Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, Anchorage, AK; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 19998 [E9-9937]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
19998
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–64,431]
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company,
Anchorage, AK; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated March 20, 2009,
a company official 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 January 26, 2009 and
published in the Federal Register on
February 23, 2009 (74 FR 8116).
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 initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination, which was
based on the finding that imports of
crude oil 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 crude oil nor
shift production of crude oil to a foreign
country during the 2006, 2007 and
January through October 2008 period.
The petitioner alleged that the subject
firm had to automate their 30 year old
manned facilities, in order to stay
competitive with lower cost foreign
crude oil production locations and
reduce costs.
The initial investigation, in fact,
revealed that automation of the facilities
and technological improvements were
the reason behind the worker
separations at the subject firm.
The petitioner also alleged that
foreign imports of crude oil have
increased from 2003 through 2008, thus
negatively impacting production of
crude oil at the subject firm.
In order to establish import impact,
the Department considers import
numbers for the relevant period (one
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
year prior to the date of the petition).
According to the data available from the
United States Department of Energy,
United States imports of crude oil have
been decreasing absolutely and
relatively to U.S. production of crude oil
from 2006 to 2007 and further decreased
from January through October 2008,
when compared with the corresponding
2007 period.
The petitioner further alleges that job
losses at the subject facility were also
attributable to a shift in production of
crude oil to foreign locations.
The investigation revealed that
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company,
Anchorage Pipeline Service Company
did not shift production of crude oil
from the subject facility to a foreign
country 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 14th day of
April 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–9937 Filed 4–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
PO 00000
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,067]
Crosible, Inc., U.S. Division, Including
Workers Whose Wages Are Reported
Under the Federal Employer
Identification Number for Madison
Filter Inc., Now Known as Clear Edge
Filtration, Moravia, NY; Amended
Certification Regarding Eligibility To
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26
U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the
Department of Labor issued a
Certification Regarding Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance on September
12, 2007, applicable to workers and
former workers of Crosible, Inc., U.S.
Division, Moravia, New York. The
notice was published in the Federal
Register on September 27, 2007 (72 FR
54939). The certification was amended
on February 9, 2009 to reflect the new
name of the subject firm, Clear Edge
Filtration. The notice was published in
the Federal Register on February 23,
2009 (74 FR 8110–8111).
At the request of the State agency, the
Department reviewed the certification
for workers of the subject firm. Workers
produce filters, made of fabric, used for
air and water filtration systems.
New information provided shows that
some of the workers at the subject firm
have their Unemployment Insurance
wages reported under the tax account
for Madison Filter Inc.
The intent of the Department’s
certification is to include all workers of
Crosible, Inc., who were adversely
affected by a shift of filter production to
Mexico. Consequently, the Department
is again amending the certification to
properly reflect this matter.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–62,067 is hereby issued as
follows:
‘‘All workers of Crosible, Inc., U.S.
Division, including workers whose wages are
reported under the Federal Employer
Identification Number for Madison Filter
Inc., now known as Clear Edge Filtration,
Moravia, New York, who became totally or
partially separated from employment on or
after August 27, 2006, through September 12,
2009, 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.’’
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 82 (Thursday, April 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 19998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9937]
[[Page 19998]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-64,431]
Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, Anchorage, AK; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated March 20, 2009, a company official 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 January 26, 2009 and published in the
Federal Register on February 23, 2009 (74 FR 8116).
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 initial investigation resulted in a negative determination,
which was based on the finding that imports of crude oil 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 crude oil nor shift production of crude oil to a
foreign country during the 2006, 2007 and January through October 2008
period.
The petitioner alleged that the subject firm had to automate their
30 year old manned facilities, in order to stay competitive with lower
cost foreign crude oil production locations and reduce costs.
The initial investigation, in fact, revealed that automation of the
facilities and technological improvements were the reason behind the
worker separations at the subject firm.
The petitioner also alleged that foreign imports of crude oil have
increased from 2003 through 2008, thus negatively impacting production
of crude oil at the subject firm.
In order to establish import impact, the Department considers
import numbers for the relevant period (one year prior to the date of
the petition). According to the data available from the United States
Department of Energy, United States imports of crude oil have been
decreasing absolutely and relatively to U.S. production of crude oil
from 2006 to 2007 and further decreased from January through October
2008, when compared with the corresponding 2007 period.
The petitioner further alleges that job losses at the subject
facility were also attributable to a shift in production of crude oil
to foreign locations.
The investigation revealed that Alyeska Pipeline Service Company,
Anchorage Pipeline Service Company did not shift production of crude
oil from the subject facility to a foreign country 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 14th day of April 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-9937 Filed 4-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
