Allstate Insurance Company, Altoona Express Market Claim Office, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Kelly Services, Altoona, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 39051 [2010-16421]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 7, 2010 / Notices
[FR Doc. 2010–16414 Filed 7–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–73,536]
cprice-sewell on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Allstate Insurance Company, Altoona
Express Market Claim Office, Including
On-Site Leased Workers From Kelly
Services, Altoona, PA; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated June 7, 2010, 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 Allstate
Insurance Company, Altoona Express
Market Claim Office, including on-site
leased workers from Kelly Services,
Altoona, Pennsylvania. The negative
determination was issued on May 7,
2010, and the Notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register
on May 28, 2010 (75 FR 30073).
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 negative determination
applicable to the subject workers was
based on the findings that the subject
firm did not import services like or
directly competitive with insurance
claim services during the relevant
period of the investigation or shift
service abroad during the same period;
and that the workers did not supply a
service that was used by a firm that
employed a worker group currently
eligible to apply for TAA.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner stated that she had ‘‘verbal
confirmation from the Altoona
management team that the services
being provided by the call center(s)
operating in India are directly
competitive to the services that were
provided by’’ the subject facility.
After this office received the request
for reconsideration, the investigator
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:28 Jul 06, 2010
Jkt 220001
obtained from the petitioner the name of
the subject firm manager who was
alleged to be able to confirm the shift to
India. However, the official confirmed
that insurance claim services provided
by the subject facility were distributed
to other domestic offices of the subject
firm and were not shifted 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 22nd day
of June 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–16421 Filed 7–6–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–73,416]
Desoto Mills LLC, Fort Payne, AL;
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated June 1, 2010, a
company official 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
determination was signed on April 28,
2010, and the Notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register
on May 28, 2010 (75 FR 30072).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39051
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 negative determination
applicable to workers and former
workers at Desoto Mills, LLC, a
Subsidiary of Fruit of the Loom, Fort
Payne, Alabama, was based on the
findings that there was neither an
increase in imports nor a shift/
acquisition by the workers’ firm that
contributed importantly to the worker
group separations; the subject workers
are not secondarily-affected workers;
and the workers’ firm was not identified
in an affirmative finding of injury by the
International Trade Commission.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner stated that the steady decline
in sales and production at the subject
firm ‘‘has caused the entire distribution
and administrative support operation to
be consolidated into existing Fruit of the
Loom * * * locations outside the
Desoto Mills Plant.’’ The petitioner
compares the situation at this location
with similar shifts of production and
subsequent downsizing of
administrative and distribution staff that
have resulted in TAA certifications
(TA–W–63,167, TA–W–71,012, TA–W–
72,253, and TA–W–73,414).
The initial investigation revealed that
there was a shift of production of socks
from the subject location in 2006 and
2007, and that, following the shift,
distribution work at the Fort Payne,
Alabama facility continued with the
workers processing foreign-produced
socks.
Additional information provided by
the applicant revealed that, since March
2007, the subject facility has not
supported a domestic, affiliated
production facility and no significant
degree of the supply of distribution
services has been shifted to a foreign
country.
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.
E:\FR\FM\07JYN1.SGM
07JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 39051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16421]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-73,536]
Allstate Insurance Company, Altoona Express Market Claim Office,
Including On-Site Leased Workers From Kelly Services, Altoona, PA;
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated June 7, 2010, 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 Allstate
Insurance Company, Altoona Express Market Claim Office, including on-
site leased workers from Kelly Services, Altoona, Pennsylvania. The
negative determination was issued on May 7, 2010, and the Notice of
determination was published in the Federal Register on May 28, 2010 (75
FR 30073).
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 negative determination applicable to the subject workers was
based on the findings that the subject firm did not import services
like or directly competitive with insurance claim services during the
relevant period of the investigation or shift service abroad during the
same period; and that the workers did not supply a service that was
used by a firm that employed a worker group currently eligible to apply
for TAA.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that she
had ``verbal confirmation from the Altoona management team that the
services being provided by the call center(s) operating in India are
directly competitive to the services that were provided by'' the
subject facility.
After this office received the request for reconsideration, the
investigator obtained from the petitioner the name of the subject firm
manager who was alleged to be able to confirm the shift to India.
However, the official confirmed that insurance claim services provided
by the subject facility were distributed to other domestic offices of
the subject firm and were not shifted 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 22nd day of June 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-16421 Filed 7-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P