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

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 2, 2010 / Notices 9443 

additional information regarding the 

customers of the subject firm to 

supplement that which was gathered 

during the initial investigation. 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department requested 

an additional list of customers from the 

subject firm and conducted a customer 

survey to determine whether imports of 

steel coils negatively impacted 

employment at AK Steel Corporation, 

Mansfield Works Division, Mansfield, 

Ohio. 

The survey of the subject firm’s major 

declining customers revealed that the 

customers increased their imports of 

steel coils while decreasing purchases 

from the subject firm from 2007 to 2008. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the additional 

facts obtained on reconsideration, I 

determine that workers of AK Steel 

Corporation, Mansfield Works Division, 

including on-site leased workers from 

Time Customized Staffing Solutions, 

Mansfield, Ohio, who are engaged in 

employment related to the production of 

steel coils, 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 AK Steel Corporation, 

Mansfield Works Division, including on-site 

leased workers from Time Customized 

Staffing Solutions, Mansfield, Ohio, who 

became totally or partially separated from 

employment on or after June 23, 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 18th day of 

February, 2010. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4245 Filed 3–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice (10–024)] 

Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive 

License 

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to grant 

exclusive license. 

SUMMARY: This notice is issued in 

accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 

37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby 

gives notice of its intent to grant an 

exclusive, license in the United States to 

practice the invention described and 

claimed in US Patent Application No. 

10/885,537, and NASA Case No. ARC– 

15204–1 entitled ‘‘Rapid Polymer 

Sequencer’’ to Abraxis BioScience, LLC, 

having its principal place of business in 

11755 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2000, Los 

Angeles, CA 90025. The patent rights in 

this invention have been assigned to the 

United States of America as represented 

by the Administrator of the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

The prospective exclusive license will 

comply with the terms and conditions 

of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. 

DATES: The prospective exclusive 

license may be granted unless, within 

fifteen (15) days from the date of this 

published notice, NASA receives 

written objections including evidence 

and argument that establish that the 

grant of the license would not be 

consistent with the requirements of 35 

U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. 

Competing applications completed and 

received by NASA within fifteen (15) 

days of the date of this published notice 

will also be treated as objections to the 

grant of the contemplated exclusive 

license. 

Objections submitted in response to 

this notice will not be made available to 

the public for inspection and, to the 

extent permitted by law, will not be 

released under the Freedom of 

Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. 

ADDRESSES: Objections relating to the 

prospective license may be submitted to 

Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, 

NASA Ames Research Center, Mail Stop 

202A–4, Moffett Field, CA 94035–1000. 

(650) 604–5104; Fax (650) 604–2767. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert M. Padilla, Chief Patent Counsel, 

Office of Chief Counsel, NASA Ames 

Research Center, Mail Stop 202A–4, 

Moffett Field, CA 94035–1000. (650) 

604–5104; Fax (650) 604–2767. 

Information about other NASA 

inventions available for licensing can be 

found online at http:// 

technology.nasa.gov/. 

Dated: February 24, 2010. 

Richard W. Sherman, 

Deputy General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4193 Filed 3–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[NRC–2009–0394] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC). 

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of 

information collection and solicitation 

of public comment. 

SUMMARY: The NRC has recently 

submitted to OMB for review the 

following proposal for the collection of 

information under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby 

informs potential respondents that an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 

that a person is not required to respond 

to, a collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. The NRC published a Federal 

Register Notice with a 60-day comment 

period on this information collection on 

October 14, 2009. 

1. Type of submission, new, revision, 

or extension: New. 

2. The title of the information 

collection: 10 CFR part 5, 

‘‘Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex 

in Education Programs or Activities 

Receiving Federal Financial Assistance’’. 

3. Current OMB approval number: 

3150–XXXX. 

4. The form number if applicable: 

N/A. 

5. How often the collection is 

required: 10 CFR 5 follows provisions 

covered in 10 CFR 4, Section 4.331 

Compliance Reviews, which indicates 

NRC may conduct compliance reviews 

and Pre-Award reviews of recipients or 

use other similar procedures that will 

permit it to investigate and correct 

violations of the act and these 

regulations. NRC may conduct these 

reviews even in absence of a complaint 

against a recipient. The reviews may be 

as comprehensive as necessary to 

determine whether a violation of these 

regulations has occurred. 

6. Who will be required or asked to 

report: Recipients of Federal Financial 

Assistance provided by the NRC 

(including Educational Institutions, 

Other Nonprofit Organizations receiving 

Federal Assistance, and Agreement 

States). 

7. An estimate of the number of 

annual responses: 800 (600 responses 

plus 200 recordkeepers). 

8. The estimated number of annual 

respondents: 200. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES