Notices. 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Victims of Crime Act, Victim Compensation Grant Program, State Performance Report

11,229 words·~51 min read·/register/2007/10/17/07-5104·

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

BILLING CODE 4410-15-M DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Tim's Wholesale; Denial of Application On March 20, 2006, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Tim's Wholesale (Respondent) of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The Show Cause Order proposed the denial of Respondent's application for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of list I chemicals, on the ground that granting it a registration would be “inconsistent with the public interest.

” Show Cause Order at 1. More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that in December 2004, Respondent's President (Mr. Tim Tran) had applied for a registration to distribute pseudoephedrine, a list I chemical which is commonly diverted into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance. *Id.* at 1-2. The Show Cause Order alleged that during a pre-registration investigation, Mr. Tran stated to DEA Diversion Investigators

(DIs)that his business distributes candy, snacks, cigarettes and novelties to “approximately 250 convenience stores.” *Id.* at 2. The Show Cause Order further alleged that Mr. Tran stated to investigators that “he was unaware that traditional cough and cold products contained pseudoephedrine,”and that they “could be used to make the controlled substance methamphetamine.” *Id.* Next, the Show Cause Order alleged that after Mr. Tran finally provided a list of his proposed pseudoephedrine customers, the DIs conducted customer verifications. *Id.* The Show Cause Order alleged that of the seven customers contacted by the DIs, six of them stated that they had no intention of doing business with Respondent. The Show Cause Order also alleged that while Respondent did not have a DEA registration, the other customer informed the DIs that it was “currently purchasing listed chemical products from” Respondent. *Id.* Finally, the Show Cause Order alleged that Respondent's proposed customer base of convenience stores account for only a very small percentage of the legitimate commerce in over-the-counter drug products and that “convenience stores continue to be the primary source” of pseudoephedrine which is diverted into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. *Id.* at 3. The Show Cause Order thus concluded that because Respondent's management has “insufficient experience,” lacks “knowledge of the diversion problems associated with handling listed chemicals,” and had “distributed listed chemicals without a registration, it is unlikely that they would be able to carry out the responsibilities of a registrant.” *Id.* The Show Cause Order was served by certified mail, return receipt requested. While the return receipt card was not returned to the Agency, on June 22, 2006, a DEA Diversion Investigator contacted Respondent's owner and confirmed that he had received the Show Cause Order approximately two months earlier. I therefore find that Respondent was properly served. I further find that because:

(1)more than thirty days have passed since service of the Show Cause Order, and

(2)neither Respondent, nor anyone purporting to represent it, has responded, it has waived its right to a hearing. *See* 21 CFR 1309.53(c). I therefore enter this Decision and Final Order without a hearing based on relevant material contained in the investigative file and make the following findings. Findings On December 15, 2004, Respondent, a Louisiana corporation, applied for a DEA Certificate of Registration to distribute the list I chemical pseudoephedrine. Respondent's application was prepared and submitted by its President, Mr. Tim Tran, and proposed as its registered location its facility which is located at 8150 South Choctaw Drive, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Respondent is a wholesale distributor of cigarettes, candy, snacks, grocery bags, and novelty items, and has approximately 250 customers which include convenience stores and restaurants in the Baton Rouge area. As noted in numerous agency orders, such establishments are not part of the traditional market for legitimate consumers of pseudoephedrine products. *See Holloway Distributing,* 72 FR 42118, 42119 (2007); *D & S Sales,* 71 FR 37607, 37608-09 (2006). Pseudoephedrine is lawfully marketed under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act as a decongestant. *See Holloway Distributing,* 72 FR at 42119. Because pseudoephedrine is, however, easily extracted from non-prescription drug products and used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance, it is regulated as a list I chemical under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). *See* 21 U.S.C. 802(34); 21 CFR 1308.12(d). Methamphetamine is a powerful and addictive central nervous system stimulant. *See Gregg Brothers Wholesale Co., Inc.,* 71 FR 59830 (2006). The illegal manufacture and abuse of methamphetamine pose a grave threat to this country. Methamphetamine abuse has destroyed numerous lives and families and ravaged communities. Moreover, because of the toxic nature of the chemicals used to make the drug, its manufacture causes serious environmental harms. *Id.* On February 15, 2005, a DEA Diversion Investigator

