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