Flanders Tool Company, Inc., Flanders, NJ; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 14696 [2011-6193]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14696
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 52 / Thursday, March 17, 2011 / Notices
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 4th day
of March 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011–6185 Filed 3–16–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–72,355]
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Flanders Tool Company, Inc., Flanders,
NJ; Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
On January 4, 2010, the Department of
Labor issued a Negative Determination
Regarding Eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for the workers
and former workers of Flanders Tool
Company, Flanders, New Jersey (the
subject firm). The Department’s Notice
was published in the Federal Register
on February 16, 2010 (75 FR 7039).
By application dated February 12,
2010, the petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the
negative determination regarding
workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm. At the
request of the petitioners, the
Department conducted further
investigation to determine if the workers
meet the eligibility requirements of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Workers
are engaged in employment related to
the production of precision cutting tools
and drills.
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 initial negative determination
was based on the findings that there was
no increase in imports by the workers’
firm or customers of articles like or
directly competitive with precision
cutting tools and drills, or a shift to/
acquisition from a foreign country by
the workers’ firm in the production of
articles like or directly competitive with
precision cutting tools and drills, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:48 Mar 16, 2011
Jkt 223001
that the workers’ firm did not produce
and supply directly component parts (or
services) to a firm that both employed
a worker group eligible to apply for
TAA and directly used the component
parts (or services) in the production of
the article or in the supply of the service
that was the basis for the TAA
certification.
The request for reconsideration stated
that the subject firm supplies products
to certified customers.
Information obtained during the
reconsideration investigation confirmed
that the subject firm did not produce
and supply directly component parts to
a firm that both employed a worker
group eligible to apply for TAA and
directly used the component parts in the
production of the article or in the
supply of the service that was the basis
for the TAA certification.
While tools and capital equipment are
used in the production of an article,
they are not component parts.
Information obtained during the
reconsideration investigation confirmed
that, during the relevant period, the
major declining customers of the subject
firm did not directly or indirectly
import articles like or directly
competitive with the precision cutting
tools and drills produced by the subject
firm.
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 Flanders
Tool Company, Flanders, New Jersey.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 4th day
of March 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011–6193 Filed 3–16–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–72,493]
Ananke, Inc., Providence, RI; Notice of
Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On December 1, 2010, the Department
of Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration for the workers and
former workers of Ananke, Inc., Rhode
Island (subject firm). The Department’s
Notice was published in the Federal
Register on December 13, 2010 (75 FR
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
77664). The workers at the subject firm
supplied on-site application packaging
services to a financial services firm
located in Boston, Massachusetts.
Therefore, the worker group includes
workers who report to the subject firm
but are located in Massachusetts;
however, the worker group does not
include any on-site leased or temporary
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 mis-interpretation of facts or
of the law justified reconsideration of
the decision.
The initial negative determination
was based on the findings that neither
the subject firm nor a declining
customer imported services like or
directly competitive with the
application packaging services supplied
by the subject workers; that the subject
firm did not shift to/acquire from a
foreign country the supply of services
like or directly competitive with the
application packaging services supplied
by the subject workers; and that workers
of the subject firm are not adversely
affected secondary workers.
The request for reconsideration states
that ‘‘Ananke Inc. performed application
packaging services for John Hancock
* * * In September 2009, John Hancock
replaced * * * Ananke Inc. with * * *
Cognizant Technology Solutions (an
offshoring/outsourcing company)’’ and
included support documentation.
Information obtained during the
reconsideration investigation confirmed
that, during the relevant period, neither
the subject firm nor a client firm shifted
to/acquired from a foreign country the
supply of services like or directly
competitive with the application
packaging services supplied by the
workers. Rather, the shift in the supply
of services that is alleged by the
petitioner is related to services that are
neither like nor directly competitive
with those supplied by the subject
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 Ananke,
Inc., Rhode Island.
E:\FR\FM\17MRN1.SGM
17MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 14696]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6193]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-72,355]
Flanders Tool Company, Inc., Flanders, NJ; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On January 4, 2010, the Department of Labor issued a Negative
Determination Regarding Eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance for the workers and former workers of Flanders Tool Company,
Flanders, New Jersey (the subject firm). The Department's Notice was
published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2010 (75 FR 7039).
By application dated February 12, 2010, the petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding
workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. At the
request of the petitioners, the Department conducted further
investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility
requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Workers are engaged
in employment related to the production of precision cutting tools and
drills.
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 initial negative determination was based on the findings that
there was no increase in imports by the workers' firm or customers of
articles like or directly competitive with precision cutting tools and
drills, or a shift to/acquisition from a foreign country by the
workers' firm in the production of articles like or directly
competitive with precision cutting tools and drills, and that the
workers' firm did not produce and supply directly component parts (or
services) to a firm that both employed a worker group eligible to apply
for TAA and directly used the component parts (or services) in the
production of the article or in the supply of the service that was the
basis for the TAA certification.
The request for reconsideration stated that the subject firm
supplies products to certified customers.
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that the subject firm did not produce and supply directly
component parts to a firm that both employed a worker group eligible to
apply for TAA and directly used the component parts in the production
of the article or in the supply of the service that was the basis for
the TAA certification.
While tools and capital equipment are used in the production of an
article, they are not component parts.
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that, during the relevant period, the major declining
customers of the subject firm did not directly or indirectly import
articles like or directly competitive with the precision cutting tools
and drills produced by the subject firm.
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 Flanders Tool Company, Flanders, New
Jersey.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 4th day of March 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-6193 Filed 3-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