(DI)telephoned Mr. Tran to schedule an on-site inspection of Respondent. During the conversation, the DI informed Mr. Tran that he would need to compile a list of all the customers who would be purchasing pseudoephedrine products from his firm, as well as a list of the pseudoephedrine products that he intended to sell. According to the DI, Mr. Tran did not understand that pseudoephedrine is an active ingredient in various cold products. Moreover, during the conversation, Mr. Tran further stated that he was unaware that pseudoephedrine was used to manufacture methamphetamine, a statement which he repeated during the on-site inspection. On February 18, 2005, the above DI (accompanied by another DI) visited Respondent at its proposed registered where they met Mr. Tran. Mr. Tran had not prepared a list of either his potential customers or a list of the pseudoephedrine products he intended to sell. He also stated to investigators that he would dispose of out-of-date or damaged pseudoephedrine products in the garbage and did not know if his suppliers would take back such products. Mr. Tran further told investigators that he was unfamiliar with the purchase and sale of pseudoephedrine products. He also told investigators that he had been in the wholesale business for approximately four and a half months. During the on-site inspection, Mr. Tran also told investigators that he had high employee turnover. Moreover, he did not know the last names of his two employees, one of whom had been on the job for a week, the other for two days. Even though both employees would have access to pseudoephedrine products, Mr. Tran stated that he had not performed background checks on either of them and did not know how to do so. Mr. Tran further stated that he sold to walk-in customers. When asked how he would verify whether these customers were legitimate, Mr. Tran stated that he knew most of them because he had lived in Baton Rouge for approximately twenty years and went to church with them. Mr. Tran eventually marked on his customer list the names of eighteen stores that he expected would purchase pseudoephedrine from him. Subsequent to the on-site inspection, the DIs visited seven of the establishments. At three of the stores, the managers told the DIs that they had never done business with Respondent; at another, the cashier told the DIs that the store used a different supplier. At one store, the manager told the DIs that while he had used Respondent in the past, he no longer did business with it and did not intend to purchase pseudoephedrine products from it. At another establishment, the cashier stated that the store mostly bought cigarettes from Respondent and obtained cold products from other sources. At the final store, the manager told the DIs that he was currently purchasing cold products from Respondent. The record, however, does not establish what those products were and whether they contained a list I chemical. Discussion Section 303(h) of the Controlled Substances Act

(CSA)provides that “[t]he Attorney General shall register an applicant to distribute a list I chemical unless the Attorney General determines that registration of the applicant is inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 823(h). In making this determination, Congress directed that I consider the following factors:

(1)maintenance by the applicant of effective controls against diversion of listed chemicals into other than legitimate channels;

(2)compliance by the applicant with applicable Federal, State, and local law;

(3)any prior conviction record of the applicant under Federal or State laws relating to controlled substances or to chemicals controlled under Federal or State law;

(4)any past experience of the applicant in the manufacture and distribution of chemicals; and

(5)such other factors as are relevant to and consistent with the public health and safety. *Id* . § 823(h). “These factors are considered in the disjunctive.” *Joy's Ideas* , 70 FR 33195, 33197 (2005). I may rely on any one or a combination of factors, and may give each factor the weight I deem appropriate in determining whether an application for a registration should be denied. *See, e.g., David M. Starr* , 71 FR 39367, 39368 (2006); *Energy Outlet* , 64 FR 14269 (1999). Moreover, I am “not required to make findings as to all of the factors.” *Hoxie* v. *DEA* , 419 F.3d 477, 482 (6th Cir. 2005); *Morall* v. *DEA* , 412 F.3d 165, 173-74 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In this case, I conclude that Factors One, Four, and Five establish that granting Respondent a registration would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 823(h). Respondent's application will therefore be denied. Factor One—The Maintenance of Effective Controls Against Diversion In several respects, the investigative file establishes that Respondent would not maintain effective controls against diversion. First, the file establishes that Respondent intends to dispose of out-of-date or damaged pseudoephedrine products by throwing them in its trash. This is not a proper method of disposing of list I chemical products, which can still be used to manufacture methamphetamine even if they are out-of-date or damaged. Second, Respondent told the DIs that he did not conduct background checks on his employees and, indeed, he did not even know their last names. Under DEA's regulations, a “registrant shall exercise caution in the consideration of employment of persons who will have access to listed chemicals, who have been convicted of a felony offense relating to controlled substances or listed chemicals, or who have, at any time, had an application for registration with DEA denied, had a DEA registration revoked, or surrendered a DEA registration for cause.” 21 CFR 1309.72(a). Moreover, a “registrant should be aware of the circumstances regarding the action against the potential employee and the rehabilitative efforts following the action,” and a “registrant shall assess the risks involved in employing such persons.” *Id.* Conducting a background check on a potential employee is therefore essential to comply with the regulation and to make an accurate assessment of the risk posed by the person's employment. Finally, Respondent's proposed method of determining the legitimacy of his walk-in customers is obviously inadequate. Mr. Tran stated that he knew most of his customers because he had lived in Baton Rouge, a city of sizable population, for twenty years, and went to church with them. Mr. Tran offered no explanation as to how he would verify the legitimacy of those walk-in customers he did not personally know. Each of the above reasons provides an independent basis to conclude that Respondent would not maintain effective controls against diversion. Moreover, this finding provides reason alone to conclude that granting Respondent's application would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 823(h). Factor Four and Five—The Applicant's Experience in Distributing List I Chemicals and Other Factors Relevant to and Consistent With Public Health and Safety As I have previously held, “an applicant's lack of experience in distributing list I chemicals creates a greater risk of diversion and thus weigh heavily against the granting of an application.” *Planet Trading, Inc* ., 72 FR 11055, 11057

