Pine Island Sportswear, Ltd, Monroe, NC; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 4467 [E9-1495]

Download as PDF 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