Sunoco, Inc., R&M, Refining Division, Marcus Hook, PA; Sunoco, Inc., 10 Industrial Hwy., MS4 Building G, Lester, PA; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 46125 [2012-18836]
Download as PDF
46125
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 149 / Thursday, August 2, 2012 / Notices
APPENDIX
[14 TAA petitions instituted between 7/16/12 and 7/20/12]
Date of
institution
Date of
petition
TA–W
Subject firm (petitioners)
Location
81803 ................
81804 ................
81805 ................
Arthritis Foundation (State/One-Stop) ..................................
Earth Grains/Sara Lee/Bimbo Baking (Workers) .................
Texas/New Mexico Newspapers Partnership (TNMNP)
(Workers).
Gates Corporation (Company) .............................................
CoreLogic (Workers) ............................................................
Ferrara Candy Company, Inc. (Company) ...........................
Sathers Trucking, Inc. (Company) .......................................
ACE Group/ACE USA/ACE American Insurance Company
(State/One-Stop).
Esselte (Company) ...............................................................
Hewlett Packard (Company) ................................................
Crimzon Rose International (Workers) .................................
Abound Solar (Workers) .......................................................
Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (State/One-Stop) ...
Powertex (State/One-Stop) ..................................................
Pittsburgh, PA .......................
Knoxville, TN .........................
El Paso, TX ...........................
07/16/12
07/16/12
07/16/12
07/13/12
07/13/12
06/30/12
Jefferson, NC ........................
Westlake, TX .........................
Chattanooga, TN ...................
Chattanooga, TN ...................
Chatsworth, CA .....................
07/17/12
07/18/12
07/18/12
07/18/12
07/18/12
07/16/12
07/17/12
07/17/12
07/17/12
07/17/12
Morristown, TN ......................
Boise, ID ...............................
West Warwick, RI .................
Ft. Collins, CO ......................
Hartford, CT ..........................
Rouses Point, NY .................
07/18/12
07/19/12
07/19/12
07/19/12
07/19/12
07/20/12
07/17/12
07/13/12
07/18/12
07/18/12
07/11/12
07/19/12
81806
81807
81808
81809
81810
................
................
................
................
................
81811
81812
81813
81814
81815
81816
................
................
................
................
................
................
[FR Doc. 2012–18835 Filed 8–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–81,145; TA–W–81,145A]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Sunoco, Inc., R&M, Refining Division,
Marcus Hook, PA; Sunoco, Inc., 10
Industrial Hwy., MS4 Building G,
Lester, PA; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On April 30, 2012, the Department of
Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration for the workers and
former workers of Sunoco, Inc., R&M,
Refining Division, Marcus Hook,
Pennsylvania (TA–W–81,145), and
Sunoco, Inc., Lester, Pennsylvania (TA–
W–81,145A). The workers are engaged
in employment related to the
production of refined petroleum
products. The Department’s Notice was
published in the Federal Register on
May 17, 2012 (77 FR 29362).
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:15 Aug 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
findings that there was no increase in
imports of refined petroleum products
by Sunoco, Inc. or its customer, nor was
there a shift in production to a foreign
country or acquisition of production
from a foreign country by the workers’
firm. In addition, U.S. aggregate imports
of like or directly competitive articles
did not increase during the relevant
period.
The request for reconsideration
alleged that the worker separations at
the subject facilities are related to
increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the refined
petroleum products produced by the
subject firm, and that, while the initial
investigation revealed that U.S.
aggregate imports of refined petroleum
products decreased during the relevant
period, the Department did not compare
domestic production to U.S. imports of
like or directly competitive articles.
Information obtained during the
reconsideration investigation confirmed
that there was no increase in imports by
Sunoco, Inc., or its customer, nor was
there a shift in production to a foreign
country or acquisition of production
from a foreign country by the workers’
firm. In addition, additional research
conducted during the reconsideration
investigation revealed that U.S.
aggregate imports of like or directly
competitive articles did not increase
relative to domestic production during
the relevant period.
With respect to Section
222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed no increased
imports during the relevant period by
the subject firm or its customers of
articles like or directly competitive with
those produced by the subject facilities,
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
and no increased aggregate U.S. imports
of articles like or directly competitive
with refined petroleum products.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of
the Act, the investigation revealed that
the workers’ firm did not shift the
production of refined petroleum
products, or a like or directly
competitive article, to a foreign county
or acquire the production of refined
petroleum products, or a like or directly
competitive article, from a foreign
county.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that
the requirements of Section 222 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272, have not been met
and, therefore, deny the petition for
group eligibility of Sunoco, Inc., R&M,
Refining Division, Marcus Hook,
Pennsylvania (TA–W–81,145), and
Sunoco, Inc., Lester, Pennsylvania (TA–
W–81,145A), to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section
223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 23rd
day of July 2012.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012–18836 Filed 8–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
E:\FR\FM\02AUN1.SGM
02AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 46125]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18836]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-81,145; TA-W-81,145A]
Sunoco, Inc., R&M, Refining Division, Marcus Hook, PA; Sunoco,
Inc., 10 Industrial Hwy., MS4 Building G, Lester, PA; Notice of
Negative Determination on Reconsideration
On April 30, 2012, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers
and former workers of Sunoco, Inc., R&M, Refining Division, Marcus
Hook, Pennsylvania (TA-W-81,145), and Sunoco, Inc., Lester,
Pennsylvania (TA-W-81,145A). The workers are engaged in employment
related to the production of refined petroleum products. The
Department's Notice was published in the Federal Register on May 17,
2012 (77 FR 29362).
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 there was no increase in imports of refined
petroleum products by Sunoco, Inc. or its customer, nor was there a
shift in production to a foreign country or acquisition of production
from a foreign country by the workers' firm. In addition, U.S.
aggregate imports of like or directly competitive articles did not
increase during the relevant period.
The request for reconsideration alleged that the worker separations
at the subject facilities are related to increased imports of articles
like or directly competitive with the refined petroleum products
produced by the subject firm, and that, while the initial investigation
revealed that U.S. aggregate imports of refined petroleum products
decreased during the relevant period, the Department did not compare
domestic production to U.S. imports of like or directly competitive
articles.
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that there was no increase in imports by Sunoco, Inc., or its
customer, nor was there a shift in production to a foreign country or
acquisition of production from a foreign country by the workers' firm.
In addition, additional research conducted during the reconsideration
investigation revealed that U.S. aggregate imports of like or directly
competitive articles did not increase relative to domestic production
during the relevant period.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed no increased imports during the relevant period
by the subject firm or its customers of articles like or directly
competitive with those produced by the subject facilities, and no
increased aggregate U.S. imports of articles like or directly
competitive with refined petroleum products.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that the workers' firm did not shift the production of refined
petroleum products, or a like or directly competitive article, to a
foreign county or acquire the production of refined petroleum products,
or a like or directly competitive article, from a foreign county.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that the requirements of Section
222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272, have not been met and, therefore, deny
the petition for group eligibility of Sunoco, Inc., R&M, Refining
Division, Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania (TA-W-81,145), and Sunoco, Inc.,
Lester, Pennsylvania (TA-W-81,145A), to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 23rd day of July 2012.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-18836 Filed 8-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P