(2007)(quoting *Tri-County Bait Distributors* , 71 FR 52160, 52163 (2006)). Moreover, “[d]istributors of list I chemicals are subject to a comprehensive and complex regulatory scheme.” *Id* . at 11058 (citing 21 CFR Pts. 1309 & 1310). Here, Mr. Tran has no experience in the distribution of list I chemicals and the fulfillment of the regulatory obligations imposed by the CSA. *See id* . Moreover, Mr. Tran did not understand that pseudoephedrine is the active ingredient in various cold products and was unfamiliar with the problem caused by the diversion of the chemical into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. *See id* . (rejecting application based on applicant's lack of product knowledge). Mr. Tran's lack of experience and knowledge does not bode well for his performance as a registrant who will prevent diversion. Numerous DEA orders establish that the sale of list I chemical products by non-traditional retailers is an area of particular concern in preventing diversion of these products into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. *See, e.g., Joey Enterprises* , 70 FR 76866, 76867 (2005). As *Joey Enterprises* explains, “[w]hile there are no specific prohibitions under the Controlled Substances Act regarding the sale of listed chemical products to [gas stations and convenience stores], DEA has nevertheless found that [these entities] constitute sources for the diversion of listed chemical products.” *Id. See also Rick's Picks* , 72 FR 18279

(2007)(noting role of non-traditional retailers such as convenience stores and gas stations in supplying meth. cooks); *TNT Distributors* , 70 FR 12729, 12730

(2005)(special agent testified that “80 to 90 percent of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine being used [in Tennessee] to manufacture methamphetamine was being obtained from convenience stores”); *OTC Distribution Co* ., 68 FR 70538, 70541

(2003)(noting “over 20 different seizures of [non-traditional market distributor's] pseudoephedrine product at clandestine sites,” and that in eight-month period, distributor's product “was seized at clandestine laboratories in eight states, with over 2 million dosage units seized in Oklahoma alone.”); *MDI Pharmaceuticals* , 68 FR 4233, 4236

(2003)(finding that “pseudoephedrine products distributed by [gray market distributor] have been uncovered at numerous clandestine methamphetamine settings throughout the United States and/or discovered in the possession of individuals apparently involved in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine”). DEA orders have thus found that there is a substantial risk of diversion of List I chemicals into the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine when these products are sold by non-traditional retailers. *See, e.g., Joy's Ideas* , 70 FR at 33199 (finding that the risk of diversion was “real” and “substantial”); *Jay Enterprises* , 70 FR at 24621 (noting “heightened risk of diversion” should application be granted). Under DEA precedents, an applicant's proposal to sell into the non-traditional market weighs heavily against the granting of a registration under factor five. So too here. Because of the methamphetamine epidemic's devastating impact on communities and families throughout the country, DEA has repeatedly denied an application when an applicant proposed to sell into the non-traditional market and the analysis of one of the other statutory factors supports the conclusion that granting the application would create an unacceptable risk of diversion. Thus, in *Xtreme Enterprises* , 67 FR 76195, 76197 (2002), my predecessor denied an application observing that the respondent's “lack of a criminal record, compliance with the law and willingness to upgrade her security system are far outweighed by her lack of experience with selling List I chemicals and the fact that she intends to sell ephedrine almost exclusively in the gray market.” More recently, I denied an application observing that the respondent's “lack of a criminal record and any intent to comply with the law and regulations are far outweighed by his lack of experience and the company's intent to sell ephedrine and pseudoephedrine exclusively to the gray market.” *Jay Enterprises* , 70 FR at 24621. *Accord Planet Trading* , 72 FR at 11058; *Prachi Enterprises* , 69 FR 69407, 69409 (2004). Here, the investigative file supports additional adverse findings beyond those which DEA has repeatedly held are sufficient to warrant the denial of an application to distribute list I chemicals. Respondent clearly lacks effective controls against diversion, has no experience in the licit wholesale distribution of List I chemical products, and yet intends to distribute these products to non-traditional retailers, a market in which the risk of diversion is substantial. *See Planet Trading* , 72 FR at 11058; *Taby Enterprises of Osceola, Inc* ., 71 FR 71557, 71559 (2006). Given these findings, 1 it is indisputable that granting Respondent's application would be “inconsistent with the public interest.” 21 U.S.C. 823(h). 1 Because these findings establish that granting Respondent's application would create an unacceptable risk of diversion, it is unnecessary to make any findings on the remaining factors. Order Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(h), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b) & 0.104, I order that the application of Tim's Wholesale, for a DEA Certificate of Registration as a distributor of list I chemicals be, and it hereby is, denied. This order is effective November 16, 2007. Dated: October 9, 2007. Michele M. Leonhart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-20443 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Office of Justice Programs [OMB Number 1121-0114] Office for Victims of Crime; Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested ACTION: 30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Victims of Crime Act, Victim Compensation Grant Program, State Performance Report. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** , Volume 72, Number 155, page 45270-45271 on month, day, year, allowing for a 60-day comment period. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until November 16, 2007. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to

(202)395-5806. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: —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 agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of a currently approved collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Victims of Crime Act, Victim Compensation Grant Program, State Performance Report.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection:* Form Number: OJP ADMIN FORM 7390/6. Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* Primary: State Government. The form is used by State Government to submit Annual Performance Report data about claims for victim compensation.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* It is estimated that 53 respondents will complete the form within 2 hours.

