American Airlines, a Subsidiary of AMR Corporation, Tulsa International Airport, Fleet Services Clerks, Tulsa, Oklahoma; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 28625-28626 [2013-11478]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 15, 2013 / Notices
section 201.8 of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
201.8). Section 201.8 and the
Commission’s Handbook on Filing
Procedures require that interested
parties file documents electronically on
or before the filing deadline and submit
eight (8) true paper copies by 12:00
noon eastern time on the next business
day. In the event that confidential
treatment of a document is requested,
interested parties must file, at the same
time as the eight (8) paper copies, at
least four (4) additional true paper
copies in which the confidential
information must be deleted (see the
following paragraph for further
information regarding confidential
business information). Persons with
questions regarding electronic filing
should contact the Secretary (202–205–
2000).
Any submissions that contain
confidential business information must
also conform to the requirements of
section 201.6 of the Commission’s Rules
of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules
requires that the cover of the document
and the individual pages be clearly
marked as to whether they are the
‘‘confidential’’ or ‘‘non-confidential’’
version, and that the confidential
business information be clearly
identified by means of brackets. All
written submissions, except for
confidential business information, will
be made available for inspection by
interested parties.
The Commission may include some or
all of the confidential business
information submitted in the course of
the investigations in the report it sends
to the USTR. The Commission will not
otherwise publish any confidential
business information in a manner that
would reveal the operations of the firm
supplying the information.
Issued: May 9, 2013.
By order of the Commission.
Lisa R. Barton,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2013–11503 Filed 5–14–13; 8:45 am]
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:16 May 14, 2013
Jkt 229001
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–82,289]
American Airlines, a Subsidiary of
AMR Corporation, Tulsa International
Airport, Fleet Services Clerks, Tulsa,
Oklahoma; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated April 1, 2013,
the State of Oklahoma Employment
Security Commission requested
administrative reconsideration of the
Department of Labor’s negative
determination regarding eligibility to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA), applicable to workers and former
workers of American Airlines, a
subsidiary of AMR Corporation, Tulsa
International Airport, Fleet Service
Clerks, Tulsa, Oklahoma. American
Airlines supplies air transportation
services. The subject worker group is
engaged in activities related to the
supply of cargo and baggage handling
services and servicing aircraft interiors.
The Department’s Notice of
determination was issued on March 5,
2013 and published in the Federal
Register on March 26, 2013 (78 FR
18370).
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 TAA petition, filed by three
workers, stated ‘‘aircraft maintenance
has been outsourced to China’’ and that
the fleet services clerks ‘‘cleaned aircraft
and did light maintenance items such as
upholstery, rugs, drafts, and other
items.’’
The negative determination was based
on the findings of the initial
investigation that revealed that
American Airlines did not import the
supply of services like or directly
competitive with the aircraft interior
maintenance services supplied by the
subject worker group. The Department
did not conduct a customer survey
because the aircraft interior
maintenance services supplied by the
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28625
Fleet Service Clerks are used internally
by American Airlines.
The investigation also revealed that
the subject worker group separations are
not attributable to a shift of aircraft
interior maintenance services to a
foreign country or to an acquisition of
such services from a foreign country by
the subject firm.
Further, the investigation revealed
that the subject firm is neither a
Supplier nor a 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).
Finally, the investigation revealed
that the group eligibility requirements
under Section 222(e) of the Act were not
satisfied because the workers’ firm has
not been publicly identified by name by
the International Trade Commission as
a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in an affirmative
finding of serious injury, market
disruption, or material injury, or threat
thereof.
The request for reconsideration states:
‘‘It is the belief of the employees that
their jobs were directly or indirectly
affected due to a shift in aircraft
maintenance/repair services which are
now being performed overseas. The
Fleet Service Clerks were responsible
for servicing aircraft interiors. Since
those aircraft are now receiving
maintenance overseas, the duty of
servicing the interiors of the affected
aircraft is no longer being conducted in
Tulsa.’’ The request for reconsideration
did not include documents in support of
the request.
