Southern Weaving Company, Tarboro Plant 5, Tarboro, NC; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 63931-63932 [E7-22059]

Download as PDF 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: http:// 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