ABN AMRO Services Co., Inc., A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Lasalle Bank Corporation, Chicago, IL; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 70613-70614 [E7-24023]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2007 / Notices
a check in that amount to the Consent
Decree Library at the stated address.
Thomas A. Mariani, Jr.,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement
Section, Environment and Natural Resources
Division.
[FR Doc. 07–6028 Filed 12–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–M
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Notice of Lodging of a Consent Decree
Under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
Notice is hereby given that on
December 5, 2007 a proposed Consent
Decree in the case of United States v.
Liberty Property Limited Partnership,
Docket No. 07–cv–5119, was lodged
with the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennslyvania.
In this proceeding, the United States
filed a claim pursuant to sections 106
and 107 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607,
for the performance of response work at
a portion of the Crater Resources
Superfund site, in Upper Merion
Township, Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania, and reimbursement of
response costs. Pursuant to the consent
decree the defendants will perform
cleanup work on property owned by
Liberty Property, within the Crater
Resources Site. Liberty Property will
also reimburse U.S. EPA for future
response costs related to the work being
performed.
The Department of Justice will
receive, for a period of thirty (30) days
from the date of this publication,
comments relating to the Consent
Decree. Comments should be addressed
to the Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources
Division, and either emailed to
pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdog.gov, or
mailed to: P.O. Box 7611, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC
20044–7611, and should refer to: U.S. v.
Liberty Property Limited Partnership,
D.J. Ref. 90–11–2–1283/2.
The Consent Decree may be examined
at U.S. EPA Region III, Office of
Regional Counsel, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103–2029, c/o
Patricia Miller. During the public
comment period, the Consent Decree
may also be examined at the following
Department of Justice Web site: https://
www.usdog.gov/enrd/
Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the
Consent Decree may also be obtained by
mail from the Consent Decree Library,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:54 Dec 11, 2007
Jkt 214001
P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of
Justice, Washington, DC 20044–7611 or
by faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia
Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdog.gov),
fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone
confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In
requesting a copy from the Consent
Decree Library, please enclose a check
in the amount of $25.75 for the Consent
Decree only (25 cents per page
reproduction cost), or $90.50 for the
Consent Decree and all of the attached
exhibits, payable to the U.S. Treasury
or, if by e-mail or fax, forward a check
in that amount to the Consent Decree
Library at the stated address.
70613
Publication of Year 2007 Form M–1
With Electronic Filing Option, Notice
Certain Entities Claiming Exception
(ECEs). This year’s Form M–1 is
substantively identical to the Year 2006
Form M–1. The electronic filing option
has been retained and filers are
encouraged to use this method. The
Year 2007 Form M–1 is due March 3,
2008, with an extension until May 2,
2008 available.
The Employee Benefits Security
Administration (EBSA) is committed to
working together with administrators to
help them comply with this filing
requirement. Copies of the Form M–1
are available on the Internet at https://
www.dol.gov/ebsa/forms_requests.html.
In addition, after printing, copies will be
available by calling the EBSA toll-free
publication hotline at 1–866–444–EBSA
(3272). Questions on completing the
form are being directed to the EBSA
help desk at (202) 693–8360. For
questions regarding the electronic filing
capability, contact the EBSA computer
help desk at (202) 693–8600.
Statutory Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1021–
1024, 1027, 1029–1031, 1059, 1132,
1134, 1135, 1181–1183, 1181 note, 1185,
1185a–b, 1191, 1191a–c; Secretary of
Labor’s Order No. 1–2003, 68 FR 5374
(February 2, 2003).
Employee Benefits Security
Administration, Department of Labor.
ACTION: Notice on the Availability of the
Year 2007 Form M–1 with Electronic
Filing Option.
Signed at Washington, DC this 6th day of
December, 2007.
Bradford P. Campbell,
Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits
Security Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–24040 Filed 12–11–07; 8:45 am]
Robert Brook,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement
Section, Environment and Natural Resources
Division.
[FR Doc. 07–6027 Filed 12–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–15–M
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This document announces the
availability of the Year 2007 Form M–
1, Annual Report for Multiple Employer
Welfare Arrangements and Certain
Entities Claiming Exception. It is
substantively identical to the 2006 Form
M–1. The Form M–1 may again be filed
electronically over the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
inquiries regarding the Form M–1 filing
requirement, contact Amy Turner or
Beth L. Baum, Office of Health Plan
Standards and Compliance Assistance,
at (202) 693–8335. For inquiries
regarding how to obtain or file a Form
M–1, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section below.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Form M–1 is required to be filed
under section 101(g) and section 734 of
the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended
(ERISA), and 29 CFR 2520.101–2.
II. The Year 2007 Form M–1
This document announces the
availability of the Year 2007 Form M–
1, Annual Report for Multiple Employer
Welfare Arrangements (MEWAs) and
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
BILLING CODE 4510–29–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,090]
ABN AMRO Services Co., Inc., A
Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Lasalle
Bank Corporation, Chicago, IL; Notice
of Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application postmarked October
18, 2007, the petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the
Department’s negative determination
regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA),
applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The denial
notice was signed on September 17,
2007 and 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
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
70614
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 238 / Wednesday, December 12, 2007 / Notices
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 negative TAA determination
issued by the Department for workers of
ABN Amro Services Co., Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of LaSalle Bank
Corporation, Chicago, Illinois was based
on the finding that the worker group
does not produce an article within the
meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act
of 1974. The investigation revealed that
workers of the subject firm are engaged
in information technology support. The
investigation further revealed that no
production of article(s) occurred within
the firm or appropriate subdivision
within the ABN Amro Services Co., Inc.
and LaSalle Bank Corporation during
the relevant time period.
The petitioner contends that the
Department erred in its interpretation of
the work performed by the workers of
the subject firm. The petitioner
acknowledges that the workers of the
subject firm are ‘‘employees of the
services sector supporting staff for the
bank,’’ but further alleges that the
workers of the subject firm ‘‘produced
output on regular basis’’. The petitioner
describes these outputs as loans, wire
transfer data, account reconciliation
statements, billing statements, various
statistical data, programs, reports,
electronic files, etc.
The investigation revealed that all of
the above ‘‘outputs’’ are information and
documents used by the subject firm as
incidentals to the purpose of the
services provided by ABN Amro
Services Co., Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of LaSalle Bank Corporation.
The investigation revealed that workers
of ABN Amro Services Co., Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of LaSalle
Bank Corporation, Chicago, Illinois are
engaged in IT applications support,
maintenance and development. These
services, as described above, are not
considered production of an article
within the meaning of Section 222 of
the Trade Act. No production took place
at the subject facility and the workers
did not support production of articles at
any affiliated firm in the relevant time
period.
The petitioner also alleges that the
positions have been shifted from the
subject firm to India and China.
The allegation of a shift to another
country might be relevant if it was
determined that workers of the subject
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:54 Dec 11, 2007
Jkt 214001
firm produced an article. However, the
investigation determined that workers of
ABN Amro Services Co., Inc., a wholly
owned subsidiary of LaSalle bank
Corporation, Chicago, Illinois do not
produce an article within the meaning
of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
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 5th day of
December, 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–24023 Filed 12–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,330]
Gerdau Ameristeel, Perth Amboy, NJ;
Notice of Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on October
19, 2007 in response to a worker
petition filed by a company official on
behalf of workers of Gerdau Ameristeel,
Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of
December, 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–24020 Filed 12–11–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–61,976]
Intel Corporation, Mobile Wireless
Networking Manufacturing/Operations
Division, Hillsboro, OR; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated October 23,
2007, the petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Department’s negative determination
regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA),
applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The denial
notice was signed on September 24,
2007 and published in the Federal
Register on October 12, 2007 (72 FR
58131).
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 petition for the workers of Intel
Corporation, Mobile Wireless
Networking Manufacturing/Operations
Division, Hillsboro, Oregon engaged in
production of wireless cards for
notebook computers was denied
because the ‘‘contributed importantly’’
group eligibility requirement of Section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, was not met. The
investigation revealed that worker
separations at the subject firm are
attributed to worldwide restructuring of
the company to increase efficiencies.
The investigation also revealed that
production of wireless cards for
notebook computers was shifted from
the subject firm to Taiwan, which is not
a party to a Free Trade Agreement with
the United States or a beneficiary
country. The subject firm did not import
wireless cards for notebook computers
and is not planning to import these
products in the future.
The petitioner alleges that ‘‘activities
were not restructured across the
company’’, but were rather outsourced
to suppliers in Asia. The petitioner also
alleges that production from the subject
firm was shifted to China, not Taiwan.
The initial investigation did reveal
that production was shifted from Intel
Corporation, Mobile Wireless
Networking Manufacturing/Operations
Division, Hillsboro, Oregon to Taiwan
and further to China. Neither Taiwan
nor China are countries that are a party
to Free Trade Agreements with the
United States or beneficiary countries.
Thus a shift in production to either
China or Taiwan does not qualify
workers of the subject firm eligible for
TAA.
The subject firm reported no imports
of wireless cards for notebook
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70613-70614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24023]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-62,090]
ABN AMRO Services Co., Inc., A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Lasalle
Bank Corporation, Chicago, IL; Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application postmarked October 18, 2007, the petitioner
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on September 17, 2007 and
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
[[Page 70614]]
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 negative TAA determination issued by the Department for workers
of ABN Amro Services Co., Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of LaSalle
Bank Corporation, Chicago, Illinois was based on the finding that the
worker group does not produce an article within the meaning of Section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974. The investigation revealed that workers
of the subject firm are engaged in information technology support. The
investigation further revealed that no production of article(s)
occurred within the firm or appropriate subdivision within the ABN Amro
Services Co., Inc. and LaSalle Bank Corporation during the relevant
time period.
The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its
interpretation of the work performed by the workers of the subject
firm. The petitioner acknowledges that the workers of the subject firm
are ``employees of the services sector supporting staff for the bank,''
but further alleges that the workers of the subject firm ``produced
output on regular basis''. The petitioner describes these outputs as
loans, wire transfer data, account reconciliation statements, billing
statements, various statistical data, programs, reports, electronic
files, etc.
The investigation revealed that all of the above ``outputs'' are
information and documents used by the subject firm as incidentals to
the purpose of the services provided by ABN Amro Services Co., Inc., a
wholly owned subsidiary of LaSalle Bank Corporation. The investigation
revealed that workers of ABN Amro Services Co., Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of LaSalle Bank Corporation, Chicago, Illinois are engaged
in IT applications support, maintenance and development. These
services, as described above, are not considered production of an
article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. No
production took place at the subject facility and the workers did not
support production of articles at any affiliated firm in the relevant
time period.
The petitioner also alleges that the positions have been shifted
from the subject firm to India and China.
The allegation of a shift to another country might be relevant if
it was determined that workers of the subject firm produced an article.
However, the investigation determined that workers of ABN Amro Services
Co., Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of LaSalle bank Corporation,
Chicago, Illinois do not produce an article within the meaning of
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
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 5th day of December, 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-24023 Filed 12-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P