Conrad Imports, Inc., San Francisco, CA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 64736 [E9-29149]
Download as PDF
64736
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 8, 2009 / Notices
Subject firm
(petitioners)
Location
Heartland Drilling (Wkrs) ......................................................
Will and Baumer Candle Company, LLC (Comp) ................
United States Bronze, Inc. (Union) ......................................
GE Oil and Gas (Comp) .......................................................
GE Oil and Gas (Comp) .......................................................
Nabors Drilling (Wkrs) ..........................................................
HSBC (Wkrs) ........................................................................
Paramount Precision Products, Inc. (Comp) ........................
San Angelo, TX .....................
Liverpool, NY ........................
Flemington, NJ ......................
Bethlehem, PA ......................
Easton, PA ............................
Houston, TX ..........................
London, KY ...........................
Oak Park, MI .........................
TA–W
72837
72838
72839
72840
72841
72842
72843
72844
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
................
[FR Doc. E9–29144 Filed 12–7–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–70,387]
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Conrad Imports, Inc., San Francisco,
CA; Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated October 1, 2009,
a petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination regarding
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers
and former workers of the subject firm.
The denial notice was signed on
September 4, 2009 and published in the
Federal Register on November 5, 2009
(74 FR 57342).
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
finishing and quality control services
did not contribute importantly to
worker separations at the subject firm
and there was no shift to a foreign
country in services supplied by the
workers of the subject firm.
In the request for reconsideration the
petitioner alleged that workers of
Conrad Imports, Inc. tailored the shades
to the customer’s specifications and
performed other finishing services. The
petitioner further alleged that Conrad
Imports, Inc. opened a facility in Korea
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Dec 07, 2009
Jkt 220001
in 2007 and that finishing work has
been shifted from the subject facility to
Korea.
The Department contacted Conrad
Imports, Inc. official to address the
above allegations. The company official
confirmed that Conrad Imports, Inc. has
a subsidiary in Korea, which supplies
window coverings to the subject firm.
However, the company official also
stated that quality control and finishing
services were not shifted from California
facility to Korea. The official confirmed
what was revealed in the initial
investigation. The investigation revealed
that the reduction in business volume
caused the subject firm’s reorganization
and that the layoffs at the subject facility
was not related to imports of finishing
quality control services and there was
no shift in these services abroad.
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 10th day of
November 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–29149 Filed 12–7–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Date of
institution
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
11/13/09
Date of
petition
11/12/09
11/06/09
11/06/09
11/02/09
11/02/09
11/12/09
11/12/09
11/06/09
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–70,344]
Atlantic Southeast Airlines, a
Subsidiary of Skywest, Inc., Airport
Customer Service Division, Including
On-Site Leased Workers of Delta
Global Services, Inc., Fort Smith, AR;
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated October 19,
2009, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the
Department’s negative determination
regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA),
applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The denial
notice was signed on September 28,
2009 and will soon be published in the
Federal Register.
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, based on the
finding that imports of services like or
directly competitive with the services
performed by the workers of the subject
firm did not contribute to worker
separations at the subject facility and
there was no shift or acquisition of the
services from a foreign country during
the period under investigation.
The petitioner alleged that the subject
firm is located in a manufacturing
center and provided a list of local
companies and manufacturing plants
representing various industries. The
E:\FR\FM\08DEN1.SGM
08DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 64736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-29149]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-70,387]
Conrad Imports, Inc., San Francisco, CA; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated October 1, 2009, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on September 4, 2009 and
published in the Federal Register on November 5, 2009 (74 FR 57342).
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 finishing and quality
control services did not contribute importantly to worker separations
at the subject firm and there was no shift to a foreign country in
services supplied by the workers of the subject firm.
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner alleged that
workers of Conrad Imports, Inc. tailored the shades to the customer's
specifications and performed other finishing services. The petitioner
further alleged that Conrad Imports, Inc. opened a facility in Korea in
2007 and that finishing work has been shifted from the subject facility
to Korea.
The Department contacted Conrad Imports, Inc. official to address
the above allegations. The company official confirmed that Conrad
Imports, Inc. has a subsidiary in Korea, which supplies window
coverings to the subject firm. However, the company official also
stated that quality control and finishing services were not shifted
from California facility to Korea. The official confirmed what was
revealed in the initial investigation. The investigation revealed that
the reduction in business volume caused the subject firm's
reorganization and that the layoffs at the subject facility was not
related to imports of finishing quality control services and there was
no shift in these services abroad.
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 10th day of November 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-29149 Filed 12-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P