E.I. Dupont Victoria, TX; Notice of Termination of Investigation, 75837 [E5-7608]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 21, 2005 / Notices • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., by permitting electronic submission of responses. III. Current Action The Department is requesting an extension of the currently approved ICR for the Final Rule Relating to Notice of Blackout Periods to Participants and Beneficiaries. The Department is not proposing or implementing changes to the regulation or to the existing ICR. A summary of the ICR and the current burden estimates follows: Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection of information. Agency: Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor. Title: Final Rule Relating to Blackout Notices to Participants and Beneficiaries. OMB Number: 1210–0122. Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions. Respondents: 85,150. Frequency of Response: On occasion. Responses: 11,956,000. Estimated Total Burden Hours: 166,129. Total Annual Cost (Operating and Maintenance): $9,351,400. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record. Dated: December 14, 2005. Susan G. Lahne, Senior Pension Law Specialist, Office of Policy and Research, Employee Benefits Security Administration. [FR Doc. 05–24280 Filed 12–20–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–29–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration erjones on PROD1PC68 with NOTICES [TA–W–58,377] E.I. Dupont Victoria, TX; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on November VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:25 Dec 20, 2005 Jkt 208001 18, 2005 in response to a worker petition filed by the Texas Work Force Commission on behalf of workers at E.I. DuPont, Victoria, Texas. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 5th day of December, 2005 Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5–7608 Filed 12–20–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–50,129 and TA–W–50,129A] IBM Corporation, Global Services Division, Piscataway, NJ; IBM Corporation, Global Services Division, Middletown, NJ; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) remanded to the Department of Labor (Labor) for further investigation Former Employees of IBM Corporation, Global Services Division v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, Court No. 03–00656. The USCIT’s Order was issued on August 1, 2005. A petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), dated November 13, 2002, was filed on behalf of workers at IBM Corporation, Global Services Division, Piscataway and Middletown, New Jersey (the subject firm). The petitioning workers had been employed by AT&T and had handled the same responsibilities for IBM, after being outsourced by AT&T to IBM in 2000. In the petition, the workers alleged that the subject firm was shifting computer software production to Canada and importing those products from Canada. Upon institution of the petition on November 19, 2002, the Department conducted an investigation to determine whether the subject workers were eligible to apply for TAA. The relevant period for purposes of the investigation was determined to be November 2001 through November 2002. For workers of the subject firm to be certified as eligible to apply for TAA, the following criteria must be met: (1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers’ firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; and PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 75837 (2) The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely, imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have increased, and the increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or (3) There has been a shift in production by such workers’ firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and the country to which the workers’ firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States, is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act or there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. 29 U.S.C. Section 222 The investigation revealed that the workers were engaged in the analysis and maintenance of computer software and information systems (identifying product requirements, developing network solutions, and writing software). The Department determined that the workers did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. The Department’s determination was issued on March 26, 2003. The Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2003 (68 FR 16834). By application of April 29, 2003, 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 TAA. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that the workers did produce an article and argued that the denial was the result of an overly narrow and antiquated interpretation of production by the Department. The Department reviewed the petitioner’s request for reconsideration and affirmed that the workers did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. Prior to making the determination, the Department reviewed the legislative intent of the TAA program as well as the language of the Trade Act. The Department also reviewed the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), and sought guidance from the U.S. Customs Service (Customs). On June 26, 2003, the Department issued a Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application E:\FR\FM\21DEN1.SGM 21DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 21, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 75837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-7608]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-58,377]


E.I. Dupont Victoria, TX; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on November 18, 2005 in response to a 
worker petition filed by the Texas Work Force Commission on behalf of 
workers at E.I. DuPont, Victoria, Texas.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 5th day of December, 2005
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E5-7608 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P