(6)*An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* There are an estimated 106 total annual burden hours associated with this collection. *If additional information is required contact:* Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Patrick Henry Building, Suite 1600, 601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: October 11, 2007. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, PRA, Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E7-20456 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-18-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of the Secretary Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request October 11, 2007. The Department of Labor

(DOL)hereby announces the submission the following public information collection request

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget

(DOL)hereby announces the submission of the following public information collection request

(ICR)to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation; including among other things a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained from the RegInfo.gov Web site at *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain* or by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) / e-mail: *king.darrin@dol.gov* . Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Carolyn Lovett, OMB Desk Officer for the Employment Standards Administration (ESA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: 202-395-7316 / Fax: 202-395-6974 (these are not toll-free numbers), e-mail: *OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov* within 30 days from the date of this publication in the **Federal Register** . In order to ensure the appropriate consideration, comments should reference the OMB Control Number (see below). The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. *Agency:* Employment Standards Administration. *Type of Review:* Extension without change of currently approved collection. *Title:* OFCCP Complaint Form. *OMB Control Number:* 1215-0131. *Form Numbers:* CC-4. *Estimated Number of Annual Respondents:* 594. *Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours:* 760. *Total Estimated Annual Cost Burden:* $261. *Affected Public:* Individuals or households. *Description:* The complaint form (CC-4) is prepared by individuals who allege illegal employment discrimination by Federal contractors. The complaint information is utilized by the Department's Office of Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) field personnel as the first step in the initiation of a discrimination complaint investigation. If the complaint states a case of alleged discrimination under one of OFCCP's equal employment opportunity programs 1 and jurisdiction is established, then a complaint investigation is initiated. A standardized form for collecting complaint information promotes efficient use of agency resources by ensuring that individual complaint filers provide the information required to initiate a discrimination complaint investigation. 1 Executive Order 11246, as amended and implanting regulations at 41 CFR § 60-1.23(a); The Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended (38 U.S.C. § 4212(b)) and implementing regulations at 41 CFR § 60-250.61(b); and Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. § 793(b) and implementing regulations at 41 CFR § 60-741.61(c). Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. E7-20438 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CM-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-62,254] Accudata, Carlinville, IL; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on October 4, 2007 in response to a worker petition filed by a community representative on behalf of workers at Accudata, Carlinville, Illinois. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of October, 2007. Richard Church Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-20398 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,942] Best Textiles International, Ltd, Formerly Known as Best Manufacturing, Cordele Division, Cordele, GA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on September 10, 2007, applicable to workers of Best Textiles International, Ltd, Cordele, Georgia. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on September 27, 2007 (72 FR 54939). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of table linens, aprons and chef wear. New information shows that the subject firm originally named Best Manufacturing, Cordele Division, was renamed Best Textiles International, Ltd due to a change in ownership. Workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance

(UI)tax account for Best Manufacturing. Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to properly reflect this matter. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Best Textiles International, Ltd who were adversely affected by increased company imports. Of note, the decision dated September 10, 2007 referenced that the workers were under an existing certification that expired on July 8, 2005. However, the actual TAA expiration date should have been represented as July 8, 2007. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-61,942 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Best Textiles International, Ltd, formerly known as Best Manufacturing, Cordele Division, Cordele, Georgia, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after July 9, 2007, through September 10, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC this 11th day of October 2007. Elliott S. Kushner Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-20403 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,707] Dana Corporation, Torque-Traction Manufacturing, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers of Diversco Integrated Services, Inc. and Haas Total Chemical Management, Inc., Cape Girardeau, MS; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on July 23, 2007, applicable to workers of Dana Corporation, Torque-Traction Manufacturing, Inc., Cape Girardeau, Missouri. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on August 9, 2007 (72 FR 44865). The certification was amended on October 1, 2007 include on-site leased workers. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on October 5, 2007 (72 FR 57069-57070). On our own motion, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of a variety of automotive axle components. New information shows that leased workers of Diversco Integrated Services, Inc. and Haas Total Chemical Management, Inc. were employed on-site at the Cape Girardeau, Missouri location of Dana Corporation, Torque-Traction Manufacturing, Inc. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of Dana Corporation, Torque-Traction Manufacturing, Inc. to be considered leased workers. The same worker group of Dana Corporation was under a previous certification that remained in effect until July 29, 2007; therefore the current impact date will read July 30, 2007. Since leased workers were not included in the now expired certification, their impact date will reach back a full year from the original petition date and will read June 18, 2006. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include leased workers of Diversco Integrated Services, Inc., and Haas Total Chemical Management, Inc. working on-site at the Cape Girardeau, Missouri location of the subject firm and clarify the eligibility dates. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers employed at Dana Corporation, Torque-Traction Manufacturing, Inc., Cape Girardeau, Missouri who were adversely affected by a shift in production to Mexico. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-61,707 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Dana Corporation, Torque-Traction Manufacturing, Inc., Cape Girardeau, Missouri, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after July 30, 2007, through July 23, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. and; All on-site leased workers of Diversco Integrated Services, Inc., and Haas Total Chemical Management, Inc. working at Dana Corporation, Torque-Traction Manufacturing, Inc, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 18, 2006, through July 23, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC this 5th day of October, 2007. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-20401 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-61,799] Peres Pattern Company, Erie, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application postmarked September 26, 2007, a company official requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on August 15, 2007 and published in the **Federal Register** on August 30, 2007 (72 FR 50126). Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under the following circumstances:

