Schnadig Corporation, Montoursville, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 55253 [E7-19179]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 188 / Friday, September 28, 2007 / Notices
Signed at Washington, DC this 24th day of
September 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–19177 Filed 9–27–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,183]
Hartmann, Inc., Lebanon, TN; Notice of
Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, an investigation was
initiated on September 21, 2007 in
response to a worker petition filed by a
company official on behalf of workers at
Hartmann, Inc., Lebanon, Tennessee.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC this 24th day of
September, 2007.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–19176 Filed 9–27–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–61,852]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Schnadig Corporation, Montoursville,
PA; Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated September 3,
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
August 3, 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:12 Sep 27, 2007
Jkt 211001
(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 Schnadig
Corporation, Montoursville,
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 alleges that because he was a
part of the initially certified worker
group and remained employed by the
subject firm after all the production
stopped and beyond the expiration date
of the original TAA certification, he
should be also eligible for TAA.
The workers of the subject firm were
previously certified eligible for TAA
(TA–W–55,198). This certification
expired on July 15, 2006. The
investigation revealed that production at
the subject firm ceased in August of
2004.
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. The
subject firm did not separate or threaten
to separate a significant number of
proportion of workers as required by
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
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.
Moreover, in its investigation, the
Department considers production that
occurred one year prior to the date of
the petition as required in the Trade
Adjustment Assistance regulations.
Thus the period ending in 2004 is
outside of the relevant period as
established by the current petition date
of July 12, 2007. The investigation
revealed that the subject facility did not
manufacture articles since 2004 and
workers of the subject firm were not
engaged in production of an article or
supporting production of the article
during the relevant time period. The
Department further found that no new
information was provided to contradict
the original negative findings.
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
55253
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 21st day of
September, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–19179 Filed 9–27–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–61,864; TA–W–61,864C]
Syroco, Inc., Baldwinsville, NY,
Including an Employee Located in
Houston, TX; 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), 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 and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance on July 27, 2007, applicable
to workers of Syroco, Inc.,
Baldwinsville, New York. The notice
was published in the Federal Register
on August 9, 2007 (72 FR 44865).
At the request of the State agency, the
Department reviewed the certification
for workers of the subject firm. New
information shows that a worker
separation has occurred involving an
employee of the Baldwinsville, New
York facility of Syroco, Inc. located in
Houston, Texas. Mr. John Minnelli
provided sales support services for the
production of plastic patio furniture that
is produced at the Baldwinsville, New
York location of the subject firm.
Based on these findings, the
Department is amending this
certification to include an employee of
the Baldwinsville, New York facility of
Syroco, Inc., located in Houston, Texas.
The intent of the Department’s
certification is to include all workers of
Syroco, Inc., Baldwinsville, New York
who were adversely affected by
increased customer imports.
E:\FR\FM\28SEN1.SGM
28SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 188 (Friday, September 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 55253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-19179]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-61,852]
Schnadig Corporation, Montoursville, PA; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated September 3, 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 August 3, 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 Schnadig
Corporation, Montoursville, 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 alleges that
because he was a part of the initially certified worker group and
remained employed by the subject firm after all the production stopped
and beyond the expiration date of the original TAA certification, he
should be also eligible for TAA.
The workers of the subject firm were previously certified eligible
for TAA (TA-W-55,198). This certification expired on July 15, 2006. The
investigation revealed that production at the subject firm ceased in
August of 2004.
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. The
subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a significant
number of proportion of workers as required by Section 222 of the Trade
Act of 1974. 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.
Moreover, in its investigation, the Department considers production
that occurred one year prior to the date of the petition as required in
the Trade Adjustment Assistance regulations. Thus the period ending in
2004 is outside of the relevant period as established by the current
petition date of July 12, 2007. The investigation revealed that the
subject facility did not manufacture articles since 2004 and workers of
the subject firm were not engaged in production of an article or
supporting production of the article during the relevant time period.
The Department further found that no new information was provided to
contradict the original negative findings.
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 21st day of September, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-19179 Filed 9-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
