Sandy Alexander, Clifton, NJ; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 54800 [2011-22555]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
54800
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 171 / Friday, September 2, 2011 / Notices
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 11th
day of August, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–73,351]
[FR Doc. 2011–22555 Filed 9–1–11; 8:45 am]
Sandy Alexander, Clifton, NJ; Notice of
Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
On January 21, 2011, the Department
of Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration for the workers and
former workers of Sandy Alexander,
Clifton, New Jersey (subject firm). The
Department’s Notice was published in
the Federal Register on February 2,
2011 (76 FR 5832). The workers are
engaged in activities related to the
production of printed materials.
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 investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
findings that the petitioning worker
group did not meet the eligibility
criteria set forth in the Trade Act of
1974, as amended.
In request for reconsideration, the
petitioner supplied new information
regarding an alleged shift in production
to China.
A careful review of the administrative
record and additional information
obtained by the Department during the
reconsideration investigation confirmed
that the subject firm did not shift to, nor
acquire from, a foreign country articles
that are like or directly competitive with
articles produced by the subject firm.
Further, during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department reviewed
previously-submitted information and
determined that there was no mistake in
fact and no misinterpretation of the facts
or the law.
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 Sandy
Alexander, Clifton, New Jersey.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:37 Sep 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–74,554]
International Business Machines (IBM),
Software Group Business Unit, Quality
Assurance Group, San Jose,
California; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On January 21, 2011, the Department
of Labor (Department) issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of
International Business Machines (IBM),
Software Group Business Unit, Optim
Data Studio Tools QA, San Jose,
California (subject firm). The
Department’s Notice was published in
the Federal Register on February 2,
2011 (76 FR 5832). The subject worker
group supplies acceptance testing
services, design consulting services, and
call center services.
The negative determination of the
Trade Adjustment Assistance petition
filed by a State of California workforce
agent on behalf of workers at the subject
firm was based on the Department’s
finding that Criterion (1) has not been
met because the Department did not
find that a significant number or
proportion of the workers at IBM,
Software Group Business Unit, Optim
Data Studio Tools QA, San Jose,
California was totally or partially
separated, or threatened with
separation.
29 CFR 90 defines ‘‘significant
number or proportion of the workers’’ to
mean ‘‘(a) In most cases, the total or
partial separations, or both, in a firm or
appropriate subdivision thereof, are the
equivalent to a total of unemployment
of five percent (5 percent) of the workers
or 50 workers, whichever is less; or (b)
At least three workers in a firm (or
appropriate subdivision thereof) with a
workforce of fewer than 50 workers.’’
In his request for reconsideration, a
worker stated that ‘‘I was an employee
of Information Management Group
where * * * over 100+ employees have
been let go from this particular group
* * * In my specific HPU group (High
Performance Unload tooling group) I
was the only full time employee
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
working in the U.S.A. validating the
quality of this produce running
Acceptance testing.’’ The request for
reconsideration included a diagram that
shows that ‘‘HPU tooling’’ is a group
within ‘‘Information Management,’’
which is a unit within the ‘‘Software
Division’’ of IBM.
New information obtained from the
subject firm during the reconsideration
investigation shows that the Optim Data
Studio Tools QA unit is a subset of the
Quality Assurance Group, which is part
of the Software Group Business Unit of
IBM, and that the HPU Tooling Group
is a project handled by members of the
Quality Assurance Group rather than a
distinct subgroup of IBM. As such, the
Department determines that the subject
worker group consists of workers of
IBM, Software Group Business Unit,
Quality Assurance Group, San Jose,
California.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department received
information that there was only one
worker separation within the subject
worker group and that no workers of the
subject worker group was threatened
with separation (partial or total), as
defined by 29 CFR 90. Rather, the new
information obtained during the
reconsideration investigation revealed
that employment within the Quality
Assurance Group (San Jose, California
facility) increased in 2010 from 2009
levels.
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.
After careful review of the
administrative record and new
information collected during the
reconsideration investigation, the
Department determines that, in light of
the new information, the determination
complained of is not erroneous; that the
determination complained of is not
based on a mistake in the determination
of facts not previously considered; and
that there has not been a
misinterpretation of facts or of the law.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the
original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
E:\FR\FM\02SEN1.SGM
02SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 171 (Friday, September 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 54800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22555]
[[Page 54800]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-73,351]
Sandy Alexander, Clifton, NJ; Notice of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On January 21, 2011, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers
and former workers of Sandy Alexander, Clifton, New Jersey (subject
firm). The Department's Notice was published in the Federal Register on
February 2, 2011 (76 FR 5832). The workers are engaged in activities
related to the production of printed materials.
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 investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the findings that the petitioning worker group did not meet
the eligibility criteria set forth in the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended.
In request for reconsideration, the petitioner supplied new
information regarding an alleged shift in production to China.
A careful review of the administrative record and additional
information obtained by the Department during the reconsideration
investigation confirmed that the subject firm did not shift to, nor
acquire from, a foreign country articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles produced by the subject firm.
Further, during the reconsideration investigation, the Department
reviewed previously-submitted information and determined that there was
no mistake in fact and no misinterpretation of the facts or the law.
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 Sandy Alexander, Clifton, New Jersey.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 11th day of August, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-22555 Filed 9-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
