Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2001 / Notices 28557

[FR Doc. 01–13002 Filed 5–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[NAFTA–4358]

Warn Springs Forest Products

Industries, Warm Springs, OR;

Dismissal of Application for

Reconsideration

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an

application for administrative

reconsideration was filed with the

Director of the Division of Trade

Adjustment Assistance for workers at

Warm Springs Forest Products

Industries, Warm Springs, Oregon. The

application contained no new

substantial information which would

bear importantly on the Department’s

determination. Therefore, dismissal of

the application was issued.

NAFTA–4358; Warm Springs Forest Products

Industries Warm Springs, Oregon (May 2,

2001)

Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of

May, 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–12999 Filed 5–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment Standards Administration

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

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 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 Standards Administration

is soliciting comments concerning the

proposed extension of the Request for

State or Federal Workers’ Compensation

Information (CM–905).

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted to the office listed in the

ADDRESSEE section below on or before

July 23, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Ms. Patricia A. Forkel, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Ave., NW., Room S–3201, Washington,

DC 20210, telephone (202) 693–0339

(this is not a toll-free number), fax (202)

693–1451.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Federal Mine Safety and Health

Act of 1977, as amended, and 20 CFR

725.535, direct that DOL Black Lung

benefit payments to a beneficiary for

any month be reduced by any other

payments of State or Federal benefits for

workers’ compensation due to

pneumoconiosis.

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 Department of Labor seeks hte

approval for this information collection

in order to determine the amounts of

black lung benefits paid to beneficiaries.

Black Lung amounts are reduced dollar

for dollar, for other black lung related

workers’ compensation awards the

beneficiary may be receiving from State

or Federal programs.

Type of Review: Extension.

Agency: Employment Standards

Administration.

Title: Request for State or Federal

Workers’ Compensation Information.

OMB Number: 1215–0060.

Affected Public: Federal government;

State, Local or Tribal Government.

Frequency: On occasion.

Total Respondents: 3,522.

Time per Response: 15 minutes.

Estimatd Total Burden Hours: 881.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):

$0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintenance): $11,799.

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: May 14, 2001.

Margaret J. Sherrill,

Chief, Branch of Management Review and

Internal Control, Division of Financial

Management, Office of Management,

Administration and Planning Employment

Standards Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–13020 Filed 5–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–27–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of Federal Contract Compliance

Programs

Giant Merchandising Debarment

AGENCY: Office of Federal Contract

Compliance Programs, Labor

ACTION: Notice of debarment: Giant

Merchandising, 5655 Union Pacific

Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90022.

SUMMARY: This notice advises of the

debarment of Giant Merchandising

(hereinafter ‘‘Giant’’), as an eligible

bidder on Government contracts or

extensions or modifications of existing

contracts. The debarment is effective

immediately.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harold M. Busch, Acting Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Federal contract

Compliance, U.S. Department of labor,

200 Constitution Ave., NW., Room C–

3325, Washington, DC 20210 (202–693–

1062).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April

19, 2001, pursuant to 41 CFR 60–

30.13(a), Administrative Law Judge

Karst issued a Decision and order

approving the consent Decree entered

into by Giant Merchandising, 5655

Union Pacific Avenue, Los Angeles, CA

90022 (‘‘Giant’’), and the United States

Department of Labor, Office of Federal

Contract Compliance Programs

(OFCCP). Under the terms of the

Consent Decree, Giant and any and all

purchasers, successors, assignees, and/

or transferees are declared ineligible for

28558 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2001 / Notices

the award of any future contracts

funded in whole or in part with Federal

funds and ineligible for extension or

other modifications of any existing

Government contracts. The Decision

and Order is set forth below. The

debarment from future Government

contracts and subcontracts and the

ineligibility for extensions or other

modifications is effective immediately

and shall be lifted after a fixed term of

six months from the date of the Decision

and Order approving the Consent

Decree, provided Giant complies with

the terms of this Consent Decree.

Dated: Signed May 17th, 2001,

Washington, DC.

Harold M. Busch,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Federal

Contract Compliance.

Department of Labor, Office of

Administrative Law Judges, San

Francisco, CA

[Case No. 2001–OFC–2]

Issue date: April 19, 2001.

In the Matter of: Office of Federal

Contract Compliance Programs,

Department of Labor, Plaintiff, vs. Giant

Merchandising, Defendant

Decision and Order Approving Consent

Decree

The parties filed an executed Consent

Decree, a copy of which is attached on

April 17, 2001. Review of the Consent

Decree shows that it is in compliance

with 41 CFR 60–30.13 and that it fairly

and adequately resolves all pending

issues for this matter.

Accordingly, the Consent Decree is

hereby Approved. Such Consent Decree

constitutes my findings of fact and

conclusions of law and constitutes full,

final, and complete adjudication of this

matter.

Alexander Karst,

Administrative Law Judge. 

A copy of the above named document

was sent to the following:

Patricia Winkler, Human Resources

Manager, Giant Merchandising, 5655

Union Pacific Avenue, Los Angeles,

CA 90022

Matthew Halpern, Esq., Jackson Lewis

Schnitzler & Krupman, 1000

Woodbury Road, Suite 402,

Woodbury, NY 11797

Gerald M. Levin, Chairman & CEO,

Time Warner, Inc., 75 Rockefeller

Plaza, New York, NY 10019

Michelle Serrou, Office of the SolicitorDiv. of Civil Rights, U.S. Department

of Labor, Room N–2464, 200

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20210

Solicitor of Labor, U.S. Department of

Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Room

S–2002, FPB, 200 Constitution Ave.,

NW., Washington, DC 20210

Special Counsel to the Assistant

Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of

Labor, Employment & Training

Administration, 200 Constitution

Ave., NW., Rm. N–4671, Washington,

DC 20210

Offc of Fed. Contract Compliance

Programs, U.S. Department of Labor,

Room C–3325, 200 Constitution Ave.,

NW., Washington, DC 20210

Associate Solicitor-Civil Rights

Division, U.S. Department of Labor,

Room N–2464, 200 Constitution Ave.,

NW., Washington, DC 20210

Daniel Teehan, Regional Solicitor, U.S.

Department of Labor, 71 Stevenson

Street, Suite 1110, San Francisco, CA

94105

Vivian Chan,

Legal Technician. 

Office of Administrative Law Judges

Department of Labor, Office of Federal

Contract Compliance Programs,

Plaintiff, v. Giant Merchandising,

Defendant

[Case No. 01–OFC–2]

Consent Decree

This Consent Decree is entered into

between the Plaintiff, United States

Department of Labor, Office of Federal

Contract Compliance Programs

(hereinafter ‘‘OFCCP’’) and Defendant,

Giant Merchandising (hereinafter

‘‘Giant’’) in complete resolution of the

Administrative Complaint filed in this

matter. The Complaint was filed by

OFCCP against Giant alleging violations

of Executive Order 11246 (30 FR 12319),

as amended by Executive Order 11375

(32 FR 14303) and Executive Order

12086 (43 FR 46501) (hereinafter

‘‘Executive Order’’); Section 503 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,

29 U.S.C. 793 (hereinafter ‘‘Section

503’’); and the Vietnam Era Veterans’

Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as

amended, 38 U.S.C. 4212 (hereinafter

‘‘VEVRAA’’).

In the Administrative Complaint,

OFCCP alleged that Giant violated its

contractual obligations under Executive

Order 11246, section 503, and VEVRAA

by failing to submit to OFCCP

information requested in a survey

document bearing OMB Control Number

1215–0196 (‘‘the Equal Opportunity

Survey’’ or ‘‘EO Survey’’). The EO

Survey requested information relating to

personnel activity at Giant’s facility

located in Commerce, California

(hereinafter ‘‘Commerce facility’’).

In its Answer, Giant denied that the

Company had violated the Executive

Order, Section 503 and VEVRAA and

asserted that the cited laws and/or

regulations did not apply to the

Defendant at the time that it was asked

to respond to the EO Survey.

Part A—Jurisdiction and Procedural

History

1. The Office of Administrative Law

Judges has jurisdiction over this action

pursuant to sections 208 and 209 of

Executive Order 11246, 41 CFR 60–1.26,

41 CFR Part 60–30; section 503, 41 CFR

60–741.65; VEVRAA and 41 CFR 60–

250.29.

2. This matter was brought by OFCCP

to enforce the contractual obligations

imposed by the Executive Order, section

503 and VEVRAA and the regulations

issued pursuant thereto. The

Administrative Complaint invoked the

expedited OFCCP hearing procedures,

41 CFR 60–30.31, et seq.

3. In its Complaint, OFCCP alleged

that Giant had refused to give OFCCP

access to or to supply it with records or

other information as required by the

equal opportunity clause; specifically, it

alleged that Giant had failed and refused

to complete the EO Survey mailed to

Giant by OFCCP and received by Giant

on April 28, 2000. The EO Survey

required Defendant to furnish to

OFCCP, within 30 days from the date of

receipt, certain information relating to

personnel activity at the Commerce

facility.

4. In its Answer, Giant contended that

the Executive Order, section 503 and

VEVRAA did not apply at the time that

Giant was asked to respond to the EO

Survey and, therefore, Giant had no

obligation under the applicable laws

and regulations to supply OFCCP with

the information it had requested. Giant

further denied that it was obligated to

complete the EO Survey and averred

that it submitted the EO Survey on

January 31, 2000.

5. Giant denies that it violated

Executive Order 11246, section 503 and

VEVRAA.

6. Giant does not admit any violation

of law or other obligation. The parties

agree that this Consent Decree is not,

and may not be used, as a admission of

any violation by Giant, or as a basis for

asserting Giant’s noncompliance with

any labor and employment laws, rules

or regulations.

7. Giant is a joint venture between

Warner Bros. Records Inc., and Warner

Music GM Merchandising Inc., and is

headquartered in Commerce, California.

Giant is engaged in the business of

manufacturing, printing, and

distributing commercial art and graphic

design in the form of silk-screened teeshirts and other wearables.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2001 / Notices 28559

8. At all times pertinent to this matter,

OFCCP has alleged that Giant had a

Government contract of $50,000 or

more, and had 50 or more employees.

Giant denied that it had a Government

contract of $50,000 or more at the time

OFCCP sought submission of the EO

Survey.

9. At all times pertinent to this matter,

Giant maintained and operated the

Commerce facility located at 5655

Union Pacific Avenue, Commerce,

California 90022.

10. Giant has never obtained a waiver

of coverage from the Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Federal contract

Compliance for its Commerce Facility.

11. The EO Survey received by Giant,

on April 28, 2000, sought from Giant

information relating to its current

personnel practices. This information is

of the type that Federal contractors are

required to maintain. 41 CFR 60–1.12;

41 CFR 60–250.52 41 CFR 60–740.80.

12. OFCCP contended, in this action,

that Giant was required to respond to

the EO Survey within 30 days from the

date of receipt, i.e., on or before May 28,

2000. Giant denied that it was required

to do so.

13. Giant did not complete the EO

Survey for its Commerce facility by May

28, 2000.

14. By letter dated June 22, 2000,

Shirley J. Wilcher, Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Federal Contract

Compliance, U.S. Department of Labor,

sent, by certified mail a Notice to Show

Cause within 30 days why Giant’s nonsubmission of the EO Survey should not

be deemed a violation of the Executive

Order, and why defendant should not be

subject to the sanctions provided by law

and regulation for such a violation. The

Notice to Show Cause was accompanied

by a second copy of the EO survey.

15. On August 1, 2000, a letter dated

May 22, 2000, was faxed to OFCCP by

Patricia Winkler, Human Resources

Manager for Giant. In the May 22, 2000

letter, Jesse L. Atilano, President and

CEO of Labor Law, requested an

exemption for Giant based on the

assertion that Giant did not have sales

exceeding the ‘‘statutory dollar amount’’

of $500,000.00. On August 16, 2000,

OFCCP contacted Mr. Atilano to inform

him that the threshold dollar amount

which creates in Government

contractors the duty to prepare and

maintain a written Affirmative Action

Program is $50,000. Mr. Atilano stated

that he did not believe that Giant was

a Federal contractor but that he needed

to confirm the dollar amount of Giant’s

contracts.

16. On January 12, 2001, the

Administrative Complaint was filed in

this matter.

17. On January 31, 2001, Giant

provided to OFCCP a complete response

to the EO Survey at issue in this case.

Part B—General Provisions

18. The record that is the basis for this

Consent Decree consists of the

Administrative Complaint, Answer and

the Consent Decree including

attachments thereto.

19. This Consent Decree shall not

become final until it has been signed by

the Administrative Law Judge. The

Effective Date of the Decree shall be the

date on which it is signed by the

Administrative Law Judge.

20. This Consent Decree shall be

binding upon Giant, and any and all

purchasers, successors, assignees, and/

or transferees, and shall have the same

force and effect as an order made after

a full hearing.

21. The parties waive all further

procedural steps to contest the binding

effect of the Consent Decree, and any

right to challenge or contest the

obligations entered into pursuant to this

Decree. Pursuant to 41 CFR 60–30.13, an

Order by the Administrative Law Judge

accepting this Consent Decree shall

constitute the final administrative order

in this matter.

22. Subject to the performance by

Giant of all duties and obligations

contained in this Consent Decree, all

alleged violations identified or which

could have been identified in the

Administrative Complaint shall be

deemed fully resolved. However,

nothing herein is intended to relieve

Giant form compliance with the

requirements of the Executive Order,

section 503 and VEVRAA or the

regulations promulgated pursuant

thereto, or to limit OFCCP’s right to

review Giant’s compliance with such

requirements.

23. Giant agrees that there shall be no

retaliation of any kind against any

person who has provided information or

assistance concerning this Decree.

Part C—Specific Provisions

24. Giant agrees to a fixed-term

debarment of six months during which

Giant will not be eligible to receive

future contracts or modifications or

extensions of existing contracts. The six

month debarment will commence on the

Effective Date of this Decree. The

Deputy Assistant Secretary will grant

reinstatement, pursuant to 41 CFR 60–

1.31, if Giant complies with the terms of

this Decree. No additional proceedings

before the Office of Administrative Law

Judges are necessary for Giant to be

reinstated.

Part D—Implementation and

Enforcement of the Decree

25. Jurisdiction, including the

authority to issue any additional orders

or decrees necessary to effectuate the

implantation of the provisions of this

Consent Decree, is retained by the Office

of Administrative Law Judges for one

year form the Effective Date of this

Decree.

26. If at any time after the Effective

Date of this Decree, OFCCP believes that

Giant has violated any portion of this

Consent Decree, Giant will be promptly

notified of that fact in writing. This

notification will include a statement of

the facts and circumstances relied upon

in forming that belief. The notification

will provide Giant with 15 calendar

days to respond in writing except where

OFCCP alleges that such a delay would

result in irreparable injury.

27. Enforcement proceedings for

violation of this Consent Decree may be

initiated at any time after the 15 days

referred to in paragraph 26 has elapsed

(or sooner, if irreparable injury is

alleged) upon filing with the Court a

motion for an order of enforcement and/

or sanctions. The issues in a hearing on

the motion shall related solely to the

factual and legal claims make in the

motion and Giant’s defense thereto.

28. Liability for violation of this

Consent Decree shall subject Giant to

sanctions set forth in the Executive

Order, section 503 and VEVRAA and

their implementing regulations,

including contract cancellation and/or

debarment, and the appropriate relief.

29. If an application or motion for an

order of enforcement or clarification

indicates by signature of counsel that

the application or motion is unopposed

by OFCCP and Giant, the application or

motion may be presented to the Court

without hearing and the proposed Order

may be implemented immediately. If an

application or motion is opposed by any

party, the party in opposition shall file

a written response within 20 calendar

days of receipt. The Office of

Administrative Law Judges may, if it

deems it appropriate, schedule a hearing

on the application or motion.

30. The Agreement herein set forth is

hereby approved and shall constitute

the Final Administrative Order in this

case.

Agreed and Consented To:

On Behalf of the Defendant, Giant

Merchandising:

Date: April 13, 2001.

Matthew B. Halpern,

Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman, 1000

Woodbury Road, Suite 402, Woodbury, NY

11797

On Behalf of the Plaintiff, U.S. Department of

Labor, Office of Federal Contract

Compliance Programs:

28560 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2001 / Notices

Judith E. Kramer,

Acting Solicitor of Labor.

Gary M. Buff, Associate Solicitor.

Debra A. Millenson,

Senior Trial Attorney.

Michelle Serrou

Attorney, Department of Labor, Office of the

Solicitor, Civil Rights Division.

[FR Doc. 01–12995 Filed 5–22–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–27–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Summary of Decisions Granting in

Whole or in Part Petitions for

Modification

AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health

Administration (MSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of affirmative decisions

issued by the Administrators for Coal

Mine Safety and Health and Metal and

Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health on

petitions for modification of the

application of existing safety standards.

SUMMARY: Under section 101 of the

Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of

1977, the Secretary of Labor (Secretary)

may allow the modification of the

application of an existing safety

standard to a mine if the Secretary

determines either that an alternate

method exists at a specific mine that

will guarantee no less protection for the

miners affected than that provided by

the standard, or that the application of

the standard at a specific mine will

result in a diminution of safety to the

affected miners.

Final decisions on these petitions are

based upon the petitioner’s statements,

comments and information submitted

by interested persons, and a field

investigation of the conditions at the

mine. MSHA, as designee of the

Secretary, has granted or partially

granted the requests for modification

listed below. In some instances, the

decisions are conditioned upon

compliance with stipulations stated in

the decision. The term ‘‘FR Notice’’

appears in the list of affirmative

decisions below. The term refers to the

Federal Register volume and page

where MSHA published a notice of the

filing of the petition for modification.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Petitions and copies of the final

decisions are available for examination

by the public in the Office of Standards,

Regulations, and Variances, MSHA,

Room 627, 4015 Wilson Boulevard,

Arlington, Virginia 22203. Contact

Barbara Barron at 703–235–1910.

Dated at Arlington, Virginia this 16th day

of May 2001.

David L. Meyer,

Director, Office of Standards, Regulations,

and Variances.

Affirmative Decisions on Petitions for

Modification

Petitioner: Sidney Coal Company, Inc.

[Docket No.: M–2000–002–C]

FR Notice: 65 FR 10563.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR

75.1902(d)(1).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal is to have its underground

fuels storage facilities remain at the

present location and make the following

changes and adjustments for safety

concerns: (i) Offset the fuel tank 35 feet

from any track or transportation; (ii)

maintain the storage facility out of

direct line of flatcars, mantrips, and

other equipment that is moving up or

down the slope; (iii) ventilate the

facility directly into the return air

course and equip the facility with a fire

suppression system and other safety

features, and fireproof and inspect the

facility on a daily basis, and (iv) add a

carbon monoxide sensor. This is

considered an acceptable alternative

method for the Mine #1. MSHA grants

the petition for modification for a

permanent underground diesel fuel

storage facility installed within 100 feet

of a slope in the Mine #1 with

conditions.

Petitioner: Europa Coal Company.

[Docket No.: M–2000–013–C]

FR Notice: 65 FR 16966.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002.

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal is to use a 2,400 volt Joy 14CM

continuous miner instead of a 1,000 volt

continuous miner inby the last open

crosscut and within 150 feet from pillar

workings. This is considered an

acceptable alternative method for the

Europa Mine. MSHA grants the petition

for modification for the Europa Mine

with conditions.

Petitioner: Big Ridge, Inc. (Formerly

Sugar Camp Coal, LLC).

[Docket No.: M–2000–021–C]

FR Notice: 65 FR 19928.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.350.

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal is to use air coursed through

belt haulage entries to ventilate active

working places. The petitioner proposes

to install a low-level carbon monoxide

detection system in the supply road

with branches extended to the belt line

at certain locations as an early warning

fire detection system. This is considered

an acceptable alternative method for the

Willow Lake Portal Mine. MSHA grants

the petition for modification for the

Willow Lake Portal Mine to allow air

coursed through conveyor belt entries to

be used to ventilate working places with

conditions.

Petitioner: West Ridge Resources,

Incorporated.

[Docket No.: M–2000–025–C]

FR Notice: 65 FR 19928.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR

75.1909(b)(6).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal is to: (i) Install gear lockout

devices on its diesel grader to limit the

speed to a maximum of 10 miles per

hour when operating the grader in an

underground coal mine or on the

surface of an underground coal mine;

and (ii) provide training to every grader

operator on the proper techniques for

lowering the blade to restrict the speed

and to stop the grader, on the proper

gear selection for grading, and on the

proper speed for grading. This is

considered an acceptable alternative

method for the West Ridge Mine. MSHA

grants the petition for modification for

the West Ridge mine with conditions.

Petitioner: Andalex Resources,

Incorporated.

[Docket No.: M–2000–026–C]

FR Notice: 65 FR 19928.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR

75.1909(b)(6).

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal is to: (i) Install gear lockout

devices on its diesel grader to limit the

speed to a maximum of 10 miles per

hour when operating the grader in an

underground coal mine or on the

surface of an underground coal mine;

and (ii) provide training to every grader

operator on the proper techniques for

lowering the blade to restrict the speed

and to stop the grader, on the proper

gear selection for grading, and on the

proper speed for grading. This is

considered an acceptable alternative

method for the Aberdeen Mine and

Pinnacle Mine. MSHA grants the

petition for modification for the

Aberdeen Mine and Pinnacle Mine with

conditions.

Petitioner: Elk Run Coal Company,

Inc.

[Docket No.: M–2000–028–C]

FR Notice: 65 FR 31611.

Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002.

Summary of Findings: Petitioner’s

proposal is to use continuous mining

machines with nominal voltage not to

exceed 2,300 volts. This is considered

an acceptable alternative method for the

White Knight Mine. MSHA grants the

petition for modification for the White

Knight Mine to use 2,400-volt