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 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