Komax Solar, Inc., a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Komax Holdings AG, York, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 2291 [2013-00340]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 7 / Thursday, January 10, 2013 / Notices
I hereby certify that the
aforementioned determinations were
issued during the period of December
17, 2012 through December 31, 2012.
These determinations are available on
the Department’s Web site tradeact/taa/
taa search form.cfm under the
searchable listing of determinations or
by calling the Office of Trade
Adjustment Assistance toll free at 888–
365–6822.
Dated: January 2, 2013.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013–00338 Filed 1–9–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–82,074]
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with
Komax Solar, Inc., a Wholly Owned
Subsidiary of Komax Holdings AG,
York, PA; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By applications received on
November 12, 2012 and November 26,
2012, two workers independently
requested administrative
reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers
and former workers Komax Solar, Inc.,
a wholly owned subsidiary of Komax
Holdings, AG, York, Pennsylvania
(subject firm or Komax). The negative
determination was issued on November
1, 2012. The Department’s Notice of
Determination was published in the
Federal Register on November 26, 2012
(77 FR 70480).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c),
administrative 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 workers of Komax were engaged
in activities related to the production of
solar panel production machines. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:22 Jan 09, 2013
Jkt 229001
products manufactured at the subject
firm are predominantly for export sale.
The petition stated that the workers
were informed by the subject firm that
the layoffs were a result of production
shifting to a Komax facility in Asia. In
the request for reconsideration, the
workers again asserted that separations
at Komax are attributable to a future
shift of solar panel production to Asia.
Machines used to produce solar
panels are not component parts of solar
panels and are neither like nor directly
competitive with solar panels.
The negative determination was based
on the Department’s findings that the
subject firm did not shift to a foreign
country the production of articles like or
directly competitive with the solar
panel production machines produced by
the workers, or acquire the production
of such articles from a foreign country;
that the workers’ separation, or threat of
separation, was not related to any
increase in imports by the subject firm
of articles like or directly competitive
with solar panel production machines;
and that the workers’ firm is not a
supplier or a downstream producer to a
firm that employed a group of workers
who received a TAA certification.
The Department did not conduct a
survey on the subject firm’s declining
domestic customers of solar panel
production machines because sales to
domestic customers increased during
the relevant time period. Further, the
articles manufactured at the subject firm
during the relevant time period were
almost entirely export sales.
One of the requests for
reconsideration alleges ‘‘flooding of the
market by underpriced Chinese solar
modules.’’ The Department notes that
the International Trade Commission did
not name Komax as a member of a
domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in an affirmative finding of
serious injury, market disruption, or
material injury, or threat thereof.
The workers in the requests for
reconsideration did not supply facts not
previously considered or 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. Based on these findings,
the Department determines that 29 CFR
90.18(c) has not been met.
Conclusion
After review of the applications and
investigative findings, I conclude that
there has been no error or
misinterpretation of the law or of the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2291
facts which would justify
reconsideration of the Department of
Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of
December, 2012.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013–00340 Filed 1–9–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Investigations Regarding Eligibility To
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance
Petitions have been filed with the
Secretary of Labor under Section 221)(a)
of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and
are identified in the Appendix to this
notice. Upon receipt of these petitions,
the Director of the Office of Trade
Adjustment Assistance, Employment
and Training Administration, has
instituted investigations pursuant to
Section 221 (a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the
investigations is to determine whether
the workers are eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Title II,
Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations
will further relate, as appropriate, to the
determination of the date on which total
or partial separations began or
threatened to begin and the subdivision
of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons
showing a substantial interest in the
subject matter of the investigations may
request a public hearing, provided such
request is filed in writing with the
Director, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance, at the address shown below,
not later than January 22, 2013.
Interested persons are invited to
submit written comments regarding the
subject matter of the investigations to
the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance, at the address shown below,
not later than January 22, 2013.
The petitions filed in this case are
available for inspection at the Office of
the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance, Employment and Training
Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N–5428, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of
January 2013.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
E:\FR\FM\10JAN1.SGM
10JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 7 (Thursday, January 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 2291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00340]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-82,074]
Komax Solar, Inc., a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Komax Holdings
AG, York, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By applications received on November 12, 2012 and November 26,
2012, two workers independently requested administrative
reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers'
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable
to workers and former workers Komax Solar, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Komax Holdings, AG, York, Pennsylvania (subject firm or
Komax). The negative determination was issued on November 1, 2012. The
Department's Notice of Determination was published in the Federal
Register on November 26, 2012 (77 FR 70480).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), administrative 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 workers of Komax were engaged in activities related to the
production of solar panel production machines. The products
manufactured at the subject firm are predominantly for export sale.
The petition stated that the workers were informed by the subject
firm that the layoffs were a result of production shifting to a Komax
facility in Asia. In the request for reconsideration, the workers again
asserted that separations at Komax are attributable to a future shift
of solar panel production to Asia.
Machines used to produce solar panels are not component parts of
solar panels and are neither like nor directly competitive with solar
panels.
The negative determination was based on the Department's findings
that the subject firm did not shift to a foreign country the production
of articles like or directly competitive with the solar panel
production machines produced by the workers, or acquire the production
of such articles from a foreign country; that the workers' separation,
or threat of separation, was not related to any increase in imports by
the subject firm of articles like or directly competitive with solar
panel production machines; and that the workers' firm is not a supplier
or a downstream producer to a firm that employed a group of workers who
received a TAA certification.
The Department did not conduct a survey on the subject firm's
declining domestic customers of solar panel production machines because
sales to domestic customers increased during the relevant time period.
Further, the articles manufactured at the subject firm during the
relevant time period were almost entirely export sales.
One of the requests for reconsideration alleges ``flooding of the
market by underpriced Chinese solar modules.'' The Department notes
that the International Trade Commission did not name Komax as a member
of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in an affirmative
finding of serious injury, market disruption, or material injury, or
threat thereof.
The workers in the requests for reconsideration did not supply
facts not previously considered or 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.
Based on these findings, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c)
has not been met.
Conclusion
After review of the applications and investigative findings, I
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of December, 2012.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013-00340 Filed 1-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
