Bob Evans Farms, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, a Subsidiary of Bob Evans Farms, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Galva, Illinois; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 7589-7590 [2011-2966]

Agencies

• Employment and Training Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7589-7590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2966]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-74,566]


Bob Evans Farms, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, a Subsidiary of Bob 
Evans Farms, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Galva, Illinois; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated November 12, 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 Bob Evans 
Farms, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, a subsidiary of Bob Evans Farms, 
Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Galva, Illinois. The negative 
determination was issued on October 15, 2010, and the Notice of 
Determination was published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2010 
(75 FR 67773). The workers produce sausage rolls and links. The 
petitioner alleged that worker separations are due to increased imports 
of sows.
    The negative determination was issued based on the findings that 
there have not been increased imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with those produced by the subject firm, there has not been 
a shift of production by the subject firm to a foreign country, and the 
workers are not adversely-affected secondary workers.
    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 request for reconsideration states that ``with the increased 
importation of sows (the main component in the production of pork 
sausage) from Canada, the cost of production of the finished sausage 
product increased. The workers' hours of production were decreased due 
to the cost of importation of Canadian sows to the Galva, Illinois 
plant.'' Because this allegation is identical to the petition 
allegation and has been addressed in the initial investigation, 29 CFR 
90.18(c)(1) and (2) have not been met.
    The request for reconsideration also infers that increased imports 
of a component part (sows) are a basis for certification of a worker 
group that produces the finished article (sausage).
    The initial determination was based on the finding that there have 
not been increased imports of articles like or directly competitive 
with the sausage rolls or links produced by the subject firm. 29 CFR 
90.2 states that ``like or directly competitive means that like 
articles are those which are substantially identical in inherent or 
intrinsic characteristics (i.e., materials from which the articles are 
made, appearance, quality, texture, etc.); and directly competitive 
articles are those, although not substantially identical in their 
inherent or intrinsic characteristics, are substantially equivalent for 
commercial purposes (i.e., adapted to the same uses and essentially 
interchangeable therefore).'' Because sows are neither like nor 
directly competitive with sausage rolls or links, the certification of 
a worker group engaged in the production of finished articles (sausage 
rolls and links) cannot be based on increased imports of components 
(sows). Therefore, 29 CFR 90.18(c)(3) has not been 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

[[Page 7590]]

reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. 
Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 26th day of January, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-2966 Filed 2-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P