Federal Register, Volume 75, Number 30, February 16, 2010, Pages 7027-7148

Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2010 / Notices

[FR Doc. 2010-3008 Filed 2-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA-W-70,783]
T&S Hardwoods, Inc., Sylva, NC;
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated January 5, 2010,
a petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department's
negative determination regarding
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers
and former workers of the subject firm.
The denial notice was signed on
December 9, 2009 and will soon be
published in the Federal Register.
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 initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination, based on the
finding that imports of hardwood
lumber did not contribute to worker
separations at the subject facility and
there was no shift in production from
the subject firm to foreign country
during the period under investigation.
The petitioner stated that the workers
of the subject firm should be eligible for
TAA because the worker separations
were caused by "increase in foreign
imports, and/or a shift in production
and/or services to foreign countries."
The petitioner did not supply any
additional facts or documentation to
support the allegations.
The initial investigation revealed that
worker separations at the subject facility
were not caused by increased imports of
hardwood lumber into the United States
nor by a shift in production of
hardwood lumber from the subject
facility to a foreign country. T&S
Hardwoods, Inc. did not import
hardwood lumber and did not shift
production abroad. The Department
surveyed subject firm's major declining

hardwood lumber in 2007, 2008,
January through April 2008 and January
through April 2009. The survey revealed
no imports of hardwood lumber 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.
After careful review of the request for
reconsideration, the Department
determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not
been met.
Conclusion
After 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 21st day of
January 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-3014 Filed 2-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA-W-70,541]
Samuel Aaron, Inc., Long Island City,
NY; Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated January 12,
2010, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the
Department's negative determination
regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA),
applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The denial
notice was signed on December 7, 2009
and the Notice of Determination was
published in the Federal Register on
January 25, 2010 (75 FR 3932).
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 TAA petition filed on behalf of
workers at Samuel Aaron, Inc., Long
Island City, New York was based on the
finding that imports of services like or
directly competitive with services
provided by workers of the subject firm
did not contribute to worker separations
at the subject firm during the relevant
period and no shift in services to a
foreign source occurred. The subject
firm did not import nor acquire services
from a foreign country and did not shift
the provision of these services to a
foreign country during the relevant
period.
The petitioner stated in the request for
reconsideration that a shift in labor
overseas was the reason behind worker
separations at the subject facility.
The investigation revealed that
workers of the subject firm were
engaged in distribution and
warehousing services of jewelry during
the relevant period. Samuel Aaron, Inc.,
did not import these services, nor shift/
acquired provision of these services to/
from a foreign country during the
relevant period. Therefore, criteria II.A.
and II.B. of Section 222(a) of the Act
were not met.
Furthermore, with the respect to
Section 222(c) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that criterion 2
was not met because the workers did
not supply a service that was used by a
firm with TAA-certified workers in the
production of an article or supply of a
service that was a basis for TAA
certification.
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.
After careful review of the request for
reconsideration, the Department
determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not
been met.
Conclusion
After 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

7044

application is denied.

customers regarding their purchases of

United States. Office of the Federal Register. Federal Register, Volume 75, Number 30, February 16, 2010, Pages 7027-7148. Washington D.C.. UNT Digital Library. http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc67594/. Accessed July 14, 2014.