Southern Weaving Company, Tarboro Plant 5, Tarboro, NC; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 63931-63932 [E7-22059]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 13, 2007 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–61,960]
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Solutia, Inc., Sauget, IL; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated October 16,
2007, a worker requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination regarding
eligibility for workers and former
workers of Solutia, Inc., Sauget, Illinois
(subject firm) to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA). The negative
determination was issued on September
18, 2007, and the Department’s Notice
of negative determination was
published in the Federal Register on
October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56385). The
subject workers produce chemicals
(phosphorous pentasulfide, santoflexes,
and ACL). Workers are not separately
identifiable by product line.
The TAA/ATAA petition was denied
because the subject firm 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. Significant
number or proportion of the workers in
a firm or appropriate subdivision means
at least three workers in a workforce of
fewer than 50 workers, five percent of
the workers in a workforce of over 50
workers, or at least 50 workers.
In the request for reconsideration, the
worker asserted that the Department’s
determination was erroneous (‘‘My
congressman Jerry Costello (D–IL)
received confirmation from the U.S.
Department of Labor for all workers of
Solutia, Inc., Sauget, IL who become
separated from employment to receive
additional unemployment benefits, job
training, and other services’’). The
request included news articles about
Solutia’s foreign operations (‘‘Solutia
starts building new plant in China,’’
September 1, 2005; ‘‘Solutia Begins
Construction of New Saflex (R) PVB
Plant in China,’’ September 1, 2005;
‘‘Solutia unit expands manufacturing in
China,’’ September 20, 2005; ‘‘Solutia
Expands Therminol Manufacturing in
China,’’ September 20, 2005; ‘‘Solutia
completes buyout of Mexican plant,
plans expansion,’’ March 2, 2006;
‘‘Solutia boosts manufacturing
capacity,’’ June 21, 2006; ‘‘Solutia starts
Belgian plant expansion,’’ March 26,
2007; ‘‘Solutia Expands Presence in
China by Opening New Saflex
Manufacturing Plant in Suzhou,’’
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:30 Nov 09, 2007
Jkt 214001
September 21, 2007; and ‘‘Solutia opens
Saflex plant in China,’’ September 21,
2007) and a document titled
‘‘Krummrich Products and
Applications’’ that identifies several
chemicals and their applications.
The worker also submitted an article
(‘‘Costello Announces Benefits for
Solutia, Inc. Workers,’’ released June 4,
2004 by Congressman Jerry F. Costello,
12th District, Illinois) that explains the
assertion in the request for
reconsideration.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c),
administrative 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 mis-interpretation of facts or
of the law justified reconsideration of
the decision.
The TAA certification alluded to in
the request for reconsideration is
Solutia, Inc., Sauget, Illinois (TA–W–
54,902; covering subject firm workers
separated on or after May 11, 2003
through May 28, 2006). Because the
certification for TA–W–54,902 has
expired, facts which were the basis for
the certification applicable to workers
covered by that petition cannot be a
basis for certification for workers
covered by this petition.
After careful review of the request for
reconsideration, the support
documentation, and previously
submitted materials, the Department
determines that there is no new
information that supports a finding that
section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was
satisfied and that no mistake or
misinterpretation of the facts or of the
law with regards to the number or
proportion of workers separated from
the subject firm during the relevant
period.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63931
Signed at Washington, DC this 1st day of
November 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–22060 Filed 11–9–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–61,881]
Southern Weaving Company, Tarboro
Plant 5, Tarboro, NC; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By letter dated October 1, 2007, a
company official requested
administrative reconsideration
regarding the Department’s Negative
Determination Regarding Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance, applicable to the workers of
the subject firm. The denial notice was
published in the Federal Register on
October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56385).
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 mis-interpretation of facts or
of the law justified reconsideration of
the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination signed on
September 21, 2007 was based on the
finding that imports of tie down and
tubular webbing did not contribute
importantly to worker separations at the
subject plant and no shift of production
to a foreign source occurred. The
‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is
generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers’ firm’s declining
customers. The survey revealed
negligible declining imports of tie down
and tubular webbing as reported by
major declining customers during the
relevant period. The subject firm did not
import tie down and tubular webbing.
The petitioner states that the affected
workers lost their jobs as a direct result
of a loss of customers and alleges that
the customers ‘‘are getting their orders
from some other country.’’
The Department conducted an
additional investigation to determine
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
63932
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 13, 2007 / Notices
whether imports of tie down and
tubular webbing indeed impacted
production at the subject firm and
consequently caused workers
separations. Upon further review of the
previous investigation the Department
contacted the major declining customer
of the subject firm, which initially
reported negligible increases in imports
of tie down and tubular webbing. This
customer reported that the imports they
are buying are not like or directly
competitive with the tie down and
tubular webbing previously purchased
from the subject firm. The customer
imports final products, which contain
tie down and tubular webbing as
components.
