Lamb Assembly and Test, LLC, Subsidiary of Mag Industrial Automation Systems, Machesney Park, IL; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 3253 [2010-898]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 20, 2010 / Notices
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 reconsideration, I affirm the
original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of Ford
Motor Company, Dearborn Truck Plant,
Dearborn, Michigan.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of
January 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–897 Filed 1–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–70,516]
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Lamb Assembly and Test, LLC,
Subsidiary of Mag Industrial
Automation Systems, Machesney Park,
IL; Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated December 1,
2009, petitioners 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 22, 2009
and was published in the Federal
Register on December 11, 2009 (74 FR
65796).
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Jan 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
of the law justified reconsideration of
the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination, based on the
finding that imports of automation
equipment and machine tools 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
automation equipment and machine
tools by declining customers during the
relevant period. The subject firm did not
import automation equipment and
machine tools nor shift production to a
foreign country during the relevant
period.
The petitioner stated that workers of
the subject firm supplied transmission
assembly automation equipment to
companies which have been recently
certified eligible for TAA. The petitioner
provided a list of customers and alleged
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 TAAcertified firm a component part of the
article that was the basis for the
customers’ certification and the certified
firm received certification of eligibility
for TAA as a primary impacted firm.
The Department has reviewed the list
of companies provided by the
petitioners. The alleged customers
manufacture aluminum transmissions,
cases, parts and automobile engines.
The subject firm does not act as an
upstream supplier, because automation
equipment and machine tools do not
form component parts of aluminum
transmissions, cases, parts and
automobile engines. Furthermore, the
customers to which the subject firm
allegedly supplied articles were not
certified as primary firms but were
certified for TAA on the basis of a
secondary impact. Thus the subject firm
workers are not eligible under
secondary impact.
The petitioner also stated that workers
of Lamb Technicon, a division of
Unova, Warren, Michigan and Lake
Orion, Michigan were previously
certified eligible for TAA. The petitioner
appears to allege that because the sister
companies of the subject firm were
certified eligible for TAA, the workers of
the subject firm should be also granted
a TAA certification.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3253
The workers of the above mentioned
companies were certified eligible for
TAA under petition numbers TA–W–
40,267 and TA–W–40,267A in July
2002.
When assessing eligibility for TAA,
the Department exclusively considers
events during the relevant period (from
one year prior to the date of the
petition). Therefore, events occurring in
2002 are outside of the relevant period
and are not considered in this
investigation.
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 7th day of
January 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–898 Filed 1–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Petitions for Modification
AGENCY: Mine Safety and Health
Administration, Labor.
ACTION: Notice of petitions for
modification of existing mandatory
safety standards.
SUMMARY: Section 101(c) of the Federal
Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and
30 CFR Part 44 govern the application,
processing, and disposition of petitions
for modification. This notice is a
summary of petitions for modification
filed by the parties listed below to
modify the application of existing
mandatory safety standards published
in Title 30 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM
20JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 3253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-898]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-70,516]
Lamb Assembly and Test, LLC, Subsidiary of Mag Industrial
Automation Systems, Machesney Park, IL; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated December 1, 2009, petitioners 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 22, 2009 and was
published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2009 (74 FR 65796).
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,
based on the finding that imports of automation equipment and machine
tools 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
automation equipment and machine tools by declining customers during
the relevant period. The subject firm did not import automation
equipment and machine tools nor shift production to a foreign country
during the relevant period.
The petitioner stated that workers of the subject firm supplied
transmission assembly automation equipment to companies which have been
recently certified eligible for TAA. The petitioner provided a list of
customers and alleged 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 TAA-certified firm a component part of
the article that was the basis for the customers' certification and the
certified firm received certification of eligibility for TAA as a
primary impacted firm.
The Department has reviewed the list of companies provided by the
petitioners. The alleged customers manufacture aluminum transmissions,
cases, parts and automobile engines. The subject firm does not act as
an upstream supplier, because automation equipment and machine tools do
not form component parts of aluminum transmissions, cases, parts and
automobile engines. Furthermore, the customers to which the subject
firm allegedly supplied articles were not certified as primary firms
but were certified for TAA on the basis of a secondary impact. Thus the
subject firm workers are not eligible under secondary impact.
The petitioner also stated that workers of Lamb Technicon, a
division of Unova, Warren, Michigan and Lake Orion, Michigan were
previously certified eligible for TAA. The petitioner appears to allege
that because the sister companies of the subject firm were certified
eligible for TAA, the workers of the subject firm should be also
granted a TAA certification.
The workers of the above mentioned companies were certified
eligible for TAA under petition numbers TA-W-40,267 and TA-W-40,267A in
July 2002.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively
considers events during the relevant period (from one year prior to the
date of the petition). Therefore, events occurring in 2002 are outside
of the relevant period and are not considered in this investigation.
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 7th day of January 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-898 Filed 1-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P