Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., (MSD), a Subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, Pennsylvania; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 24013 [2014-09753]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 82 / Tuesday, April 29, 2014 / Notices Employment and Training Administration apply for TAA because Section 222(e) of the Trade Act, as amended, was met. The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor 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. [TA–W–83,317] Conclusion approval of the ICR; they will also become a matter of public record. Eric M. Seleznow, Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training, Labor. [FR Doc. 2014–09749 Filed 4–28–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Wind Clean Corporation; Coleman, Texas; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated March 10, 2014, a Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Coordinator requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor’s negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for TAA applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The negative determination was issued on February 24, 2014. 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. The request for reconsideration asserts that because ‘‘Wind Clean provides coating services to Trinity Structural Towers in Coleman, Texas’’ and workers of Trinity Structural Towers are eligible to apply for TAA, Section 222(b) of the Trade Act, as amended, has been met. Section 222(b) of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), requires that the workers’ firm be a Supplier or Downstream Producer (as the case may be) to a firm that employed a worker group eligible to apply for TAA under Section 222(a) of the Trade Act and that the supply or production (as the case may be) is related to the article or service that was the basis for the Section 222(a) certification. Workers and former workers of Trinity Structural Towers, Coleman, Texas (TA–W–83,318) are eligible to VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:08 Apr 28, 2014 Jkt 232001 After careful review of the application 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 in Washington, DC, this 8th day of April 2014. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2014–09754 Filed 4–28–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–83,194] Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., (MSD), a Subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., West Point, Pennsylvania; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated March 10, 2014, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 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. The determination was issued on February 18, 2014 and the Department’s Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on March 14, 2014 (79 FR 14543). Workers at the subject firm are engaged in activities related to the production of pharmaceuticals and vaccines for human use. The negative determination was based on the Department’s findings that the subject firm did not shift production of pharmaceuticals and vaccines to a foreign country (or acquire such production from a foreign country) and that imports of articles like or directly PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 24013 competitive with the pharmaceuticals and vaccines produced by the workers did not increase during the period under investigation. 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. The request for reconsideration included information that indicates that the determination was based on facts not previously considered. The request for reconsideration stated that the worker group at the subject facility consists of three separately identifiable worker sub-groups (research and development, manufacturing, and global support networks), that the scope of the initial investigation was ‘‘overly narrow’’ because workers in the research and development sub-group and/or the global support networks subgroup ‘‘may be engaged in activities totally separate and unrelated from’’ activities of the manufacturing subgroup. The request for reconsideration included supporting documents. The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration, including the attachments, and the existing record, and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor’s prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of April, 2014. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2014–09753 Filed 4–28–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P E:\FR\FM\29APN1.SGM 29APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 24013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09753]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-83,194]


Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., (MSD), a Subsidiary of Merck & Co., 
Inc., West Point, Pennsylvania; Notice of Affirmative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated March 10, 2014, the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania 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. The determination was issued on February 18, 2014 and 
the Department's Notice of determination was published in the Federal 
Register on March 14, 2014 (79 FR 14543). Workers at the subject firm 
are engaged in activities related to the production of pharmaceuticals 
and vaccines for human use.
    The negative determination was based on the Department's findings 
that the subject firm did not shift production of pharmaceuticals and 
vaccines to a foreign country (or acquire such production from a 
foreign country) and that imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with the pharmaceuticals and vaccines produced by the 
workers did not increase during the period under investigation.
    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.
    The request for reconsideration included information that indicates 
that the determination was based on facts not previously considered. 
The request for reconsideration stated that the worker group at the 
subject facility consists of three separately identifiable worker sub-
groups (research and development, manufacturing, and global support 
networks), that the scope of the initial investigation was ``overly 
narrow'' because workers in the research and development sub-group and/
or the global support networks sub-group ``may be engaged in activities 
totally separate and unrelated from'' activities of the manufacturing 
sub-group. The request for reconsideration included supporting 
documents.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration, including the attachments, and the existing record, 
and has determined that the Department will conduct further 
investigation to determine if the workers meet the eligibility 
requirements of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of April, 2014.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014-09753 Filed 4-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P