GAF Materials Corporation, Quakertown, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 34048 [E8-13405]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34048
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 116 / Monday, June 16, 2008 / Notices
Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of
June, 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–13402 Filed 6–13–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,832]
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
GAF Materials Corporation,
Quakertown, PA; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated May 5, 2008,
International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers, District 1
requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination regarding
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA),
applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The denial
notice was signed on March 26, 2008
and published in the Federal Register
on April 11, 2008 (73 FR 19900).
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 initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination was based on
the finding that imports of residential
roofing materials did not contribute
importantly to worker separations at the
subject facility and there was no shift of
production to a foreign country. The
subject firm did not import residential
roofing materials during the relevant
period. The ‘‘contributed importantly’’
test is generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers’ firm’s declining
domestic customers. A survey
conducted by the Department of Labor
revealed that major customers did not
purchase imported residential roofing
materials during 2006, 2007 and during
the January through February 2008
period.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:04 Jun 13, 2008
Jkt 214001
The petitioner indicates that ‘‘The
workers produced asphaltic roofing
materials and that the sales and
employment at the firm declined during
the relevant period.’’
Since the worker group was denied on
the fact that imports did not contribute
importantly to the layoffs at the subject
firm and no shift of production to a
foreign source occurred, the information
provided by the petitioner in the request
for reconsideration does not help to
satisfy the criteria necessary for
certification for TAA.
The request for reconsideration also
appears to address workers eligibility
for ATAA. The petitioner states that ‘‘a
significant number of employees at this
location are 50 or older and do not
possess skills that are easily
transferable.’’
In order for the Department to issue
a certification of eligibility to apply for
ATAA, the worker group must be
certified eligible to apply for trade
adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the
workers are denied eligibility to apply
for TAA, the workers cannot be certified
eligible for ATAA.
The Union 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 4th day of
June, 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–13405 Filed 6–13–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–63,254]
Teva Neuroscience, Inc., Global
Clinical Professional Resources
Group, Horsham, PA; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated May 26, 2008, a
petitioner 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 the subject firm.
The denial notice was signed on May 9,
2008 and published in the Federal
Register on May 22, 2008 (73 FR 29783).
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 TAA determination
issued by the Department for workers of
Teva Neuroscience, Inc., Global Clinical
Professional Resources Group, Horsham,
Pennsylvania, was based on the finding
that the worker group does not produce
an article within the meaning of Section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The petitioner states that Global
Clinical Professional Resource Group
(GCPRG) ‘‘belonged to the Innovative
Research and Development division,
which had no involvement in the
manufacturing process.’’ The petitioner
also stated that GCPRG was strictly
dealing with the clinical trials and with
the clinical data collected from the
American population. The petitioner
further infers that employment at the
subject firm was negatively impacted by
the outsourcing of some functions from
the subject facility to India.
The initial investigation revealed that
the workers of Teva Neuroscience, Inc.,
Global Clinical Professional Resources
Group, Horsham, Pennsylvania, are
engaged in operations in support of the
conduct of clinical trials of
pharmaceutical products manufactured
abroad, including database
management, clinical quality control,
and administration. These functions, as
E:\FR\FM\16JNN1.SGM
16JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 116 (Monday, June 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 34048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13405]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-62,832]
GAF Materials Corporation, Quakertown, PA; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated May 5, 2008, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District 1 requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), applicable to workers
and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on
March 26, 2008 and published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2008
(73 FR 19900).
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 initial investigation resulted in a negative determination was
based on the finding that imports of residential roofing materials did
not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject
facility and there was no shift of production to a foreign country. The
subject firm did not import residential roofing materials during the
relevant period. The ``contributed importantly'' test is generally
demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's declining domestic
customers. A survey conducted by the Department of Labor revealed that
major customers did not purchase imported residential roofing materials
during 2006, 2007 and during the January through February 2008 period.
The petitioner indicates that ``The workers produced asphaltic
roofing materials and that the sales and employment at the firm
declined during the relevant period.''
Since the worker group was denied on the fact that imports did not
contribute importantly to the layoffs at the subject firm and no shift
of production to a foreign source occurred, the information provided by
the petitioner in the request for reconsideration does not help to
satisfy the criteria necessary for certification for TAA.
The request for reconsideration also appears to address workers
eligibility for ATAA. The petitioner states that ``a significant number
of employees at this location are 50 or older and do not possess skills
that are easily transferable.''
In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility
to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be certified eligible to apply
for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible
for ATAA.
The Union 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 4th day of June, 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-13405 Filed 6-13-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
