Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26637

jobs are constantly evolving, and old

ones are eliminated as technology and

other facts change. As the O*NET

(Occupational Information Network)

system, the automated replacement of

the DOT, is preparing for the

implementation phase, the need for

Occupational Code Requests (OCRs)

remains.

The ETA 741 Form, the Occupational

Code Request (OCR), was developed by

the Occupational Analysis (OA)

program, as a public service to the users

of the revised DOT in an effort to help

them in obtaining occupational codes,

titles and definitions for jobs that they

were unable to locate in the DOT. In

addition, data provided on the OCR may

also be useful indicators of potential

occupations that should be studied as

part of the new O*NET on-line system.

Use of the OCR is voluntary and is

provided only (1) as a uniform guideline

to the public and private sectors to

submit information, and (2) to assist

O*NET in identifying potential changes

in occupations or emerging occupations.

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

The Office of Policy and Research,

while preparing for the implementation

phase of O*NET, seeks to provide both

the public and private sectors with

needed occupational codes that cannot

be located in the DOT. Therefore, the

need for continuing an existing

collection of this information is

requested.

Type of Review: Extension (without

change).

Agency: Employment and Training

Administration.

Title: Occupational Code Request.

OMB Number: 1205–0137.

Affected Public: Federal Government,

State or Local Government; Individuals;

and Business or other for-profit/Not-forprofit institutions.

Total Respondents: 95.

Frequency: On occasion.

Average Time per Response: 30

minutes.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 47

hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):

None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintaining): $1119.10.

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: May 2, 2000.

Gerard F. Fiala,

Administrator, Office of Policy and Research.

[FR Doc. 00–11443 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration

[Docket No. NRTL–1–99]

Curtis-Straus LLC., Recognition as an

NRTL

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA); Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

Agency’s final decision on the

application of Curtis-Straus LLC. for

recognition as a Nationally Recognized

Testing Laboratory (NRTL) under 29

CFR 1910.7.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This recognition

becomes effective on May 8, 2000, and

will be valid until May 9, 2005, unless

terminated or modified prior to that

date, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.7.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bernard Pasquet, Office of Technical

Programs and Coordination Activities,

NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and

Health Administration, U.S. Department

of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,

NW., Room N3653, Washington, DC

20210, or phone (202) 693–2110.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Final Decision

The Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) hereby gives

notice of its recognition of Curtis-Straus

LLC. (CSL) as a Nationally Recognized

Testing Laboratory (NRTL). This

recognition covers testing and

certification of the equipment or

materials, and covers the site, listed

below. The recognition also includes

CSL’s use of the supplemental programs

described below.

OSHA recognition of an NRTL

signifies that the organization has met

the legal requirements in section 1910.7

of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations

(29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an

acknowledgment that the organization

can perform independent safety testing

and certification of the specific products

covered within its scope of recognition,

and is not a delegation or grant of

government authority. As a result of

recognition, OSHA can accept products

‘‘properly certified’’ by the NRTL.

OSHA processes applications related to

an NRTL’s recognition following

requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR

1910.7. This appendix requires that the

Agency publish this public notice of its

final decision on an application.

CSL applied for recognition as an

NRTL, pursuant to 29 CFR 1910.7, and

OSHA published the required notice in

the Federal Register (64 FR 69552,

12/13/99) to announce the application.

The notice included a preliminary

finding that CSL could meet the

requirements for recognition detailed in

29 CFR 1910.7, and invited public

comment on the application by

February 11, 2000. OSHA received five

comments in response to the notice, all

of which expressed support for

recognition of the applicant.

You may obtain or review copies of

all public documents pertaining to the

application by contacting the Docket

Office, Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, U.S. Department of

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Room N2625, Washington, DC 20210.

You should refer to Docket No. NRTL–

1–99, the permanent record of public

information on the CSL recognition.

The address of the testing facility

(site) that OSHA recognizes for CSL is:

Curtis-Straus LLC., 527 Great Road,

Littleton, Massachusetts 01460.

Background on the Applicant and the

Application

According to the application, CurtisStraus LLC. (CSL) is a limited liability

company chartered in the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts and

was established in 1996. CSL states that

it offers testing services in electrical

safety and in a number of other areas.

The applicant also states that its

founders and managers have, in the

aggregate, over thirty years of technical

26638 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

experience in these areas. The

application indicates that CSL is

privately owned.

CSL submitted an application for

recognition on February 9, 1998 (see

Exhibit 2A). In response to requests

from OSHA for clarification and

additional information, CSL amended

its application in submissions dated

June 24, 1998, and August 9, 1999 (see

Exhibits 2B and 2C). Some documents

in these submissions, and part of the

original application, have been withheld

from disclosure under Exemption 4 of

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Staff of the NRTL Program performed an

on-site assessment (review) of the

Littleton, Massachusetts, facility on

October 26–29, 1998. In the on-site

review report (see Exhibit 3), the

program staff recommended a ‘‘positive

finding.’’

The applicant has presented

documentation that describes how it

will operate as an NRTL. However, it is

an organization that, to date, has not

operated a product certification

program, and CSL only recently

developed the documents for the

certification phase of its planned NRTL

operations. The CSL Standard Operating

Procedures Manual (SOPM), which is

one of the documents withheld from

disclosure under FOIA, contain most of

the detailed procedures the applicant

plans to follow.

The four recognition requirements of

29 CFR 1910.7 are presented below,

along with examples that illustrate how

CSL has met or plans to meet each of

these requirements. We also presented

this information in the notice of

preliminary finding.

Capability

Section 1910.7(b)(1) states that for

each specified item of equipment or

material to be listed, labeled or

accepted, the laboratory must have the

capability (including proper testing

equipment and facilities, trained staff,

written testing procedures, and

calibration and quality control

programs) to perform appropriate

testing.

The on-site review report indicates

that CSL has adequate testing

equipment and an adequate facility to

perform the tests required under the test

standards for which it is recognized.

Security measures are in place to restrict

or control access to their facility, and

procedures exist on handling of test

samples. The report also indicates that

testing and processing procedures are in

place, although some were in the

process of review and updating, at the

time of the on-site review. CSL only

recently developed the testing

procedures it will use for the test

standards listed below.

The application indicates that CSL

maintains records on testing equipment,

which include information on repair,

routine maintenance, and calibrations. It

uses outside calibration sources and has

developed procedures for internal

calibrations of certain equipment. The

application and on-site review report

address personnel qualifications and

training, and identify CSL staff involved

with product testing, along with a

summary of their education and

experience. Also, the report indicates

that CSL personnel have adequate

technical knowledge for the work they

perform. Moreover, the review report

indicates that the Quality System

Manual (QSM) and SOPM are the

primary documents for the CSL quality

assurance activities. The application

contains the procedures CSL will utilize

for conducting the internal audits of its

operations.

The application indicates that CSL

has not tested products to all

requirements of a test standard and, as

already mentioned, CSL has just

developed many of the procedures it

will utilize to do such testing.

Therefore, OSHA has not yet evaluated

the actual use of the testing and

reporting procedures that CSL will

utilize for purposes of certifying to a

complete test standard, and OSHA

needs to investigate this aspect of CSL’s

operations when these procedures are in

use. Accordingly, OSHA includes a

condition in this recognition notice to

provide the Agency with the

opportunity to make this evaluation.

Control Procedures

Section 1910.7(b)(2) requires that the

NRTL provide certain controls and

services, to the extent necessary, for the

particular equipment or material to be

listed, labeled, or accepted. They

include control procedures for

identifying the listed or labeled

equipment or materials, inspections of

production runs at factories to assure

conformance with test standards, and

field inspections to monitor and assure

the proper use of identifying marks or

labels.

The applicant has developed

procedures and related documentation

for initially qualifying a manufacturer

under the CSL certification program and

for performing the required follow-up

inspections at a manufacturer’s facility.

CSL has stated in its SOPM that it will

perform follow-up ‘‘factory inspections

at least four times per year.’’ These

inspections will be one part of the

activities that the applicant will utilize

in controlling its certification mark. In

its application, CSL included evidence

of its application for registration of its

certification mark with the U.S.

Trademark and Patent Office (USPTO).

The USPTO has issued a notice of

allowance for this mark.

According to the on-site review

report, CSL has not had a product

certification program prior to applying

for recognition as an OSHA NRTL. Staff

of the NRTL Program reviewed a

number of documents during the on-site

visit that described the approach CSL

would take in operating its program.

After the visit, CSL finalized more

detailed procedures, previously

mentioned, for qualification and followup inspection of the manufacturer. CSL

also presented procedures to establish

and modify a ‘‘listing’’ of products it has

certified and to control its mark on these

products. Since CSL has just developed

its NRTL follow-up program, and has

not listed or labeled any products under

these procedures, OSHA has been

unable to evaluate the actual use of

CSL’s product certification program.

The condition, mentioned above, that

OSHA includes below also will provide

the Agency with the opportunity to

make this evaluation. In addition,

OSHA is concerned about the adequacy

of CSL’s proposed procedures to control

its certification mark. As a result, OSHA

imposes another condition to ensure

that CSL will adequately control its

mark.

Independence

Section 1910.7(b)(3) requires that the

NRTL be completely independent of

employers subject to the tested

equipment requirements, and of any

manufacturers or vendors of equipment

or materials being tested for these

purposes.

In its original application, CSL has

stated that there is ‘‘no ownership of

Curtis-Straus by [organizations that are]

manufacturers or suppliers of products

or components to be tested or certified.’’

The applicant also states that none of its

owners ‘‘works for, or has ownership of,

or significant interest in’’ any such

organization. More recently, CSL

provided a more comprehensive

statement of its independence from

‘‘suppliers’’ (i.e., a manufacturer or

distributor) and ‘‘major users’’ (i.e.,

employers that make major use) of any

products that must be certified by an

NRTL. The applicant also states that its

‘‘conflict of interest policies are in place

and * * * conflict of interest statements

are signed by all personnel.’’

Creditable Reports/Complaint Handling

Section 1910.7(b)(4) provides that an

NRTL must maintain effective

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices 26639

procedures for producing credible

findings and reports that are objective

and without bias, as well as for handling

complaints and disputes under a fair

and reasonable system.

As previously stated, CSL has only

recently developed the procedures it

will utilize in testing and certifying

products. This includes the procedures

for evaluating and reporting the findings

for its initial or follow-up testing of

products to ensure they conform to all

requirements of a test standard. The

applicant did include examples of the

kind of reports it will generate.

However, as with the testing

procedures, the evaluation and

reporting procedures are new to CSL,

and OSHA needs to evaluate them when

the applicant uses them for its NRTL

operations. Regarding the handling of

complaints and disputes, the applicant’s

SOPM contains the details on how it

will handle a complaint it receives from

its clients or from the public.

Programs and Procedures

OSHA is granting the request by CSL

to use the two (2) supplemental

programs, listed below, based upon the

criteria detailed in the March 9, 1995

Federal Register notice (60 FR 12980,

3/9/95). This notice lists nine (9)

programs and procedures (collectively,

programs), eight of which an NRTL may

use to control and audit, but not

actually to generate, the data relied

upon for product certification. An

NRTL’s initial recognition will always

include the first or basic program,

which requires that all product testing

and evaluation be performed in-house

by the NRTL that will certify the

product. The on-site review report

indicates that CSL meets the criteria for

use of the following supplemental

programs:

Program 8: Acceptance of product

evaluations from organizations that

function as part of the International

Electrotechnical Commission

Certification Body (IEC–CB) Scheme.

Program 9: Acceptance of services

other than testing or evaluation

performed by subcontractors or agents.

(Limitation—recognition covers

equipment calibration and maintenance

services only.)

CSL does not plan to use Program 9

for purposes of conducting its follow-up

inspections, which is permitted under

this program.

OSHA developed the program

descriptions to limit how an NRTL may

perform certain aspects of its work and

to permit the activities covered under

the programs only when the NRTL

meets certain criteria. In this sense, they

are special conditions that the Agency

places on an NRTL’s recognition. OSHA

does not consider these programs in

determining whether an NRTL meets

the requirements for recognition under

29 CFR 1910.7. However, OSHA does

treat these programs as one of the three

elements that defines an NRTL’s scope

of recognition.

Additional Conditions

As described above, OSHA has not

had the opportunity to evaluate the

actual testing, evaluation, and reporting

procedures, and use of the follow-up

program, since these have not yet been

implemented. Many of these procedures

and practices will be new to CSL.

Unless CSL meets a condition imposed

by OSHA, it could not be recognized as

an NRTL under 29 CFR 1910.7. As a

result, OSHA conditionally recognizes

CSL subject to a later assessment of the

detailed procedures and practices once

they are in place.

This approach is consistent with

OSHA’s past recognition of other

organizations as NRTLs which, like

CSL, were mainly experienced in testing

products to specific customer or partial

test standard requirements. OSHA

indicated in the Federal Register notice

for those recognitions that the

procedures to be used were new to the

organization (for example, see 56 FR

28581, 6/21/91; and 58 FR 15511, 3/23/

93). OSHA will require CSL to take

steps to correct any deficiencies that

OSHA may find during its initial followup review. If deficiencies are not

corrected, then OSHA will commence

its process to revoke the recognition of

the NRTL.

In addition, CSL plans to monitor use

of its mark during its follow-up

inspections and plans to monitor media

to check for misuse of its mark.

However, its procedures on authorizing

and issuing its labels appear to present

the opportunity for a manufacturer to

label, intentionally or not, products that

are not covered under the listing

agreement with CSL. Under its

procedures, CSL gives a manufacturer

general authorization to use the CSL

mark or label on a product but does not

appear to control the actual marking or

labeling that the manufacturer would

use on a lot or run of production, much

less on a series of such runs of

production.

CSL’s authorization procedure and

listing agreement contain provisions to

prohibit a manufacturer’s use of the

mark on products that are not ‘‘identical

to the sample’’ CSL has certified.

However, such proscriptions do not

ensure that CSL actually controls its

mark on a given run of production. As

mentioned, CSL does plan to perform

after-the-fact monitoring of the

manufacturer to check for misuse. Also,

it will take appropriate action if it

discovers misuse. However, its

procedures may not initially prevent

misuse of the mark, and its planned

monitoring may not detect instances

when misuse has occurred, especially

considering that many thousands of

products may be affected. Such misuse

may have serious consequences for

workers who use products that turn out

to be unsafe, which CSL, although well

intentioned in its procedures, did not

effectively detect. As a result, OSHA has

included a condition on CSL that it

implement, as part of its system for

authorization or issuance of the use of

its mark on products, an effective

method to ensure that only products

that it has certified carry this mark. If

CSL does not meet this condition, it

would not meet the requirement in 29

CFR 1910.7(b)(3), under which an NRTL

must maintain adequate control

programs, and could not continue to be

recognized as an NRTL.

Therefore, OSHA has included

appropriate conditions below to address

these matters. These conditions apply

solely to the CSL operations as an NRTL

and solely to those products that it

certifies for purposes of enabling

employers to meet OSHA product

approval requirements. The conditions

are in addition to the other conditions

listed below, which OSHA normally

imposes in its recognition of an

organization as an NRTL. The NRTL

Program staff includes these type of

additional conditions on OSHA’s

informational web page for the NRTL.

When the staff determine that a

particular condition has been satisfied,

not only for CSL but for any NRTL, they

will remove the condition from the web

page and notify the NRTL accordingly.

OSHA has no requirement to publish a

public notice to remove conditions it

imposes as part of its NRTL recognition

activities.

Final Decision and Order

The NRTL Program staff has

examined the complete application, the

amendments to the application, and

other pertinent documents. Based upon

this examination and the OSHA staff

finding, including the on-site review

report (see Exhibit 3), OSHA finds that

Curtis-Straus LLC. has met the

requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for

recognition as a Nationally Recognized

Testing Laboratory to test and certify

certain equipment or materials, subject

to the limitations and conditions listed

below. Pursuant to the authority in 29

CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby recognizes

Curtis-Straus LLC. as a Nationally

26640 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 89 / Monday, May 8, 2000 / Notices

Recognized Testing Laboratory, subject

to the limitations and conditions listed

below.

Limitations

OSHA recognizes CSL for testing and

certification of products to demonstrate

conformance to the following five (5)

test standards, one part of the NRTL’s

scope of recognition. OSHA’s

recognition also includes the site and

the use of the two supplemental

programs, listed above. The Agency’s

recognition of CSL, or any NRTL, is

always limited to equipment or

materials (products) for which OSHA

standards require third party testing and

certification before use in the

workplace. As a result, OSHA’s

recognition of an NRTL for a test

standard excludes any product(s),

falling within the scope of the test

standard, for which OSHA has no such

requirements. OSHA has determined

that the standards listed below are

appropriate, within the meaning of 29

CFR 1910.7(c).