The request for reconsideration did
not supply facts not previously
considered nor provided 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. Based on these findings,
the Department determines that 29 CFR
90.18(c) has not been met.
Conclusion
After careful 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.
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
28626
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 94 / Wednesday, May 15, 2013 / Notices
Signed in Washington, DC, this 29th day of
April, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013–11478 Filed 5–14–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–82,286]
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Oshkosh Defense, a Subsidiary of
Oshkosh Corporation, Including OnSite Leased Workers From
Acountemps, Advantage Federal
Resourcing, Aerotek, Cadre, Dyncorp
International, EDCI IT Services, LLC,
Landmark Staffing Resources, Inc.,
Larsen and Toubro Limited, MRI
Network/Manta Resources, Inc., Omni
Resources, Premier Temporary
Staffing, Retzlaff Parts and Repair,
Roman Engineering, Straight Shot
Express, Inc., Teksystems, and Labor
Ready, Oshkosh, Wisconsin; Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated March 15, 2013,
a representative of the United Auto
Workers (UAW), Local 578, requested
administrative reconsideration of the
negative determination regarding
workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
applicable to workers and former
workers of Oshkosh Defense, a
subsidiary of Oshkosh Corporation,
Oshkosh, Wisconsin (subject firm). The
negative determination was issued on
February 22, 2013. Workers at the
subject firm were engaged in activities
related to the production of military,
logistical, and tactical vehicles. The
workers are not separately identifiable
by article produced. The subject worker
group includes workers at various
facilities in Oshkosh, Wisconsin who
are engaged in production of, and
administrative functions in support of,
the articles produced by the subject
firm.
The subject worker group also
includes on-site leased workers from
Acountemps, Advantage Federal
Resourcing, Aerotek, Cadre, Dyncorp
International, EDCi IT Services, LLC,
Landmark Staffing Resources, Inc.,
Larsen and Toubro Limited, MRI
Network/Manta Resources, Inc., Omni
Resources, Premier Temporary Staffing,
Retzlaff Parts and Repair, Roman
Engineering, Straight Shot Express, Inc.,
Teksystems, and Labor Ready.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:16 May 14, 2013
Jkt 229001
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
Department’s findings that Oshkosh
Defense did not import, during the
relevant time period, components like
or directly competitive with those
produced by Oshkosh Defense or
finished products using foreignproduced component parts that are like
or directly competitive with those
manufactured by Oshkosh Defense.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of
the Act, the investigation revealed that
Oshkosh Defense did not shift the
production of military, logistical, and
tactical vehicles, or like or directly
competitive articles, to a foreign country
or acquire such articles from a foreign
country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of
the Act, the investigation revealed that
Oshkosh Defense is not 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).
Finally, the group eligibility
requirements under Section 222(e) of
the Act, have not been satisfied because
the workers’ firm has not been
publically identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a
member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in an affirmative
finding of serious injury, market
disruption, or material injury, or threat
thereof.
The request for reconsideration
alleges that the Department has issued
a determination for a worker group
other than the one identified by the
UAW in its petition. Specifically, the
UAW states that the subject firm is
Oshkosh Corporation and that UAW has
a collective bargaining agreement with
Oshkosh Corporation.
The request for reconsideration also
alleges that the Department has
misunderstood the articles produced at
the subject facility. Specifically, the
UAW states that the subject facility
produces articles for both military and
commercial use.
The request for reconsideration also
asserts that an article or a component
part for military use is like or directly
competitive with the same one for
commercial use.
In reviewing the administrative
record, the Department notes that the
subject firm in the petition is identified
as both Oshkosh Corporation and
Oshkosh Truck and that Exhibit A of the
petition is a Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (‘‘WARN’’)
letter from Oshkosh Defense.
The Department has carefully
reviewed the request for reconsideration
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and the existing record, and will
conduct further investigation to
properly identify the subject worker
group and to determine if the subject
worker group meets the eligibility
requirements of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended.
