TA-W-71,483, Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division, Houston, TX; TA-W-71,483A, Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division, Tampa, FL; TA-W-71,483B, Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division, Salt Lake City, UT; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 43564-43565 [2010-18185]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
43564
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices
of articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by the workers’
firm, increased imports of articles like
or directly competitive with articles into
which one or more component parts
produced by the workers’ firm are
directly incorporated, or increased
imports of articles like or directly
incorporating one or more component
parts produced outside of the United
States that are like or directly
competitive with imports of articles
incorporating one or more component
parts produced by the workers’ firm.
During the initial investigation, the
Department inquired into the allegation
that ‘‘As of July 2010 our film used to
produce the newspaper and made in
Japan will no longer be manufactured
anywhere.’’ The investigation confirmed
that the subject firm produced print
publications and revealed that, while
there is a general decline of the film
manufacturing industry, the separations
at the subject firm are unrelated to
increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the print
publications produced at the subject
firm or a shift of production to a foreign
country, or acquisition from a foreign
country, of articles like or directly
competitive with the print publications
produced at the subject firm.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner alleges that the subject
workers are eligible to apply for TAA as
adversely affected secondary workers.
The petitioning workers do not meet
the criteria set forth in Section 222(c)
because the subject firm neither
supplied component parts for the
product made by a firm that employed
a worker group that is currently eligible
to apply for TAA (Konica) nor engaged
in a further stage of production of the
articles produced by a firm that
employed a worker group that is
currently eligible to apply for TAA
(Konica). Neither of those relationships
exists between Dow Jones & Company,
West Middlesex, Pennsylvania, and any
Konica facility.
The petitioner did not supply facts
not previously considered; nor provide
additional documentation indicating
that there was either (1) a mistake in the
determination of facts not previously
considered or (2) a misinterpretation of
facts or of the law justifying
reconsideration of the initial
determination.
After careful review of the request for
reconsideration, the Department
determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not
been met.
Conclusion
After review of the application and
investigative findings, I conclude that
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jul 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
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 9th day of
July 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–18191 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
TA–W–71,483, Continental Airlines,
Inc., Reservations Division, Houston,
TX; TA–W–71,483A, Continental
Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division,
Tampa, FL; TA–W–71,483B,
Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations
Division, Salt Lake City, UT; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated May 10, 2010,
the petitioners requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
determination regarding eligibility to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA), applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The
determination was signed on April 16,
2010. The Department’s Notice of
determination was published in the
Federal Register on May 20, 2010 (75
FR 28301).
Workers of Continental Airlines, Inc.,
Reservations Division are engaged in
employment related to the supply of
airline travel arrangement and
reservation services.
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 negative determination
applicable to workers and former
workers at Continental Airlines, Inc.,
Reservations Division, Houston, Texas,
Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations
Division, Tampa, Florida, and
Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Division, Salt Lake City, Utah, was
based on the findings that the subject
firm did not, during the period under
investigation, shift to a foreign country
the supply of airline travel arrangement
and reservation services (or like or
directly competitive services) or acquire
from a foreign country the supply of
airline travel arrangement and
reservation services (or like or directly
competitive services); that the workers’
separation, or threat of separation, was
not related to any increase in imports of
the supply of airline travel arrangement
and reservation services (or like or
directly competitive services) or the
shift/acquisition of the supply of airline
travel arrangement and reservation
services (or like or directly competitive
services); and that the workers did not
supply a service that was directly used
in the production of an article or the
supply of service by a firm that
employed a worker group that is eligible
to apply for TAA based on the aforementioned article or service.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner states that the workers of the
subject firm should be eligible for TAA
because the subject firm has shifted
abroad the airline travel arrangement
and reservation services provided by the
workers. The petitioner also asserts that
the subject firm has separated additional
workers and more separations are
anticipated at various locations
throughout the United States.
Additionally, the petitioner states that
the subject firm facility in Denver,
Colorado was not considered in the
investigation.
During the initial investigation, the
Department obtained information that
shows that the subject firm did not shift
the supply of airline travel arrangement
and reservation services to a foreign
country and that the worker separations
were due to the diminished need for
such services due to increased use of
technology (on-line self-service
reservations systems and electronic
ticketing).
Because workers are not eligible to
file a petition for locations other than
the one at which they are or were
employed, the petitioner’s assertion that
the Department should have included
the Denver, Colorado location in the
determination is not a basis for
reconsideration.
The petitioner did not supply facts
not previously considered; nor provide
additional documentation indicating
that there was either: (1) A mistake in
the determination of facts not
previously considered; or (2) a
misinterpretation of facts or of the law
justifying reconsideration of the initial
determination.
E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM
26JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices
After careful review of the request for
reconsideration, the Department
determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not
been 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 in Washington, D.C., this 15th day
of July 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–18185 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–71,494]
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Johns Manville; Engineered Products
Division, Including On-Site Leased
Workers From Volt Workforce
Solutions; Spartanburg, SC; Notice of
Revised Determination on
Reconsideration
By application dated May 2, 2010, a
petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration of the negative
determination applicable to the subject
firm. The determination was based on
the Department’s finding that neither
increased imports nor a shift in
production to a foreign country
contributed importantly to worker
separations at the subject firm. The
workers are engaged in employment
related to the production of polyester
non-woven fabric. The negative
determination was issued on April 16,
2010. The Department’s Notice of
negative determination was published
in the Federal Register on May 20, 2010
(75 FR 28301).
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner alleged that increased
production at an affiliated facility in
China caused the loss of business at the
Spartanburg, South Carolina facility.
