Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 57519 

subject firm, and not Delta Air Lines, 

paid the subject worker group. SAR 19, 

27. 

Issues on Remand 

The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint 

to the USCIT that the decline in travel 

in the Forth Smith, Arkansas area is 

attributable to a reduction in the 

operations of local firms that employed 

workers eligible to apply for TAA, and 

that this decline contributed to worker 

separations at the subject firm. 

Because there is no dispute that a 

significant proportion or number of 

workers of the subject firm was 

separated, the only issues for the 

Department to decide on remand are 

whether or not the remaining two 

criteria of Section 222(c) of the Act have 

been met. Specifically, the Department 

must determine whether or not the 

subject firm meets the requirements of 

a ‘‘downstream producer’’ under 

Sections 222(c) and (d) of the Act and, 

if so, whether or not the loss of business 

by the subject firm with a primary firm 

contributed importantly to the subject 

worker group separations or threat of 

separations. 

The investigations revealed that the 

services supplied by the subject firm 

were provided under contract 

exclusively for Delta Air Lines, AR 14, 

24–25, 27–28, 33–34, SAR 3, 19, 21, 27, 

but that the subject worker group 

worked for the subject firm and not for 

Delta Air Lines. SAR 19, 27. Delta Air 

Lines was the sole customer of the 

subject firm. SAR 3, 21, 27. The Fort 

Smith, Arkansas airport users such as 

leisure travelers, travel agencies, 

corporate accounts, and the military 

may have benefited from the services 

supplied by the subject firm, and one or 

more of these entities may have 

employed workers who are eligible to 

apply for TAA. However, workers and 

former workers of Delta Air Lines at Fort 

Smith, Arkansas airport are not eligible 

to apply for TAA. SAR 32–33. 

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 subject firm cannot meet the 

statutory definition of a ‘‘downstream 

producer’’ because it only directly 

provided services to Delta Air Lines (not 

for the customers of Delta Air Lines). 

SAR 3, 21, 27. The subject firm did not 

supply services directly related to the 

production or supply of an article or 

service that was a basis for a TAA 

certification. SAR 32–33. 

Moreover, 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].’’ Certification of a worker 

group under Section 222(c) of the Act 

may not be based on a secondary worker 

certification. Therefore, even if Delta Air 

Lines workers could be certified eligible 

to apply for TAA on the basis that Delta 

Air Lines provided transportation 

services related to the production or 

supply of an article or service that was 

a basis for a TAA certification of one or 

more of its customers, workers of the 

subject firm may not be certified as 

adversely affected secondary workers. 

The Plaintiff also alleged that the 

domestic merger between Delta Air 

Lines and Northwest Airlines shows 

trade impact that resulted in the worker 

group layoffs. 

The Department investigated this 

allegation during the remand 

investigation, and confirmed that 

worker separations at the subject firm 

are attributable to Delta Air Lines 

ceasing operations out of the Fort Smith, 

Arkansas airport. SAR 3, 19, 21, 27. 

However, the newly-merged airline 

maintained operations out of the Fort 

Smith, Arkansas location using a 

different airline customer service 

provider. SAR 3, 19, 21, 27. Further, 

those services provided by the subject 

firm cannot be imported or shifted 

abroad as they are used directly by 

domestic passengers. As such, 

conducting a survey of Delta Air Lines 

to determine whether it increased its 

imports of services like or directly 

competitive with those supplied by the 

subject firm (as requested by Plaintiff’s 

counsel) is not necessary. 

Based on a careful review of 

previously-submitted information and 

new information obtained during the 

remand investigation, the Department 

determines 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 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, including 

on-site leased workers of Delta Global 

Services, Inc., Fort Smith, Arkansas. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of 

September, 2010. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23497 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–72,673] 

Weather Shield Manufacturing, 

Medford, WI; Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration 

By application dated August 12, 2010, 

the petitioners requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

negative determination regarding 

eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers 

and former workers of Weather Shield 

Manufacturing, Inc., Medford, 

Wisconsin (subject firm). The negative 

determination was signed on July 16, 

2010. The Notice of determination was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 2, 2010 (75 FR 45163). The 

petitioning worker group provides 

administrative support services related 

to the production of doors and windows 

at various Weather Shield 

Manufacturing, Inc. facilities. 

Workers at Weather Shield 

Manufacturing, Inc., Medford, 

Wisconsin, who became totally or 

partially separated from employment on 

or after December 17, 2007 through 

August 9, 2012, are eligible to apply for 

TAA and alternative trade adjustment 

assistance under TA–W–64,725. 

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 mis-interpretation of facts or 

of the law justified reconsideration of 

the decision. 

The negative determination 

applicable to workers and former 

workers at the subject firm was based on 

the findings that the subject firm did 

not, during the period under 

investigation, shift to a foreign country 

services like or directly competitive 

with those supplied by the workers or 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
57520 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 21, 2010 / Notices 

acquire these services from a foreign 

country; that the workers’ separation, or 

threat of separation, was not related to 

any increase in imports of 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. 

Additionally, the Department 

surveyed the subject firm’s major 

declining customers regarding their 

purchases of doors and/or windows. 

The customer survey revealed that 

customer imports of articles like or 

directly competitive with those 

produced by the subject firm declined 

in the relevant time period, both in 

absolute terms and relative to the 

purchases of such articles from the 

subject firm. 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioner states that ‘‘Case number TA– 

W–72,673 is the same company and 

division as petition TA–64,725— 

Weather Shield Employees.’’ 

The petition date of TA–W–64,725 is 

December 17, 2008. The petition date of 

TA–W–72,673 is October 23, 2009. 

Because the investigation periods in the 

two cases are different, the findings in 

TA–W–64,725 cannot be used as the 

basis for a certification of TA–W– 

72,673. 

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 

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 10th day of 

September, 2010. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23502 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

[Notice (10–112)] 

NASA Advisory Council; Planetary 

Science Subcommittee; Supporting 

Research and Technology Working 

Group; 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 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

announces a meeting of the Supporting 

Research and Technology Working 

Group of the Planetary Science 

Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory 

Council. 

DATED: Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 9 

a.m.–3 p.m., Local Time. 

ADDRESSES: NASA Headquarters, 300 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC, Room 

1Q39 (9 a.m.–3 p.m. EST). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Michael New, Planetary Science 

Division, National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration Headquarters, 300 

E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20546, 

202/358–1766; 

michael.h.new@nasa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

agenda topics for the meeting will 

include: 

• Presentation of Working Group 

Process. 

• Discussion of Role of NASA HQ 

Program Officers. 

This meeting will be held in room 

1Q39 on the 1st floor of NASA 

Headquarters located at 300 E Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20546. All visitors 

will need to sign in and show valid 

government-issued picture 

identification such as driver’s license or 

passport to enter NASA Headquarters. 

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); employer/affiliation 

information (name of institution, 

address, country, telephone); title/ 

position of attendee. The meeting will 

also be available via teleconference and 

by Web Ex. Any interested person may 

call the USA toll free conference call 

number 877–915–2770, participant pass 

code 60186, to participate in this 

meeting by telephone. The Webex link 

is https://nasa.webex.com/, meeting 

number 991 907 278, and password 

R+AW0rk! (the fifth character is the 

number zero). For questions, please call 

Michael New at (202) 358–1766. 

Dated: September 14, 2010. 

P. Diane Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23437 Filed 9–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510–13–P 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION 

ADMINISTRATION 

SUNSHINE ACT; NOTICE OF AGENCY 

MEETING 

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday, 

September 24, 2010. 

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 

7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 

22314–3428. 

STATUS: Closed. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

1. Consideration of Supervisory 

Activities (7). Closed pursuant to 

exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii) and 9(B). 

RECESS: 11:30 a.m. 

TIME AND DATE: 2:30 p.m., Friday, 

September 24, 2010. 

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 

7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 

22314–3428. 

STATUS: Open. 

Matters To Be Considered 

1. Final Rule—Part 704 of NCUA’s 

Rules and Regulations, Corporate Credit 

Unions. 

2. Delegation of Authority, Corporate 

Credit Union Service Organizations. 

3. Board Briefing, Corporate Credit 

Unions’ Legacy Asset Plan Update. 

4. Interpretive Ruling and Policy 

Statement (IRPS) 10–2, Corporate 

Federal Credit Union Chartering 

Guidelines. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 

Telephone: 703–518–6304. 

Mary Rupp, 

Board Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23706 Filed 9–17–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES