Atlantic Southeast Airlines, a Subsidiary of Skywest, Inc., Airport Customer Service Division, Fort Smith, AR; Notice of Negative Determination on Second Remand, 4733-4735 [2011-1617]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
4733
APPENDIX
TAA PETITIONS INSTITUTED BETWEEN 12/27/10 AND 12/31/10
TA–W
Subject firm
(petitioners)
Location
75045 ................
75046 ................
CVS Caremark (State/One-Stop) .............
Macsteel Service Centers USA (Company).
J.P. Morgan Chase (State/One-Stop) ......
Premier Technical Plastics (Company) ....
Buckstaff Company (State/One-Stop) ......
Strahan Sewing Machine Company
(Company).
American Express (Workers) ....................
Siemen’s Industry (State/One-Stop) .........
C. Fassinger & Sons Manufacturing Company (Company).
Plastic Suppliers Company (Workers) ......
Bright Acquisitions Company LLC (Union)
Ericsson, Inc (State/One-Stop) .................
Allstate Insurance Company (State/OneStop).
Electrolux Central Vacuum Systems
(Company).
Northbrook, IL ...........................................
Liverpool, NY ............................................
12/28/10
12/28/10
12/27/10
12/28/10
Columbus, OH ..........................................
Minden, LA ................................................
Oshkosh, WI .............................................
Chino Hills, CA .........................................
12/28/10
12/29/10
12/29/10
12/29/10
12/27/10
12/23/10
12/28/10
12/28/10
Salt Lake City, UT ....................................
Columbus, OH ..........................................
New Castle, PA ........................................
12/29/10
12/29/10
12/29/10
12/28/10
12/28/10
12/28/10
Columbus, OH ..........................................
Summersville, WV ....................................
Overland Park, KS ....................................
Irving, TX ..................................................
12/29/10
12/30/10
12/30/10
12/30/10
11/23/10
12/29/10
12/29/10
12/29/10
Webster City, IA ........................................
12/30/10
12/24/10
75047
75048
75049
75050
................
................
................
................
75051 ................
75052 ................
75053 ................
75054
75055
75056
75057
................
................
................
................
75058 ................
[FR Doc. 2011–1614 Filed 1–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–70,344]
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Atlantic Southeast Airlines, a
Subsidiary of Skywest, Inc., Airport
Customer Service Division, Fort Smith,
AR; Notice of Negative Determination
on Second Remand
On November 4, 2010, the United
States Court of International Trade
(USCIT) granted the Department of
Labor’s second request for voluntary
remand to conduct further investigation
in Former Employees of Atlantic
Southeast Airlines, a Subsidiary of
Skywest, Inc., Airport Customer Service
Division v. United States Secretary of
Labor (Court No. 09–00522).
On September 28, 2009, the
Department of Labor (Department)
issued a Negative Determination
regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
applicable to workers and former
workers of Atlantic Southeast Airlines,
a Subsidiary of Skywest, Inc., Airport
Customer Division, Fort Smith,
Arkansas (subject firm). AR 35. Workers
at the subject firm (subject worker
group) provided airline customer
services. AR 4,8,14,37. The
Department’s Notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register
on November 17, 2009 (74 FR 59251).
AR 48.
For the Department to issue a
certification for workers under Section
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:50 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (the Act), 19 U.S.C. 2272(a),
the following criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in
Section 222(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in
the workers’ firm must have become
totally or partially separated or be
threatened with total or partial
separation.
II. The second criterion (set forth in
Section 222(a)(2) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of
two ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the
workers’ firm must have decreased
absolutely, and
(ii)(I) imports of articles or services
like or directly competitive with articles
or services produced or supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or
directly competitive with articles into
which the component part produced by
the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or
directly competitive with articles which
are produced directly using the services
supplied by the workers’ firm have
increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly
incorporating component parts not
produced in the U.S. that are like or
directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by
the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased.
(B) Shift in Production or Supply
Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the
workers’ firm to a foreign country in the
production of articles or supply of
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Date of institution
Date of petition
services like or directly competitive
with those produced/supplied by the
workers’ firm; or
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition
from a foreign country by the workers’
firm of articles/services that are like or
directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm.
III. The third criterion requires that
the increase in imports or shift/
acquisition must have contributed
importantly to the workers’ separation
or threat of separation. See Sections
222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii),
2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).