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

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

(3)If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The petition for the workers of Peres Pattern Company, Erie, Pennsylvania engaged in production of custom molds (i.e. wood, metal and plastic patterns, blow molds, foam molds, rim molds, vacuum molds and aluminum castings) was denied because the “contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The “contributed importantly” test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's declining customers. The survey revealed no imports of custom molds by declining customers during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import custom molds nor shift production to a foreign country during the relevant period. The petitioner states that the affected workers lost their jobs as a direct result of a loss of customers who used items manufactured by the subject firm as “unfinished goods” and “tooling” for further production of plastic goods. The petitioner alleges that customers of the subject firm which manufacture plastic products decreased purchases of custom molds from the subject firm because they choose to shift their production abroad. Therefore, the petitioner concludes that because sales and production of custom molds at the subject firm have been negatively impacted by the customers shifting their production of plastic products abroad, workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA. In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider imports that are like or directly competitive with those produced at the subject firm. The Department conducted a survey of the subject firm's major declining customer regarding their purchases of custom molds during 2005, 2006 and January through June 2007 over the corresponding 2006 period. The survey revealed that the declining customers did not import custom molds during the relevant period. Imports of plastic products cannot be considered like or directly competitive with custom molds produced by Peres Pattern Company, Erie, Pennsylvania and imports of plastic products are not relevant in this investigation. The fact that subject firm's customers are shifting their production abroad is not relevant to this investigation. The shift in production must be administered by the subject firm in order for workers of the subject firm to be considered eligible for TAA. The petitioner further states that in order to reveal the import impact, the Department should investigate the time period prior to 2005. Furthermore, the petitioner attached a list of declining customers from 1988 to present. When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively considers import impact during the relevant time period (one year prior to the date of the petition). The customers of the subject firm were surveyed regarding their purchases of custom molds during the relevant time period. The survey revealed no imports of custom molds during the relevant time period. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed in Washington, DC, this 11th day of October, 2007. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-20402 Filed 10-16-07; 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 October 29, 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 October 29, 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 9th day of October 2007. Ralph DiBattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [Petitions instituted between 10/1/07 and 10/5/07] TA-W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution Date of petition 62224 Porter Engineered Systems Ohio

(Comp)Solon, OH 10/01/07 08/28/07 62225 Delphi Corporation

(Wkrs)Moraine, OH 10/01/07 09/28/07 62226 Con Agra Foods (State) Edina, MN 10/01/07 09/28/07 62227 Plastech

(Comp)Fowlerville, MI 10/01/07 09/17/07 62228 Waverly Mills, Inc.

(Comp)Laurinburg, NC 10/01/07 09/26/07 62229 Bombardier Aerospace (State) Wichita, KS 10/01/07 09/28/07 62230 Collins Products, LLC (IAMAW) Klamath Falls, OR 10/02/07 10/01/07 62231 Wilson Sporting Goods Company

(Comp)Humboldt, TN 10/02/07 10/01/07 62232 Philips Lighting

(USW)Danville, KY 10/02/07 09/28/07 62233 Burke Hosiery Mills, Inc.

(Comp)Hickory, NC 10/02/07 09/27/07 62234 KLA-Tencor

(Wkrs)San Jose, CA 10/02/07 09/30/07 62235 Sanmina-SCI

(Comp)Fountain, CO 10/02/07 10/01/07 62236 AB Automotive Inc.

(Comp)Smithfield, NC 10/02/07 09/30/07 62237 Linzhi Fashion, Inc.

(Wkrs)New York, NY 10/02/07 09/30/07 62238 Crameo, Inc.

(Comp)Philadelphia, PA 10/02/07 09/28/07 62239 Southern Hosiery Mills, Inc.

(Comp)Hickory, NC 10/03/07 10/02/07 62240 Toluca Garment Company

(Wkrs)Toluca, IL 10/03/07 09/21/07 62241 Blyth Homescents Int.

(Wkrs)Des Plaines, IL 10/03/07 09/24/07 62242 Weyerhaeuser Elma Veneer (State) Elma, WA 10/03/07 10/01/07 62243 Electric Mobility (State) Sewell, NJ 10/03/07 10/02/07 62244 Cummings Signs (AFLCIO) Nashville, TN 10/03/07 10/02/07 62245 Flakeboard Particle Board Plant (State) Albany, OR 10/03/07 10/01/07 62246 Sunoco Chemicals

(USW)Neville Island, PA 10/03/07 10/01/07 62247 International Cup Corporation/Soller

(Rep)Bennettsville, SC 10/03/07 09/21/07 62248 ArvinMeritor

(Comp)Chickasha, OK 10/04/07 10/03/07 62249 Fiskars Garden and Outdoor Living

(Comp)Sauk City, WI 10/04/07 10/03/07 62250 Vaughan Furniture Co. Inc. (B.C. Vaughan Plant)

(Comp)Galax, VA 10/04/07 10/03/07 62251 Precept Medical Products, Inc.

