4466 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 

APPENDIX

[TAA petitions instituted between 1/5/09 and 1/9/09] 

TA–W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of 

institution 

Date of 

petition 

64807 ................ Versa Diecast, Inc. (State) ................................................... New Hope, MN ..................... 01/05/09 12/31/08 

64808 ................ Fiskars Brands, Inc. (Comp) ................................................ Wausau, WI .......................... 01/05/09 12/29/08 

64809 ................ S & B Industry Technologies, L.P. (Comp) .......................... Fort Worth, TX ...................... 01/05/09 01/02/09 

64810 ................ Legere Group, Ltd. dba Legere Wooodworking (State) ....... Avon, CT ............................... 01/05/09 12/05/08 

64811 ................ Clayton Marcus Company—Plant 1—Bethlehem (Comp) ... Hickory, NC ........................... 01/06/09 12/29/08 

64812 ................ LuK USA LLC (Comp) .......................................................... Wooster, OH ......................... 01/06/09 12/19/08 

64813 ................ Gerber Scientific, Inc. (State) ............................................... Tolland, CT ........................... 01/06/09 01/05/09 

64814 ................ PPM Technologies, Inc. (Wkrs) ............................................ Newberg, OR ........................ 01/06/09 12/30/08 

64815 ................ Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (Union) ............................... Port Allegany, PA .................. 01/06/09 01/05/09 

64816 ................ Northwest Aluminum Specialties (USW) .............................. The Dalles, OR ..................... 01/06/09 12/19/08 

64817 ................ Boise, Inc. (AWPPW) ........................................................... St. Helens, OR ...................... 01/07/09 12/17/08 

64818 ................ Concept Packaging Group (Comp) ...................................... Griffin, GA ............................. 01/07/09 01/06/09 

64819 ................ Teck-Washington, Inc. (Comp) ............................................. Metaline Falls, WA ................ 01/07/09 01/06/09 

64820 ................ Tenneco Automotive (Comp) ............................................... Evansville, IN ........................ 01/07/09 01/06/09 

64821 ................ Cone Jacquards, LLC—An ITG Company (Comp) .............. Cliffside, NC .......................... 01/07/09 01/06/09 

64822 ................ Pulaski Furniture Corporation (Wkrs) ................................... Pulaski, VA ............................ 01/07/09 01/06/08 

64823 ................ Martin Transportation Systems (Wkrs) ................................. Huber Heights, OH ............... 01/07/09 12/29/08 

64824 ................ IACNA (Wkrs) ....................................................................... Lebanon, VA ......................... 01/07/09 12/29/08 

64825 ................ Briggs-Shaffner Company (Comp) ....................................... Simpsonville, SC ................... 01/07/09 12/22/08 

64826 ................ Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc. (Comp) ..................... Thomasville, NC .................... 01/07/09 01/06/09 

64827 ................ Thomasville Furniture Industries, Ind.—Plant E (Comp) ..... Thomasville, NC .................... 01/07/09 01/06/09 

64828 ................ Thomasville Furniture Industries, Ind.—Upholstery 5 

(Comp).

Conover, NC ......................... 01/07/09 01/06/09 

64829 ................ Cooper Tire and Rubber Company (Comp) ......................... Albany, GA ............................ 01/07/09 01/05/09 

64830 ................ Philips Lumileds Lighting Company (Comp) ........................ San Jose, CA ........................ 01/08/09 01/07/09 

64831 ................ ATC Panels, Inc. (Comp) ..................................................... Morrisville, NC ....................... 01/08/09 01/07/09 

64832 ................ Photronics (Comp) ................................................................ Boise, ID ............................... 01/08/09 01/07/09 

64833 ................ Carrier Corporation (SMWIA) ............................................... Tyler, TX ............................... 01/08/09 01/07/09 

64834 ................ Regal Beloit (Wkrs) .............................................................. West Plains, MO ................... 01/08/09 01/05/09 

64835 ................ Logistics Services (Wkrs) ..................................................... Dayton, OH ........................... 01/08/09 12/26/08 

64836 ................ Black Dot Group (Comp) ...................................................... Winter Park, FL ..................... 01/08/09 01/07/09 

64837 ................ Bill Blass International (UNITE) ............................................ New York, NY ....................... 01/09/09 12/23/08 

64838 ................ Cosby National Swage (State) ............................................. Jacksonville, AR .................... 01/09/09 01/08/09 

64839 ................ Sony Technology Center-Pittsburgh (Comp) ....................... Mt. Pleasant, PA ................... 01/09/09 01/09/09 

64840 ................ International Paper (AFLCIO) ............................................... Cleveland, TN ....................... 01/09/09 12/18/08 

64841 ................ MAR/TRON, Inc. (State) ....................................................... Flippin, AR ............................ 01/09/09 01/08/09 

64842 ................ American & Efird, Nelson 02 Plant (Comp) ......................... Lenoir, NC ............................. 01/09/09 01/08/09 

64843 ................ TDK Components USA, Inc. (Comp) ................................... Peachtree City, GA ............... 01/09/09 01/08/09 

