Notice of Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs, 59171-59172 [2011-24439]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Notices
TAA (TA–W–74,823 through TA–W–
74,823G issued on November 22, 2010;
TA–W–75,165 issued on February 28,
2011; TA–W–74,396 through TA–W–
74,396C issued on December 29, 2010;
and TA–W–74,149 through TA–W–
74,149A issued on June 30, 2010).
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.
After the Act as amended in 2009
expired in February 2011, petitions for
TAA were instituted under the Act as
amended in 2002 (Trade Act of 2002).
Because the immediate petition was
instituted on August 5, 2011, the
applicable statute is the Trade Act of
2002.
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 2002
establishes the worker group eligibility
requirements. The requirements include
either ‘‘imports of articles like or
directly competitive with articles
produced by such firm or subdivision
have increased’’ or ‘‘a shift in
production by such workers’ firm or
subdivision to a foreign country of
articles like or directly competitive with
articles which are produced by such
firm or subdivision.’’
The request for reconsideration
asserts that workers separated at The
Hartford Financial Services, Inc.,
Hartford, Connecticut facility are similar
to workers covered by ‘‘other locations
of The Hartford Financial Services, Inc.
that have been approved.’’
The certifications for TA–W–74,823
and TA–W–75,165 were issued based on
the Department’s findings that the
workers’ firm supplied a service and
that the firm acquired these services
from a foreign country. The acquisition
of services that was the basis for
certification under the Act as amended
in 2009 cannot be the basis for
certification under the Trade Act of
2002 because the two statutes have
different worker group eligibility
criteria.
After careful review of the request for
reconsideration, previously submitted
materials, the applicable statute, and
relevant regulation, the Department
determines that there is no new
information, mistake in fact, or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Sep 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
misinterpretation of the facts or of the
law.
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 at Washington, DC, this 14th day of
September 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011–24470 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–80,147]
Travelers Insurance, a Subsidiary of
the Travelers Indemnity Company,
Personal Insurance Division, Account
Processing/Underwriting, Syracuse,
NY; Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application received July 18, 2011,
a worker requested administrative
reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers
and former workers of Travelers
Insurance, a subsidiary of Travelers
Insurance, a Subsidiary of The Travelers
Indemnity Company, Personal
Insurance Division, Account Processing/
Underwriting, Syracuse, New York
(subject firm).
The negative determination was
issued on June 29, 2011. The
Department’s Notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register
on July 29, 2011 (76 FR 43351). Workers
of the subject firm are engaged in
activities related to the supply of
account and underwriting processing
services for Traveler’s Insurance.
In the request for reconsideration, the
worker asserts that ‘‘we were under the
impression that our petition * * *
could be merged or added as a
supplemental to the Knoxville office
petition (#75232).’’
On August 31, 2011, the Department
issued an amended certification
applicable to workers and former
workers of The Travelers Indemnity
Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
The Travelers Companies, Inc., Personal
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59171
Insurance Division, Customer Sales and
Service Business Unit, Account
Processing/Underwriting Unit,
including teleworkers located
throughout the United States reporting
to, Syracuse, New York (TA–W–
75,232A). The Notice of amended
certification was published in the
Federal Register on September 14, 2011
(76 FR 56819).
The Department has reviewed the
application for reconsideration, the
afore-mentioned amended certification,
and the record, and has determined that
the petitioning worker group covered
under TA–W–80,147 is eligible to apply
for Trade Adjustment Assistance under
TA–W–75,232A. As such, the
Department determines that a
reconsideration investigation would
serve no purpose.
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 at Washington, DC this 15th day of
September, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011–24480 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION
BOARD
Notice of Opportunity To File Amicus
Briefs
AGENCY:
Merit Systems Protection
Board.
ACTION:
Notice.
Overview Information
Merit Systems Protection Board
(MSPB or Board) Provides Notice of
Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs in
the Matters of Corry B. McGriff v.
Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket
Number DC–0752–09–0816–I–1;
Alexander Buelna v. Department of
Homeland Security, MSPB Docket
Number DA–0752–09–0404–I–1; Joseph
Gargiulo v. Department of Homeland
Security, MSPB Docket Number SF–
0752–09–0370–I–1; and John Gaitan v.
Department of Homeland Security, DA–
0752–10–0202–I–1.
SUMMARY: These cases involve
employees who were required to have
security clearances and were
E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM
23SEN1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
59172
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185 / Friday, September 23, 2011 / Notices
indefinitely suspended from their
positions pending determinations
concerning whether their security
clearances should be revoked. The
Board has recognized that, under certain
circumstances, an agency may
indefinitely suspend an employee based
upon the suspension of access to
classified information or pending the
agency’s investigation regarding that
access, where the access is a condition
of employment. See, e.g., Gonzalez v.
Department of Homeland Security, 114
M.S.P.R. 318, ¶ 13 (2010); Jones v.
Department of the Navy, 48 M.S.P.R.
680, 682, 689, aff’d as modified on
recons., 51 M.S.P.R. 607 (1991), aff’d,
978 F.2d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On
appeal of such an action, the Board
lacks the authority to review the merits
of the agency’s decision to suspend an
employee’s access to classified material.
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484
U.S. 518, 530–31 (1988).
The Board may determine, however,
whether the agency afforded an
employee minimum due process with
respect to the employee’s
constitutionally protected property
interest in employment. See, e.g.,
Johnson v. Department of the Navy, 62
M.S.P.R. 487, 490–91 (1994); Kriner v.
Department of the Navy, 61 M.S.P.R.
526, 531–35 (1994). In Cleveland Board
of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S.
532, 546 (1985), the Court held that an
agency’s failure to provide a tenured
public employee with an opportunity to
present a response, either in person or
in writing, to an appealable agency
action that deprives him of his property
right in his employment constitutes an
abridgement of his constitutional right
to minimum due process of law, i.e.,
prior notice and an opportunity to
respond. In Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S.
924 (1997), the Court explained, in a
case involving the suspension of a state
employee, how its due process analysis
would apply to discipline short of
termination.
The Board may also review whether
the agency provided the employee with
the procedural protections set forth in 5
U.S.C. 7513 in taking an action. Egan,
484 U.S. at 530; see also Cheney v.
Department of Justice, 479 F.3d 1343,
1344–45 (Fed. Cir. 2007); King v. Alston,
75 F.3d 657, 661–63 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
The Board applies a harmful error
analysis in considering statutory
violations. See, e.g., Ward v. U.S. Postal
Service, 634 F.3d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir.
2011); Handy v. U.S. Postal Service, 754
F.3d 335, 337–38 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The cases thus present the following
legal issues: (1) Should the Board apply
the balancing test set forth in Homar,
520 U.S. 924, in determining whether an
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:41 Sep 22, 2011
Jkt 223001
agency violates an employee’s
constitutional right to due process in
indefinitely suspending him or her
pending a security clearance
determination; (2) If so, does that right
include the right to have a deciding
official who has the authority to change
the outcome of the proposed indefinite
suspension; (3) If the Board finds that an
agency did not violate an employee’s
constitutional right to due process in
this regard, how should the Board
analyze whether the agency committed
harmful procedural error in light of the
restrictions set forth in Egan, 484 U.S.
518, on the Board’s authority to analyze
the merits of an agency’s security
clearance determination.
Interested parties may submit amicus
briefs or other comments on these issues
no later than October 19, 2011. Amicus
briefs must be filed with the Clerk of the
Board. Briefs shall not exceed 30 pages
in length. The text shall be doublespaced, except for quotations and
footnotes, and the briefs shall be on 81⁄2
by 11 inch paper with one inch margins
on all four sides.
DATES: All briefs submitted in response
to this notice shall be filed with the
Clerk of the Board on or before October
19, 2011.
ADDRESSES: All briefs shall be captioned
with the names of the parties and
entitled ‘‘Amicus Brief.’’ Only one copy
of the brief need be submitted. Briefs
must be filed with the Office of the
Clerk of the Board, Merit Systems
Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20419.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Shannon, Merit Systems
Protection Board, Office of the Clerk of
the Board, 1615 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20419; (202) 653–7200;
mspb@mspb.gov.
William D. Spencer,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2011–24439 Filed 9–22–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400–01–P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice (11–083)]
NASA Advisory Council; Science
Committee; Astrophysics
Subcommittee; Meeting
AGENCY: National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public
Law 92–463, as amended, the National
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) announces a meeting of the
Astrophysics Subcommittee of the
NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This
Subcommittee reports to the Science
Committee of the NAC. The Meeting
will be held for the purpose of soliciting
from the scientific community and other
persons scientific and technical
information relevant to program
planning.
DATES: Wednesday, October 19, 2011,
8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Thursday,
October 20, 2011, 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
local time.
ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, 300 E
Street, SW., Rooms 9H40 and 7H45,
respectively, Washington, DC 20546.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Marian Norris, Science Mission
Directorate, NASA Headquarters,
Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–4452,
fax (202) 358–4118, or
mnorris@nasa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
meeting will be open to the public up
to the capacity of the room. This
meeting will also be available
telephonically and by WebEx. Any
interested person may call the USA toll
free conference call number 800–369–
2152, pass code APS, to participate in
this meeting by telephone. The WebEx
link is https://nasa.webex.com, meeting
number on October 19 is 998 444 941,
and password APS@October19201; the
meeting number on October 20 is 998
679 930, and password
APS@October20201. The agenda for the
meeting includes the following topics:
—Astrophysics Division Update.
—James Webb Space Telescope FollowUp.
—Wide Field Infrared Space Telescope,
Science Definition Team.
—Physics of the Cosmos/Cosmic
Origins/Exoplanet Program Analysis
Group.
