Washington Department of Transportation, Olympic Division, Aberdeen Maintenance Office, Chehalis Drawbridge Tenders, Aberdeen, WA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 67775-67776 [2010-27762]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices
67775
APPENDIX—Continued
[TAA petitions instituted between 10/12/10 and 10/15/10]
Date of
institution
Date of
petition
TA–W
Subject firm (petitioners)
Location
74720 ................
Environ Biocomposites Manufacturing, LLC (State/OneStop).
Dillard’s, Inc. (State/One-Stop) .............................................
Allied Marketing Group (Company) ......................................
Mankato, MN .........................
10/14/10
10/11/10
Little Rock, AR ......................
Dallas, TX .............................
10/14/10
10/14/10
10/12/10
10/08/10
74721 ................
74722 ................
[FR Doc. 2010–27755 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–73,503]
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Compass Group USA, Inc., Canteen,
Webster City, Iowa; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On September 21, 2010, the
Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of the
subject firm. The notice was published
in the Federal Register on September
29, 2010 (75 FR 60139).
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
finding that the subject firm did not,
during the investigation period, shift to
a foreign country services like or
directly competitive with the cafeteria
services or vending machine services
supplied by the workers or acquire from
a foreign country services like or
directly competitive with the cafeteria
services or vending machine services
supplied by the workers; that the
workers’ separation, or threat of
separation, was not related to any
increase in imports of like or directly
competitive food services or a shift in
service/acquisition of such food services
abroad; and that the workers did not
supply a service that was directly used
in the production of an article or the
supply of service by a firm that
employed a worker group that is eligible
to apply for TAA based on the aforementioned article or service.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner stated that the workers of the
subject firm were service workers who
provided food services to employees of
Electrolux Home Products, Inc.,
Electrolux Major Appliances Division,
Webster City, Iowa, who have been
certified eligible for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TA–W–70,123, signed June
25, 2009). The petitioner went on to
assert that the situation of the Compass
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:21 Nov 02, 2010
Jkt 223001
Group workers was the same as that of
employees of Premier Manufacturing
Support Services, a services provider to
General Motors, Spring Hill, Tennessee,
who were certified eligible to apply for
TAA on March 12, 2010 (TA–W–
72,379).
The difference in the outcome of the
two cases results from the difference in
the companies’ relationships to the
production processes at the respective
Electrolux and General Motors plants.
The workers of Premier Manufacturing
Support Services provided services
(janitorial, maintenance, and hazardous
waste disposal) that were directly
involved in the production process at
General Motors, Spring Hill, Tennessee.
In contrast, the workers of the subject
firm provided services (cafeteria
services and vending machine services)
that are not directly involved in the
production process at Electrolux Home
Products, Inc., Electrolux Major
Appliances Division, Webster City,
Iowa.
During the course of the
reconsideration investigation this office
inquired into the relationship between
Electrolux and the subject firm. It was
determined that Electrolux exercised no
day-to-day operational control over the
employees of the subject firm.
Consequently, the workers cannot be
considered employees of Electrolux, but
only of the subject firm, Compass Group
USA.
Furthermore, it should be noted that
employees of American Food and
Vending, Spring Hill, Tennessee, who
provided food services to employees at
that same General Motors plant in
Spring Hill, Tennessee, were denied
TAA certification (TA–W–72,606,
signed March 19, 2010).
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner also asserted that the decision
in the subject case is ‘‘contrary to the
intent of the U.S. Congress in light of
the changes [regarding service
providers] it made to trade adjustment
assistance by passage of the Trade
Globalization Adjustment Assistance
Act of 2009’’ and that in making those
changes ‘‘one can only conclude that the
U.S. Congress intended a broad
interpretation’’ of the phrase ‘‘service
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
used in the production of articles or in
the supply of service, * * *.’’
This office does not find that
argument compelling and is not
prepared to certify the workers in this
case on the basis of the broad reading of
the law given by the petitioner.
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 Compass
Group USA, Inc., Canteen, Webster City,
Iowa.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day
of October 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–27760 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–74,116]
Washington Department of
Transportation, Olympic Division,
Aberdeen Maintenance Office,
Chehalis Drawbridge Tenders,
Aberdeen, WA; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated July 9, 2010, the
Washington State Labor Council, AFL–
CIO, requested administrative
reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
67776
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers
and former workers of the subject public
agency. The determination was issued
on June 17, 2010, and the Notice of
Determination was published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 2010 (75 FR
38142).
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 Washington Department of
Transportation, Olympic Division,
Aberdeen Maintenance Office, Chehalis
Drawbridge Tenders, Aberdeen,
Washington, was based on the finding
that the public agency (the Chehalis
Drawbridge) that is the subject of this
case did not acquire services like or
directly competitive to drawbridge
operation and maintenance services
from a foreign country.
In the request for reconsideration the
petitioning union official stated that the
workers of the subject firm should be
eligible for TAA because the initial
decision was based on a
misinterpretation of the new language
for certification of public entities. The
petitioner alleged that the bridge tenders
lost their jobs due to the closure of
several upstream facilities (notably the
Weyerhaeuser complex, for which there
are several current certifications), and
those plant closures lessened river
traffic to the point that the bridge
operated by the workers laid off by the
subject agency could go unattended.
The petitioner refers to the bridge and
its tenders as a secondary supplier
which he believes should qualify for
benefits because of their relationship to
the certified Weyerhaeuser facilities
upriver from the bridge.
The group eligibility requirements for
workers of a Public Agency can only be
satisfied if the criteria as depicted in the
initial decision are met.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:21 Nov 02, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 8th day of
October, 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–27762 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Comment Request; Review of
Productivity Statistics
Notice of solicitation of
comments.
ACTION:
The Department of Labor
through the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS) is responsible for publishing
measures of labor productivity and
multifactor productivity for major
sectors and industries of the United
States economy. BLS periodically
conducts formal reviews of its programs
in order to assess their content,
methodology, efficiency, and
effectiveness. To enhance the quality
and relevance of productivity data, BLS
is soliciting comments on the scope and
coverage of these data, on the methods
used in constructing them, and on areas
of interest for future program
development.
SUMMARY:
Written comments must be
submitted to the office listed in the
Addresses section of this notice on or
before December 3, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Michael
J. Harper, Office of Productivity and
Technology, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Room 2150, 2 Massachusetts Avenue,
NE., Washington, DC 20212 or by e-mail
to: optfeedback@bls.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael J. Harper, Office of Productivity
and Technology, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, telephone number 202–691–
5600, or by e-mail at
optfeedback@bls.gov.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Department of Labor through the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is
responsible for publishing measures of
labor productivity and multifactor
productivity for major sectors and
industries of the United States economy.
The Office of Productivity and
Technology (OPT) differs from other
BLS programs in that it does not
conduct surveys to collect data. Instead,
it produces productivity estimates from
published and unpublished data
collected and compiled by other BLS
programs, the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, the Census Bureau, other
Federal statistical agencies, and the
Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System.
Labor productivity is defined as
output per hour worked. BLS reports
quarterly on productivity growth and its
components (output and hours) and on
other measures, such as unit labor costs
and hourly compensation. These
measures are produced for the business,
nonfarm business, and manufacturing
sectors, and for nonfinancial
corporations. The quarterly measures
are designated by the Office of
Management and Budget as a Principal
Federal Economic Indicator. BLS also
produces annual measures of labor
productivity for about 400 detailed
industries. BLS labor productivity data
are available at the following Internet
address: https://www.bls.gov/lpc/.
BLS also produces estimates of
multifactor productivity (MFP), which
is defined as output per unit of
combined inputs. The combined inputs
include hours and capital services; in
some cases, additional inputs include
labor composition and intermediate
goods and services. BLS reports MFP
growth, along with its components
(output, capital, hours, etc.) and other
measures such as capital-labor ratios,
capital user costs, and labor
composition indexes. These measures
are designed to analyze the effects of
technological change on economic
growth, the substitutability of inputs,
and changes in the composition of
inputs and outputs. BLS produces
annual measures of multifactor
productivity for private business,
private nonfarm business, and
manufacturing sectors and for many
detailed industries. BLS MFP data are
available at the following Internet
address: https://www.bls.gov/mfp/.
II. Productivity Coverage and Methods
The quarterly nonfarm business labor
productivity measures are constructed
within the conceptual framework of the
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67775-67776]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27762]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-74,116]
Washington Department of Transportation, Olympic Division,
Aberdeen Maintenance Office, Chehalis Drawbridge Tenders, Aberdeen, WA;
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated July 9, 2010, the Washington State Labor
Council, AFL-CIO, requested administrative reconsideration of the
negative determination regarding workers'
[[Page 67776]]
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable
to workers and former workers of the subject public agency. The
determination was issued on June 17, 2010, and the Notice of
Determination was published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2010 (75
FR 38142).
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 Washington Department of Transportation, Olympic Division,
Aberdeen Maintenance Office, Chehalis Drawbridge Tenders, Aberdeen,
Washington, was based on the finding that the public agency (the
Chehalis Drawbridge) that is the subject of this case did not acquire
services like or directly competitive to drawbridge operation and
maintenance services from a foreign country.
In the request for reconsideration the petitioning union official
stated that the workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA
because the initial decision was based on a misinterpretation of the
new language for certification of public entities. The petitioner
alleged that the bridge tenders lost their jobs due to the closure of
several upstream facilities (notably the Weyerhaeuser complex, for
which there are several current certifications), and those plant
closures lessened river traffic to the point that the bridge operated
by the workers laid off by the subject agency could go unattended. The
petitioner refers to the bridge and its tenders as a secondary supplier
which he believes should qualify for benefits because of their
relationship to the certified Weyerhaeuser facilities upriver from the
bridge.
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a Public Agency
can only be satisfied if the criteria as depicted in the initial
decision are met.
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 8th day of October, 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-27762 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
