ITW Insulation Systems, Nitro, WV; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 8640 [05-3355]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8640
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 22, 2005 / Notices
the worker group. Therefore, the
Department is again amending the
revised determination to reflect the
correct impact date.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–52,777 is hereby issued as
follows:
All workers of Steelcase, Inc., Grand
Rapids, Michigan, including leased workers
of RCM Technologies working at Steelcase,
Inc., Grand Rapids, Michigan, who became
totally or partially separated from
employment on or after August 12, 2002,
through October 14, 2005, are eligible to
apply for adjustment assistance under section
223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also
eligible to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 14th day of
February, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–685 Filed 2–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–55,216]
ITW Insulation Systems, Nitro, WV;
Notice of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On January 11, 2005, 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 January 21, 2005 (70 FR
3227).
The petition for the workers of ITW
Insulation Systems, Nitro, West Virginia
engaged in production of metal
jacketing and industrial thermal
insulation applications was denied
because the ‘‘contributed importantly’’
group eligibility requirement of Section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, was not met. The
‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is
generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers’ firm’s customers.
The survey revealed no increase of
imports of metal jacketing an industrial
thermal insulation applications during
the relevant period. The subject firm did
not import metal jacketing and
industrial thermal insulation
applications in the relevant period nor
did it shift production to a foreign
country.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner requests to extend the period
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:10 Feb 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
for investigation beyond the relevant
time period.
A review of the original investigation
confirmed that the subject firm ceased
its production on June 30, 2004. All the
surveys and data requested from the
subject firm and its customers reflected
this date. The Department considers
import impact in terms of the relevant
period of the current investigation;
therefore import impact that is outside
the relevant period are irrelevant. The
Department must conform to the Trade
Act and associated regulations.
The petitioner further requested to
extend the survey of customers to
include those in the northeast.
Additional list of customers was
requested from the subject firm. As a
result, six additional largest customers
were surveyed in the reconsideration
process. These customers reported no
imports of like or directly competitive
products with those manufactured by
the subject firm during the relevant
period.
The petitioner also alleges that the
subject firm ‘‘will be supplying their
customer base from their facility in
Canada.’’
A company official was contacted
regarding the above allegation. The
company official stated that no
production has been shifted from the
subject firm to Canada, nor is the United
States operation importing from Canada.
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 9th day of
February, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05–3355 Filed 2–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–M
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to
submit an information collection
request to OMB and solicitation of
public comment.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a
submittal to OMB for review of
continued approval of information
collections under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Information pertaining to the
requirement to be submitted:
1. The title of the information
collection: 10 CFR Part 81, Standard
Specification for Granting of Patent
Licenses.
2. Current OMB approval number:
3150—0121.
3. How often the collection is
required: Application for licenses are
submitted once. Other reports are
submitted annually or as other events
required.
4. Who is required or asked to report:
Applicants for and holders of NRC
Licenses to NRC inventions.
5. The number of annual respondents:
1.
6. The number of hours needed
annually to complete the requirement or
request: 37 hours estimated; however,
no applications are anticipated during
the next 3 years.
7. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 81 establishes
the standard specifications for the
issuance of licenses to rights in
inventions covered by patents or patent
applications invested in the United
States, as represented by or in the
custody of the Commission and other
patents in which the Commission has
legal rights.
Submit, by April 25, 2005, comments
that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of
information necessary for the NRC to
properly perform its functions? Does the
information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the
information collection be minimized,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology?
A copy of the draft 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 about the
information collection requirements
may be directed to the NRC Clearance
Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton (T–5 F53),
E:\FR\FM\22FEN1.SGM
22FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 22, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 8640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3355]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-55,216]
ITW Insulation Systems, Nitro, WV; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On January 11, 2005, 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 January 21, 2005 (70 FR 3227).
The petition for the workers of ITW Insulation Systems, Nitro, West
Virginia engaged in production of metal jacketing and industrial
thermal insulation applications was denied because the ``contributed
importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The ``contributed importantly''
test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's
customers. The survey revealed no increase of imports of metal
jacketing an industrial thermal insulation applications during the
relevant period. The subject firm did not import metal jacketing and
industrial thermal insulation applications in the relevant period nor
did it shift production to a foreign country.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner requests to
extend the period for investigation beyond the relevant time period.
A review of the original investigation confirmed that the subject
firm ceased its production on June 30, 2004. All the surveys and data
requested from the subject firm and its customers reflected this date.
The Department considers import impact in terms of the relevant period
of the current investigation; therefore import impact that is outside
the relevant period are irrelevant. The Department must conform to the
Trade Act and associated regulations.
The petitioner further requested to extend the survey of customers
to include those in the northeast.
Additional list of customers was requested from the subject firm.
As a result, six additional largest customers were surveyed in the
reconsideration process. These customers reported no imports of like or
directly competitive products with those manufactured by the subject
firm during the relevant period.
The petitioner also alleges that the subject firm ``will be
supplying their customer base from their facility in Canada.''
A company official was contacted regarding the above allegation.
The company official stated that no production has been shifted from
the subject firm to Canada, nor is the United States operation
importing from Canada.
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 9th day of February, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 05-3355 Filed 2-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
