Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc., Washougal, WA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 43563 [2010-18187]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices
article that was the basis of the TAA
certification, the workers of the subject
firm did not meet the criteria of Section
222(c) and are, therefore, not eligible to
apply for TAA as adversely affected
secondary workers.
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 Fanuc
Robotics America, Inc., Rochester Hills,
Michigan.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 13th day of
July 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–18184 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–72,194]
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc.,
Washougal, WA; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated May 4, 2010, a
petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
certification regarding eligibility to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA), applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The
certification was signed on April 1,
2010, and published in the Federal
Register on May 5, 2010 (75 FR 24751).
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.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner asserted that she and other
workers of the subject firm who were
laid off more than a year before the date
of the petition (August 24, 2009), and
were thus not reached by the impact
date of the certification (August 24,
2008), should be included in the
certification because of their long-term
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:04 Jul 23, 2010
Jkt 220001
service to the employer, of their long
years of working together with other
employees who will be covered by the
decision, and they should not be
penalized for the alleged delay by the
petitioner (a union official) who filed
the petition in this case.
The applicable regulation, 29 CFR
90.16(e), states that:
A certification of eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance shall not apply to any
worker:
(1) Whose last total or partial separation
from the firm or appropriate subdivision
occurred more than one (1) year before the
date of the petition; * * *
In this case, the petition that began
this investigation was dated August 24,
2009. Therefore, according to the
regulation above, no worker who was
separated earlier than August 24, 2008
(i.e., one year prior to the August 24,
2009 petition date) can be included in
any certification resulting from the
investigation resulting from the petition
at issue.
The petitioner in this case was laid off
on August 5, 2008, nineteen days before
the earliest possible date for workers to
receive benefits under certification TA–
W–72,194. Consequently, according to
29 CFR 90.16(e), she cannot be covered
by that certification.
The petitioner did not supply facts
not previously considered or 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 14th day of
July 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–18187 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43563
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–73,199]
Dow Jones & Company, Sharon
Pennsylvania Print Plant a Subsidiary
of News Corporation, West Middlesex,
Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated June 21, 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 the subject firm.
The determination was signed on May
21, 2010. The Department’s Notice of
determination was published in the
Federal Register on June 7, 2010 (75 FR
32224). The workers are engaged in the
production of print publications.
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 negative determination of the
TAA petition filed on behalf of workers
at Dow Jones & Company, Sharon
Pennsylvania Print Plant, a subsidiary of
News Corporation, West Middlesex,
Pennsylvania, was based on the finding
that the workers’ separations were not
related to an increase in imports of print
publications or a shift in production of
print publications to a foreign country,
nor did the workers produce a
component part 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 the workers of the
subject firm should be eligible for TAA
because the ‘‘plates and film came from
a company currently approved for TRA,
Konica’’ and that those plates and film
directly impacted the subject firm’s
production.
Increased imports of component parts,
tools, or equipment related to the
production of printed publications
cannot be a basis for TAA certification
under Section 222(a)(2)(A) because the
statute requires either increased imports
E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM
26JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 142 (Monday, July 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 43563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18187]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-72,194]
Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc., Washougal, WA; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated May 4, 2010, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's certification
regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA),
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The
certification was signed on April 1, 2010, and published in the Federal
Register on May 5, 2010 (75 FR 24751).
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.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner asserted that
she and other workers of the subject firm who were laid off more than a
year before the date of the petition (August 24, 2009), and were thus
not reached by the impact date of the certification (August 24, 2008),
should be included in the certification because of their long-term
service to the employer, of their long years of working together with
other employees who will be covered by the decision, and they should
not be penalized for the alleged delay by the petitioner (a union
official) who filed the petition in this case.
The applicable regulation, 29 CFR 90.16(e), states that:
A certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment
assistance shall not apply to any worker:
(1) Whose last total or partial separation from the firm or
appropriate subdivision occurred more than one (1) year before the
date of the petition; * * *
In this case, the petition that began this investigation was dated
August 24, 2009. Therefore, according to the regulation above, no
worker who was separated earlier than August 24, 2008 (i.e., one year
prior to the August 24, 2009 petition date) can be included in any
certification resulting from the investigation resulting from the
petition at issue.
The petitioner in this case was laid off on August 5, 2008,
nineteen days before the earliest possible date for workers to receive
benefits under certification TA-W-72,194. Consequently, according to 29
CFR 90.16(e), she cannot be covered by that certification.
The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered or
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 14th day of July 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-18187 Filed 7-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
