Cassens Transport, Inc., Fenton, MO; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 72851 [E8-28359]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 231 / Monday, December 1, 2008 / Notices
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 October 28, 2008,
applicable to workers of JDS Uniphase,
including on-site leased workers of Job
Store Staffing Solutions, Louisville,
Colorado. The notice was published in
the Federal Register on November 13,
2008 (73 FR 67209).
At the request of the State agency, the
Department reviewed the certification
for workers of the subject firm. The
workers are engaged in the production
of optical transceivers.
New information shows that workers
leased from Spherion were employed
on-site at the Louisville, Colorado
location of JDS Uniphase. The
Department has determined that these
workers were sufficiently under the
control of JDS Uniphase to be
considered leased workers.
Based on these findings, the
Department is amending this
certification to include workers leased
from Spherion working on-site at the
Louisville, Colorado location of the
subject firm.
The intent of the Department’s
certification is to include all workers
employed at JDS Uniphase, Louisville,
Colorado who were adversely affected
by increased imports and a shift in
production of optical transceivers to
China.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–64,132 is hereby issued as
follows:
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
‘‘All workers of JDS Uniphase, including
on-leased workers of Job Store Staffing
Solutions and Spherion, Louisville,
Colorado, who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after
September 26, 2007, through October 28,
2010, are eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act
of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.’’
Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of
November 2008.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–28363 Filed 11–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:47 Nov 28, 2008
Jkt 217001
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–63,854]
Cassens Transport, Inc., Fenton, MO;
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application received on October
29, 2008, the petitioners 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 September 16,
2008 and published in the Federal
Register on October 3, 2008 (73 FR
57682).
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
Cassens Transport, Inc., Fenton,
Missouri 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 petitioners contend that the
Department erred in its interpretation of
work performed at the subject facility
and convey that even though the subject
firm provided services to the customer,
this customer relies on the subject firm
for ‘‘shipping/relocating newly
assembled vehicles’’ and ‘‘maintaining
correct shipping destinations.’’
The petitioners alleged that because
the subject firm provided services to a
customer who produces automobiles
and which might be import impacted;
workers of the subject firm should be
eligible for Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
The nature of the work involved is not
an issue in ascertaining whether the
petitioning workers are eligible for trade
adjustment assistance, but whether they
produced an article within the meaning
of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The fact that workers of the subject firm
performed services for customers, which
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
72851
produces articles, does not imply
production of an article within the
meaning of Section 222.
The investigation revealed that the
workers of Cassens Transport, Inc.,
Fenton, Missouri performed motor
vehicle transportation for an unaffiliated
firm and did not support production at
any affiliated facility. These functions,
as described above, are not considered
production of an article within the
meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act
of 1974.
The petitioners also reference case
TA–W–61,059 and state that because
workers in that case were certified
eligible for TAA, workers of the subject
firm should be certified eligible for
TAA. The review of the above
mentioned case revealed that workers of
CPC Local Cartage were employed onsite of the certified production facility.
In this case, however, workers of
Cassens Transport, Inc., Fenton,
Missouri are not employed on-site of a
certified production facility.
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 19th day of
November 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–28359 Filed 11–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 231 (Monday, December 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 72851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-28359]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-63,854]
Cassens Transport, Inc., Fenton, MO; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application received on October 29, 2008, the petitioners
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 September 16, 2008 and
published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2008 (73 FR 57682).
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 Cassens Transport, Inc., Fenton, Missouri 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 petitioners contend that the Department erred in its
interpretation of work performed at the subject facility and convey
that even though the subject firm provided services to the customer,
this customer relies on the subject firm for ``shipping/relocating
newly assembled vehicles'' and ``maintaining correct shipping
destinations.''
The petitioners alleged that because the subject firm provided
services to a customer who produces automobiles and which might be
import impacted; workers of the subject firm should be eligible for
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
The nature of the work involved is not an issue in ascertaining
whether the petitioning workers are eligible for trade adjustment
assistance, but whether they produced an article within the meaning of
section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. The fact that workers of the
subject firm performed services for customers, which produces articles,
does not imply production of an article within the meaning of Section
222.
The investigation revealed that the workers of Cassens Transport,
Inc., Fenton, Missouri performed motor vehicle transportation for an
unaffiliated firm and did not support production at any affiliated
facility. These functions, as described above, are not considered
production of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade
Act of 1974.
The petitioners also reference case TA-W-61,059 and state that
because workers in that case were certified eligible for TAA, workers
of the subject firm should be certified eligible for TAA. The review of
the above mentioned case revealed that workers of CPC Local Cartage
were employed on-site of the certified production facility. In this
case, however, workers of Cassens Transport, Inc., Fenton, Missouri are
not employed on-site of a certified production facility.
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 19th day of November 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-28359 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
