Pine Island Sportswear, Ltd, Monroe, NC; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 4467 [E9-1495]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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]
[Page 4467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1495]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
