54174 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Notices 

TA–W–63,769; TSI Graphics, 

Effingham, IL: July 28, 2007. 

TA–W–63,906; Bel Power, Inc., Kelly 

Services, Westboro, MA: August 19, 

2007. 

TA–W–63,782; Whirlpool Corporation, 

LaVergne Division, LaVergne, TN: 

September 16, 2008. 

The following certifications have been 

issued. The requirements of Section 

222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers 

are certified eligible to apply for TAA) 

and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade 

Act have been met. 

TA–W–63,723; General Motors 

Corporation, GMNA Powetrain 

Masena, Massena, NY: July 16, 

2007. 

The following certifications have been 

issued. The requirements of Section 

222(b) (downstream producer for a firm 

whose workers are certified eligible to 

apply for TAA based on increased 

imports from or a shift in production to 

Mexico or Canada) and Section 

246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have 

been met. 

None. 

Negative Determinations for Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

In the following cases, it has been 

determined that the requirements of 

246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for 

the reasons specified. 

The Department has determined that 

criterion (1) of Section 246 has not been 

met. The firm does not have a 

significant number of workers 50 years 

of age or older. 

TA–W–63,944; Norma Products (US), 

Inc., Wixom, MI. 

The Department has determined that 

criterion (2) of Section 246 has not been 

met. Workers at the firm possess skills 

that are easily transferable. 

None. 

The Department has determined that 

criterion (3) of Section 246 has not been 

met. Competition conditions within the 

workers’ industry are not adverse. 

None. 

Negative Determinations for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

In the following cases, the 

investigation revealed that the eligibility 

criteria for worker adjustment assistance 

have not been met for the reasons 

specified. 

Because the workers of the firm are 

not eligible to apply for TAA, the 

workers cannot be certified eligible for 

ATAA. 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) 

(employment decline) have not been 

met. 

TA–W–63,786; International 

Automotive Components, Group 

North America, Inc., Rochester 

Hills, MI. 

TA–W–63,865; SFO Apparel, Inc., 

Brisbane, CA. 

TA–W–63,930; Liberty Molds, Inc., 

Portage, MI. 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or 

production, or both, did not decline) 

and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production 

to a foreign country) have not been met. 

TA–W–63,896; Neoconix, Inc., 

Sunnyvale, CA. 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased 

imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in 

production to a foreign country) have 

not been met. 

TA–W–63,567; Huber Engineered 

Woods, LLC, Broken Bow, OK. 

TA–W–63,719; 3M Precision Optics, 

Inc., Cincinnati, OH. 

TA–W–63,722; California Professional 

Dyework, City of Industry,CA. 

TA–W–63,806; Core Molding 

Technologies, Gaffney, SC. 

TA–W–63,910; Magna Services of 

America, Inc., Magna Aftermarket, 

Inc., Greenville, MI. 

The workers’ firm does not produce 

an article as required for certification 

under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 

1974. 

TA–W–63,831; OTC International Ltd., 

Long Island City, NY. 

TA–W–63,905; ConAgra Foods, Omaha, 

NE. 

TA–W–63,936; Emerson Power 

Transmission, Frontline 

CustomerService Div., Maysville, 

KY. 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been 

met. The workers’ firm (or subdivision) 

is not a supplier to or a downstream 

producer for a firm whose workers were 

certified eligible to apply for TAA. 

None. 

I hereby certify that the 

aforementioned determinations were 

issued during the period of September 

1 through September 5, 2008. Copies of 

these determinations are available for 

inspection in Room C–5311, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 

During normal business hours or will be 

mailed to persons who write to the 

above address. 

Dated: September 11, 2008. 

Erin Fitzgerald, 

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–21839 Filed 9–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–62,955] 

Pitney Bowes Tech Central 

Infrastructure & Support Services, 

Danbury, CT; Notice of Negative 

Determination on Reconsideration 

On July 15, 2008, the Department 

issued an Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration for the workers and 

former workers of the subject firm. The 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register on July 21, 2008 (73 FR 42368). 

The initial investigation resulted in a 

negative determination based on the 

finding that worker group does not 

produce an article within the meaning 

of section 222 for the Trade Act of 1974. 

The investigation revealed that workers 

of Pitney Bowes, Tech Central 

Infrastructure & Support Services, 

Danbury, Connecticut performed IT 

technical support for Pitney Bowes, Inc., 

which included tech support for the 

mainframe, network, and supporting 

software, including upgrades, installs, 

patches, maintenance, help desk 

support and repair. 

In the request for reconsideration the 

petitioner stated that workers of Tech 

Central Infrastructure & Support 

Services are Computer Operations 

Management and Staff, Server 

Engineering and Support, Network 

Engineering and Support, 

Telecommunications Engineering and 

Support and various Application 

Support group (HR, SAP, Lotus Notes, 

etc.) The petitioner further alleged that 

the workers of the subject firm 

supported production of Postage Meters 

by building custom servers, applications 

and infrastructure, ‘‘built the physical 

equipment that allows Pitney Bowes to 

offer additional products and services’’ 

and ‘‘supported production of custom 

stamps by designing, implementation, 

storage and support of this product.’’ 

On reconsideration, the Department 

contacted a company official and 

requested additional information 

regarding the production of various 

products by Pitney Bowes and whether 

workers of the subject firm supported 

production of the above mentioned 

products. 

The company official stated that 

Pitney Bowes, Inc. bought servers from 

a third-party vendor and in no sense 

built these servers or develop 

applications or code. Furthermore, the 

company official stated that the workers 

of the subject firm neither built physical 

equipment nor designed or created the 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Notices 54175 

Stamp products. The company official 

stated that some of the petitioning 

workers may have loaded software of 

the Stamp Expressions product on the 

servers and/or connected the software to 

the network. 

The petitioner further alleged that 

production of the above-mentioned 

articles has been shifted to India and 

thus workers of the Tech Central 

Infrastructure & Support Services, 

Danbury, Connecticut should be eligible 

for TAA. 

The company official denied this 

allegation and stated that production of 

postage meters, custom stamps, and 

similar Pitney Bowes equipment is 

continuing to be produced in the United 

States and that there was no shift in 

production of these articles to India or 

any other foreign country. 

The company official stated that some 

information support functions have 

been outsourced to a third party vendor, 

both in the United States and India. 

However, this outsourcing does not 

include any outsourcing in production. 

The allegation of a shift to another 

country might be relevant if it was 

determined that workers of the subject 

firm produced an article. Since the 

investigation determined that workers of 

Pitney Bowes, Tech Central 

Infrastructure & Support Services, 

Danbury, Connecticut do not produce 

an article, there can not be imports nor 

a shift in production of an ‘‘article’’ 

abroad within the meaning of the Trade 

Act of 1974 in this instance. 

Conclusion 

After reconsideration, I affirm the 

original notice of negative 

determination of eligibility to apply for 

worker adjustment assistance for 

workers and former workers of Pitney 

Bowes, Tech Central Infrastructure & 

Support Services, Danbury, 

Connecticut. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of 

September, 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–21841 Filed 9–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–63,819] 

Jakel, Inc., Murray, KY; Notice of 

Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on August 6, 

2008 in response to a petition filed by 

workers of Jakel, Inc., Murray, 

Kentucky. The subject firm stopped 

production on September 30, 2007. 

The petitioning group of workers is 

covered by a previous certification (TA– 

W–59,714) which expired on September 

2, 2008. The date of separation of the 

worker group was within the time 

period covered by this certification. 

Consequently, further investigation in 

this case would serve no purpose, and 

the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of 

September 2008. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–21836 Filed 9–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

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 

May 30, 2008. 

1. Type of submission, new, revision, 

or extension: Extension. 

2. The title of the information 

collection: 10 CFR Part 33—Specific 

Domestic Licenses of Broad Scope for 

Byproduct Material. 

3. Current OMB approval number: 

3150–0015. 

4. The form number if applicable: 

N/A. 

5. How often the collection is 

required: There is a one-time submittal 

of information to receive a license. Once 

a specific license has been issued, there 

is a 10-year resubmittal of the 

information for renewal of the license. 

6. Who will be required or asked to 

report: All applicants requesting a 

license of broad scope for byproduct 

material and all current licensees 

requesting renewal of a broad scope 

license. 

7. An estimate of the number of 

annual responses: All of the information 

collections in Part 33 are captured 

under OMB clearance number 3150– 

0120 for NRC Form 313. 

8. The estimated number of annual 

respondents: See Item 7. 

9. An estimate of the total number of 

hours needed annually to complete the 

requirement or request: See Item 7. 

10. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 33 contains 

mandatory requirements for the 

issuance of a broad scope license 

authorizing the use of byproduct 

material. The subparts cover specific 

requirements for obtaining a license of 

broad scope. These requirements 

include equipment, facilities, personnel, 

and procedures adequate to protect 

health and minimize danger to life or 

property. 

A copy of the final supporting 

statement may be viewed free of charge 

at the NRC Public Document Room, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville, MD 

20852. OMB clearance requests are 

available at the NRC worldwide Web 

site: http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/ 

doc-comment/omb/index.html. The 

document will be available on the NRC 

home page site for 60 days after the 

signature date of this notice. 

Comments and questions should be 

directed to the OMB reviewer listed 

below by October 20, 2008. Comments 

received after this date will be 

considered if it is practical to do so, but 

assurance of consideration cannot be 

given to comments received after this 

date. 

Nathan J. Frey, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (3150–0121), 

NEOB–10202, Office of Management 

and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. 

Comments can also be e-mailed to 

Nathan_J._Frey@omb.eop.gov or 

submitted by telephone at (202) 395– 

7345. 

The NRC Clearance Officer is Russell 

Nichols, (301) 415–6874. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day 

of September, 2008. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Gregory Trussell, 

Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of 

Information Services. 

[FR Doc. E8–21799 Filed 9–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES