Schnadig Corporation, Belmont, MS; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 67911 [E9-30253]

Download as PDF 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

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 243 (Monday, December 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 67911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30253]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,829]


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 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. 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