[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 142 (Monday, July 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43564-43565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18185]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


TA-W-71,483, Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division, 
Houston, TX; TA-W-71,483A, Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations 
Division, Tampa, FL; TA-W-71,483B, Continental Airlines, Inc., 
Reservations Division, Salt Lake City, UT; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated May 10, 2010, the petitioners requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's determination 
regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), 
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The 
determination was signed on April 16, 2010. The Department's Notice of 
determination was published in the Federal Register on May 20, 2010 (75 
FR 28301).
    Workers of Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division are 
engaged in employment related to the supply of airline travel 
arrangement and reservation services.
    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 negative determination applicable to workers and former workers 
at Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division, Houston, Texas, 
Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division, Tampa, Florida, and 
Continental Airlines, Inc., Reservations Division, Salt Lake City, 
Utah, was based on the findings that the subject firm did not, during 
the period under investigation, shift to a foreign country the supply 
of airline travel arrangement and reservation services (or like or 
directly competitive services) or acquire from a foreign country the 
supply of airline travel arrangement and reservation services (or like 
or directly competitive services); that the workers' separation, or 
threat of separation, was not related to any increase in imports of the 
supply of airline travel arrangement and reservation services (or like 
or directly competitive services) or the shift/acquisition of the 
supply of airline travel arrangement and reservation services (or 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 afore-mentioned article or 
service.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner states that the 
workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA because the 
subject firm has shifted abroad the airline travel arrangement and 
reservation services provided by the workers. The petitioner also 
asserts that the subject firm has separated additional workers and more 
separations are anticipated at various locations throughout the United 
States. Additionally, the petitioner states that the subject firm 
facility in Denver, Colorado was not considered in the investigation.
    During the initial investigation, the Department obtained 
information that shows that the subject firm did not shift the supply 
of airline travel arrangement and reservation services to a foreign 
country and that the worker separations were due to the diminished need 
for such services due to increased use of technology (on-line self-
service reservations systems and electronic ticketing).
    Because workers are not eligible to file a petition for locations 
other than the one at which they are or were employed, the petitioner's 
assertion that the Department should have included the Denver, Colorado 
location in the determination is not a basis for reconsideration.
    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.

[[Page 43565]]

    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, D.C., this 15th day of July 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-18185 Filed 7-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P