Chapin Watermatics Incorporated, a Subsidiary of Jain Americas Incorporated, Watertown, NY; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 51842 [E7-17886]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
51842
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 11, 2007 / Notices
official on behalf of workers at Block
Corporation, American Trouser
Division, Tupelo, Mississippi.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC this 5th day of
September, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–17882 Filed 9–10–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–61,833]
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Chapin Watermatics Incorporated, a
Subsidiary of Jain Americas
Incorporated, Watertown, NY; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application of August 20, 2007, a
petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination regarding
eligibility for workers and former
workers of the subject firm to apply for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).
The denial notice was signed on July 30,
2007 and published in the Federal
Register on August 14, 2007 (72 FR
45451).
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 TAA petition, which was filed on
behalf of workers at Chapin Watermatics
Inc. a subsidiary of Jain Americas Inc.,
Watertown, New York engaged in the
production of irrigation systems, such as
drip irrigation tape, was denied based
on the findings that during the relevant
time period, the subject company did
not separate or threaten to separate a
significant number or proportion of
workers, as required by Section 222 of
the Trade Act of 1974.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:06 Sep 10, 2007
Jkt 211001
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner states that there were five
workers laid off from the subject firm
during the relevant time period.
For companies with a workforce of
over fifty workers, a significant
proportion of worker separations or
threatened separation is five percent.
Significant number or proportion of the
workers in a firm or appropriate
subdivision with a workforce of fewer
than 50 workers is at least three
workers. In determining whether there
were a significant proportion of workers
separated or threatened with separations
at the subject company during the
relevant time period, the Department
requested employment figures for the
subject firm for 2005, 2006, and January
through August, 2007. A careful review
of the information provided in the
initial investigation revealed that five
workers were laid off from the
administrative office at the subject firm
during the relevant time period.
However, overall employment at the
subject firm has increased from 2005 to
2006 and from January through August,
2007 when compared with the same
period in 2006.
Furthermore, a review of the initial
investigation also revealed that the
subject company sales and production
of drip irrigation tape increased from
2005 to 2006, and also increased during
January through June of 2007 when
compared with the same period in 2006,
and that the subject company did not
shift production abroad.
As employment levels, sales and
production at the subject facility did not
decline in the relevant period, and the
subject firm did not shift production to
a foreign country, criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A),
(a)(2)(B)(II.A), (a)(2)(A)(I.B), and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have 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 at Washington, DC, this 5th day of
September, 2007
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–17886 Filed 9–10–07; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Investigations Regarding Certifications
of Eligibility To Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance and Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Petitions have been filed with the
Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a)
of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and
are identified in the Appendix to this
notice. Upon receipt of these petitions,
the Director of the Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance, Employment
and Training Administration, has
instituted investigations pursuant to
Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the
investigations is to determine whether
the workers are eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Title II,
Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations
will further relate, as appropriate, to the
determination of the date on which total
or partial separations began or
threatened to begin and the subdivision
of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons
showing a substantial interest in the
subject matter of the investigations may
request a public hearing, provided such
request is filed in writing with the
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment
Assistance, at the address shown below,
not later than September 21, 2007.
Interested persons are invited to
submit written comments regarding the
subject matter of the investigations to
the Director, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance, at the address
shown below, not later than September
21, 2007.
The petitions filed in this case are
available for inspection at the Office of
the Director, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance, Employment
and Training Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room C–5311, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of
September 2007.
Ralph DiBattista,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\11SEN1.SGM
11SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 51842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17886]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-61,833]
Chapin Watermatics Incorporated, a Subsidiary of Jain Americas
Incorporated, Watertown, NY; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application of August 20, 2007, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The
denial notice was signed on July 30, 2007 and published in the Federal
Register on August 14, 2007 (72 FR 45451).
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 TAA petition, which was filed on behalf of workers at Chapin
Watermatics Inc. a subsidiary of Jain Americas Inc., Watertown, New
York engaged in the production of irrigation systems, such as drip
irrigation tape, was denied based on the findings that during the
relevant time period, the subject company did not separate or threaten
to separate a significant number or proportion of workers, as required
by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner states that
there were five workers laid off from the subject firm during the
relevant time period.
For companies with a workforce of over fifty workers, a significant
proportion of worker separations or threatened separation is five
percent. Significant number or proportion of the workers in a firm or
appropriate subdivision with a workforce of fewer than 50 workers is at
least three workers. In determining whether there were a significant
proportion of workers separated or threatened with separations at the
subject company during the relevant time period, the Department
requested employment figures for the subject firm for 2005, 2006, and
January through August, 2007. A careful review of the information
provided in the initial investigation revealed that five workers were
laid off from the administrative office at the subject firm during the
relevant time period. However, overall employment at the subject firm
has increased from 2005 to 2006 and from January through August, 2007
when compared with the same period in 2006.
Furthermore, a review of the initial investigation also revealed
that the subject company sales and production of drip irrigation tape
increased from 2005 to 2006, and also increased during January through
June of 2007 when compared with the same period in 2006, and that the
subject company did not shift production abroad.
As employment levels, sales and production at the subject facility
did not decline in the relevant period, and the subject firm did not
shift production to a foreign country, criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A),
(a)(2)(B)(II.A), (a)(2)(A)(I.B), and (a)(2)(B)(II.B) have 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 at Washington, DC, this 5th day of September, 2007
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-17886 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
