Paulstra CRC Sales Office, Novi, MI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 45476 [E8-17886]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
45476
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices
articles which are produced by such
firm or subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be
satisfied:
1. The country to which the workers’
firm has shifted production of the
articles is a party to a free trade
agreement with the United States; or
2. The country to which the workers’
firm has shifted production of the
articles is a beneficiary country under
the Andean Trade Preference Act,
African Growth and Opportunity Act, or
the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act; or
3. There has been or is likely to be an
increase in imports of articles that are
like or directly competitive with articles
which are or were produced by such
firm or subdivision.
The Union appears to assert that
because the Department identified in
the negative determination two criteria
that were not met, the Department
requires that, in order for a worker
group to be certified for TAA, both of
the aforementioned sections must be
met.
In determining whether a worker
group has met the criteria set forth in
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the
Department investigates whether the
worker group has met the criteria of
either Section (a)(2)(A) or Section
(a)(2)(B), not both. If the criteria of
either Section are met, the Department
will certify the worker group as eligible
to apply for TAA.
The Union asserts that it is unfair that
the Department considers only ‘‘United
Stated aggregate imports’’ because to do
so would discount the disproportionate
impact that imports have on a specific
region, such as the Eastern Seaboard.
Section (a)(2)(A)(C) requires that there
be a finding of increased imports. 29
CFR section 90.2 states that ‘‘increased
imports means that imports have
increased either absolutely or relatively
to domestic production compared to a
representative bade period.’’ As asserted
by the Union, imports did not increase
in 2007 compared to 2006. Absent a
finding of increased imports, the
Department cannot determine whether
or not increased imports contributed
importantly to subject firm sales and/or
production declines and worker
separations.
Section (a)(2)(B)(B) requires that there
‘‘has been’’ a shift of production. That
the requirement is in the past tense
means that the shift is an event in the
past and not in the future. Therefore, the
subject firm’s ‘‘possible shift or planned
shift’’ (if any) would not have been a
basis for TAA certification.
After careful review of the request for
reconsideration, the Department
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:19 Aug 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 28th day of
July 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–17884 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–63,287]
Paulstra CRC Sales Office, Novi, MI;
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application postmarked July 1,
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 19, 2008 and
published in the Federal Register on
June 3, 2008 (73 FR 31716).
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
Paulstra CRC, Sales Office, Novi,
Michigan 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 stated that the workers
of the subject firm were Customer
Service Representatives and that their
job duties directly supported production
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
at Paulstra CRC. The petitioner further
stated that the duties of a Customer
Service Representative were to input
orders, schedule delivery, customer
negotiations, price negotiations, etc. and
that ‘‘without these functions there
would not have been any production.’’
The petitioner alleged that because
other facilities of Paulstra CRC had been
certified eligible for TAA, workers of the
Sales Office who are engaged in sales
and customer support services should
be certified eligible for TAA.
A review of the initial investigation
confirmed that the workers of the
subject facility support production at
Paulstra CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
(TA–W–61,908) during the relevant
period. The above mentioned
production facility was certified eligible
for adjustment assistance on September
24, 2007.
However, the investigation also
revealed that only one worker was
separated from the Sales Office since
April 2007 and there was no threat of
future separations.
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. 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.
Therefore, the subject facility did not
meet the threshold of employment
declines and there was no threat of
separations during the relevant period.
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 28th day of
July 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–17886 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17886]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-63,287]
Paulstra CRC Sales Office, Novi, MI; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application postmarked July 1, 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 19, 2008 and
published in the Federal Register on June 3, 2008 (73 FR 31716).
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 Paulstra CRC, Sales Office, Novi, Michigan 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 stated that the workers of the subject firm were
Customer Service Representatives and that their job duties directly
supported production at Paulstra CRC. The petitioner further stated
that the duties of a Customer Service Representative were to input
orders, schedule delivery, customer negotiations, price negotiations,
etc. and that ``without these functions there would not have been any
production.'' The petitioner alleged that because other facilities of
Paulstra CRC had been certified eligible for TAA, workers of the Sales
Office who are engaged in sales and customer support services should be
certified eligible for TAA.
A review of the initial investigation confirmed that the workers of
the subject facility support production at Paulstra CRC, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, (TA-W-61,908) during the relevant period. The above mentioned
production facility was certified eligible for adjustment assistance on
September 24, 2007.
However, the investigation also revealed that only one worker was
separated from the Sales Office since April 2007 and there was no
threat of future separations.
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. 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.
Therefore, the subject facility did not meet the threshold of
employment declines and there was no threat of separations during the
relevant period.
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 28th day of July 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-17886 Filed 8-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