It is imperative that the meeting be
held on these dates to accommodate the
scheduling priorities of the key
participants. Attendees will be
requested to sign a register and to
comply with NASA security
requirements, including the
presentation of a valid picture ID, before
receiving an access badge. Foreign
nationals attending this meeting will be
required to provide a copy of their
passport, visa, or green card in addition
to providing the following information
no less than 10 working days prior to
the meeting: full name; gender; date/
place of birth; citizenship; visa/green
card information (number, type,
expiration date); passport information
(number, country, expiration date);
E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM
23SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59171-59172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24439]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
Notice of Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs
AGENCY: Merit Systems Protection Board.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Overview Information
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) Provides Notice of
Opportunity To File Amicus Briefs in the Matters of Corry B. McGriff v.
Department of the Navy, MSPB Docket Number DC-0752-09-0816-I-1;
Alexander Buelna v. Department of Homeland Security, MSPB Docket Number
DA-0752-09-0404-I-1; Joseph Gargiulo v. Department of Homeland
Security, MSPB Docket Number SF-0752-09-0370-I-1; and John Gaitan v.
Department of Homeland Security, DA-0752-10-0202-I-1.
SUMMARY: These cases involve employees who were required to have
security clearances and were
[[Page 59172]]
indefinitely suspended from their positions pending determinations
concerning whether their security clearances should be revoked. The
Board has recognized that, under certain circumstances, an agency may
indefinitely suspend an employee based upon the suspension of access to
classified information or pending the agency's investigation regarding
that access, where the access is a condition of employment. See, e.g.,
Gonzalez v. Department of Homeland Security, 114 M.S.P.R. 318, ] 13
(2010); Jones v. Department of the Navy, 48 M.S.P.R. 680, 682, 689,
aff'd as modified on recons., 51 M.S.P.R. 607 (1991), aff'd, 978 F.2d
1223 (Fed. Cir. 1992). On appeal of such an action, the Board lacks the
authority to review the merits of the agency's decision to suspend an
employee's access to classified material. Department of the Navy v.
Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530-31 (1988).
The Board may determine, however, whether the agency afforded an
employee minimum due process with respect to the employee's
constitutionally protected property interest in employment. See, e.g.,
Johnson v. Department of the Navy, 62 M.S.P.R. 487, 490-91 (1994);
Kriner v. Department of the Navy, 61 M.S.P.R. 526, 531-35 (1994). In
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985),
the Court held that an agency's failure to provide a tenured public
employee with an opportunity to present a response, either in person or
in writing, to an appealable agency action that deprives him of his
property right in his employment constitutes an abridgement of his
constitutional right to minimum due process of law, i.e., prior notice
and an opportunity to respond. In Gilbert v. Homar, 520 U.S. 924
(1997), the Court explained, in a case involving the suspension of a
state employee, how its due process analysis would apply to discipline
short of termination.
The Board may also review whether the agency provided the employee
with the procedural protections set forth in 5 U.S.C. 7513 in taking an
action. Egan, 484 U.S. at 530; see also Cheney v. Department of
Justice, 479 F.3d 1343, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2007); King v. Alston, 75
F.3d 657, 661-63 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Board applies a harmful error
analysis in considering statutory violations. See, e.g., Ward v. U.S.
Postal Service, 634 F.3d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Handy v. U.S.
Postal Service, 754 F.3d 335, 337-38 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
The cases thus present the following legal issues: (1) Should the
Board apply the balancing test set forth in Homar, 520 U.S. 924, in
determining whether an agency violates an employee's constitutional
right to due process in indefinitely suspending him or her pending a
security clearance determination; (2) If so, does that right include
the right to have a deciding official who has the authority to change
the outcome of the proposed indefinite suspension; (3) If the Board
finds that an agency did not violate an employee's constitutional right
to due process in this regard, how should the Board analyze whether the
agency committed harmful procedural error in light of the restrictions
set forth in Egan, 484 U.S. 518, on the Board's authority to analyze
the merits of an agency's security clearance determination.
Interested parties may submit amicus briefs or other comments on
these issues no later than October 19, 2011. Amicus briefs must be
filed with the Clerk of the Board. Briefs shall not exceed 30 pages in
length. The text shall be double-spaced, except for quotations and
footnotes, and the briefs shall be on 8\1/2\ by 11 inch paper with one
inch margins on all four sides.
DATES: All briefs submitted in response to this notice shall be filed
with the Clerk of the Board on or before October 19, 2011.
ADDRESSES: All briefs shall be captioned with the names of the parties
and entitled ``Amicus Brief.'' Only one copy of the brief need be
submitted. Briefs must be filed with the Office of the Clerk of the
Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, 1615 M Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20419.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Shannon, Merit Systems
Protection Board, Office of the Clerk of the Board, 1615 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20419; (202) 653-7200; mspb@mspb.gov.
William D. Spencer,
Clerk of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2011-24439 Filed 9-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7400-01-P
