[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 243 (Monday, December 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67911-67912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30252]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,454]


Graphite Engineering and Sales Company, Greenville, MI; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated November 13, 2009, 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 September 24, 2009 and 
was published in the Federal Register on November 17, 2009 (74 FR 
59255).
    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

[[Page 67912]]

    (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 graphite and carbon parts 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 ``contributed importantly'' test is 
generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's 
declining customers. The survey revealed no imports of graphite and 
carbon parts by declining customers during the relevant period. The 
subject firm did not import graphite and carbon parts nor shift 
production to a foreign country during the relevant period.
    The petitioner states that workers of the subject firm indirectly 
supplied parts that were integral in petroleum production. The 
petitioner further states that demand for drilling equipment has 
diminished because of the new fuel efficiency standards and seems to 
allege that the workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA 
as secondary impacted workers under Section 222(c).
    For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification under 
Section 222(c), to workers of a secondary upstream supplier, the 
subject firm must produce for a certified customer a component part of 
the article that was the basis for the customers' certification.
    In this case, however, the subject firm does not act as an upstream 
supplier, because graphite and carbon parts do not form a component 
part of petroleum products. Thus the subject firm workers are not 
eligible under secondary impact as suppliers to companies producing 
petroleum fuel.
    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 10th day of December, 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-30252 Filed 12-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P