7044 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 

customers regarding their purchases of 

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 

application is denied. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 16, 2010 / Notices 7045 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 28th day of 

January 2010. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3013 Filed 2–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–71,701] 

Key Gas Components, Inc., Marion, 

NC; Notice of Negative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration 

By application dated January 8, 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 31, 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 negative determination of the 

TAA petition filed on behalf of workers 

at Key Gas Components, Inc., Marion, 

North Carolina was based on the finding 

that imports of valves and manifolds did 

not contribute importantly to worker 

separations at the subject firm and there 

was no shift in production from the 

subject firm to a 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 directly caused by the imports of 

articles like or directly competitive with 

articles manufactured by workers of the 

subject firm. Moreover, the petitioner 

alleged that Key Gas Components 

imports these articles. 

The initial investigation did, in fact, 

reveal imports of like or directly 

competitive products with valves and 

manifolds manufactured by workers of 

the subject firm. However, the data 

analysis revealed that imports of valves 

and manifolds declined relatively and 

absolutely to the subject firm’s sales and 

production from 2007 to 2008 and 

further declined during January through 

June, 2009 over the corresponding 2008 

period. 

Furthermore, the Department 

surveyed subject firm’s major declining 

customers regarding their purchases of 

valves and manifolds during the 

relevant period. The survey revealed no 

imports of valves and manifolds. 

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 2nd day of 

February, 2010. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3017 Filed 2–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES