20366 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 78 / Tuesday April 24, 2007 / Notices 

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

Anthony J. Schetzsle, 

Deputy Director, Intermountain Region, 

National Park Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–7739 Filed 4–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–CX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Notice of Availability for the Record of 

Decision on the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Niobrara 

National Scenic River General 

Management Plan, Nebraska 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969, the National Park Service 

(NPS) announces the availability of the 

Record of Decision (ROD) Niobrara 

National Scenic River (Scenic River) 

General Management Plan/final 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 

Scenic River. On March 26, the Midwest 

Regional Director approved the ROD for 

the project. As soon as practicable, the 

NPS will begin to implement the 

Preferred Alternative contained in the 

final EIS issued on February 23. 

Management Alternative B develops a 

vision for cooperative management of 

the Scenic River, with the NPS 

providing stewardship directly and 

through Federal, State, and local 

partners on a landscape that would 

remain largely in private ownership. 

The alternative’s boundary protects, as 

equitably as possible, the river’s 

outstandingly remarkable scenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, 

and paleontological values. This 

alternative encompasses 23,074 acres 

and is within the acreage limitations of 

the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

This course of action and three 

alternatives were analyzed in the draft 

and the final EIS. The full range of 

foreseeable environmental 

consequences was assessed and 

appropriate mitigating measures were 

identified. 

The ROD includes a statement of the 

decision made, synopses of other 

alternatives considered, the basis for the 

decision, a description of the 

environmentally preferable alternative, 

a finding on impairment of park 

resources and values, a listing of 

measures to minimize environmental 

harm, and an overview of public 

involvement in the decisionmaking 

process. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Superintendent, Niobrara National 

Scenic River, P.O. Box 591, O’Neill, 

Nebraska 68763, or by calling 402–336–

3970. Copies of the final EIS and ROD 

are available upon request from the 

above address or may be viewed online 

at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/. 

Dated: March 29, 2007. 

Ernest Quintana, 

Regional Director, Midwest Region. 

[FR Doc. E7–7745 Filed 4–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–BM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Construction of New Utah Museum of 

Natural History, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Salt Lake County, 

UT 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of a 

Record of Decision on the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Construction and Operation of a 

Proposed New Utah Museum of Natural 

History at the University of Utah. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, 83 Stat. 852, 853, codified as 

amended at 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the 

National Park Service and the 

University of Utah announce the 

availability of the Record of Decision for 

the Construction and Operation of a 

Proposed New Utah Museum of Natural 

History at the University of Utah, Salt 

Lake County, Utah. On March 26, 2007, 

the Director, Intermountain Region 

approved the Record of Decision for the 

project. As soon as practicable, the 

University of Utah will begin to 

implement the Preferred Alternative 

contained in the FEIS issued on 

February 23, 2007. The following course 

of action will occur under the preferred 

alternative: the new museum building 

will be built uphill from the pipeline 

corridor/Bonneville Shoreline Trail that 

pass through the new site. Parking will 

be provided in a joint Red Butte Garden 

and Arboretum/Utah Museum of 

Natural History facility, or if a joint 

facility is not viable, downhill from the 

pipeline corridor. Flexibility is afforded 

for site design and placement of 

facilities. A portion of the development 

area extends into Red Butte Garden and 

Arboretum property. This course of 

action and five alternatives were 

analyzed in the Draft and Final 

Environmental Impact Statements. The 

full range of foreseeable environmental 

consequences was assessed, and 

appropriate mitigating measures were 

identified. 

The Record of Decision includes a 

statement of the decision made, 

synopses of other alternatives 

considered, the basis for the decision, a 

description of the environmentally 

preferable alternative, a listing of 

measures to minimize environmental 

harm, and an overview of public 

involvement in the decision-making 

process. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ralph E. Becker, The Shipley Group and 

Bear West, 1584 South 500 West, Suite 

201, Woods Cross, Utah 84010; phone 

801–355–8816; e-mail to 

rbecker@bearwest.com. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of 

the Record of Decision may be obtained 

from the contact listed above or online 

at http://www.umnh.utah.edu. 

Dated: March 26, 2007. 

Anthony J. Schetzsle, 

Deputy Director, Intermountain Region, 

National Park Service. 

[FR Doc. E7–7742 Filed 4–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–52–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–60,882] 

Camaco, LLC; Mariana Division, 

Marianna, AR; Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration 

By application dated April 4, 2007, a 

company official requested 

administrative reconsideration of the 

Department’s negative determination 

regarding eligibility for workers and 

former workers of the subject firm to 

apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance 

(TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The 

denial notice was signed on March 16, 

2007 and published in the Federal 

Register on March 30, 2007 (72 FR 

15168). 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 78 / Tuesday April 24, 2007 / Notices 20367 

of the law justified reconsideration of 

the decision. 

