Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc., Washougal, WA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 43563 [2010-18187]

Download as PDF 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