Conclusion
After careful review of the
application, I conclude that the claim is
of sufficient weight to justify
reconsideration of the U.S. Department
of Labor’s prior decision. The
application is, therefore, granted.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of
April, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013–11481 Filed 5–14–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–81,557; TA–W–81,557A; TA–W–
81,557B; TA–W–81,557C; ;TA–W–81,557D;
Ta–W–81,557e]
Te Connectivity, Industrial Division,
Middletown, Pennsylvania; Te
Connectivity, Corporate Shared
Services Group 100 & 200 Amp Drive,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Te
Connectivity Corporate Shared
Services Group, 3700 Reidsville Road,
Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Te
Connectivity, Corporate Shared
Services Group, 1187 Park Place,
Shakopee, Minnesota; Te Connectivity,
Corporate Shared Services Group, 250
Industrial Way, Eatontown, New
Jersey; Te Connectivity, Global
Headquarters, 1050 Westlakes Drive,
Berwyn, Pennsylvania; Amended
Certification Regarding Eligibility To
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), as
amended, and Section 246 of the Trade
Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as
amended, the Department of Labor
issued a Certification of Eligibility To
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance on June 22, 2012, applicable
to workers and former workers of TE
Connectivity, Industrial Division,
Middletown, Pennsylvania (TA–W–
81,557). The workers’ firm is engaged in
activities related to the production of
electrical connectors.
E:\FR\FM\15MYN1.SGM
15MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28625-28626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11478]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-82,289]
American Airlines, a Subsidiary of AMR Corporation, Tulsa
International Airport, Fleet Services Clerks, Tulsa, Oklahoma; Notice
of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated April 1, 2013, the State of Oklahoma
Employment Security Commission requested administrative reconsideration
of the Department of Labor's negative determination regarding
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable
to workers and former workers of American Airlines, a subsidiary of AMR
Corporation, Tulsa International Airport, Fleet Service Clerks, Tulsa,
Oklahoma. American Airlines supplies air transportation services. The
subject worker group is engaged in activities related to the supply of
cargo and baggage handling services and servicing aircraft interiors.
The Department's Notice of determination was issued on March 5, 2013
and published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2013 (78 FR 18370).
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 TAA petition, filed by three workers, stated ``aircraft
maintenance has been outsourced to China'' and that the fleet services
clerks ``cleaned aircraft and did light maintenance items such as
upholstery, rugs, drafts, and other items.''
The negative determination was based on the findings of the initial
investigation that revealed that American Airlines did not import the
supply of services like or directly competitive with the aircraft
interior maintenance services supplied by the subject worker group. The
Department did not conduct a customer survey because the aircraft
interior maintenance services supplied by the Fleet Service Clerks are
used internally by American Airlines.
The investigation also revealed that the subject worker group
separations are not attributable to a shift of aircraft interior
maintenance services to a foreign country or to an acquisition of such
services from a foreign country by the subject firm.
Further, the investigation revealed that the subject firm is
neither a Supplier nor a 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).
Finally, the investigation revealed that the group eligibility
requirements under Section 222(e) of the Act were not satisfied because
the workers' firm has not been publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in an affirmative finding of serious injury,
market disruption, or material injury, or threat thereof.
The request for reconsideration states: ``It is the belief of the
employees that their jobs were directly or indirectly affected due to a
shift in aircraft maintenance/repair services which are now being
performed overseas. The Fleet Service Clerks were responsible for
servicing aircraft interiors. Since those aircraft are now receiving
maintenance overseas, the duty of servicing the interiors of the
affected aircraft is no longer being conducted in Tulsa.'' The request
for reconsideration did not include documents in support of the
request.
The request for reconsideration did not supply facts not previously
considered nor provided 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. Based on these findings,
the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
Conclusion
After careful 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.
[[Page 28626]]
Signed in Washington, DC, this 29th day of April, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013-11478 Filed 5-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