ANSI/UL 1459 Telephone Equipment

ANSI/UL 1950 Information

Technology Equipment Including

Electrical Business Equipment

UL 2601–1 Medical Electrical

Equipment, Part 1: General

Requirements for Safety

UL 3101–1 Electrical Equipment for

Laboratory Use; Part 1: General

Requirements

UL 3111–1 Electrical Measuring and

Test Equipment, Part 1: General

Requirements

The designations and titles of the

above standards were current at the time

of the preparation of the notice of the

preliminary finding.

Conditions

Curtis-Straus LLC. must also abide by

the following conditions of the

recognition, in addition to those already

required by 29 CFR 1910.7:

Within 30 days of certifying its first

products under the NRTL Program, CSL

will notify the OSHA NRTL Program

Director so that OSHA may review

CSL’s implementation of its procedures

for testing and certification of products

covered within the scope of the test

standards listed above.

As part of its system for authorization

or issuance of the use of its certification

mark, CSL must establish, maintain, and

utilize proper procedures that ensure its

mark is applied only to the specific

run(s) of production of the products that

CSL has certified.

OSHA must be allowed access to

CSL’s facilities and records for purposes

of ascertaining continuing compliance

with the terms of its recognition and to

investigate as OSHA deems necessary;

If CSL has reason to doubt the efficacy

of any test standard it is using under

this program, it must promptly inform

the organization that developed the test

standard of this fact and provide that

organization with appropriate relevant

information upon which its concerns

are based;

CSL must not engage in or permit

others to engage in any

misrepresentation of the scope or

conditions of its recognition. As part of

this condition, CSL agrees that it will

allow no representation of its

recognition as a Nationally Recognized

Testing Laboratory (NRTL) by OSHA

without clearly indicating the specific

equipment or material to which this

recognition is tied, or that its

recognition is limited to certain types of

products;

CSL must inform OSHA as soon as

possible, in writing, of any change of

ownership, facilities, or key personnel,

and of any major change in its

operations as an NRTL, including

details;

CSL will continue to meet all the

terms of its recognition and will always

comply with all OSHA policies

pertaining to this recognition;

CSL will continue to meet the

requirements for recognition in all areas

where it has been recognized; and

CSL will always cooperate with

OSHA to assure compliance with the

spirit as well as the letter of its

recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 21st day of

April, 2000.

Charles N. Jeffress,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–11442 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Federal Council on the Arts and the

Humanities, Arts and Artifacts

Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee;

Notice of Meeting

Pursuant to the provisions of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L.

92–463 as amended) notice is hereby

given that a meeting of the Arts and

Artifacts Indemnity Panel of the Federal

Council on the Arts and the Humanities

will be held at 1100 Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506,

in Room 714, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., on

Tuesday, May 30, 2000.

The purpose of the meeting is to

review applications for Certificates of

Indemnity submitted to the Federal

Council on the Arts and the Humanities

for exhibitions beginning after July 1,

2000.

Because the proposed meeting will

consider financial and commercial data

and because it is important to keep

values of objects, methods of

transportation and security measures

confidential, pursuant to the authority

granted me by the Chairman’s

Delegation of Authority to Close

Advisory Committee Meetings, dated

July 19, 1993, I have determined that the

meeting would fall within exemption (4)

of 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and that it is essential

to close the meeting to protect the free

exchange of views and to avoid

interference with the operations of the

Committee.

It is suggested that those desiring

more specific information contact the

Advisory Committee Management

Officer, Laura S. Nelson, 1100

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/606–

8322.

Laura S. Nelson,

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–11441 Filed 5–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 703–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–443]

North Atlantic Energy Service

Corporation et al.; Seabrook Station,

Unit No. 1; Notice of Consideration of

Approval of Application Regarding

Proposed Corporate Restructuring and

Opportunity for a Hearing

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering the issuance of an order

under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the

indirect transfer of Facility Operating

License No. NPF–86 for the Seabrook

Station, Unit 1 (Seabrook Station), to the

extent held by United Illuminating

Company (UI). The indirect transfer

would be to UIL Holdings Corporation

(Holdings), incorporated in Connecticut.

Currently, Holdings is a wholly owned

subsidiary of UI.

According to a February 17, 2000,

application, as supplemented on March

1, 2000, by UI for approval of certain

indirect license transfers, on January 24,

2000, UI entered into an ‘‘Agreement

and Plan of Merger and Share

Exchange’’ (Plan of Exchange) with

Holdings. Under the plan of exchange,

UI will become a wholly owned

subsidiary of Holdings, while the

unregulated businesses of UI will be