In order to establish import impact,
the Department must consider imports
that are like or directly competitive with
those produced at the subject firm. The
Department conducted a survey of the
subject firm’s major declining customers
regarding their purchases of tie down
and tubular webbing during 2005, 2006
and January through June 2007 over the
corresponding 2006 period. The survey
revealed that the declining customers
did not import tie down and tubular
webbing during the relevant period.
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 in Washington, DC this 31st day of
October 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–22059 Filed 11–9–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,161]
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Tifton Aluminum Company, a
Subsidiary of ALCOA, Inc., Tifton, GA;
Notice of Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on
September 19, 2007 in response to a
petition filed by a company official on
behalf of workers of Tifton Aluminum
Company, a subsidiary of Alcoa, Inc.,
Tifton, Georgia.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:30 Nov 09, 2007
Jkt 214001
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Further investigation in this case would
serve no purpose.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of
November, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–22061 Filed 11–9–07; 8:45am]
ACTION:
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
ADMINISTRATION
Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting
10 a.m., Thursday,
November 15, 2007.
PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room
7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA
22314–3428.
STATUS: Open.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Request from Shell New Orleans
Federal Credit Union to Convert to a
Community Charter.
2. NCUA’s 2008 Annual Performance
Budget.
3. NCUA’s 2008/2009 Operating
Budget.
4. NUCA’s Overhead Transfer Rate.
5. NCUA’s Operating Fee Scale.
6. Final Rule: Section 701.23 of
NCUA’s Rules and Regulations, Eligible
Obligations.
RECESS: 11 a.m.
TIME AND DATE: 11:15 a.m., Thursday,
November 15, 2007.
PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room
7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA
22314–3428.
STATUS: Closed.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. One (1) Administrative Action
under Sections 205, 207, and 208 of the
Federal Credit Union Act. Closed
pursuant to Exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii),
and (9)(B).
2. One (1) Administrative Action
under Sections 206 and 208 of the
Federal Credit Union Act. Closed
pursuant to Exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii),
and (9)(B).
3. One (1) Personnel Matter. Closed
pursuant to Exemptions (2).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board,
Telephone: 703–518–6304.
TIME AND DATE:
Mary Rupp,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 07–5650 Filed 11–8–07; 3:11 pm]
BILLING CODE 7535–01–M
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Comment Request
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The National Science
Foundation (NSF) has submitted the
following information collection
requirement to OMB for review and
clearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–13.
This is the second notice for public
comment; the first was published in the
Federal Register at 72 FR 11912, and no
comments were received. NSF is
forwarding the proposed renewal
submission to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for clearance
simultaneously with the publication of
this second notice. The full submission
may be found at: https://
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
Comments regarding (a) whether the
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of burden including
the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; or (d) ways
to 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 should be
addressed to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention:
Desk Officer for National Science
Foundation, 725–17th Street, NW.,
Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503,
and to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports
Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,
Suite 295, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or
send e-mail to splimpto@nsf.gov.
Comments regarding these information
collections are best assured of having
their full effect if received within 30
days of this notification. Copies of the
submission(s) may be obtained by
calling 703–292–7556.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Suzanne Plimpton at (703) 292–7556 or
send e-mail to splimpto@nsf.gov.
Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time,
Monday through Friday.
E:\FR\FM\13NON1.SGM
13NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63931-63932]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22059]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-61,881]
Southern Weaving Company, Tarboro Plant 5, Tarboro, NC; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By letter dated October 1, 2007, a company official requested
administrative reconsideration regarding the Department's Negative
Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance, applicable to the workers of the subject firm. The denial
notice was published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2007 (72 FR
56385).
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 mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the
decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
signed on September 21, 2007 was based on the finding that imports of
tie down and tubular webbing did not contribute importantly to worker
separations at the subject plant and no shift of production to a
foreign source occurred. The ``contributed importantly'' test is
generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's
declining customers. The survey revealed negligible declining imports
of tie down and tubular webbing as reported by major declining
customers during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import
tie down and tubular webbing.
The petitioner states that the affected workers lost their jobs as
a direct result of a loss of customers and alleges that the customers
``are getting their orders from some other country.''
The Department conducted an additional investigation to determine
[[Page 63932]]
whether imports of tie down and tubular webbing indeed impacted
production at the subject firm and consequently caused workers
separations. Upon further review of the previous investigation the
Department contacted the major declining customer of the subject firm,
which initially reported negligible increases in imports of tie down
and tubular webbing. This customer reported that the imports they are
buying are not like or directly competitive with the tie down and
tubular webbing previously purchased from the subject firm. The
customer imports final products, which contain tie down and tubular
webbing as components.
In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider
imports that are like or directly competitive with those produced at
the subject firm. The Department conducted a survey of the subject
firm's major declining customers regarding their purchases of tie down
and tubular webbing during 2005, 2006 and January through June 2007
over the corresponding 2006 period. The survey revealed that the
declining customers did not import tie down and tubular webbing during
the relevant period.
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 in Washington, DC this 31st day of October 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-22059 Filed 11-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
