57684 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E8–23296 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–63,640] 

3M Touch Systems, a Subsidiary of 3M 

Electro & Communication Division, 

Milwaukee, WI; Notice of Negative 

Determination on Reconsideration 

On August 1, 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 August 12, 2008 (73 FR 

46920). 

The initial investigation resulted in a 

negative determination based on the 

finding that imports of touch screens for 

mobile phones did not contribute 

importantly to worker separations at the 

subject firm and no shift of production 

to a foreign source occurred. 

In the request for reconsideration the 

company official provided an additional 

list of customers who purchased touch 

screens from the subject firm. 

On reconsideration the Department of 

Labor surveyed these customers 

regarding their purchases of touch 

screens (including like or directly 

competitive products) during 2006, 

2007, and January through June 2008 

over the corresponding 2007 period. 

The survey revealed no imports of touch 

screens during the relevant period. 

The petitioner also stated that workers 

of the subject firm were previously 

certified eligible for TAA. The petitioner 

further states that if the subject firm 

‘‘did not attempt to re-position the 

business and instead, close entirely in 

2007, all the employees would have 

been eligible for TAA.’’ The petitioner 

seems to allege that because workers of 

the subject firm were previously 

certified eligible for TAA, the workers of 

the subject firm should be granted 

another TAA certification. 

When assessing eligibility for TAA, 

the Department exclusively considers 

import impact during the relevant time 

period (from one year prior to the date 

of the petition). Therefore, events 

occurring before 2007 are outside of the 

relevant period and are not relevant in 

this investigation. 

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 3M 

Touch Systems, a subsidiary of 3M, 

Electro & Communications Division, 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of 

September, 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–23302 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–63,502] 

Onsite International Inc., El Paso, TX; 

Notice of Negative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration 

By application of July 28, 2008, a 

petitioner requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

negative determination regarding 

eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers 

and former workers of the subject firm. 

The denial notice was signed on July 7, 

2008, and published in the Federal 

Register on July 28, 2008 (73 FR 43790). 

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 misinterpretation of facts or of 

the law justified reconsideration of the 

decision. 

The petition for the workers of Onsite 

International, Inc., El Paso, Texas 

engaged in administrative functions was 

denied because the petitioning workers 

did not produce an article within the 

meaning of Section 222 of the Act. 

The workers of Onsite International 

Inc., El Paso, Texas were previously 

certified eligible to apply for TAA under 

petition number TA–W–55,702, which 

expired on October 13, 2006. The 

investigation revealed that production at 

the subject firm ceased in 2006. 

The petitioner contends that the 

Department erred in its interpretation of 

work performed at the subject facility 

and further conveys that workers of the 

subject company ‘‘handled all aspects of 

shipping, receiving, repairing, repacking 

of the garments’’. The petitioner further 

states that the subject firm produced 

articles in the last three years and 

workers of the subject firm were 

previously certified eligible for TAA 

based on a shift in production to 

Mexico. The petitioner seems to allege 

that because the petitioning workers 

were part of the initial certified worker 

group and remained employed by the 

subject firm after all the production 

stopped and beyond October 13, 2006, 

the current worker group, who are 

engaged in distribution of articles, 

should be also eligible for TAA. 

A company official of the subject firm 

verified that production of articles was 

shifted from the subject firm to Mexico 

in 2004 and that no production took 

place at the subject firm since 2006. The 

official further clarified that workers of 

the subject firm remained to end 

programs and dispose of the assets after 

all production ceased. 

The investigation revealed that the 

subject facility did not manufacture 

articles since January 2006, when 

production shifted to Mexico. Although 

a small amount of cutting continued 

until early 2007, workers of the subject 

firm were not engaged in production of 

an article or supporting production of 

the article during the relevant time 

period. 

