Bernhardt Furniture Company, Bernhardt Central Warehouse, Lenoir, NC; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 46040 [E8-18169]

Download as PDF 46040 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 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 Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc., Upholstery Plant 9, Hickory, North Carolina engaged in the production of upholstered furniture, was denied based on the findings that sales and production of upholstered furniture at the subject firm did not decrease from 2006 to 2007, and during the period of January through May 2008 when compared to the same period in 2007. Furthermore, there was no shift in production from the subject firm to a foreign country during the relevant period. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that in order to reveal the negative trend in sales and production, the Department should investigate the time period prior to 2006 and compare current data with 2005. To support his allegation, the petitioner attached financial information for sister plants from 2004, 2005 and 2006. The information was submitted to the Department in previous investigations, which led to certifications of those facilities. The petitioner seems to allege that because those facilities were previously certified eligible for TAA, the workers of the subject firm should be also eligible for TAA. When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively considers employment, production and sales during the relevant time period (one year prior to the date of the petition). Therefore, events occurring in 2005 are outside of the relevant time period and are not relevant in this investigation. 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 any changing conditions. 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:49 Aug 06, 2008 Jkt 214001 Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied. Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of July, 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8–18171 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–63,420A] Bernhardt Furniture Company, Bernhardt Central Warehouse, Lenoir, NC; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated July 17, 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 June 13, 2008 and published in the Federal Register on June 27, 2008 (73 FR 36576). 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 misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The negative TAA determination issued by the Department for workers of Bernhardt Furniture Company, Bernhardt Central Warehouse, Lenoir, North Carolina was based on the finding that the subject firm 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. The petitioner states that the workers of the subject firm warehouse and sell products exclusively manufactured by Bernhardt in China. The petitioner further states that the exported products from China have poor quality and require longer delivery periods. As a result, customers of the subject firm choose to purchase furniture manufactured in the United States, thus negatively impacting business at the PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 subject firm. The petitioner seems to allege that because Chinese products are less competitive than American-made, workers of the subject firm, who distribute foreign-made products should be eligible for TAA. To establish workers’ eligibility for TAA, the Department determines whether increased imports of foreign manufactured products negatively impact domestic production of those products. In this case, however, the workers state that imports of upholstered furniture from China do not have an impact on domestic production of upholstered furniture. Moreover, the petitioner states that domestic customers actually prefer buying domestic products. Therefore, based on worker allegations, foreign imports cannot negatively impact domestic production of upholstered furniture. The petitioner 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 1st day of August 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8–18169 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration TA–W–63,164 SB Acquisition, LLC, d/b/a Saunders Brothers, Fryeburg, ME; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 9, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed by the Maine State Workforce E:\FR\FM\07AUN1.SGM 07AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 153 (Thursday, August 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18169]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,420A]


Bernhardt Furniture Company, Bernhardt Central Warehouse, Lenoir, 
NC; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application dated July 17, 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 June 13, 2008 and 
published in the Federal Register on June 27, 2008 (73 FR 36576).
    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 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The negative TAA determination issued by the Department for workers 
of Bernhardt Furniture Company, Bernhardt Central Warehouse, Lenoir, 
North Carolina was based on the finding that the subject firm 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.
    The petitioner states that the workers of the subject firm 
warehouse and sell products exclusively manufactured by Bernhardt in 
China. The petitioner further states that the exported products from 
China have poor quality and require longer delivery periods. As a 
result, customers of the subject firm choose to purchase furniture 
manufactured in the United States, thus negatively impacting business 
at the subject firm. The petitioner seems to allege that because 
Chinese products are less competitive than American-made, workers of 
the subject firm, who distribute foreign-made products should be 
eligible for TAA.
    To establish workers' eligibility for TAA, the Department 
determines whether increased imports of foreign manufactured products 
negatively impact domestic production of those products. In this case, 
however, the workers state that imports of upholstered furniture from 
China do not have an impact on domestic production of upholstered 
furniture. Moreover, the petitioner states that domestic customers 
actually prefer buying domestic products. Therefore, based on worker 
allegations, foreign imports cannot negatively impact domestic 
production of upholstered furniture.
    The petitioner 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 1st day of August 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-18169 Filed 8-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P