Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 2, 2010 / Notices 9441 

UL 1474 Adjustable Drop Nipples for 

Sprinkler Systems 

UL 1481 Power Supplies for FireProtective Signaling Systems 

UL 1486 Quick Opening Devices for 

Dry Pipe Valves for Fire-Protection 

Service 

UL 1557 Electrically Isolated 

Semiconductor Devices 

UL 1577 Optical Isolators 

UL 1682 Plugs, Receptacles and Cable 

Connectors, of the Pin and Sleeve 

Type 

UL 1876 Isolating Signal and Feedback 

Transformers for Use in Electronic 

Equipment 

UL 2006 Halon 1211 Recovery/ 

Recharge Equipment 

UL 2111 Overheating Protection for 

Motors 

III. Temporary Reinstatement of NFPA 

72 

On September 14, 2009, OSHA 

published a notice (see 74 FR 47026) to 

modify the scopes of recognition 

(‘‘scopes’’) of several NRTLs because 

standards developing organizations 

(SDOs) withdrew a number of test 

standards from their catalog of 

published standards. Consequently, 

these NRTLs could no longer use the 

withdrawn test standards to certify 

selected products requiring certification 

under OSHA standards. In response to 

the SDOs’ action, OSHA’s 2009 Federal 

Register notice deleted the withdrawn 

standards from the scope of each 

affected NRTL, and added to the NRTL’s 

scopes any known replacement 

standard(s). 

One of the withdrawn standards was 

ANSI/NFPA 72—Installation, 

Maintenance, and Use of Protective 

Signaling Systems. The National Fire 

Protection Association (NFPA) 

withdrew this test standard several 

years ago after integrating it into the 

National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code 

(NFASC), also designated NFPA 72. 

However, OSHA’s 2009 Federal 

Register notice did not list the NFASC 

document as a replacement for NFPA 72 

because the NRTL Program 

requirements do not allow NRTLs to 

include general consensus codes or 

other similar standards in their scopes 

of recognition. Such standards do not 

meet the NRTL Program’s requirements 

for an ‘‘appropriate test standard,’’ i.e., 

the standards do not primarily specify 

testing requirements for particular types 

of products. 

After OSHA deleted the NFPA 72 

standard, several NRTLs contacted 

OSHA to request recognition for the 

NFASC. One NRTL informed OSHA that 

deleting the test standard so abruptly 

invalidated approvals for many 

products. The NRTLs requested a twoyear transition period to identify a 

comparable replacement test standard to 

use in certifying the affected products. 

When OSHA determines that a 

comparable replacement test standard is 

not available, it may delay the effective 

date for deleting a withdrawn test 

standard from NRTLs’ scopes so the 

affected NRTLs can continue certifying 

products while identifying a comparable 

replacement standard. Accordingly, 

OSHA is temporarily reinstating NFPA 

72 to the scopes of the affected NRTLs. 

The reinstatement period is retroactive 

to September 14, 2009, the date the 

standard was removed from these 

NRTLs’ scopes, and ends September 14, 

2011. By September 14, 2010, each 

affected NRTL wishing to continue 

certifying the affected products must 

notify OSHA of the name(s) of 

comparable replacement test standard(s) 

the NRTL will use in place of NFPA 72. 

If not already in the NRTL’s scope, 

OSHA will add any such standard that 

is ‘‘appropriate,’’ provided the NRTL has 

the capability for the testing. By 

September 14, 2011, OSHA will remove 

NFPA 72 from all NRTLs’ scope, and 

these NRTLs must cease certifying 

products to NFPA 72, and certify 

products to the comparable replacement 

standard(s) in their scopes. 

IV. Authority and Signature 

David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, 

directed the preparation of this notice. 

Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this 

notice pursuant to Sections 6(b) and 8(g) 

of the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 655 and 657), 

Secretary of Labor’s Order No. 5–2007 

(72 FR 31160), and 29 CFR part 1911. 

Signed at Washington, DC, on February 22, 

2010. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety 

and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4197 Filed 3–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–71,388] 

Lucas-Smith Automotive, Inc.: Potosi, 

MO; Notice of Negative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration 

By application dated January 22, 

2010, the petitioners requested 

administrative reconsideration of the 

Department’s negative determination 

regarding eligibility to apply for Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (TAA), 

applicable to workers and former 

workers of Lucas-Smith Automotive, 

Inc., Potosi, Missouri (subject firm). The 

Notice of negative determination was 

signed on January 8, 2010. The 

Department’s Notice of determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on February 16, 2010 (75 FR 7039). 

Workers of the subject firm are engaged 

in employment related to the sales and 

service of new and used automobiles. 

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), 

reconsideration may be granted under 

the following circumstances: 

(1) If it appears on the basis of facts 

not previously considered that the 

determination complained of was 

erroneous; 

(2) if it appears that the determination 

complained of was based on a mistake 

in the determination of facts not 

previously considered; or 

(3) if in the opinion of the Certifying 

Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of 

the law justified reconsideration of the 

decision. 

The initial investigation resulted in a 

denial based on the findings that 

imports of services like or directly 

competitive with the services provided 

by workers of the subject firm did not 

contribute to worker separations at the 

subject firm and that no shift in 

provision of the services to a foreign 

country occurred during the relevant 

period. 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioners alleged that the subject firm 

is either a supplier or downstream 

producer to a TAA-certified firm and a 

loss of business with this firm 

contributed importantly to worker 

separations at the subject firm. 