(Comp)Childersburg, AL 10/04/07 10/03/07 62252 Gavin Chevrolet

(Comp)Middleville, MI 10/04/07 09/27/07 62253 Manpower, Inc. (State) Grand Haven, MI 10/04/07 09/28/07 62254 Accudata (State) Carlinville, IL 10/04/07 10/03/07 62255 Liqui-Box Corporation

(Wkrs)Upper Sandusky, OH 10/04/07 09/28/07 62256 Aearo Technologies

(Comp)Southbridge, MA 10/04/07 10/01/07 62257 New England Ladder and Scaffolding Company

(Wkrs)Orwigsburg, PA 10/04/07 09/17/07 62258 Chemtura Corporation (State) Middlebury, CT 10/04/07 10/03/07 62259 Dekko Technologies, Inc. (State) Mt. Ayr, IA 10/04/07 09/28/07 62260 Flexsteel Industries, Inc.

(USW)Dubuque, IA 10/05/07 10/04/07 62261 American Uniform Company

(Comp)Cleveland, TN 10/05/07 10/04/07 62262 Summit Switching

(Comp)Chesapeake, VA 10/05/07 10/04/07 62263 W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co.

(Comp)Urbana, OH 10/05/07 09/28/07 62264 Conexant Systems, Inc. (State) Newport Beach, CA 10/05/07 10/04/07 [FR Doc. E7-20399 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance

(ATAA)by (TA-W) number issued during the period of *October 1 through October 5, 2007* . In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.

(1)Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2)The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and

(3)Either—

(A)The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph

(2)accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or

(B)A loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph

(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. 1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older. 2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable. 3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse). Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-61,959; Sewell Clothing Company, Inc., Bremen, GA: July 18, 2006* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of the Trade Act have been met. None The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met. None The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act have been met. None Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-62,149; Aptara, Inc., York, PA: September 13, 2006.* *TA-W-62,173; United Memorial Bible Services, Gastonia, NC: September 19, 2006.* *TA-W-62,181; Louisiana Pacific Corporation, Engineered Wood Products Division, Hines, OR: September 19, 2006.* *TA-W-61,817; Hayes Lemmerz International, Northville, MI: July 10, 2006.* *TA-W-61,849; Ada Gage, Inc., Ada, MI: July 19, 2006.* *TA-W-61,931; Tyco Electronics, On-Site Leased Workers of Kelly Staffing; East Berlin, PA: August 2, 2006 * *TA-W-62,028; Deluxe Tool and Engineering, Inc., Wyoming, MN: August 22, 2006 * *TA-W-62,103; New River Industries, Inc., New York, NY: August 28, 2006 * *TA-W-62,132; Charbert, Division of NFA Corporation; Alton, RI: September 11, 2006 * *TA-W-62,195; Deluxe Media Services LLC, Wayne, MI: September 18, 2006* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-61,977; Hoover Precision Products, Inc., Erwin, TN: August 10, 2006.* *TA-W-62,037; Cadillac Rubber and Plastics, Inc., dba Avon Automotive, On-Site Leased Workers of Northern Staffing; Cadillac, MI: August 20, 2006* * TA-W-62,041; Johnson Controls, Frigid Coil West Division, On-Site Leased Workers From Personnel Plus, Inc., Santa Fe Springs, CA: August 9, 2006 * *TA-W-62,069; Delphi Corporation, Automotive Holdings Group, Plant 6, On-Site Leased Workers of Securatas; Flint, MI: August 27, 2006* *TA-W-62,069A; Delphi Corporation, Automotive Holdings Group, Plant 2, On-Site Leased Workers of Securatas; Flint, MI: August 27, 2006* *TA-W-62,081; Meridian Automotive Systems Composites Operations, aka Meridian Automotive Systems; Jackson, OH: August 30, 2006* *TA-W-62,112; Fry's Metals, Inc., d/b/a Alpha Metals, Inc., Division of Cookson Electronics; Alpharetta, GA: August 31, 2006* *TA-W-62,159; CML Innovative Technologies, Division of CM Holdings International, LLC; Hackensack, NJ: September 13, 2007* *TA-W-62,172; Carhartt, Inc., Galesburg, IL: September 19, 2006* *TA-W-62,187; Bock USA, Inc., Monroe, CT: September 20, 2006* *TA-W-62,193; Illinois Tool Works, ITWSouthland Division; Virginia Beach, VA: September 17, 2006* *TA-W-62,217; The Hershey Company, Oakdale Plant; Oakdale, CA: September 26, 2006* *TA-W-62,009; Global Motorsport Group, Santee Manufacturing Division; Valencia, CA: August 3, 2006* *TA-W-62,040; The Colibri Group, Providence, RI: August 23, 2006* *TA-W-62,135; Children's Apparel Network LTD, New York, NY: August 15, 2006* *TA-W-62,142; Powerwave Technologies, Inc., El Dorado Hills, CA: September 6, 2006* *TA-W-62,164; Huntleigh Healthcare, L.L.C., Eatontown, NJ: September 18, 2006* *TA-W-62,185; T.J. Corporation, dba Halco, Belle Vernon, PA: September 19, 2006* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-62,100; Microfibers, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC: August 14, 2006* *TA-W-62,114; Traer Manufacturing, A Subsidiary of Cosma Body Systems, On-Site Leased Workers From Manpower & USA; Traer, IA: September 5, 2006* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *None* Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified. The Department has determined that criterion

(1)of Section 246 has not been met. The firm does not have a significant number of workers 50 years of age or older. *TA-W-61,959; Sewell Clothing Company, Inc., Bremen, GA.* The Department has determined that criterion

