Twigs & Ivy Boutique, Potosi, MO; Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 34158 [E5-3030]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34158
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 112 / Monday, June 13, 2005 / Notices
Signed in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of
June, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–3029 Filed 6–10–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,701]
Twigs & Ivy Boutique, Potosi, MO;
Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application of April 14, 2005, a
petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination regarding
eligibility for workers and former
workers of the subject firm to apply for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).
The denial notice was signed on May 2,
2005, (70 FR 22710).
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 TAA petition, which was filed on
behalf of workers at Twigs & Ivy
Boutique, Potosi, Missouri engaged in
the production of floral arrangements,
was denied based on the findings that
during the relevant time period, the
subject company did not separate or
threaten to separate a significant
number or proportion of workers, as
required by Section 222 of the Trade Act
of 1974.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner alleges that there was an
additional employee of Twigs & Ivy
Boutique who was mistakenly omitted
from the employment list originally
submitted to the Department by the
company official.
This alleged employee was contacted
by the Department to confirm the above
statement. The employee stated that she
worked for Twigs & Ivy Boutique,
Potosi, Missouri in 2002.
When assessing eligibility for TAA,
the Department exclusively considers
the relevant employment data for the
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:45 Jun 10, 2005
Jkt 205001
facility where the petitioning worker
group was employed. The relevant
period represents four quarters back
from the date of the petition, thus data
from 2002 is irrelevant in this
investigation. As fewer than three
workers were impacted at the subject
firm during the relevant time period,
employment threshold requirement as
outlined in Section 222 of the Trade Act
of 1974 was not 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 at Washington, DC, this 27th day of
May, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–3030 Filed 6–10–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice: 05–105]
Notice of Information Collection
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Notice of information collection.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
and respondent burden, invites the
general public and other Federal
agencies to take this opportunity to
comment on proposed and/or
continuing information collections, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)).
DATES: All comments should be
submitted within 60 calendar days from
the date of this publication.
ADDRESSES: All comments should be
addressed to Kathy Shaeffer, Mail Suite
6M70, Office of the Chief Information
Officer, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Washington, DC 20546–
0001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument(s) and instructions should
be directed to Kathy Shaeffer, Acting
NASA Reports Officer, Office of the
Chief Information Officer, NASA
Headquarters, 300 E Street SW., Mail
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Suite 6M70, Washington, DC 20546,
(202) 358–1230, kathleen.shaeffer1@nasa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
NASA Johnson Space Center is
licensed to collect and maintain records
of radioactive material used for spacerelated research and space vehicles at
temporary job sites in the U.S.
Information collected includes
descriptions, transfer, location, and
disposition of materials and records of
accountability and responsibility.
Respondents are NASA field centers
and NASA contractors, subcontractors,
and vendors.
II. Method of Collection
NASA collects this information
electronically where feasible, but
information may also be collected by
mail or fax.
III. Data
Title: Radioactive Material Transfer
Receipt.
OMB Number: 2700–0007.
Type of review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Not-for-profit institutions;
Federal Government; State, local or
tribal government.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
25.
Estimated Time Per Response:
approximately 30 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 10.
Estimated Total Annual Cost: $0.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of NASA, including
whether the information collected has
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of
NASA’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (3)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including automated
collection techniques or the use of other
forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection.
They will also become a matter of
public record.
E:\FR\FM\13JNN1.SGM
13JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 112 (Monday, June 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 34158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3030]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-56,701]
Twigs & Ivy Boutique, Potosi, MO; Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of April 14, 2005, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The
denial notice was signed on May 2, 2005, (70 FR 22710).
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 TAA petition, which was filed on behalf of workers at Twigs &
Ivy Boutique, Potosi, Missouri engaged in the production of floral
arrangements, was denied based on the findings that during the relevant
time period, the subject company did not separate or threaten to
separate a significant number or proportion of workers, as required by
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges that
there was an additional employee of Twigs & Ivy Boutique who was
mistakenly omitted from the employment list originally submitted to the
Department by the company official.
This alleged employee was contacted by the Department to confirm
the above statement. The employee stated that she worked for Twigs &
Ivy Boutique, Potosi, Missouri in 2002.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively
considers the relevant employment data for the facility where the
petitioning worker group was employed. The relevant period represents
four quarters back from the date of the petition, thus data from 2002
is irrelevant in this investigation. As fewer than three workers were
impacted at the subject firm during the relevant time period,
employment threshold requirement as outlined in Section 222 of the
Trade Act of 1974 was not 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 at Washington, DC, this 27th day of May, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-3030 Filed 6-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
