Onsite International Inc., El Paso, TX; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 57684-57685 [E8-23301]

Download as PDF 57684 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices [FR Doc. E8–23296 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of 3M Touch Systems, a subsidiary of 3M, Electro & Communications Division, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. [TA–W–63,640] 3M Touch Systems, a Subsidiary of 3M Electro & Communication Division, Milwaukee, WI; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of September, 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8–23302 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Employment and Training Administration On August 1, 2008, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2008 (73 FR 46920). The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that imports of touch screens for mobile phones did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. In the request for reconsideration the company official provided an additional list of customers who purchased touch screens from the subject firm. On reconsideration the Department of Labor surveyed these customers regarding their purchases of touch screens (including like or directly competitive products) during 2006, 2007, and January through June 2008 over the corresponding 2007 period. The survey revealed no imports of touch screens during the relevant period. The petitioner also stated that workers of the subject firm were previously certified eligible for TAA. The petitioner further states that if the subject firm ‘‘did not attempt to re-position the business and instead, close entirely in 2007, all the employees would have been eligible for TAA.’’ The petitioner seems to allege that because workers of the subject firm were previously certified eligible for TAA, the workers of the subject firm should be granted another TAA certification. When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively considers import impact during the relevant time period (from one year prior to the date of the petition). Therefore, events occurring before 2007 are outside of the relevant period and are not relevant in this investigation. Conclusion After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for VerDate Aug<31>2005 23:33 Oct 02, 2008 Jkt 217001 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–63,502] Onsite International Inc., El Paso, TX; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application of July 28, 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 July 7, 2008, and published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2008 (73 FR 43790). 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 petition for the workers of Onsite International, Inc., El Paso, Texas engaged in administrative functions was denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Act. The workers of Onsite International Inc., El Paso, Texas were previously certified eligible to apply for TAA under petition number TA–W–55,702, which expired on October 13, 2006. The investigation revealed that production at the subject firm ceased in 2006. The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its interpretation of work performed at the subject facility and further conveys that workers of the subject company ‘‘handled all aspects of shipping, receiving, repairing, repacking PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 of the garments’’. The petitioner further states that the subject firm produced articles in the last three years and workers of the subject firm were previously certified eligible for TAA based on a shift in production to Mexico. The petitioner seems to allege that because the petitioning workers were part of the initial certified worker group and remained employed by the subject firm after all the production stopped and beyond October 13, 2006, the current worker group, who are engaged in distribution of articles, should be also eligible for TAA. A company official of the subject firm verified that production of articles was shifted from the subject firm to Mexico in 2004 and that no production took place at the subject firm since 2006. The official further clarified that workers of the subject firm remained to end programs and dispose of the assets after all production ceased. The investigation revealed that the subject facility did not manufacture articles since January 2006, when production shifted to Mexico. Although a small amount of cutting continued until early 2007, workers of the subject firm were not engaged in production of an article or supporting production of the article during the relevant time period. Under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, certification of group eligibility to apply for TAA will be issued where a shift of production is the alleged basis for certification provided that (1) a significant number or proportion of the workers of such workers’ firm, or an appropriate subdivision, have been totally or partially separated or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; and (2) there has been a shift in production from the workers’ firm or subdivision to an eligible foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm or subdivision under section 222(a)(2)(B)(i); and, either the foreign country is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States under section 222(a)(2)(B)(ii)(I), is a beneficiary country under section 222(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II), or there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of like or directly competitive articles. The Department interprets the standard for certification as requiring that the shift of production of an article to a foreign country must be a cause of the separations of workers of the firm that were engaged in or supported the production of that article. That the subject workers were not separated, or threatened with separation, until January 31, 2008 (two E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Notices years after the subject firm’s shift of production of garments to Mexico) supports the Department’s findings that the subject workers’ employment with the subject firm was not dependent upon domestic production and that the subject firm’s shift of garment production to Mexico was not a factor in the subject workers’ separations. Therefore, the Department determines that the group eligibility to apply for benefits under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, has not been met. Further, the Department 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 19th day of September 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8–23301 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration 57685 Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–64,038] [TA–W–64,067] Hillerich and Bradsby Company, Ontario, CA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on September 17, 2008 in response to a petition filed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 986, on behalf of workers of Hillerich and Bradsby Company, Ontario, California. All workers of Hillerich and Bradsby Company, Louisville Slugger Division, Ontario, California, including on-site leased workers from Select Staffing, are covered by an existing certification, TA– W–63,983. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of September 2008. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8–23295 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] Phoenix Leather, Inc., Brockton, MA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on September 12, 2008, in response to a worker petition filed by former workers of Phoenix Leather, Inc., Brockton, Massachusetts. The petition was only filed by two workers, which does not meet the requirement of three workers necessary to file a petition. As a result, the petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of September 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8–23303 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR [Docket No. OSHA–2008–0037] Employment and Training Administration Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–63,960] [TA–W–64,071] Chase Home Finance, LLC, Division of JP Morgan & Co., Lexington, KY; Notice of Termination of Investigation Peoploungers, Inc., Mantachie, MS; Notice of Termination of Investigation mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on September 17, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed on behalf of workers of Chase Home Finance, LLC, a division of JP Morgan Chase & Co., Lexington, Kentucky. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on August 29, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Peoploungers, Inc., Mantachie, Mississippi. The petitioning group of workers is covered by an active certification (TA– W–62,583A, amended), which expires on September 23, 2010. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC, this 25th day of September 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8–23293 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] Signed at Washington, DC this 24th day of September 2008. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8–23294 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P VerDate Aug<31>2005 23:33 Oct 02, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 State Plans for the Development and Enforcement of State Standards; Extension of the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Approval of Information-Collection (Paperwork) Requirements Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor. ACTION: Request for public comment. AGENCY: SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its request for an extension of the information collection requirements associated with its regulations and program regarding State Plans for the development and enforcement of state standards (29 CFR 1902, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956). DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by December 2, 2008. ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments electronically at http:// www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting comments. E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM 03OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57684-57685]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23301]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,502]


Onsite International Inc., El Paso, TX; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of July 28, 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 July 7, 2008, and 
published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2008 (73 FR 43790).
    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 petition for the workers of Onsite International, Inc., El 
Paso, Texas engaged in administrative functions was denied because the 
petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning of 
Section 222 of the Act.
    The workers of Onsite International Inc., El Paso, Texas were 
previously certified eligible to apply for TAA under petition number 
TA-W-55,702, which expired on October 13, 2006. The investigation 
revealed that production at the subject firm ceased in 2006.
    The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its 
interpretation of work performed at the subject facility and further 
conveys that workers of the subject company ``handled all aspects of 
shipping, receiving, repairing, repacking of the garments''. The 
petitioner further states that the subject firm produced articles in 
the last three years and workers of the subject firm were previously 
certified eligible for TAA based on a shift in production to Mexico. 
The petitioner seems to allege that because the petitioning workers 
were part of the initial certified worker group and remained employed 
by the subject firm after all the production stopped and beyond October 
13, 2006, the current worker group, who are engaged in distribution of 
articles, should be also eligible for TAA.
    A company official of the subject firm verified that production of 
articles was shifted from the subject firm to Mexico in 2004 and that 
no production took place at the subject firm since 2006. The official 
further clarified that workers of the subject firm remained to end 
programs and dispose of the assets after all production ceased.
    The investigation revealed that the subject facility did not 
manufacture articles since January 2006, when production shifted to 
Mexico. Although a small amount of cutting continued until early 2007, 
workers of the subject firm were not engaged in production of an 
article or supporting production of the article during the relevant 
time period.
    Under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, certification of group 
eligibility to apply for TAA will be issued where a shift of production 
is the alleged basis for certification provided that (1) a significant 
number or proportion of the workers of such workers' firm, or an 
appropriate subdivision, have been totally or partially separated or 
are threatened to become totally or partially separated; and (2) there 
has been a shift in production from the workers' firm or subdivision to 
an eligible foreign country of articles like or directly competitive 
with those produced by the subject firm or subdivision under section 
222(a)(2)(B)(i); and, either the foreign country is a party to a free 
trade agreement with the United States under section 
222(a)(2)(B)(ii)(I), is a beneficiary country under section 
222(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II), or there has been or is likely to be an increase 
in imports of like or directly competitive articles. The Department 
interprets the standard for certification as requiring that the shift 
of production of an article to a foreign country must be a cause of the 
separations of workers of the firm that were engaged in or supported 
the production of that article.
    That the subject workers were not separated, or threatened with 
separation, until January 31, 2008 (two

[[Page 57685]]

years after the subject firm's shift of production of garments to 
Mexico) supports the Department's findings that the subject workers' 
employment with the subject firm was not dependent upon domestic 
production and that the subject firm's shift of garment production to 
Mexico was not a factor in the subject workers' separations. Therefore, 
the Department determines that the group eligibility to apply for 
benefits under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, has not been met.
    Further, the Department 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 19th day of September 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-23301 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P