(2)of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable. *None* The Department has determined that criterion

(3)of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse. *None.* Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified. Because the workers of the firm are not eligible to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met. *TA-W-61,844; Carter-Pertaine, Inc., A Subsidiary of DB Soft, Inc., Houston, TX.* *TA-W-62,174; Penn Union Corporation, Edinboro, PA.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-62,125; Parlex USA, Laminated Cable Division; Methuen, MA.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-61,888; J.M. Huber Corporation, Engineered Materials/Kaolin Division, Macon, GA.* *TA-W-62,027; General Products Corporation, Jackson, MI.* *TA-W-62,092; H and T Waterbury, Inc., Waterbury, CT.* The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. *TA-W-62,127; JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, Lexington, KY.* *TA-W-62,148; Unicare Life and Health Insurance Co., Subsidiary of Wellpoint, Inc., Bolingbrook, IL.* The investigation revealed that criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers' firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA. *None.* I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of *October 1 through October 5, 2007* . Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address. Dated: October 10, 2007. Ralph DiBattista, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E7-20400 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Proposed Information Collection Request for Submission of Petition for Classifying Labor Surplus Areas; Comment Request AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, DOL. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the collection of data contained in the procedures to petition for classification as a Labor Surplus Area

(LSA)under exceptional circumstances criteria. A copy of the proposed information collection request

(ICR)can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice or at this Web site: *http://www.doleta.gov/OMBCN/OMBControlNumber.cfm.* DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee section below on or before December 17, 2007. ADDRESSES: Anthony D. Dais, Office of Workforce Investment, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-4231, Washington, DC 20210. Telephone:

(202)693-2784 (This is not a toll-free number); fax

(202)693-3015; or e-mail [ *dais.anthony@dol.gov* ]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Under Executive Orders 12073 and 10582, and 20 CFR parts 651 and 654, The Secretary of Labor is required to classify LSAs and disseminate this information for the use of all Federal Agencies. This information is used by Federal agencies for various purposes including procurement decisions, food stamp waiver decisions, certain small business loan decisions, as well as other purposes determined by the agencies. The LSA list is issued annually, effective October 1 of each year, utilizing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Areas meeting the criteria are classified as LSAs. Department regulations specify that the Department can add other areas to the annual LSA listing under the exceptional circumstance criteria. Such additions are based upon information contained in petitions submitted by the State Workforce Agencies

(SWAs)to the ETA's national office. These petitions contain specific economic information about an area in order to provide ample justification for adding the area to the LSA listing under the exceptional circumstances criteria. An area is eligible for classification as a LSA if it meets all of the criteria, and if the exceptional circumstance event is not temporary or seasonal. This data collection pertains only to data submitted voluntary by states exceptional circumstances petitions. Most of the information contained the SWA LSA petitions is already available from other sources, e.g., internal reports, statistical programs, newspaper clippings, etc. The petitions are not intended to provide new (unduplicated) information but serve to bring various types of information together in a single document in order that a LSA classification determination can be made. The only information which SWAs may have to develop for use in the petition is the 12-month projections of the area's labor force and unemployment. No periodic reporting is required. II. Review Focus The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses. III. Current Actions *Type of Review:* Extension of currently approved collection. There is no reduction in burden based on an experience rate of the approved data collection period: The ETA has not received a petition since 2003. *Agency:* Employment and Training Administration *Title:* Procedures for Classifying Labor Surplus Areas Exceptional Circumstances Reporting. *OMB Number:* 1205-0207. *Affected Public:* State Workforce Agencies. *Total Respondents:* 1. *Estimated Total Burden Hours:* 3. *Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):* 0. *Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining):* 0. Comments submitted in response to this comment request 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: October 11, 2007. Gay M. Gilbert, Administrator, Office of Workforce Investment Employment & Training Administration. [FR Doc. E7-20463 Filed 10-16-07; 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; Records of Tests and Examinations of Personnel Hoisting Equipment ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance 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 ensure that requested data is 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 December 17, 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 These requirements provide for a record of specific test and inspections of a mine's personnel hoisting systems, including the wire rope, to ensure that the system remains safe to operate. Review of the record indicates whether deficiencies are developing in the equipment, in particular the wire rope, so that corrective action may be taken before an accident occurs. The requirements also provide for a systematic procedure for the inspection, testing, and maintenance of shaft and hoisting equipment. The mine operator must certify that the required inspections, tests, and maintenance have been made then record any unsafe condition identified during the examination or test. The precise format in which the record is kept is left to the discretion of the mine operator. All records are made by the person conducting the required examination or test. Unless otherwise noted below, these records are to be retained for one year at the mine site. II. Desired Focus of Comments Currently, the Mine Safety and Health Administration

