOCA, for which USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.183, Appendix A guidance was applied. Adherence to the guidance in RG 1.183, and the use of the specific values/limits contained in the Technical Specifications with as-tested post-accident performance of the safety grade engineered safety functions (ESF), provide the assurance for sufficient safety margin, including a margin to account for analysis uncertainties. The CPPU LOCA evaluation results include the 2% power uncertainty factor from Regulatory Guide 1.49. The results of the CPPU radiological analyses remain below the allowable limits of 10 CFR 50.67 and Table 6 in Regulatory Guide 1.183; the CPPU impact is minimal and all radiological limits are met at CPPU conditions. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated. While the proposed CPPU amendment is not being submitted as a risk-informed licensing action, it was evaluated from a risk perspective using the NRC guidelines established in Regulatory Guide 1.174. Level 1 and Level 2 Probabilistic Risk Assessments
(PRAs)were performed for the CPPU. When compared to the risk-acceptance guidelines presented in Regulatory Guide 1.174, the calculated changes in core damage frequency
(CDF)and large early release frequency
(LERF)are insignificant. Based on these results, PSEG concludes that the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. The impact of CPPU operation on plant operator actions and procedures was also evaluated. The operator action response times credited in the safety analyses in the UFSAR are not changed by CPPU. In addition, there is no change in Emergency Operating Procedure
(EOP)strategy for CPPU operation. Based on the above, PSEG concludes that the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. 2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated? *Response:* No. As discussed above, the evaluation of the proposed amendment included review of the SSCs that could be affected by the proposed change. The proposed amendment does not change the design function or operation of the affected SSCs. The proposed amendment does not introduce any new or different plant safety-related equipment, and only involves instrument set-point changes for CPPU conditions, and minimal modifications to plant BOP power generation equipment. The proposed amendment does not significantly impact the manner in which the plant is operated, and does not have any significant impact on the capability the SCCs involved to perform their design function. No new operating mode, safety-related equipment lineup, accident scenario or equipment failure mode was identified. The CPPU evaluations also addressed the impact to postulated accidents, accident radiological consequences and operator response. No significant impacts were identified. The full spectrum of accident considerations has been evaluated, and no new, different, or limiting kind of accident has been identified. CPPU uses developed technology, and applies it within the capabilities of existing plant equipment in accordance with presently existing regulatory criteria to include NRC approved codes, standards and methods. The CPPU analyses results confirm acceptable performance of plant SSCs under CPPU conditions. Consequently, there are no new credible failure mechanisms, malfunctions, or accident initiators that were not previously evaluated in the plant design and licensing bases. Based on the preceding, PSEG concludes that the proposed change would not introduce any new or different kind of accident, or failure mode, not previously analyzed. 3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety? *Response:* No. Safety margins are applied to plant parameters to account for various uncertainties and to avoid exceeding regulatory and licensing limits. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in any margin of safety. First, due to continuing improvements in the analytical techniques (computer codes and data) based on several decades of BWR safety technology, plant performance feedback, and improved fuel and core designs, a significant increase has resulted in the design and operating margins between calculated safety analysis results and the licensing limits. These available safety analyses differences, combined with the excess as-designed equipment, system and component capabilities, provide BWR plants the capability to achieve an increase in their thermal power ratings within the existing design and licensing basis. The proposed CPPU will reduce some of the existing design and operational margins. However, safety margins are considered to not be significantly reduced if:
(1)Applicable regulatory requirements, codes and standards or their alternatives approved for use by the NRC, are met, and
(2)if safety analysis acceptance criteria in the licensing basis are met, or if proposed revisions to the licensing basis provide sufficient margin to account for analysis and data uncertainty. This is the case for the proposed CPPU amendment. Safety margin is related to the ability of the fission product barriers to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. The impact of the proposed CPPU amendment on the:
(1)Fuel cladding barrier,
(2)reactor coolant pressure boundary
(RCPB)barrier, and
(3)containment fission product barrier is discussed below. To assure that fuel cladding damage limits are not exceeded, the impact of the proposed amendment on fuel system design, nuclear system design, thermal and hydraulic design, accident and transient analyses, and fuel design limits was evaluated. No new fuel design, or change in the specified fuel design limits, is required for CPPU. The current fuel and core design limits will continue to be met; both the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratio (SLMCPR) and other applicable Specified Acceptable Fuel Design Limits (SAFDLs) are still met. Analyses for each fuel reload will continue to meet the criteria accepted by the NRC. Continued compliance with the SLMCPR and other SAFDLs will be confirmed on a cycle specific basis consistent with the criteria accepted by the NRC as specified in NEDO-24011, “General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel, GESTAR II.” The ECCS evaluation for CPPU demonstrates the continued conformance to the acceptance criteria of 10 CFR 50.46, for peak cladding temperature
(PCT)and the other 10 CFR 50.46 parameters. The increased PCT consequences for CPPU are insignificant and remain substantially below the regulatory criteria. Therefore, the ECCS safety margin and fuel cladding margin
(PCT)are not significantly impacted by CPPU. Challenges to the Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary were evaluated at CPPU conditions (pressure, temperature, flow, and radiation) and were found to meet their acceptance criteria for allowable stresses and overpressure margin. These evaluations included
(1)overpressure protection,
(2)structural integrity of the RCPB piping, components, and supports, and
(3)structural integrity of the reactor vessel. For the most limiting pressurization event, the peak calculated pressure remains below the ASME Code allowable peak pressure. The structural integrity of the RCPB piping, components, and supports was evaluated using NRC-approved methodology. The changes in flow, pressure and temperature associated with CPPU do not result in load limits being exceeded. Sufficient margin remains between the calculated stresses and ASME Code limits. In addition, the ASME Code and regulatory guidelines require vibration test data be taken on high-energy piping during initial CPPU startup. The vibration start-up test program will validate the vibration analyses that were performed, demonstrating adequate performance. The structural integrity of the reactor vessel was evaluated. The neutron fluence was re-analyzed in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR [Part] 50 Appendix G. The existing Pressure-Temperature (P-T) limit curves have been revised for CPPU conditions (a previous amendment to the Hope Creek license changed the P-T curves and included CPPU conditions). The reactor vessel materials surveillance program is unchanged by CPPU. The maximum normal operating reactor dome pressure for CPPU is unchanged and the vessel remains in compliance with regulatory requirements. Consequently, CPPU operation does not have an adverse effect on the reactor vessel fracture toughness. The structural evaluation of the vessel demonstrates that ASME Code requirements are met for normal, upset, emergency and accident conditions. Based on the preceding, PSEG concludes that the RCPB structural integrity will be maintained and the licensing basis requirements will continue to be met following implementation of the proposed CPPU. The impact of the proposed CPPU on the Containment was evaluated. The effect of CPPU on the peak values for containment pressure and temperature confirms the suitability of the plant for operation at CPPU RTP. Also, the effects of CPPU on the conditions that affect the containment dynamic loads were determined to be satisfactory for CPPU operation. Where plant conditions with CPPU are within the range of conditions used to define the current dynamic loads, current safety criteria are met and no further structural analysis was required. The change in short-term containment response is negligible. Because there will be more residual heat with CPPU, the containment long-term response slightly increases. However, containment pressures and temperatures remain below their design limits following any design basis accident, and thus, the containment and its cooling systems are satisfactory for CPPU operation. The small increase in the calculated post LOCA suppression pool temperature above the currently assumed peak temperature was evaluated and determined to be acceptable. Based on the use of conservative assumptions in these evaluations, PSEG concludes that containment structural integrity will be maintained under the proposed CPPU conditions, and the containment parameters will remain below design limits. Therefore there is no significant reduction in safety margin. In summary, challenges to the fuel, RCPB, and containment were evaluated for CPPU conditions. The structural integrity of the fission product barriers will be maintained under CPPU conditions. As such, the proposed amendment would not degrade confidence in the ability of the barriers to limit the level of radiation dose to the public. Fuel integrity is maintained by meeting existing design and regulatory limits. The calculated loads on all affected structures, systems and components, including the reactor coolant pressure boundary, will remain within their design allowables for all design basis event categories. The containment parameters remain below design limits. No NRC acceptance criterion will be exceeded. Because the Hope Creek configuration and responses to transients and hypothetical accidents do not result in exceeding the presently approved NRC acceptance limits, CPPU does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. 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, Rulemaking, Directives and Editing 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 requestors/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 Jeffrie J. Keenan, Esquire, Nuclear Business Unit—N21, P.O. Box 236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated September 18, 2006, as supplemented by letters dated October 10, 2006, October 20, 2006, February 14, February 16, February 28, March 13, and April 18, 2007 which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the 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 27th day of April 2007. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James J. Shea, Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch I-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E7-8437 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sunshine Federal Register Notice Date: Weeks of April 30, May 7, 14, 21, 28, June 4, 2007. Place: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters to be Considered: Week of April 30, 2007 There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 30, 2007. Week of May 7, 2007—Tentative Monday, May 7, 2007 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs
(FSME)Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: George Deegan, 301-415-7834). This meeting will be Web cast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* Week of May 14, 2007—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of May 14, 2007. Week of May 21, 2007—Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of May 21, 2007. Week of May 28, 2007—Tentative Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:30 p.m. NRC All Hands Meeting (Public Meeting) (Contact: Rickie Seltzer, 301-415-1728), Marriott Bethesda North Hotel, 5701 Marinelli Road, Rockville, MD 20852. Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Results of the Agency Action Review Meeting (AARM)—Materials (Public Meeting) (Contact: Duane White, 301-415-6272). This meeting will be Web cast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* 10:15 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed—Ex.1) Thursday, May 31, 2007 9 a.m. Briefing on Results of the Agency Action Review Meeting (AARM)—Reactors (Public Meeting) (Contact: Mark Tonacci, 301-415-4045). This meeting will be Web cast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* Week of June 4, 2007—Tentative Thursday, June 7, 2007 1:30 p.m. Meeting with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
(ACRS)(Public Meeting) (Contact: Frank Gillespie, 301-415-7360). This meeting will be Web cast live at the Web address— *http://www.nrc.gov.* *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 April 25, 2007, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that “Affirmation of: a. Consumers Energy Company, *et. al.* (Palisades Nuclear Plant); License Transfer Application, and b. Consumers Energy Co. (Big Rock Point ISFSI); License Transfer Application” be held April 26, 2007, and on less than one week's notice to the public. Item b was previously scheduled on May 7, 2007. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: *http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/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: April 26, 2007. R. Michelle Schroll, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 07-2200 Filed 5-1-07; 11:37 am]
Connectionstraces to 12
12 references not yet in our index
  • 29 CFR 90.2
  • 26 USC 2813
  • 29 CFR 1910
  • 467 U.S. 752
  • 440 U.S. 125
  • Pub. L. 108-419
  • 118 Stat. 2341
  • 37 CFR 262.6(c)
  • Pub. L. 104-13
  • 45 CFR 614
  • 10 CFR 35
  • 10 CFR 2
Citation graph
cites case law
Notices
Notice
U.S.C.§ 3506
C.F.R.§ 75.1915
C.F.R.§ 1910.7
C.F.R.§ 230.405
U.S.C.§ 114
U.S.C.§ 1862n–5
U.S.C.§ 552b
C.F.R.§ 50.91
C.F.R.§ 50.46
SCOTUS467 U.S. 752
SCOTUS440 U.S. 125
Cite29 CFR 90.2
Cites 24 · 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.