Anchor Glass Container Corporation, Zanesville Mould Division, Zanesville, OH; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 4466-4467 [E9-1491]

Download as PDF 4466 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices APPENDIX [TAA petitions instituted between 1/5/09 and 1/9/09] TA–W 64807 64808 64809 64810 64811 64812 64813 64814 64815 64816 64817 64818 64819 64820 64821 64822 64823 64824 64825 64826 64827 64828 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 64829 64830 64831 64832 64833 64834 64835 64836 64837 64838 64839 64840 64841 64842 64843 64844 64845 64846 64847 64848 64849 64850 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ Date of petition Location Versa Diecast, Inc. (State) ................................................... Fiskars Brands, Inc. (Comp) ................................................ S & B Industry Technologies, L.P. (Comp) .......................... Legere Group, Ltd. dba Legere Wooodworking (State) ....... Clayton Marcus Company—Plant 1—Bethlehem (Comp) ... LuK USA LLC (Comp) .......................................................... Gerber Scientific, Inc. (State) ............................................... PPM Technologies, Inc. (Wkrs) ............................................ Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (Union) ............................... Northwest Aluminum Specialties (USW) .............................. Boise, Inc. (AWPPW) ........................................................... Concept Packaging Group (Comp) ...................................... Teck-Washington, Inc. (Comp) ............................................. Tenneco Automotive (Comp) ............................................... Cone Jacquards, LLC—An ITG Company (Comp) .............. Pulaski Furniture Corporation (Wkrs) ................................... Martin Transportation Systems (Wkrs) ................................. IACNA (Wkrs) ....................................................................... Briggs-Shaffner Company (Comp) ....................................... Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc. (Comp) ..................... Thomasville Furniture Industries, Ind.—Plant E (Comp) ..... Thomasville Furniture Industries, Ind.—Upholstery 5 (Comp). Cooper Tire and Rubber Company (Comp) ......................... Philips Lumileds Lighting Company (Comp) ........................ ATC Panels, Inc. (Comp) ..................................................... Photronics (Comp) ................................................................ Carrier Corporation (SMWIA) ............................................... Regal Beloit (Wkrs) .............................................................. Logistics Services (Wkrs) ..................................................... Black Dot Group (Comp) ...................................................... Bill Blass International (UNITE) ............................................ Cosby National Swage (State) ............................................. Sony Technology Center-Pittsburgh (Comp) ....................... International Paper (AFLCIO) ............................................... MAR/TRON, Inc. (State) ....................................................... American & Efird, Nelson 02 Plant (Comp) ......................... TDK Components USA, Inc. (Comp) ................................... Coherent, Inc. (Comp) .......................................................... Reach Road Manufacturing (Wkrs) ...................................... Tracker Marine (Wkrs) .......................................................... Brunswick Family Boat Co., Inc. (State) .............................. Ozark Mountain Apparel—Monett (State) ............................ Ozark Mountain Apparel—Purdy (State) .............................. NCO Financial Systems (Wkrs) ........................................... New Hope, MN ..................... Wausau, WI .......................... Fort Worth, TX ...................... Avon, CT ............................... Hickory, NC ........................... Wooster, OH ......................... Tolland, CT ........................... Newberg, OR ........................ Port Allegany, PA .................. The Dalles, OR ..................... St. Helens, OR ...................... Griffin, GA ............................. Metaline Falls, WA ................ Evansville, IN ........................ Cliffside, NC .......................... Pulaski, VA ............................ Huber Heights, OH ............... Lebanon, VA ......................... Simpsonville, SC ................... Thomasville, NC .................... Thomasville, NC .................... Conover, NC ......................... 01/05/09 01/05/09 01/05/09 01/05/09 01/06/09 01/06/09 01/06/09 01/06/09 01/06/09 01/06/09 01/07/09 01/07/09 01/07/09 01/07/09 01/07/09 01/07/09 01/07/09 01/07/09 01/07/09 01/07/09 01/07/09 01/07/09 12/31/08 12/29/08 01/02/09 12/05/08 12/29/08 12/19/08 01/05/09 12/30/08 01/05/09 12/19/08 12/17/08 01/06/09 01/06/09 01/06/09 01/06/09 01/06/08 12/29/08 12/29/08 12/22/08 01/06/09 01/06/09 01/06/09 Albany, GA ............................ San Jose, CA ........................ Morrisville, NC ....................... Boise, ID ............................... Tyler, TX ............................... West Plains, MO ................... Dayton, OH ........................... Winter Park, FL ..................... New York, NY ....................... Jacksonville, AR .................... Mt. Pleasant, PA ................... Cleveland, TN ....................... Flippin, AR ............................ Lenoir, NC ............................. Peachtree City, GA ............... Auburn, CA ........................... Williamsport, PA .................... Bolivar, MO ........................... Cumberland, MD ................... Monett, MO ........................... Purdy, MO ............................. Horsham, PA ......................... 01/07/09 01/08/09 01/08/09 01/08/09 01/08/09 01/08/09 01/08/09 01/08/09 01/09/09 01/09/09 01/09/09 01/09/09 01/09/09 01/09/09 01/09/09 01/09/09 01/09/09 01/09/09 01/09/09 01/09/09 01/09/09 01/09/09 01/05/09 01/07/09 01/07/09 01/07/09 01/07/09 01/05/09 12/26/08 01/07/09 12/23/08 01/08/09 01/09/09 12/18/08 01/08/09 01/08/09 01/08/09 01/08/09 12/23/08 01/07/09 01/08/09 01/08/09 01/08/09 12/05/08 [FR Doc. E9–1493 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–64,208] Anchor Glass Container Corporation, Zanesville Mould Division, Zanesville, OH; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated December 29, 2008, United Steelworkers, Local 121 T requested administrative reconsideration of the Department’s VerDate Nov<24>2008 Date of institution Subject firm (petitioners) 17:20 Jan 23, 2009 Jkt 217001 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 November 21, 2008 and published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75136). 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 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 that resulted in a negative determination was based on the finding that imports of moulds and related glass container equipment 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 moulds and related glass container equipment during the relevant period. The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s declining E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices domestic customers. In this case the survey was not conducted because all moulds and related glass container equipment was used internally in the products of glassware. The subject firm did not have external customers in the relevant period and did not import moulds and related glass container equipment. The petitioner alleged that subject firm’s competitors import mould equipment, thus having an advantage over the subject firm in locating potential customers. The impact of competitors on the domestic firms is revealed in an investigation through customer surveys. In the case at hand, in the absence of the external customers, the Department solicited information from the internal customers of the subject firm to determine if customers purchased imported moulds and related glass container equipment. The information was intended to determine if competitor imports contributed importantly to layoffs at the subject firm. The investigation revealed no imports of moulds and related glass container equipment during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import moulds and related glass container equipment nor was there a shift in production from subject firm abroad during the relevant period. 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 9th day of January 2009. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–1491 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:20 Jan 23, 2009 Jkt 217001 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–64,338] Pine Island Sportswear, Ltd, Monroe, NC; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated January 7, 2009, a company official requested administrative reconsideration of the Department’s negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The denial notice was signed on December 2, 2008 and published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2008 (73 FR 77068). 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 TAA petition filed on behalf of workers at Pine Island Sportswear, Ltd., Monroe, North Carolina 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. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that workers of the subject firm were previously certified eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance. The petitioner further stated that even though production did not occur at the subject facility in the relevant period, workers of the subject firm ‘‘should not be denied the same rights as a production employee.’’ The petitioner appears to allege that because the subject firm once manufactured articles and was previously certified eligible for TAA, the workers of the subject firm should be granted another TAA certification. The workers of Pine Island Sportswear, Ltd., Monroe, North Carolina were previously certified eligible for TAA under petition numbers TA–W–58,714, which expired on January 31, 2008. The investigation PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 4467 revealed that production at the subject firm ceased in February 2006. When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively considers production during the relevant time period (from one year prior to the date of the petition). Therefore, events occurring in 2006 are outside of the relevant period and are not considered in this investigation. The investigation revealed that workers of the subject firm were engaged in work related to administrative and distribution during the relevant period. These functions, as described above, are not considered to be production of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. 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 at Washington, DC, this 14th day of January 2009. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–1495 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–63,976] Stauble Machine and Tool Co., Inc.: Louisville, KY; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration On December 10, 2008, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application on Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the Federal Register on December 18, 2008 (73 FR 77064). E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM 26JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4466-4467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1491]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,208]


Anchor Glass Container Corporation, Zanesville Mould Division, 
Zanesville, OH; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application 
for Reconsideration

    By application dated December 29, 2008, United Steelworkers, Local 
121 T 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 November 21, 2008 and published in the 
Federal Register on December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75136).
    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 that resulted in a negative determination 
was based on the finding that imports of moulds and related glass 
container equipment 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 moulds 
and related glass container equipment during the relevant period. The 
``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a 
survey of the workers' firm's declining

[[Page 4467]]

domestic customers. In this case the survey was not conducted because 
all moulds and related glass container equipment was used internally in 
the products of glassware. The subject firm did not have external 
customers in the relevant period and did not import moulds and related 
glass container equipment.
    The petitioner alleged that subject firm's competitors import mould 
equipment, thus having an advantage over the subject firm in locating 
potential customers.
    The impact of competitors on the domestic firms is revealed in an 
investigation through customer surveys. In the case at hand, in the 
absence of the external customers, the Department solicited information 
from the internal customers of the subject firm to determine if 
customers purchased imported moulds and related glass container 
equipment. The information was intended to determine if competitor 
imports contributed importantly to layoffs at the subject firm. The 
investigation revealed no imports of moulds and related glass container 
equipment during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import 
moulds and related glass container equipment nor was there a shift in 
production from subject firm abroad during the relevant period.
    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 9th day of January 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-1491 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P