Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc., a Subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corporation, New Castle, DE; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 51182 [E9-23910]
Download as PDF
51182
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 191 / Monday, October 5, 2009 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–70,089]
cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc., a
Subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum
Corporation, New Castle, DE; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated August 19, 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). The denial notice was signed on
July 24, 2009 and published in the
Federal Register on September 2, 2009
(74 FR 45478).
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 Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc.,
a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum
Corporation, New Castle, Delaware was
based on the finding that imports of
services like or directly competitive
with services provided by workers of
the subject firm did not contribute to
worker separations at the subject firm
during the relevant period. The
investigation revealed that workers of
the subject firm were engaged in
refining facility’s water, removing
sludge from machines, repairing the
building’s electrical system, distributing
the anhydrous potassium hydroxide and
closing the facility. The subject firm did
not import nor acquire services from a
foreign country and also did not shift
the provision of these services to a
foreign country.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner stated that workers of the
subject firm were previously certified
eligible for TAA based on increased
imports of chlorine. The petitioner
further stated that even though
production of chlorine did not occur at
the subject facility in the relevant
period, workers of the subject firm were
retained by the subject firm to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Oct 02, 2009
Jkt 220001
effectively close the plant. The
petitioner appears to allege that because
workers of the subject firm were
previously certified eligible for TAA
and the workers of the current petition
were the part of that worker group but
stayed employed beyond the expiration
date of the previous certification, the
workers of the subject firm should be
granted another TAA certification.
The workers of Glenn Springs
Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, New
Castle, Delaware were previously
certified eligible for TAA under petition
numbers TA–W–58,508, which expired
on January 12, 2008. The investigation
revealed that at that time workers of the
subject firm were engaged in production
of chlorine and the employment
declines at the subject facility were
attributed to increased imports of
chlorine. However, the current
investigation revealed that production
of chlorine at the subject firm ceased
during November 2007.
When assessing eligibility for TAA,
the Department exclusively considers
worker activities during the relevant
time period (from one year prior to the
date of the petition). Therefore, events
occurring in 2007 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 refining facility’s water,
removing sludge from machines,
repairing the building’s electrical
system, distributing the anhydrous
potassium hydroxide and closing the
facility during the relevant period.
These functions, as described above,
were not imported, or shifted abroad nor
were the service acquired from a foreign
country during the relevant period.
Therefore, criteria II.A. and II.B. of
Section 222(a) of the Act were not met.
Furthermore, with the respect to Section
222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criterion 2 was not met
because the workers did not supply a
service that was used by a firm with
TAA-certified workers in the production
of an article or supply of a service that
was a basis for TAA certification.
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 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 22nd day
of September 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–23910 Filed 10–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employee Benefits Security
Administration
[Application No. L–11566]
Notice of Proposed Individual
Exemption Involving Chrysler LLC,
Located in Auburn Hills, MI
AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security
Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed individual
exemption.
This document contains a notice of
pendency before the Department of
Labor (the Department) of a proposed
individual exemption from certain
prohibited transaction restrictions of the
Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (the Act or ERISA). The
transactions involve the UAW Chrysler
Retiree Medical Benefits Plan (the New
Chrysler VEBA Plan) and its associated
UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust
(the VEBA Trust) (collectively the
VEBA).1 The proposed exemption, if
granted, would affect the VEBA, its
participants and beneficiaries.
Effective Date: If granted, this
proposed exemption will be effective as
of June 10, 2009.
DATES: Written comments and requests
for a public hearing on the proposed
exemption should be submitted to the
Department within 45 days from the
date of publication of this Federal
Register Notice.
ADDRESSES: All written comments and
requests for a public hearing concerning
the proposed exemption should be sent
to the Office of Exemption
1 Because the New Chrysler VEBA Plan will not
be qualified under section 401 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, there is no jurisdiction
under Title II of the Act pursuant to section 4975
of the Code. However, there is jurisdiction under
Title I of the Act.
E:\FR\FM\05OCN1.SGM
05OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 191 (Monday, October 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 51182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23910]
[[Page 51182]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-70,089]
Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc., a Subsidiary of Occidental
Petroleum Corporation, New Castle, DE; Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated August 19, 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). The
denial notice was signed on July 24, 2009 and published in the Federal
Register on September 2, 2009 (74 FR 45478).
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 Glenn Springs
Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corporation, New
Castle, Delaware was based on the finding that imports of services like
or directly competitive with services provided by workers of the
subject firm did not contribute to worker separations at the subject
firm during the relevant period. The investigation revealed that
workers of the subject firm were engaged in refining facility's water,
removing sludge from machines, repairing the building's electrical
system, distributing the anhydrous potassium hydroxide and closing the
facility. The subject firm did not import nor acquire services from a
foreign country and also did not shift the provision of these services
to a foreign country.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that
workers of the subject firm were previously certified eligible for TAA
based on increased imports of chlorine. The petitioner further stated
that even though production of chlorine did not occur at the subject
facility in the relevant period, workers of the subject firm were
retained by the subject firm to effectively close the plant. The
petitioner appears to allege that because workers of the subject firm
were previously certified eligible for TAA and the workers of the
current petition were the part of that worker group but stayed employed
beyond the expiration date of the previous certification, the workers
of the subject firm should be granted another TAA certification.
The workers of Glenn Springs Holdings, Inc., a subsidiary of
Occidental Petroleum Corporation, New Castle, Delaware were previously
certified eligible for TAA under petition numbers TA-W-58,508, which
expired on January 12, 2008. The investigation revealed that at that
time workers of the subject firm were engaged in production of chlorine
and the employment declines at the subject facility were attributed to
increased imports of chlorine. However, the current investigation
revealed that production of chlorine at the subject firm ceased during
November 2007.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively
considers worker activities during the relevant time period (from one
year prior to the date of the petition). Therefore, events occurring in
2007 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 refining facility's water, removing sludge from machines,
repairing the building's electrical system, distributing the anhydrous
potassium hydroxide and closing the facility during the relevant
period. These functions, as described above, were not imported, or
shifted abroad nor were the service acquired from a foreign country
during the relevant period. Therefore, criteria II.A. and II.B. of
Section 222(a) of the Act were not met. Furthermore, with the respect
to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation revealed that criterion
2 was not met because the workers did not supply a service that was
used by a firm with TAA-certified workers in the production of an
article or supply of a service that was a basis for TAA certification.
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 22nd day of September 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-23910 Filed 10-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P