The TAA petition, filed on behalf of 

workers at Camaco, LLC, Marianna 

Division, Marianna, Arkansas engaged 

in production of automotive parts, such 

as metal seat frames, brackets and 

reinforcement was denied because the 

‘‘contributed importantly’’ group 

eligibility requirement of Section 222 of 

the Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The 

‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is 

generally demonstrated through a 

survey of the workers’ firm’s customers. 

The survey revealed no imports of 

automotive parts, such as metal seat 

frames, brackets and reinforcement in 

2005, 2006 and January of 2007 when 

compared with January of 2006. The 

subject firm did not import automotive 

parts, such as metal seat frames, 

brackets and reinforcement in the 

relevant period nor did it shift 

production to a foreign country. 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioner stated that the subject firm 

made parts for a company which shifted 

production to Mexico. As a result of this 

shift, the subject firm experienced 

declines in sales. Therefore, workers of 

the subject firm should be eligible for 

TAA and ATAA. 

A company official was contacted to 

verify the business relationship between 

the subject firm and the alleged 

company. The company official stated 

that the company mentioned in the 

request for reconsideration was not the 

subject firm’s customer and that the 

subject firm did not sell parts directly to 

this firm during the relevant time 

period. Because the alleged company 

was not the subject firm’s customer 

during the relevant time period, any 

information regarding business 

activities of this company is not relevant 

to this investigation. 

The request for reconsideration also 

states that ‘‘some of the equipment that 

was utilized here at CAMACO-Marianna 

is being sent to India to be used at a 

manufacturing facility there for 

production of automotive parts.’’

Further contact with the company 

official confirmed that CAMACO, LLC, 

Marianna Division, Marianna, Arkansas 

is planning to shift a portion of its 

manufacturing equipment from 

Marianna, Arkansas to India. The 

company official further indicated that 

no production has been moved from the 

Marianna facility to India as of April 12, 

2007, and no time line was established 

to when this may occur. 

Should the shift to India occur, the 

petitioner is encouraged to file a new 

petition on behalf of workers at the 

CAMACO, LLC, Marianna Division, 

Marianna, Arkansas, thereby creating a 

relevant period of investigation that 

would include changing conditions. 

The petitioner further refers to the 

TAA certifications issued to various 

businesses and industries located in 

Marianna, Arkansas. The petitioner 

alleges that because the subject firm has 

been the largest employer in Marianna, 

Arkansas and hence other companies in 

the area were certified eligible for TAA, 

workers of the subject firm should also 

be eligible. 

A review of other businesses is not 

relevant to an investigation concerning 

import impact on workers applying for 

trade adjustment assistance. As noted 

above, ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is 

generally demonstrated through a 

survey of customers of the workers’ firm 

to examine the direct impact on a 

specific firm. No increased imports were 

evidenced during the survey of subject 

firm’s customers and the subject firm 

did not shift production to a foreign 

country. 

Conclusion 

After review of the application and 

investigative findings, I conclude that 

there has been no error or 

misinterpretation of the law or of the 

facts which would justify 

reconsideration of the Department of 

Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the 

application is denied. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of 

April, 2007. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7–7726 Filed 4–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–60,556] 

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., 

Including On-Site Leased Workers of 

Action Staffing (American Services), 

Greenville, SC; Amended Certification 

Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 

Worker Adjustment Assistance and 

Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance 

In accordance with Section 223 of the 

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and 

Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 

U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the 

Department of Labor issued a 

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for 

Worker Adjustment Assistance and 

Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance on February 16, 2007, 

applicable to workers of Hitachi 

Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., 

including on-site leased workers of 

Action Staffing, Greenville, South 

Carolina. The notice was published in 

the Federal Register on February 27, 

2007 (72 FR 8795). 

At the request of the State agency, the 

Department reviewed the certification 

for workers of the subject firm. The 

workers were engaged in the production 

of projection tubes for televisions. 

New information provided by the 

subject firm, shows that American 

Services is the parent company of the 

leasing firm, Action Staffing. Leased 

workers separated from employment at 

the subject firm had their wages 

reported under the unemployment 

insurance (UI) tax account for American 

Services. 

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 

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. 

who were adversely affected by 

increased imports. 

The amended notice applicable to 

TA–W–60,556 is hereby issued as 

follows: 

All workers of Hitachi Electronic Devices 

(USA), Inc., including on-site leased workers 

from Action Staffing, American Services, 

Greenville, South Carolina, who became 

totally or partially separated from 

employment on or after November 25, 2006, 

through February 16, 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 16th day of 

April 2007. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7–7725 Filed 4–23–07; 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES