Westport Shipyard, Inc., Westport, WA; Westport Shipyard, Inc., Hoquiam, WA; Westport Shipyard, Inc., Port Angeles, WA; Westport Shipyard, Inc., La Conner, WA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 38049 [E9-18183]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Notices
worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of Weather
Shield Manufacturing, Inc., Corporate
Office, Medford, Wisconsin.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of
July 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–18182 Filed 7–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–65,770; TA–W–65,770A; TA–W–
65,770B; TA–W–65,770C]
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Westport Shipyard, Inc., Westport, WA;
Westport Shipyard, Inc., Hoquiam, WA;
Westport Shipyard, Inc., Port Angeles,
WA; Westport Shipyard, Inc., La
Conner, WA; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated June 12, 2009,
the petitioners 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 May 15, 2009 and
published in the Federal Register on
June 18, 2009 (74 FR 28961).
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 resulted in a
negative determination, which was
based on the finding that imports of
large motor yachts 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 large motor
yachts nor shift production of large
motor yachts to a foreign country during
the 2007, 2008 and January through
March 2009 period. Furthermore, the
investigation revealed that sales and
production of large motor yachts at the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:34 Jul 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
subject firm increased from January
through March, 2009 when compared
with the same period in 2008.
The petitioners alleged that the
customers of the subject firm, who are
individual buyers and not business
entities, can purchase ‘‘similar
products’’ in foreign countries. The
individuals can subsequently ship or
sail the yachts back to the United States
as a personal property, thus these
products are not considered imports. To
support their allegations, the petitioners
attached information about aggregate
imports, which reflects ports of
unlading of ‘‘yachts, row boats, canoes
and sailboats, with or without auxiliary
motor’’ for the state of Washington in
2006, 2007, 2008 and January 2009. This
data shows that aggregate imports into
the state of Washington of the above
mentioned products declined from 2006
to 2007, further declined from 2007 to
2008, and increased in January 2009
when compared with January 2008. The
petitioners seem to allege that these
increasing imports in January 2009
amounted to a significant amount
contributing importantly to the worker
separations at all Westport Shipyard
locations.
In order to establish import impact,
the Department solicits relevant
information from the subject firm,
customers of the subject firm and
analyzes available United States
aggregate data regarding imports of
products, including those like or
directly competitive with the products
manufactured by the subject firm for the
relevant period (one year prior to the
date of the petition). In the case at hand,
the customers were not surveyed, as
they are individuals and one-time
buyers. According to the data available
from the U.S. Department of Commerce
and the U.S. International Trade
Commission, United States imports of
motorized vessels and yachts have
declined from 2007 to 2008 and
decreased from January through April
2009, when compared with the
corresponding 2008 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38049
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
July 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–18183 Filed 7–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,613]
Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging,
Inc., Longview Mill, Formerly Longview
Fibre Company, Including On-Site
Leased Workers From Oregon Electric
and J.H. Kelly, Longview, WA;
Amended Notice of Revised
Determination on Reconsideration
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 Notice of
Revised Determination on
Reconsideration on April 16, 2008. The
notice was published in the Federal
Register on April 23, 2008 (73 FR
21992–21993).
At the request of the State agency, the
Department reviewed the Notice of
Revised Determination on
Reconsideration for workers of the
subject firm. The workers are engaged in
the production of kraft paper.
New information shows that workers
leased workers from Oregon Electric and
J.H. Kelly were employed on-site at the
Longview, Washington location of
Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging,
Inc., Longview Mill, Formerly Longview
Fibre Company. The Department has
determined that these workers were
sufficiently under the control of
Longview Fibre Paper and Packaging,
Inc., Longview Mill, Formerly Longview
Fibre Company to be considered leased
workers.
Based on these findings, the
Department is amending this revised
determination to include workers leased
from Oregon Electric and J.H. Kelly
working on-site at the Longview,
Washington location of the subject firm.
E:\FR\FM\30JYN1.SGM
30JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 145 (Thursday, July 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 38049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18183]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-65,770; TA-W-65,770A; TA-W-65,770B; TA-W-65,770C]
Westport Shipyard, Inc., Westport, WA; Westport Shipyard, Inc.,
Hoquiam, WA; Westport Shipyard, Inc., Port Angeles, WA; Westport
Shipyard, Inc., La Conner, WA; Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated June 12, 2009, the petitioners 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 May 15, 2009 and published in the Federal
Register on June 18, 2009 (74 FR 28961).
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 resulted in a negative determination,
which was based on the finding that imports of large motor yachts 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 large motor yachts nor shift production of
large motor yachts to a foreign country during the 2007, 2008 and
January through March 2009 period. Furthermore, the investigation
revealed that sales and production of large motor yachts at the subject
firm increased from January through March, 2009 when compared with the
same period in 2008.
The petitioners alleged that the customers of the subject firm, who
are individual buyers and not business entities, can purchase ``similar
products'' in foreign countries. The individuals can subsequently ship
or sail the yachts back to the United States as a personal property,
thus these products are not considered imports. To support their
allegations, the petitioners attached information about aggregate
imports, which reflects ports of unlading of ``yachts, row boats,
canoes and sailboats, with or without auxiliary motor'' for the state
of Washington in 2006, 2007, 2008 and January 2009. This data shows
that aggregate imports into the state of Washington of the above
mentioned products declined from 2006 to 2007, further declined from
2007 to 2008, and increased in January 2009 when compared with January
2008. The petitioners seem to allege that these increasing imports in
January 2009 amounted to a significant amount contributing importantly
to the worker separations at all Westport Shipyard locations.
In order to establish import impact, the Department solicits
relevant information from the subject firm, customers of the subject
firm and analyzes available United States aggregate data regarding
imports of products, including those like or directly competitive with
the products manufactured by the subject firm for the relevant period
(one year prior to the date of the petition). In the case at hand, the
customers were not surveyed, as they are individuals and one-time
buyers. According to the data available from the U.S. Department of
Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission, United States
imports of motorized vessels and yachts have declined from 2007 to 2008
and decreased from January through April 2009, when compared with the
corresponding 2008 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 July 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-18183 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