For the Department to issue a 

secondary worker certification under 

Section 222(c) to workers of a 

downstream producer, the subject firm 

must perform additional, value-added 

production processes or services 

directly for a TAA-certified firm. For the 

Department to issue a secondary worker 

certification under Section 222(c) to 

workers of an upstream supplier, the 

subject firm must produce and supply 

directly to a TAA-certified firm 

component parts for articles, or services, 

used in the production of articles or in 

the supply of services, that were the 

basis for the customers’ certification and 

the certified firm received certification 

of eligibility for TAA as a primary 

impacted firm. 

The investigation revealed that the 

workers of the subject firm were 

engaged in sales and services of new 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

9442 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 2, 2010 / Notices 

and used automobiles to individual 

owners at an automotive dealership. 

The workers of the subject firm did not 

perform additional, value-added 

production processes or services 

directly to any of the certified primary 

firms during the investigation period. 

Thus, the subject firm workers are not 

eligible for TAA as downstream 

producers under secondary impact. 

Further, the subject firm is not an 

upstream supplier because it did not 

provide services to a TAA-certified firm 

during the investigation period. 

The petitioner also alleged that 

increased imports of foreign-produced 

automobiles negatively impacted 

business of the subject firm and, 

therefore, workers who perform sales 

and service of domestic automobiles 

should be eligible for TAA. 

When assessing a worker group’s 

eligibility to apply for TAA, the 

Department exclusively considers 

imports of articles like or directly 

competitive with those manufactured by 

the subject firm or services like or 

directly competitive with those 

supplied by the workers of the subject 

firm during the relevant period. It was 

revealed during the initial investigation 

that the subject firm neither imported 

services like or directly competitive 

with the services supplied by worker 

group nor shifted to or acquired from 

foreign country services like or directly 

competitive with the services supplied 

by worker group. 

The petitioners did not supply facts 

not previously considered and did not 

provide any documentation indicating 

that there was either (1) a mistake in the 

determination of facts previously 

considered or (2) a misinterpretation of 

facts or of the law justifying 

reconsideration of the initial 

determination. 

After careful review of the request for 

reconsideration, the Department 

determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not 

been met. 

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 16th day of 

February, 2010. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4246 Filed 3–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–72,231] 

Lonza, Inc., Riverside Plant, Lonza 

Exclusive Synthesis Section, Custom 

Manufacturing Division, Including OnSite Leased Workers From Lab 

Support, Aerotek, Job Exchange, and 

Synerfac, Conshohocken, PA; Notice 

of Revised Determination on 

Reconsideration 

On December 23, 2009, the 

Department issued an Affirmative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration applicable to 

workers and former workers of the 

subject firm. The notice of affirmative 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register on January 6, 2010 (75 

FR 878). 

The initial investigation, initiated on 

September 8, 2009, resulted in a 

negative determination, issued on 

November 5, 2009, that was based on 

the finding that imports did not 

contribute importantly to worker 

separations at the subject firm and no 

shift in production to a foreign country 

occurred. The notice of negative 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register on January 25, 2010 

(75 FR 3935). 

To support the request for 

reconsideration, the petitioner supplied 

additional information to supplement 

that which was gathered during the 

initial investigation. 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department carefully 

reviewed new information provided by 

the petitioner and contacted the 

company official for additional 

information and clarification of 

previously-submitted information. 

The reconsideration investigation 

revealed that the subject firm is shifting 

production of articles like or directly 

competitive with cGMP intermediates 

and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients 

from the subject facility to a foreign 

country and that this shift on 

production contributed importantly to 

worker separations during the relevant 

period. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the additional 

facts obtained on reconsideration, I 

determine that workers of Lonza, Inc., 

Riverside Plant, Lonza Exclusive 

Synthesis Section, Custom 

Manufacturing Division, including onsite leased workers of Lab Support, 

Aerotek, Job Exchange, and Synerfac, 

Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, who are 

engaged in employment related to the 

production of cGMP intermediates and 

Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, meet 

the worker group certification criteria 

under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 

U.S.C. 2272(a). In accordance with 

Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, 

I make the following certification: 

All workers of Lonza, Inc., Riverside Plant, 

Lonza Exclusive Synthesis Section, Custom 

Manufacturing Division, including on-site 

leased workers of Lab Support, Aerotek, Job 

Exchange, and Synerfac, Conshohocken, 

Pennsylvania, who are engaged in 

employment related to the production of 

cGMP intermediates and Active 

Pharmaceutical Ingredients, who became 

totally or partially separated from 

employment on or after September 2, 2008, 

through two years from the date of this 

certification, and all workers in the group 

threatened with total or partial separation 

from employment on date of certification 

through two years from the date of 

certification, are eligible to apply for 

adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of 

Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of 

February, 2010. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4249 Filed 3–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

TA–W–71,375 

AK Steel Corporation, Mansfield Works 

Division, Including On-Site Leased 

Workers From Time Customized 

Staffing Solutions, Mansfield, OH; 

Notice of Revised Determination on 

Reconsideration 

On January 8, 2010, the Department 

issued an Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration applicable to workers 

and former workers of the subject firm. 

The notice of affirmative determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on February 1, 2010 (75 FR 5145). 

The initial investigation, initiated on 

June 24, 2009, resulted in a negative 

determination, issued on November 2, 

2009, that was based on the finding that 

imports did not contribute importantly 

to worker separations at the subject firm 

and no shift in production to a foreign 

country occurred. The notice of negative 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register on January 25, 2010 

(75 FR 3935). 

To support the request for 

reconsideration, the petitioner supplied 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES