VEC Technology, LLC; a Subsidiary of J&D Holdings, LLC; Greenville, Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 29212 [2014-11642]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
29212
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 98 / Wednesday, May 21, 2014 / Notices
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 7th day
of May, 2014.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014–11637 Filed 5–20–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–85,051]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
VEC Technology, LLC; a Subsidiary of
J&D Holdings, LLC; Greenville,
Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated April 10, 2014,
a company official requested
administrative reconsideration of the
Department of Labor’s negative
determination regarding eligibility to
apply for worker adjustment assistance,
applicable to workers and former
workers of VEC Technology, LLC, a
subsidiary of J&D Holdings, LLC,
Greenville, Pennsylvania (subject firm).
The determination was issued on March
21, 2014. The Department’s notice of
determination was published in the
Federal Register on April 8, 2014 (79 FR
19385).
The workers’ firm is engaged in
activities related to the production of
engine hoods, engine cover tooling, and
parts for forklifts and drainage trenches.
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 negative determination of the
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
petition filed on behalf of workers at the
subject firm was based on the
Department’s findings that the subject
firm did not shift production of engine
hoods and associated articles to a
foreign country and that neither the
subject firm nor its customers imported
engine hoods and associated articles, or
articles like or directly competitive,
during the relevant time period.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner asserts that the workers of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:42 May 20, 2014
Jkt 232001
subject firm should be eligible to apply
for TAA because loss of business that
occurred prior to the relevant time
period continues to impact the
operations of the subject firm.
29 CFR 90.16(b)(3) establishes that the
Department find ‘‘increases (absolute or
relative) of imports of articles like or
directly competitive with articles
produced by such workers’ firm or an
appropriate subdivision thereof . . . .’’
29 CFR 90.2 states ‘‘Increased imports
means that imports have increased
either absolutely or relative to domestic
production compared to a representative
base period. The representative base
period shall be one year consisting of
the four quarters immediately preceding
the date which is twelve months prior
to the date of the petition.’’
In the case at hand, the petition date
is February 4, 2014. Therefore, ‘‘the
twelve months prior’’ date is February 4,
2013, and the ‘‘representative base
period’’ is January 2012 through
December 2012. Consequently, imports
during January 2013 through December
2013 must have increased from January
2012 through December 2012 levels for
the Department to determine that the
regulatory definition of ‘‘increased
imports’’ is met.
The Department’s investigation,
which included an inquiry of both
subject firm and customer imports, did
not reveal increased imports of articles
like or directly competitive with those
produced at the subject firm during the
relevant period.
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.
Conclusion
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 28th day of
April, 2014.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Notice of Availability of Funds and
Solicitation for Grant Applications for
Workforce Innovation Fund Grants
Employment and Training
Administration, Labor.
AGENCY:
Notice of Solicitation for Grant
Applications (SGA).
ACTION:
Funding Opportunity Number: SGA/
DFA PY 13–06.
SUMMARY: The Employment and
Training Administration (ETA), U.S.
Department of Labor, announces the
availability of up to $53 million in grant
funds to be awarded under the
Workforce Innovation Fund (WIF) grant
program and anticipates awarding
between 8–15 grants. These funds
support innovative approaches that
generate long-term improvements in the
performance of the public workforce
system, outcomes for job seekers and
employers, and cost-effectiveness. All
projects funded under the WIF will be
rigorously evaluated in order to build a
body of knowledge about what works in
workforce development.
The complete SGA and any
subsequent SGA amendments in
connection with this solicitation are
described in further detail on ETA’s
Web site at https://www.doleta.gov/
grants/ or on https://www.grants.gov. The
Web sites provide application
information, eligibility requirements,
review and selection procedures, and
other program requirements governing
this solicitation.
The closing date for receipt of
applications under this announcement
is June 18, 2014. Applications must be
received no later than 4:00:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jeannette Flowers, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room N–4716,
Washington, DC 20210; Email:
Flowers.Jeannette@dol.gov.
Signed May 14, 2014 in Washington, DC.
Donna Kelly,
Grant Officer, Employment and Training
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014–11778 Filed 5–20–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
[FR Doc. 2014–11642 Filed 5–20–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\21MYN1.SGM
21MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 29212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11642]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-85,051]
VEC Technology, LLC; a Subsidiary of J&D Holdings, LLC;
Greenville, Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated April 10, 2014, a company official requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance, applicable to workers and former workers of VEC Technology,
LLC, a subsidiary of J&D Holdings, LLC, Greenville, Pennsylvania
(subject firm). The determination was issued on March 21, 2014. The
Department's notice of determination was published in the Federal
Register on April 8, 2014 (79 FR 19385).
The workers' firm is engaged in activities related to the
production of engine hoods, engine cover tooling, and parts for
forklifts and drainage trenches.
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 negative determination of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
petition filed on behalf of workers at the subject firm was based on
the Department's findings that the subject firm did not shift
production of engine hoods and associated articles to a foreign country
and that neither the subject firm nor its customers imported engine
hoods and associated articles, or articles like or directly
competitive, during the relevant time period.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner asserts that the
workers of the subject firm should be eligible to apply for TAA because
loss of business that occurred prior to the relevant time period
continues to impact the operations of the subject firm.
29 CFR 90.16(b)(3) establishes that the Department find ``increases
(absolute or relative) of imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles produced by such workers' firm or an
appropriate subdivision thereof . . . .''
29 CFR 90.2 states ``Increased imports means that imports have
increased either absolutely or relative to domestic production compared
to a representative base period. The representative base period shall
be one year consisting of the four quarters immediately preceding the
date which is twelve months prior to the date of the petition.''
In the case at hand, the petition date is February 4, 2014.
Therefore, ``the twelve months prior'' date is February 4, 2013, and
the ``representative base period'' is January 2012 through December
2012. Consequently, imports during January 2013 through December 2013
must have increased from January 2012 through December 2012 levels for
the Department to determine that the regulatory definition of
``increased imports'' is met.
The Department's investigation, which included an inquiry of both
subject firm and customer imports, did not reveal increased imports of
articles like or directly competitive with those produced at the
subject firm during the relevant period.
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.
Conclusion
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 28th day of April, 2014.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014-11642 Filed 5-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