For the Department to issue a
certification for adversely-affected
secondary workers under Section 222(c)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(c), the
following criteria must be met:
(1) A significant number or proportion
of the workers in the workers’ firm or
an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially
separated, or are threatened to become
totally or partially separated;
(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or
Downstream Producer to a firm that
employed a group of workers who
received a certification of eligibility
under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19
U.S.C. 2272(a), and such supply or
production is related to the article or
service that was the basis for such
certification; and
(3) either:
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and
the component parts it supplied to the
firm described in paragraph (2)
accounted for at least 20 percent of the
production or sales of the workers’ firm;
or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’
firm with the firm described in
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4734
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
paragraph (2) contributed importantly to
the workers’ separation or threat of
separation.
Section 222(d)(3)(A) of the Act, 19
U.S.C. 2272(d)(3)(A), states that a
‘‘downstream producer means a firm
that performs additional, value-added
production processes or services
directly for another firm for articles or
services with respect to which a group
of workers in such other firm has been
certified under subsection (a).’’ Section
222(d)(3)(B) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(d)(3)(B), states that ‘‘value-added
production processes or services
include final assembly, finishing,
testing, packaging, or maintenance or
transportation services.’’
The negative determination states
that, although there was a significant
proportion or number of workers of the
subject firm that were separated, the
remaining criteria of Section 222(a) and
Section 222(c) of the Act were not met.
AR 37. The negative determination
stated that the subject firm did not
import like or directly competitive
services during the relevant period or
shift these services abroad. AR 38.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner alleged that because the
workers at the subject firm provided
services to individuals that are part of
worker groups eligible to apply for TAA,
the workers at the subject firm should
also be eligible for TAA as ‘‘downstream
producers.’’ AR 42,43.
The Department issued a Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
applicable to workers of the subject firm
on November 5, 2009, based on the
finding that the petitioner did not
provide new information. AR 44. The
Department’s Notice was published in
the Federal Register on December 8,
2009 (74 FR 64736). AR 54.
In the complaint to the USCIT, the
Plaintiff asserted that workers at the
subject firm are eligible to apply for
TAA as secondarily affected workers,
that the decline in travel in the Fort
Smith, Arkansas area is attributable to a
reduction in the operations of firms in
the local area due to trade impact, and
that this decline in travel contributed to
subject worker group separations.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
First Remand Investigation
During the first remand investigation,
the Department carefully reviewed
previously submitted information,
obtained additional information from
the subject firm, and solicited input
from the Plaintiff.
In the course of the first remand
investigation, the Plaintiff provided
information alleging that trade impact
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
caused the layoffs in the subject worker
group. SAR 9.
The Department’s findings on remand
revealed that the subject worker group
provided airline customer services such
as airline ground handling, baggage, and
ticketing, under contract exclusively for
Delta Air Lines (Delta). These services
were provided to individual passengers
and the ticket purchases were made by
individuals, travel agencies, corporate
accounts, and the United States
military. SAR 3,19,21,27,29.
The information obtained by the
Department to address the allegation
that the domestic merger between Delta
and Northwest Airlines demonstrates
trade impact confirmed the
Department’s findings. Subject worker
group separations are attributable to
Delta ceasing operations with the
subject firm at the Fort Smith, Arkansas
location, but the newly-merged airline
maintained operations out of the Fort
Smith, Arkansas location using a
different airline customer service
provider. Further, the services provided
by the worker group cannot be imported
or shifted abroad as they are used
directly by domestic passengers. AR
17,24,25, SAR 3,19,21,27,29.
Based on careful consideration of all
previously submitted information and
new facts obtained during the first
remand investigation, the Department
determined that the subject worker
group did not meet the eligibility
criteria of the Act and issued a Negative
Determination on Remand on
September 3, 2010. SAR 34. The Notice
of determination was published in the
Federal Register on September 21, 2010
(75 FR 57517). SAR(II) 1.
Second Remand Investigation
The Department requested, and was
granted, a second voluntary remand to
obtain additional information to clarify
the reason Delta ceased using services
supplied by the subject firm, to clarify
‘‘directly’’ for purposes related to
Section 222(d)(3)(A), and to determine
whether the petitioning workers are
eligible to apply for TAA.
During the second remand
investigation, the Department obtained
additional information from the subject
firm, SAR(II) 6,8,44–48, solicited input
from the Plaintiff, SAR(II) 6,10–15, and
obtained new information from Delta
regarding the reason that it ceased using
services supplied by the subject firm in
its operations at the Fort Smith airport.
SAR(II) 7–9,29–42,50–52.
Information provided by Delta and the
subject firm confirmed that the subject
firm failed to win a bid to continue to
supply services at the Fort Smith
airport. When Delta and Northwest
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Airlines merged, regional vendors were
invited to submit bids to acquire ground
handling operations at the Fort Smith
location. The subject firm had the same
opportunity to bid to win the contract
to supply services at the Fort Smith,
Arkansas airport as other firms, but did
not win the contract. SAR(II) 46–48,51.
