[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 120 (Friday, June 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37585-37586]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14849]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-82,396]


Sealy Mattress Company; A Subsidiary of Sealy, Inc.; Including 
On-Site Leased Workers From Express Employment Professionals; Portland, 
Oregon; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application dated May 16, 2013, United Steel, Paper and 
Forestry, Rubber Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service 
Workers International Union (USW), Local 330, requested administrative 
reconsideration of the Department of Labor's negative determination 
regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), 
applicable to workers and former workers of Sealy Mattress Company, a 
subsidiary of Sealy, Inc., Portland, Oregon (subject firm). The 
Department's Notice of Determination was issued on April 15, 2013 and 
was published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2013 (78 FR 28630).
    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 the subject firm was based on the Department's findings 
that, during the relevant period, neither the subject firm nor its 
customers increased imports of articles like or directly competitive 
with mattresses or box springs produced by the subject firm; the 
subject firm did not shift production of mattresses and/or box springs, 
or like or directly competitive articles, to a foreign country, and did 
not acquire such production from a foreign country; the subject firm is 
neither a Supplier nor Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a 
group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under 
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a); and the subject firm has 
not been publically identified by name by the International Trade 
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation 
resulting in an affirmative finding of serious injury, market 
disruption, or material injury, or threat thereof.
    The request for reconsideration stated that the workers of the 
subject firm should be eligible to apply for TAA because workers at the 
subject firm were impacted by foreign competition of imported 
mattresses and box springs. The request also asserts that increased 
imports should be measured both absolutely and relative to domestic 
production, as required by applicable regulation. The request further 
states that the subject firm is a Downstream Producer to a firm that 
employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility 
under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a).
    The request for reconsideration includes a reference to a blog that 
reported that imports of mattresses have increased since 2003, import 
data that shows that imports of bedding foundations (which are directly 
competitive with box springs) decreased in 2012 from 2011 levels, a 
list of bedding companies and sawmills that employed workers who are 
eligible to apply for TAA, and references on-line articles regarding 
Sealy Mattress.
    During the review of the application, the Department carefully 
reviewed the USW's request for reconsideration (including the 
attachments), the existing record, and the articles referenced in the 
application (``Sealy opens first factory in China''; February 2011; 
http://bedtimesmagazine.com and ``Sealy Opens New Toronto Facility''; 
October 15, 2008; http://furninfo.com).
    The request for reconsideration 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. Based on these findings, 
the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

Conclusion

    After careful 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.


[[Page 37586]]


    Signed in Washington, DC, this 7th day of June, 2013.
 Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013-14849 Filed 6-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P