Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 28961 

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–65,827; Plasma Automation, 

Inc., Meadville, PA. 

The Department has determined that 

criterion (2) of Section 246 has not been 

met. Workers at the firm possess skills 

that are easily transferable. 

TA–W–65,653; Munson Machinery 

Company, Utica, NY. 

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–65,836; EDS, an HP Company, 

Application Development 

Services—Landes Division, 

Kokomo, IN. 

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. 

None. 

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–65,138A; Sierra Pine, Martell 

Division, Martell, CA. 

TA–W–65,138; Sierra Pine, Rocklin 

Division, Rocklin, CA. 

TA–W–65,362; Governors America 

Corporation, Agawam, MA. 

TA–W–65,628; St. Marys Tool and Die 

Company, St. Marys, PA. 

TA–W–65,700; Weyerhaeuser, Raymond 

Lumbermill, Raymond, WA. 

TA–W–65,725; Roseburg Forest 

Products, Engineered Wood 

Division, Riddle, OR. 

TA–W–65,726; Caterpillar, Aurora, IL. 

TA–W–65,760; Classic Leather, Inc., 

Hickory, NC. 

TA–W–65,770A; Westport Shipyard, 

Inc., Hoquiam, WA. 

TA–W–65,770B; Westport Shipyard, 

Inc., Port Angeles, WA. 

TA–W–65,770C; Westport Shipyard, 

Inc., La Conner, WA. 

TA–W–65,770; Westport Shipyard, Inc., 

Westport, WA. 

The workers’ firm does not produce 

an article as required for certification 

under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 

1974. 

None. 

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 May 11, 

2009 through June 5, 2009. Copies of 

these determinations are available for 

inspection in Room N–5428, 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: June 12, 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–14327 Filed 6–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–65,467] 

Kenworth Truck Company, a 

Subsidiary of Paccar, Inc., Renton, 

WA; Notice of Negative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration 

By application dated May 7, 2009, 

International Association of Machinists 

and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge, 

No. 160 requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

negative determination regarding 

eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), 

applicable to workers and former 

workers of the subject firm. The denial 

notice was signed on April 14, 2009 and 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 30, 2009 (74 FR 19996). 

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 initial investigation resulted in a 

negative determination based on the 

finding that imports of class 8 heavy 

duty trucks did not contribute 

importantly to worker separations at the 

subject facility and there was no shift of 

production to a foreign country. The 

subject firm did not import class 8 

heavy duty trucks during the relevant 

period. The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ 

test is generally demonstrated through a 

survey of the workers’ firm’s declining 

domestic customers. In this case the 

survey was not conducted because the 

customers purchased all Class 8 heavy 

duty trucks exclusively from the subject 

firm. 

The petitioner alleged that subject 

firm’s competitors import heavy trucks 

and parts of heavy trucks, thus having 

an advantage over the subject firm in 

locating potential customers. 

The impact of competitors on the 

domestic firms is revealed in an 

investigation through customer surveys 

and aggregate import analysis. In the 

case at hand, the Department solicited 

information from the customers of the 

subject firm to determine if customers 

purchased imported Class 8 heavy duty 

trucks. The information was intended to 

determine if competitor imports 

contributed importantly to layoffs at the 

subject firm. The investigation revealed 

no imports of Class 8 heavy duty trucks 

during the relevant period. The subject 

firm did not import class 8 heavy duty 

trucks nor was there a shift in 

production of class 8 heavy duty trucks 

from subject firm abroad during the 

relevant period. Furthermore, U.S. 

aggregate imports of Class 8 heavy duty 

trucks have been declining since 2006. 

28962 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 116 / Thursday, June 18, 2009 / Notices 

The petitioner also stated that other 

divisions of Kenworth Truck Company 

and a supplier of interior components 

for heavy duty trucks have been recently 

certified for TAA and thus workers of 

the subject facility should also be 

eligible for TAA. 

The Kenworth Truck Company 

divisions indicated by the petitioner 

were certified eligible for TAA in 

January 2009 since the company shifted 

production of cabs for Class 8 trucks to 

Mexico. The certifications of these 

divisions are not relevant to this 

investigation as certified workers 

engaged in production of cabs are 

separately identifiable from workers of 

the subject firm who are engaged in 

production of Class 8 heavy duty trucks. 

The certification of a company 

supplying interior components for 

heavy duty trucks is also not relevant to 

this investigation. 

When assessing eligibility for TAA, 

the Department exclusively considers 

shift in production of articles like or 

directly competitive with the ones 

manufactured at the subject firm during 

the relevant period (one year prior to the 

date of the petition). The issue of a shift 

in production by the subject firm to a 

foreign country was addressed during 

the initial investigation. It was revealed 

that the subject firm did not shift 

production of Class 8 heavy duty trucks 

during the relevant period. 

The petitioner did not supply facts 

not previously considered; nor provide 

additional documentation indicating 

that there was either (1) a mistake in the 

determination of facts not 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 19th day of 

May 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–14323 Filed 6–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,979] 

Fiberweb, PLC, Simpsonville, SC; 

Notice of Negative Determination on 

Reconsideration 

On May 12, 2009, the Department 

issued an Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration for the workers and 

former workers of the subject firm. The 

notice will soon be published in the 

Federal Register. 

The initial investigation resulted in a 

negative determination based on the 

finding that imports of filtration media 

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 

petitioner alleged that the workers of the 

subject firm also produced non-filtration 

products, specifically nonwoven fabrics 

used in medical applications, hygiene 

applications and nonwoven rolled 

goods. The petitioner also alleged that 

the subject firm shifted production of 

non-filtration products abroad and that 

there was an increase in imports of nonfiltration products. 

The Department of Labor contacted a 

company official to verify this 

information. The company official 

stated that the subject firm ceased 

production of the non-filtration 

products at the end of 2006 and that 

none of the articles outlined by the 

petitioner were manufactured by 

workers of the subject firm since 2006. 

When assessing eligibility for TAA, 

the Department exclusively considers 

production and import impact during 

the relevant time period (one year prior 

to the date of the petition). Therefore, 

events occurring prior to January 22, 

2008 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 

Fiberweb, PLC, Simpsonville, South 

Carolina. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of 

June 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–14332 Filed 6–17–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–424 and 50–425; NRC– 

2009–0241] 

Southern Nuclear Operating Company; 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendment to Facility Operating 

License, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards, Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing, and 

Order Imposing Procedures for Access 

to Sensitive Unclassified NonSafeguards Information (SUNSI) for 

Contention Preparation 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission) is 

considering issuance of an amendment 

to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF– 

68 and NPF–81 issued to Southern 

Nuclear Operating Company (the 

licensee) for operation of the Vogtle 

Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, 

located in Burke County, Georgia. 

The proposed amendment would 

revise Technical Specification (TS) 

5.5.9, ‘‘Steam Generator (SG) Program,’’ 

to exclude portions of the tubes within 

the tubesheet from periodic SG 

inspections. In addition, this 

amendment proposes to revise TS 

5.6.10, ‘‘Steam Generator Tube 

Inspection Report’’ to remove reference 

to previous interim alternate repair 

criteria and provide reporting 

requirements specific to the permanent 

alternate repair criteria. The proposed 

change defines the safety significant 

portion of the tube that must be 

inspected and repaired. The amendment 

application dated May 19, 2009, 

contains sensitive unclassified nonsafeguards information (SUNSI). 

Before issuance of the proposed 

license amendment, the Commission 

will have made findings required by the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), and the Commission’s 

regulations. 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

amendment request involves no 

significant hazards consideration. Under 

the Commission’s regulations in Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR), Section 50.92, this means that 

operation of the facility in accordance 

with the proposed amendment would 

not (1) involve a significant increase in 

the probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated; or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 

50.91(a), the licensee has provided its 

analysis of the issue of no significant