(MSHA)is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the information collection requirement related to Records of Tests and Examinations of Personnel Hoisting Equipment. MSHA is particularly interested in comments that: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of MSHA's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of MSHA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Suggest methods to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Address 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) to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond. A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the employee listed in the Addresses section of this notice or viewed on the Internet by accessing the MSHA home page ( *http://www.msha.gov/* ) and selecting “Rules and Regs”, then selecting “Fed Reg Docs.” III. Current Actions The information is used by industry management and maintenance personnel to project the expected safe service performance of hoist and shaft equipment; to indicate when maintenance and specific tests need to be performed; and to ensure that wire rope attached to the personnel conveyance is replaced in time to maintain the necessary safety for miners. Federal inspectors use the records to ensure that inspections are conducted, unsafe conditions identified early and corrected. The consequence of hoist or shaft equipment malfunctions or wire rope failures can result in serious injuries and fatalities. It is essential that MSHA inspectors be able to verify that mine operators are properly inspecting their hoist and shaft equipment and maintaining it in safe condition. *Type of Review:* Extension. *Agency:* Mine Safety and Health Administration. *Title:* Record of Tests and Examinations of Personnel Hoisting Equipment. *OMB Number:* 1219-0034. *Affected Public:* Business or other for-profit. *Number of Respondents:* 255. *Number of Responses:* 75,371. *Total Burden Hours:* 6,873. *Total Operating and Maintenance Costs:* $306,000. 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 11th day of October, 2007. David L. Meyer, Director, Office of Administration and Management. [FR Doc. E7-20404 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-43-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request AGENCY: National Science Foundation. ACTION: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request. SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation

(NSF)has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the **Federal Register** at 72 FR 11912, and no comments were received. NSF is forwarding the proposed renewal submission to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance simultaneously with the publication of this second notice. The full submission may be found at: *http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.* Comments regarding

(a)whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected or

(d)ways to 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 should be addressed to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for National Science Foundation, 725-17th Street, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send e-mail to *splimpto@nsf.gov.* Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling 703-292-7556. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Suzanne Plimpton at

(703)292-7556 or send e-mail to *splimpto@nsf.gov.* Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD)may call the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS)at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday. NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. *Title of Collection:* Evaluation of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program. *OMB Control No.:* 3145-0204. *Abstract:* The National Science Foundation

(NSF)requests revision and extension of a currently approved data collection (e.g., interviews, surveys, focus groups, site visits protocols) measuring NSF's contribution to the Nation's Historically Black Colleges and Universities

(HBCU)enterprise and overall science and engineering workforce. This continuation expands the data collection most recently approved through October 2009 (OMB 3145-0204) beyond the student respondents to administrators, faculty and other participants, observers, or beneficiaries in undergraduate programs in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

(STEM)at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. NSF is reissuing this notice because the first notice did not make clear that there would be both individual and institutional respondents to these data collections. NSF funds a program, called Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP), designed to help institutions strengthen the quality of their undergraduate STEM programs. For more information about HBCU-UP please visit the NSF Web site at: *http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5481&org=HRD&from=home.* The Urban Institute

(UI)is conducting an evaluation of the HBCU-UP program which received initial approval from the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)on 31 October 2006. Using a multiple-methods approach, UI researchers are conducting an evaluation to study the effectiveness of the program. The evaluation will include both process and summative components. The process component will document how different models within the Program are being implemented, thus helping evaluators to link strategies to outcomes, identify crucial components of different models, and contribute to the construction of general theories to guide future initiatives to increase the diversity of the STEM workforce. The summative component of the evaluation will focus on the extent to which the Program has produced outcomes that meet stated goals for students, faculty and institutions. The process evaluation relies mainly on qualitative data collected during case study site visits and interviews; the summative evaluation will rely primarily on data collected through a survey of graduates and faculty. NSF uses the UI analysis to prepare and publish reports and to respond to requests from Committees of Visitors, Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, particularly as related to the Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA)and the Program Effectiveness Rating Tool (PART). The HBCU-UP study's broad questions include but are not limited to: What do individuals following post-participation in HBCU-UP or other NSF-funded undergraduate education opportunities do? Do HBCU-UP or other NSF-funded opportunities provide graduates with the professional and/or research skills needed to work in science and engineering? ARE HBCU-UP or other NSF-sponsored students and faculty satisfied that their NSF-funded experience advanced their careers in science or engineering? to what extent do HBCU-UP or other former-NSF-sponsored graduates engage in the science and engineering workforce conduct inter- or multi-disciplinary science? Is there evidence of a legacy from NSF-funding that changed a degree-granting department beyond number of students supported and degrees awarded? To what extent have projects achieved or contributed to individual project goals or the NSF program goals? To what extent have NSF-funded projects or programs broadened participation by diverse individuals, particularly individuals traditionally underemployed in science or engineering, including but not limited to women, minorities, and persons-with-disabilities? *Respondents:* Individuals or households, not-for-profit institutions, business or other for profit, and Federal, State, Local or Tribal Government *Estimated Number of Annual Respondents:* 4,155 (total). *Burden on the Public:* 1,074 hours. Dated: October 11, 2007. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation. [FR Doc. 07-5104 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 11

Traces to 11 documents

CFR

U.S. Code

Notice
Notices

8 references not yet in our index

419 F.3d 477
412 F.3d 165
5 CFR 1320.10
Pub. L. 104-13
29 CFR 1915
41 CFR 60
26 USC 2813
29 CFR 90.18(c)

Citation graph

cites case law

Notices

30-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Victims of Crime Act, Victim Compensation Grant Program, State Performance Report

Cite5 CFR 1320.10

Cites 19 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources