Gilmour Manufacturing Company, A Subsidiary of Robert Bosch Tool Company, Somerset, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 54937 [E7-19028]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 187 / Thursday, September 27, 2007 / Notices
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
to handle controlled substances,’’ ALJ
Dec. at 3, the ALJ reasoned that if
Respondent were to prescribe or
dispense a drug, he ‘‘would violate the
terms of the [State] Order.’’ Id. at 4. The
ALJ thus concluded that Respondent
‘‘does not have state authority to
prescribe or dispense controlled
substances, and he is not entitled to
maintain his DEA registration.’’ Id. The
ALJ thus recommended that
Respondent’s registration be revoked.
Id. at 5.
On June 4, 2007, the ALJ forwarded
the record to me for final agency
action.1 At the outset, I note that neither
the Show Cause Order nor the record
establishes the status of Respondent’s
registration and whether there is a
pending application for renewal. I
therefore take official notice of the
registration records of this Agency.
According to those records,
Respondent’s registration expired on
May 31, 2007, and Respondent did not
file a renewal application. I therefore
find that Respondent is not currently
registered with this Agency.2
Under DEA precedent, ‘‘if a registrant
has not submitted a timely renewal
application prior to the expiration date,
then the registration expires and there is
nothing to revoke.’’ Ronald J. Riegel, 63
FR 67132, 67133 (1998). Moreover,
while I have recognized a limited
exception to this rule in cases which
commence with the issuance of an
immediate suspension order because of
the collateral consequences which may
attach with the issuance of such a
suspension, see William R. Lockridge,
71 FR 77791, 77797 (2006), here, no
such order has been issued. Because
there is neither an existing registration
nor an application to act upon, and
there is no suspension order to review,
this case is now moot.
1 On May 25, 2007, Respondent filed exceptions
to the ALJ’s decision. On the same day, the
Government moved to strike the exceptions as outof-time; on June 1, 2007, the ALJ granted the
Government’s motion but announced that she
would forward Respondent’s exceptions and the
Government’s motion to me with the record. In light
of the disposition of this case, I conclude that there
is no need to decide any issue related to
Respondent’s exceptions.
2 Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
an agency ‘‘may take official notice of facts at any
stage in a proceeding-even in the final decision.’’
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney General’s Manual on
the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm.
W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). In accordance
with the APA and DEA’s regulations, Respondent
is ‘‘entitled on timely request, to an opportunity to
show to the contrary.’’ 5 U.S.C. 556(e); see also 21
CFR 1316.59(e). Respondent can dispute these facts
by filing a properly supported motion for
reconsideration within fifteen days of service of this
order, which shall begin on the date this order is
mailed.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:40 Sep 26, 2007
Jkt 211001
54937
Gilmour Manufacturing Company, A
Subsidiary of Robert Bosch Tool
Company, Somerset, PA; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application of August 29, 2007, a
company official 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 31, 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 Gilmour
Manufacturing Company, a subsidiary
of Robert Bosch Tool Corporation,
Somerset, Pennsylvania engaged in the
production of lawn and garden
products, 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 ‘‘even though there
are no layoffs planned, there is a strong
possibility’’ that the employment at the
subject firm will decrease in the future.
The workers of the subject firm were
previously certified eligible for TAA
(TA–W–57,492). This certification
expired on July 18, 2007.
When assessing eligibility for TAA,
the Department exclusively considers
the relevant employment data (for one
year prior to the date of the petition and
any imminent layoffs) for the facility
where the petitioning worker group was
employed. In this case, the employment
since the expiration of the previous
certification was considered. As
employment levels at the subject facility
increased during the relevant time
period and there was no threat of
separations during the relevant period,
criterion (1) Has not been met.
Significant number or proportion of the
workers in a firm or appropriate
subdivision means at least three workers
in a workforce of fewer than 50 workers,
five percent of the workers in a
workforce of over 50 workers, or at least
50 workers.
Although further layoffs are
anticipated in the future, those layoffs
are beyond the relevant period of this
investigation. As employment levels 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.
Should conditions change in the
future, the company is encouraged to
file a new petition on behalf of the
worker group which will encompass an
investigative period that will include
these changing conditions.
Conclusion
Order
Pursuant to the authority vested in me
by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well
as 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, I hereby
order that the Order to Show Cause be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
Dated: September 19, 2007.
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7–19044 Filed 9–26–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–61,773]
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 12th day of
September, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–19028 Filed 9–26–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
E:\FR\FM\27SEN1.SGM
27SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 187 (Thursday, September 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 54937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-19028]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-61,773]
Gilmour Manufacturing Company, A Subsidiary of Robert Bosch Tool
Company, Somerset, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application of August 29, 2007, a company official 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 31, 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 Gilmour
Manufacturing Company, a subsidiary of Robert Bosch Tool Corporation,
Somerset, Pennsylvania engaged in the production of lawn and garden
products, 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
``even though there are no layoffs planned, there is a strong
possibility'' that the employment at the subject firm will decrease in
the future.
The workers of the subject firm were previously certified eligible
for TAA (TA-W-57,492). This certification expired on July 18, 2007.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively
considers the relevant employment data (for one year prior to the date
of the petition and any imminent layoffs) for the facility where the
petitioning worker group was employed. In this case, the employment
since the expiration of the previous certification was considered. As
employment levels at the subject facility increased during the relevant
time period and there was no threat of separations during the relevant
period, criterion (1) Has not been met. Significant number or
proportion of the workers in a firm or appropriate subdivision means at
least three workers in a workforce of fewer than 50 workers, five
percent of the workers in a workforce of over 50 workers, or at least
50 workers.
Although further layoffs are anticipated in the future, those
layoffs are beyond the relevant period of this investigation. As
employment levels 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.
Should conditions change in the future, the company is encouraged
to file a new petition on behalf of the worker group which will
encompass an investigative period that will include these changing
conditions.
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 12th day of September, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-19028 Filed 9-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