Section 222(d)(3)(A) of the Act
requires that a ‘‘downstream producer’’
perform ‘‘additional, value-added
production processes or services
directly for another firm for articles or
services with respect to which a group
of workers in such other firm has been
certified under subsection (a) [of Section
222 of the Act].’’ Section 222(d)(3)(B)
includes ‘‘transportation services’’
among those services.
The Department’s interpretation of
‘‘directly’’ in Section 222(d)(3)(A) is that
there may not be an intervening
customer or supplier. The subject firm
provided services exclusively for Delta,
so Delta is the only direct recipient of
the services provided by the subject
worker group. SAR(II) 46. The services
supplied by the subject firm must be to
a firm that employs workers eligible to
apply for TAA on a primary
certification. Delta does not have a
worker group certified as eligible to
apply for TAA, SAR(II) 53, so subject
firm workers may not be certified under
the secondary worker provisions of the
statute.
Further, Section 222(c)(2) of the Act
does not permit secondary worker
certification unless the service provided
by the subject firm ‘‘is related to the
article or service that was the basis for
such certification [under Section 222(a)
of the Act].’’ This clause confirms
Department’s finding that it is not
necessary to survey Delta’s customers
because the articles or services those
customers produce or provide are not
related to the supply of airline customer
services that the subject firm provides.
Based on a careful review of both
previously-submitted information and
new information obtained during the
second remand investigation, the
Department reaffirms that the
petitioning workers have not met the
eligibility criteria of Section 222(c) of
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I affirm
the original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of Atlantic
Southeast Airlines, a Subsidiary of
Skywest, Inc., Airport Customer
Division, Fort Smith, Arkansas.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices
Signed at Washington, DC, January 18,
2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011–1617 Filed 1–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
[Docket No. OSHA–2011–0009]
Standard on Fire Brigades; Extension
of the Office of Management and
Budget’s (OMB) Approval of
Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Request for public comments.
AGENCY:
OSHA solicits public
comments concerning its proposal to
extend OMB approval of the
information collection requirements
specified in its Standard on Fire
Brigades (29 CFR 1910.156).
DATES: Comments must be submitted
(postmarked, sent, or received) by
March 28, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may
submit comments and attachments
electronically at https://www.regulations.
gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the instructions online
for submitting comments.
Facsimile: If your comments,
including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the
OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693–1648.
Mail, hand delivery, express mail,
messenger, or courier service: When
using this method, you must submit a
copy of your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA
Docket No. OSHA–2011–0009, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration,
Room N–2625, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail,
messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of
Labor’s and Docket Office’s normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.,
e.t.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the Information
Collection request (ICR) (OSHA–2011–
0009). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are
placed in the public docket without
change, and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:27 Jan 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
For further information on submitting
comments, see the ‘‘Public
Participation’’ heading in the section of
this notice titled ‘‘SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.’’
Docket: To read or download
comments or other material in the
docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov
or the OSHA Docket Office at the
address above. All documents in the
docket (including this Federal Register
notice) are listed in the https://www.
regulations.gov index; however, some
information (e.g., copyrighted material)
is not publicly available to read or
download through the Web site. All
submissions, including copyrighted
material, are available for inspection
and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of
the ICR.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Theda Kenney or Todd Owen,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance,
OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room
N–3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202)
693–2222.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Department of Labor, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork
and respondent (i.e., employer) burden,
conducts a preclearance consultation
program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed
and continuing information collection
requirements in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program
ensures that information is in the
desired format, reporting burden (time
and costs) is minimal, collection
instruments are clearly understood, and
OSHA’s estimate of the information
collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et
seq.) authorizes information collection
by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act
or for developing information regarding
the causes and prevention of
occupational injuries, illnesses, and
accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act
also requires that OSHA obtain such
information with minimum burden
upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to
reduce to the maximum extent feasible
unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
Paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), (c)(2),
and (c)(4) contain the paperwork
requirements of the Standard.
Under paragraph (b)(1) of the
Standard, employers must develop and
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4735
maintain an organizational statement
that establishes: the existence of a fire
brigade; the basic organizational
structure of the brigade; the type,
amount, and frequency of training
provided to brigade members; the
expected number of members in the
brigade; and the functions that the
brigade is to perform. This paragraph
also specifies that the organizational
statement must be available for review
by workers, their designated
representatives, and OSHA compliance
officers. The organizational statement
delineates the functions performed by
the brigade members and, therefore,
determines the level of training and type
of personal protective equipment (PPE)
necessary for these members to perform
their assigned functions safely. Making
the statement available to workers, their
designated representatives, and OSHA
compliance officers ensures that the
elements of the statement are consistent
with the functions performed by the
brigade members and the occupational
hazards they experience, and that
employers are providing training and
PPE appropriate to these functions and
hazards.
To permit a worker with known heart
disease, epilepsy, or emphysema to
participate in fire brigade emergency
activities, paragraph (b)(2) of the
Standard requires employers to obtain a
physician’s certificate of the worker’s
fitness to do so. This provision provides
employers with a direct and efficient
means of ascertaining whether or not
they can safely expose workers with
these medical conditions to the hazards
of firefighting operations.
Paragraph (c)(1) of the Standard
requires employers to provide training
and education for fire brigade members
commensurate with the duties and
functions they perform, with brigade
leaders and training instructors
receiving more comprehensive training
and education than employers provide
to the general membership. Under
paragraph (c)(2) of the Standard,
employers must conduct training and
education frequently enough, but at
least annually, to assure that brigade
members are able to perform their
assigned duties and functions
satisfactorily and safely; employers
must provide brigade members who
perform interior structural firefighting
with educational and training sessions
at least quarterly. In addition, paragraph
(c)(4) specifies that employers must:
Inform brigade members about special
hazards such as storage and use of
flammable liquids and gases, toxic
chemicals, radioactive sources, and
water-reactive substances that may be
present during fires and other
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4733-4735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1617]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-70,344]
Atlantic Southeast Airlines, a Subsidiary of Skywest, Inc.,
Airport Customer Service Division, Fort Smith, AR; Notice of Negative
Determination on Second Remand
On November 4, 2010, the United States Court of International Trade
(USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's second request for voluntary
remand to conduct further investigation in Former Employees of Atlantic
Southeast Airlines, a Subsidiary of Skywest, Inc., Airport Customer
Service Division v. United States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 09-
00522).
On September 28, 2009, the Department of Labor (Department) issued
a Negative Determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of
Atlantic Southeast Airlines, a Subsidiary of Skywest, Inc., Airport
Customer Division, Fort Smith, Arkansas (subject firm). AR 35. Workers
at the subject firm (subject worker group) provided airline customer
services. AR 4,8,14,37. The Department's Notice of determination was
published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2009 (74 FR 59251).
AR 48.
For the Department to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (the Act), 19
U.S.C. 2272(a), the following criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the Act,
19 U.S.C. 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant number or proportion
of the workers in the workers' firm must have become totally or
partially separated or be threatened with total or partial separation.
II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers' firm must have
decreased absolutely, and
(ii)(I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or supplied by the
workers' firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles into which the component part produced by the workers' firm
was directly incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles which are produced directly using the services supplied by the
workers' firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating component parts
not produced in the U.S. that are like or directly competitive with the
article into which the component part produced by the workers' firm was
directly incorporated have increased.
(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign
country in the production of articles or supply of services like or
directly competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm;
or
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country by the
workers' firm of articles/services that are like or directly
competitive with those produced/supplied by the workers' firm.
III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports or
shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the workers'
separation or threat of separation. See Sections 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and
222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii),
2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).
For the Department to issue a certification for adversely-affected
secondary workers under Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(c),
the following criteria must be met:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in the
workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become
totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or
partially separated;
(2) the workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to a
firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of
eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), and
such supply or production is related to the article or service that was
the basis for such certification; and
(3) either:
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it
supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least
20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the firm described
in
[[Page 4734]]
paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or
threat of separation.
Section 222(d)(3)(A) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(d)(3)(A), states
that a ``downstream producer means a firm that performs additional,
value-added production processes or services directly for another firm
for articles or services with respect to which a group of workers in
such other firm has been certified under subsection (a).'' Section
222(d)(3)(B) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(d)(3)(B), states that ``value-
added production processes or services include final assembly,
finishing, testing, packaging, or maintenance or transportation
services.''
The negative determination states that, although there was a
significant proportion or number of workers of the subject firm that
were separated, the remaining criteria of Section 222(a) and Section
222(c) of the Act were not met. AR 37. The negative determination
stated that the subject firm did not import like or directly
competitive services during the relevant period or shift these services
abroad. AR 38.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that
because the workers at the subject firm provided services to
individuals that are part of worker groups eligible to apply for TAA,
the workers at the subject firm should also be eligible for TAA as
``downstream producers.'' AR 42,43.
The Department issued a Notice of Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration applicable to workers of the subject
firm on November 5, 2009, based on the finding that the petitioner did
not provide new information. AR 44. The Department's Notice was
published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2009 (74 FR 64736). AR
54.
