Pitney Bowes Tech Central Infrastructure & Support Services, Danbury, CT; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 54174-54175 [E8-21841]

Download as PDF 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. dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES 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. VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Sep 17, 2008 Jkt 214001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 E:\FR\FM\18SEN1.SGM 18SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Notices 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 dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:26 Sep 17, 2008 Jkt 214001 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 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. AGENCY: 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. PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 54175 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 E:\FR\FM\18SEN1.SGM 18SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54174-54175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21841]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 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