Graphite Engineering and Sales Company, Greenville, MI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 67911-67912 [E9-30252]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 243 / Monday, December 21, 2009 / Notices
parts from the subject facility abroad
during the relevant period. The
company official stated that the subject
firm did not shift production of spare
parts abroad in 2008 or 2009.
Furthermore, the investigation
revealed that neither the subject firm
nor its customers increased imports of
pulp bale strapping machines and spare
parts during the relevant period.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the
original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of Oval
International, Hoquiam, Washington.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of
December 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–30250 Filed 12–18–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–70,829]
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Schnadig Corporation, Belmont, MS;
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated November 11,
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 October 21, 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 TAA petition filed on behalf of
workers at Schnadig Corporation,
Belmont, Mississippi was based on the
finding that imports of services like or
directly competitive with services
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:14 Dec 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
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 distribution and
warehousing services of furniture. 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 upholstered residential
furniture.
The workers of Schnadig Corporation,
Belmont Mississippi were previously
certified eligible for TAA under petition
number TA–W–60,5765, which expired
on January 5, 2009. The investigation
revealed that at that time workers of the
subject firm were engaged in production
of upholstered residential furniture and
the employment declines at the subject
facility were attributed to the subject
firm’s increase in imports of furniture.
When assessing eligibility for TAA,
the Department exclusively considers
worker activities during the relevant
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 distribution and
warehousing services 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 also stated that
Schnadig Corporation, Belmont,
Mississippi was purchased by another
company, which shifted all operations
from the subject firm to a facility in
Greensboro, North Carolina.
The information regarding a shift in
services from the subject facility to
another location in the United States
was revealed during the initial
investigation. However, the criteria
regarding the shift in services
specifically states that the services have
to be shifted to a foreign country.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67911
Therefore, a mere shift in services to
another domestic facility does not
preclude workers’ eligibility for TAA.
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 10th day of
December, 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–30253 Filed 12–18–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–70,454]
Graphite Engineering and Sales
Company, Greenville, MI; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated November 13,
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 24,
2009 and was published in the Federal
Register on November 17, 2009 (74 FR
59255).
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
E:\FR\FM\21DEN1.SGM
21DEN1
67912
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 243 / Monday, December 21, 2009 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
(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 graphite and
carbon parts did not contribute to
worker separations at the subject facility
and there was no shift in production
from the subject firm to foreign country
during the period under investigation.
The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is
generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers’ firm’s declining
customers. The survey revealed no
imports of graphite and carbon parts by
declining customers during the relevant
period. The subject firm did not import
graphite and carbon parts nor shift
production to a foreign country during
the relevant period.
The petitioner states that workers of
the subject firm indirectly supplied
parts that were integral in petroleum
production. The petitioner further states
that demand for drilling equipment has
diminished because of the new fuel
efficiency standards and seems to allege
that the workers of the subject firm
should be eligible for TAA as secondary
impacted workers under Section 222(c).
For the Department to issue a
secondary worker certification under
Section 222(c), to workers of a
secondary upstream supplier, the
subject firm must produce for a certified
customer a component part of the article
that was the basis for the customers’
certification.
In this case, however, the subject firm
does not act as an upstream supplier,
because graphite and carbon parts do
not form a component part of petroleum
products. Thus the subject firm workers
are not eligible under secondary impact
as suppliers to companies producing
petroleum fuel.
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:14 Dec 18, 2009
Jkt 220001
Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 10th day of
December, 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–30252 Filed 12–18–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–70,078]
Eaton Aviation Corporation, Aviation
and Aerospace Components Division,
Aurora, CO; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated September 21,
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
August 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 TAA petition filed on behalf of
workers at Eaton Aviation Corporation,
Aviation and Aerospace Components
Division, Aurora, Colorado 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
facilities maintenance related to the
closing of the location, disposing of
equipment and materials through sale or
discard, and archiving paper
manufacturing records. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner stated that workers of the
subject firm were previously certified
eligible for TAA based on a shift in
production of aviation and aerospace
parts and components to Mexico. The
petitioner further stated that even
though production of aviation and
aerospace parts and components did not
occur at the subject facility in the
relevant period, workers of the subject
firm were retained by the subject firm to
close the plant ‘‘through no fault or
decision of their own.’’ The petitioner
appears to allege that because the
subject firm asked the petitioning
workers to remain employed at the
subject facility beyond the expiration
date of the previous certification, the
workers of the subject firm should be
granted another TAA certification.
The workers of Eaton Aviation
Corporation, Aviation and Aerospace
Components Division, Aurora, Colorado
were previously certified eligible for
TAA under petition numbers TA–W–
60,965, which expired on May 1, 2009.
The investigation revealed that at that
time workers of the subject firm were
engaged in production of aviation and
aerospace parts and components and the
employment declines at the subject
facility were attributed to a shift in
production of aviation and aerospace
parts and components to Mexico. The
current investigation revealed that
production of aviation and aerospace
parts and components at the subject
firm ceased in June, 2007.
When assessing eligibility for TAA,
the Department exclusively considers
worker activities during the relevant
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 facilities maintenance,
disposing of equipment and materials
through sale or discard, and archiving
paper manufacturing records during the
relevant period. No production took
place at the subject facility in 2008 and
2009. In order for workers of the subject
firm to be eligible for TAA under
Section 222(a), there has to be evidence
of increased imports of services or a
shift abroad in provision of services
supplied by workers of the subject firm.
The functions performed by workers of
Eaton Aviation Corporation, Aviation
and Aerospace Components Division,
Aurora, Colorado, as described above,
were not imported, or shifted abroad nor
were the services acquired from a
foreign country during the relevant
period. Therefore, criteria II.A. and II.B.
E:\FR\FM\21DEN1.SGM
21DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 243 (Monday, December 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67911-67912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30252]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-70,454]
Graphite Engineering and Sales Company, Greenville, MI; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated November 13, 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 24, 2009 and
was published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2009 (74 FR
59255).
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
[[Page 67912]]
(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 graphite and carbon parts did not
contribute to worker separations at the subject facility and there was
no shift in production from the subject firm to foreign country during
the period under investigation. The ``contributed importantly'' test is
generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's
declining customers. The survey revealed no imports of graphite and
carbon parts by declining customers during the relevant period. The
subject firm did not import graphite and carbon parts nor shift
production to a foreign country during the relevant period.
The petitioner states that workers of the subject firm indirectly
supplied parts that were integral in petroleum production. The
petitioner further states that demand for drilling equipment has
diminished because of the new fuel efficiency standards and seems to
allege that the workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA
as secondary impacted workers under Section 222(c).
For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification under
Section 222(c), to workers of a secondary upstream supplier, the
subject firm must produce for a certified customer a component part of
the article that was the basis for the customers' certification.
In this case, however, the subject firm does not act as an upstream
supplier, because graphite and carbon parts do not form a component
part of petroleum products. Thus the subject firm workers are not
eligible under secondary impact as suppliers to companies producing
petroleum fuel.
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 December, 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-30252 Filed 12-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
