Pitney Bowes Tech Central Infrastructure & Support Services, Danbury, CT; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 54174-54175 [E8-21841]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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: https://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/
doc-comment/omb/. 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