Under the Trade Act of 1974, as 

amended, certification of group 

eligibility to apply for TAA will be 

issued where a shift of production is the 

alleged basis for certification provided 

that (1) a significant number or 

proportion of the workers of such 

workers’ firm, or an appropriate 

subdivision, have been totally or 

partially separated or are threatened to 

become totally or partially separated; 

and (2) there has been a shift in 

production from the workers’ firm or 

subdivision to an eligible foreign 

country of articles like or directly 

competitive with those produced by the 

subject firm or subdivision under 

section 222(a)(2)(B)(i); and, either the 

foreign country is a party to a free trade 

agreement with the United States under 

section 222(a)(2)(B)(ii)(I), is a 

beneficiary country under section 

222(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II), or there has been or 

is likely to be an increase in imports of 

like or directly competitive articles. The 

Department interprets the standard for 

certification as requiring that the shift of 

production of an article to a foreign 

country must be a cause of the 

separations of workers of the firm that 

were engaged in or supported the 

production of that article. 

That the subject workers were not 

separated, or threatened with 

separation, until January 31, 2008 (two 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices 57685 

years after the subject firm’s shift of 

production of garments to Mexico) 

supports the Department’s findings that 

the subject workers’ employment with 

the subject firm was not dependent 

upon domestic production and that the 

subject firm’s shift of garment 

production to Mexico was not a factor 

in the subject workers’ separations. 

Therefore, the Department determines 

that the group eligibility to apply for 

benefits under the Trade Act of 1974, as 

amended, has not been met. 

Further, the Department found that no 

new information was provided to 

contradict the original negative findings. 

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 19th day of 

September 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–23301 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,071] 

Chase Home Finance, LLC, Division of 

JP Morgan & Co., Lexington, KY; 

Notice of Termination of Investigation 

In accordance with Section 221 of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on 

September 17, 2008 in response to a 

worker petition filed on behalf of 

workers of Chase Home Finance, LLC, a 

division of JP Morgan Chase & Co., 

Lexington, Kentucky. 

The petitioner has requested that the 

petition be withdrawn. Consequently, 

the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 25th day of 

September 2008. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–23293 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,067] 

Hillerich and Bradsby Company, 

Ontario, CA; Notice of Termination of 

Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on 

September 17, 2008 in response to a 

petition filed by the International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 986, on 

behalf of workers of Hillerich and 

Bradsby Company, Ontario, California. 

All workers of Hillerich and Bradsby 

Company, Louisville Slugger Division, 

Ontario, California, including on-site 

leased workers from Select Staffing, are 

covered by an existing certification, TA– 

W–63,983. Consequently, the 

investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

September 2008. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–23295 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–63,960] 

Peoploungers, Inc., Mantachie, MS; 

Notice of Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on August 

29, 2008 in response to a worker 

petition filed by a company official on 

behalf of workers at Peoploungers, Inc., 

Mantachie, Mississippi. 

The petitioning group of workers is 

covered by an active certification (TA– 

W–62,583A, amended), which expires 

on September 23, 2010. Consequently, 

further investigation in this case would 

serve no purpose, and the investigation 

has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 24th day of 

September 2008. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–23294 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,038] 

Phoenix Leather, Inc., Brockton, MA; 

Notice of Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on 

September 12, 2008, in response to a 

worker petition filed by former workers 

of Phoenix Leather, Inc., Brockton, 

Massachusetts. 

The petition was only filed by two 

workers, which does not meet the 

requirement of three workers necessary 

to file a petition. As a result, the petition 

regarding the investigation has been 

deemed invalid. Consequently, further 

investigation in this case would serve 

no purpose, and the investigation has 

been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of 

September 2008. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–23303 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

[Docket No. OSHA–2008–0037] 

State Plans for the Development and 

Enforcement of State Standards; 

Extension of the Office of Management 

and Budget’s (OMB) Approval of 

Information-Collection (Paperwork) 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public 

comment concerning its request for an 

extension of the information collection 

requirements associated with its 

regulations and program regarding State 

Plans for the development and 

enforcement of state standards (29 CFR 

1902, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956). 

DATES: Comments must be submitted 

(postmarked, sent, or received) by 

December 2, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may 

submit comments and attachments 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, which is the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the 

instructions online for submitting 

comments. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES