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). 

4468 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 

The previous investigation initiated 

on September 3, 2008, resulted in a 

negative determination issued on 

November 7, 2008, was based on the 

finding that imports of metal stamping 

parts did not contribute importantly to 

worker separations at the subject firm 

and no shift in production to a foreign 

source occurred. The denial notice was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71696). 

On reconsideration, the Department 

requested an additional list of customers 

of the subject firm and conducted a 

customer survey to determine whether 

imports of metal stamping parts 

negatively impacted employment at the 

subject firm. 

The survey of the major declining 

customers revealed that the customers 

increased imports of metal stamping 

parts while decreasing purchases from 

the subject firm during January through 

August 2008 over the corresponding 

2007 period. 

In accordance with Section 246 the 

Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 

amended, the Department of Labor 

herein presents the results of its 

investigation regarding certification of 

eligibility to apply for alternative trade 

adjustment assistance (ATAA) for older 

workers. 

In order for the Department to issue 

a certification of eligibility to apply for 

ATAA, the group eligibility 

requirements of Section 246 of the 

Trade Act must be met. The Department 

has determined in this case that the 

requirements of Section 246 have been 

met. 

A significant number of workers at the 

firm are age 50 or over and possess 

skills that are not easily transferable. 

Competitive conditions within the 

industry are adverse. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the additional 

facts obtained on reconsideration, I 

conclude that increased imports of 

articles like or directly competitive with 

those produced at Stauble Machine and 

Tool Co., Inc., Louisville, Kentucky, 

contributed importantly to the declines 

in sales or production and to the total 

or partial separation of workers at the 

subject firm. In accordance with the 

provisions of the Act, I make the 

following certification: 

All workers of Stauble Machine and Tool 

Co., Inc., Louisville, Kentucky, who became 

totally or partially separated from 

employment on or after September 2, 2007, 

through two years from the date of this 

certification, are eligible to apply for 

adjustment assistance under Section 223 of 

the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to 

apply for alternative trade adjustment 

assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act 

of 1974. 

Signed in Washington, DC this 15th day of 

January 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–1494 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,742] 

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc., 

Detroit Forge Plant, Detroit, MI; Notice 

of Termination of Investigation 

In accordance with Section 221 of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on December 

19, 2008, in response to a petition filed 

by a Michigan State Workforce Office on 

behalf of workers of American Axle & 

Manufacturing, Inc., Detroit Forge Plant, 

Detroit, Michigan. 

The worker group is included in an 

active certification which covers all 

workers of American Axle & 

Manufacturing, Inc., Detroit 

Manufacturing Complex, Detroit, 

Michigan (TA–W–64,083, amended). 

Therefore, the petitioner has 

requested that the petition be 

withdrawn and the investigation has 

been terminated. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

January 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–1481 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,546] 

Hightower Technology Capital, Inc.: 

Working On Site at Hewlett-Packard 

Company; Vancouver, WA; Notice of 

Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on November 

26, 2008, in response to a worker 

petition filed by a company official on 

behalf of workers at Hightower 

Technology Capital, Inc., working on 

site at Hewlett-Packard Company, 

Vancouver, Washington. 

There are two existing certifications 

applicable to the petitioning group of 

workers: 

(1) Hewlett-Packard Company, Inkjet 

Consumer Solutions, HP Consumer 

Hardware Inkjet Lab, Vancouver, 

Washington (TA–W–64,127; certified 

October 23, 2008; amended January 9, 

2009). 

(2) Hewlett-Packard Company, 

Imaging and Printing Group, Edgeline 

Development and Light Production 

Systems Operations Division, Edgeline 

Development and Operations, 

Vancouver, Washington (TA–W–64,633; 

certified December 19, 2008). 

Consequently, further investigation 

would serve no purpose, and the 

investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of 

January 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–1482 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,536] 

Industrial Paint and Strip, Inc., 

Woodsfield, OH; Notice of Termination 

of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on November 

25, 2008 in response to a petition filed 

by a company official on behalf of 

workers of Industrial Paint and Strip, 

Inc., Woodsfield, Ohio. 

The petitioner has requested that the 

petition be withdrawn. Consequently, 

the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of 

January 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–1496 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,805] 

Lane Home Furnishing (Wren), Tupelo, 

MS; Notice of Termination of 

Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an