64844 ................ Coherent, Inc. (Comp) .......................................................... Auburn, CA ........................... 01/09/09 01/08/09 

64845 ................ Reach Road Manufacturing (Wkrs) ...................................... Williamsport, PA .................... 01/09/09 12/23/08 

64846 ................ Tracker Marine (Wkrs) .......................................................... Bolivar, MO ........................... 01/09/09 01/07/09 

64847 ................ Brunswick Family Boat Co., Inc. (State) .............................. Cumberland, MD ................... 01/09/09 01/08/09 

64848 ................ Ozark Mountain Apparel—Monett (State) ............................ Monett, MO ........................... 01/09/09 01/08/09 

64849 ................ Ozark Mountain Apparel—Purdy (State) .............................. Purdy, MO ............................. 01/09/09 01/08/09 

64850 ................ NCO Financial Systems (Wkrs) ........................................... Horsham, PA ......................... 01/09/09 12/05/08 

[FR Doc. E9–1493 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,208] 

Anchor Glass Container Corporation, 

Zanesville Mould Division, Zanesville, 

OH; Notice of Negative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration 

By application dated December 29, 

2008, United Steelworkers, Local 121 T 

requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

negative determination regarding 

eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), 

applicable to workers and former 

workers of the subject firm. The denial 

notice was signed on November 21, 

2008 and published in the Federal 

Register on December 10, 2008 (73 FR 

75136). 

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 initial investigation that resulted 

in a negative determination was based 

on the finding that imports of moulds 

and related glass container equipment 

did not contribute importantly to 

worker separations at the subject facility 

and there was no shift of production to 

a foreign country. The subject firm did 

not import moulds and related glass 

container equipment during the relevant 

period. The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ 

test is generally demonstrated through a 

survey of the workers’ firm’s declining 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4467 

domestic customers. In this case the 

survey was not conducted because all 

moulds and related glass container 

equipment was used internally in the 

products of glassware. The subject firm 

did not have external customers in the 

relevant period and did not import 

moulds and related glass container 

equipment. 

The petitioner alleged that subject 

firm’s competitors import mould 

equipment, thus having an advantage 

over the subject firm in locating 

potential customers. 

The impact of competitors on the 

domestic firms is revealed in an 

investigation through customer surveys. 

In the case at hand, in the absence of the 

external customers, the Department 

solicited information from the internal 

customers of the subject firm to 

determine if customers purchased 

imported moulds and related glass 

container equipment. The information 

was intended to determine if competitor 

imports contributed importantly to 

layoffs at the subject firm. The 

investigation revealed no imports of 

moulds and related glass container 

equipment during the relevant period. 

The subject firm did not import moulds 

and related glass container equipment 

nor was there a shift in production from 

subject firm abroad 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 9th day of 

January 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–1491 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,338] 

Pine Island Sportswear, Ltd, Monroe, 

NC; Notice of Negative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration 

By application dated January 7, 2009, 

a company official requested 

administrative reconsideration of the 

Department’s negative determination 

regarding eligibility for workers and 

former workers of the subject firm to 

apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance 

(TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The 

denial notice was signed on December 

2, 2008 and published in the Federal 

Register on December 18, 2008 (73 FR 

77068). 

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 Pine Island Sportswear, Ltd., 

Monroe, North Carolina was based on 

the finding that the worker group does 

not produce an article within the 

meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act 

of 1974. 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioner stated that workers of the 

subject firm were previously certified 

eligible for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. The petitioner further stated 

that even though production did not 

occur at the subject facility in the 

relevant period, workers of the subject 

firm ‘‘should not be denied the same 

rights as a production employee.’’ The 

petitioner appears to allege that because 

the subject firm once manufactured 

articles and was previously certified 

eligible for TAA, the workers of the 

subject firm should be granted another 

TAA certification. 

The workers of Pine Island 

Sportswear, Ltd., Monroe, North 

Carolina were previously certified 

eligible for TAA under petition numbers 

TA–W–58,714, which expired on 

January 31, 2008. The investigation 

revealed that production at the subject 

firm ceased in February 2006. 

When assessing eligibility for TAA, 

the Department exclusively considers 

production during the relevant time 

period (from one year prior to the date 

of the petition). Therefore, events 

occurring in 2006 are outside of the 

relevant period and are not considered 

in this investigation. 

The investigation revealed that 

workers of the subject firm were 

engaged in work related to 

administrative and distribution during 

the relevant period. These functions, as 

described above, are not considered to 

be production of an article within the 

meaning of Section 222 of the Trade 

Act. 

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 at Washington, DC, this 14th day of 

January 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–1495 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–63,976] 

Stauble Machine and Tool Co., Inc.: 

Louisville, KY; Notice of Revised 

Determination on Reconsideration 

On December 10, 2008, the 

Department issued an Affirmative 

Determination Regarding Application 

on Reconsideration applicable to 

workers and former workers of the 

subject firm. The notice was published 

in the Federal Register on December 18, 

2008 (73 FR 77064).