In the complaint to the USCIT, the Plaintiff asserted that workers
at the subject firm are eligible to apply for TAA as secondarily
affected workers, that the decline in travel in the Fort Smith,
Arkansas area is attributable to a reduction in the operations of firms
in the local area due to trade impact, and that this decline in travel
contributed to subject worker group separations.
First Remand Investigation
During the first remand investigation, the Department carefully
reviewed previously submitted information, obtained additional
information from the subject firm, and solicited input from the
Plaintiff.
In the course of the first remand investigation, the Plaintiff
provided information alleging that trade impact caused the layoffs in
the subject worker group. SAR 9.
The Department's findings on remand revealed that the subject
worker group provided airline customer services such as airline ground
handling, baggage, and ticketing, under contract exclusively for Delta
Air Lines (Delta). These services were provided to individual
passengers and the ticket purchases were made by individuals, travel
agencies, corporate accounts, and the United States military. SAR
3,19,21,27,29.
The information obtained by the Department to address the
allegation that the domestic merger between Delta and Northwest
Airlines demonstrates trade impact confirmed the Department's findings.
Subject worker group separations are attributable to Delta ceasing
operations with the subject firm at the Fort Smith, Arkansas location,
but the newly-merged airline maintained operations out of the Fort
Smith, Arkansas location using a different airline customer service
provider. Further, the services provided by the worker group cannot be
imported or shifted abroad as they are used directly by domestic
passengers. AR 17,24,25, SAR 3,19,21,27,29.
Based on careful consideration of all previously submitted
information and new facts obtained during the first remand
investigation, the Department determined that the subject worker group
did not meet the eligibility criteria of the Act and issued a Negative
Determination on Remand on September 3, 2010. SAR 34. The Notice of
determination was published in the Federal Register on September 21,
2010 (75 FR 57517). SAR(II) 1.
Second Remand Investigation
The Department requested, and was granted, a second voluntary
remand to obtain additional information to clarify the reason Delta
ceased using services supplied by the subject firm, to clarify
``directly'' for purposes related to Section 222(d)(3)(A), and to
determine whether the petitioning workers are eligible to apply for
TAA.
During the second remand investigation, the Department obtained
additional information from the subject firm, SAR(II) 6,8,44-48,
solicited input from the Plaintiff, SAR(II) 6,10-15, and obtained new
information from Delta regarding the reason that it ceased using
services supplied by the subject firm in its operations at the Fort
Smith airport. SAR(II) 7-9,29-42,50-52.
Information provided by Delta and the subject firm confirmed that
the subject firm failed to win a bid to continue to supply services at
the Fort Smith airport. When Delta and Northwest Airlines merged,
regional vendors were invited to submit bids to acquire ground handling
operations at the Fort Smith location. The subject firm had the same
opportunity to bid to win the contract to supply services at the Fort
Smith, Arkansas airport as other firms, but did not win the contract.
SAR(II) 46-48,51.
Section 222(d)(3)(A) of the Act requires that a ``downstream
producer'' perform ``additional, value-added production processes or
services directly for another firm for articles or services with
respect to which a group of workers in such other firm has been
certified under subsection (a) [of Section 222 of the Act].'' Section
222(d)(3)(B) includes ``transportation services'' among those services.
The Department's interpretation of ``directly'' in Section
222(d)(3)(A) is that there may not be an intervening customer or
supplier. The subject firm provided services exclusively for Delta, so
Delta is the only direct recipient of the services provided by the
subject worker group. SAR(II) 46. The services supplied by the subject
firm must be to a firm that employs workers eligible to apply for TAA
on a primary certification. Delta does not have a worker group
certified as eligible to apply for TAA, SAR(II) 53, so subject firm
workers may not be certified under the secondary worker provisions of
the statute.
Further, Section 222(c)(2) of the Act does not permit secondary
worker certification unless the service provided by the subject firm
``is related to the article or service that was the basis for such
certification [under Section 222(a) of the Act].'' This clause confirms
Department's finding that it is not necessary to survey Delta's
customers because the articles or services those customers produce or
provide are not related to the supply of airline customer services that
the subject firm provides.
Based on a careful review of both previously-submitted information
and new information obtained during the second remand investigation,
the Department reaffirms that the petitioning workers have not met the
eligibility criteria of Section 222(c) of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance for workers and former workers of Atlantic Southeast
Airlines, a Subsidiary of Skywest, Inc., Airport Customer Division,
Fort Smith, Arkansas.
[[Page 4735]]
Signed at Washington, DC, January 18, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-1617 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