Based on additional information
provided by the subject firm during the
reconsideration investigation, the
Department determines that the subject
firm has shifted to a foreign country the
production of articles like or directly
competitive with the polyester nonwoven fabric produced at the subject
facility and that the shift of production
to China contributed importantly to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jul 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
worker separations at the Spartanburg,
South Carolina facility.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional
facts obtained on reconsideration, I
determine that workers of Johns
Manville, Engineered Products Division,
Spartanburg, South Carolina, who are
engaged in employment related to the
production of polyester non-woven
fabric, meet the worker group
certification criteria under Section
222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a). In
accordance with Section 223 of the Act,
19 U.S.C. 2273, I make the following
certification:
All workers of Johns Manville, Engineered
Products Division, including on-site leased
workers from Volt Workforce Solutions,
Spartanburg, South Carolina, who became
totally or partially separated from
employment on or after June 23, 2008,
through two years from the date of this
certification, and all workers in the group
threatened with total or partial separation
from employment on date of certification
through two years from the date of
certification, are eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of
Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 9th day of
July 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
43565
545 318. Passcode: Tuesday817! Join
teleconference by dialing toll-free 888–
566–1673. Passcode: 12080.
• August 20, 12 p.m.–3 p.m.: To view
briefings, log in to Web site at https://
nasa.webex.com. Meeting Number: 995
328 530. Passcode: Friday820! Join
teleconference by dialing toll-free 888–
566–1673. Passcode: 12080.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Jane Parham, Exploration Systems
Mission Directorate, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546,
202–358–1715, jane.parham@nasa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
agenda topic is: Drafting of the Ad-Hoc
Task Force on Planetary Defense Final
Report to the NASA Advisory Council.
The meeting will be open to the public
up to the capacity of WebEx and
teleconference lines. It is imperative
that the meeting be held on these dates
to accommodate the scheduling
priorities of the key participants.
For questions, please call Jane
Parham, 202–358–1815,
jane.parham@nasa.gov.
Dated: July 19, 2010.
P. Diane Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer,
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–18147 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
[FR Doc. 2010–18186 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice: (10–084)]
NASA Advisory Council; Ad-Hoc Task
Force on Planetary Defense; Meeting
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public
Law 92–463, as amended, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
announces a two-part meeting of the
Ad-Hoc Task Force on Planetary
Defense of the NASA Advisory Council.
DATES: Tuesday, August 17, 2010,
12 p.m.–3 p.m., and Friday, August 20,
2010, 12 p.m.–3 p.m. All times are
Eastern Daylight Time.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held
via WebEx/Teleconference on both
dates.
• August 17, 12 p.m.–3 p.m.: To view
briefings, log in to Web site at https://
nasa.webex.com. Meeting Number: 993
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
NARA is giving public notice
that the agency has submitted to OMB
for approval the information collection
described in this notice. The public is
invited to comment on the proposed
information collection pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted to OMB at the address below
on or before August 25, 2010 to be
assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Mr.
William N. Tucker, Desk Officer for
NARA, Office of Management and
Budget, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395–
5167; or electronically mailed to
William_N._Tucker@omb.eop.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM
26JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 142 (Monday, July 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43564-43565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18185]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-71,483, Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division,
Houston, TX; TA-W-71,483A, Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations
Division, Tampa, FL; TA-W-71,483B, Continental Airlines, Inc.,
Reservations Division, Salt Lake City, UT; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated May 10, 2010, the petitioners requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's determination
regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA),
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The
determination was signed on April 16, 2010. The Department's Notice of
determination was published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2010 (75
FR 28301).
Workers of Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division are
engaged in employment related to the supply of airline travel
arrangement and reservation services.
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 negative determination applicable to workers and former workers
at Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division, Houston, Texas,
Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division, Tampa, Florida, and
Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division, Salt Lake City,
Utah, was based on the findings that the subject firm did not, during
the period under investigation, shift to a foreign country the supply
of airline travel arrangement and reservation services (or like or
directly competitive services) or acquire from a foreign country the
supply of airline travel arrangement and reservation services (or like
or directly competitive services); that the workers' separation, or
threat of separation, was not related to any increase in imports of the
supply of airline travel arrangement and reservation services (or like
or directly competitive services) or the shift/acquisition of the
supply of airline travel arrangement and reservation services (or like
or directly competitive services); and that the workers did not supply
a service that was directly used in the production of an article or the
supply of service by a firm that employed a worker group that is
eligible to apply for TAA based on the afore-mentioned article or
service.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner states that the
workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA because the
subject firm has shifted abroad the airline travel arrangement and
reservation services provided by the workers. The petitioner also
asserts that the subject firm has separated additional workers and more
separations are anticipated at various locations throughout the United
States. Additionally, the petitioner states that the subject firm
facility in Denver, Colorado was not considered in the investigation.
During the initial investigation, the Department obtained
information that shows that the subject firm did not shift the supply
of airline travel arrangement and reservation services to a foreign
country and that the worker separations were due to the diminished need
for such services due to increased use of technology (on-line self-
service reservations systems and electronic ticketing).
Because workers are not eligible to file a petition for locations
other than the one at which they are or were employed, the petitioner's
assertion that the Department should have included the Denver, Colorado
location in the determination is not a basis for reconsideration.
The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor
provide additional documentation indicating that there was either: (1)
A mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
(2) a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying
reconsideration of the initial determination.
[[Page 43565]]
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been 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 in Washington, D.C., this 15th day of July 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-18185 Filed 7-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
