[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 98 (Wednesday, May 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 29212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11642]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-85,051]


VEC Technology, LLC; a Subsidiary of J&D Holdings, LLC; 
Greenville, Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated April 10, 2014, a company official requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment 
assistance, applicable to workers and former workers of VEC Technology, 
LLC, a subsidiary of J&D Holdings, LLC, Greenville, Pennsylvania 
(subject firm). The determination was issued on March 21, 2014. The 
Department's notice of determination was published in the Federal 
Register on April 8, 2014 (79 FR 19385).
    The workers' firm is engaged in activities related to the 
production of engine hoods, engine cover tooling, and parts for 
forklifts and drainage trenches.
    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 negative determination of the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
petition filed on behalf of workers at the subject firm was based on 
the Department's findings that the subject firm did not shift 
production of engine hoods and associated articles to a foreign country 
and that neither the subject firm nor its customers imported engine 
hoods and associated articles, or articles like or directly 
competitive, during the relevant time period.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner asserts that the 
workers of the subject firm should be eligible to apply for TAA because 
loss of business that occurred prior to the relevant time period 
continues to impact the operations of the subject firm.
    29 CFR 90.16(b)(3) establishes that the Department find ``increases 
(absolute or relative) of imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with articles produced by such workers' firm or an 
appropriate subdivision thereof . . . .''
    29 CFR 90.2 states ``Increased imports means that imports have 
increased either absolutely or relative to domestic production compared 
to a representative base period. The representative base period shall 
be one year consisting of the four quarters immediately preceding the 
date which is twelve months prior to the date of the petition.''
    In the case at hand, the petition date is February 4, 2014. 
Therefore, ``the twelve months prior'' date is February 4, 2013, and 
the ``representative base period'' is January 2012 through December 
2012. Consequently, imports during January 2013 through December 2013 
must have increased from January 2012 through December 2012 levels for 
the Department to determine that the regulatory definition of 
``increased imports'' is met.
    The Department's investigation, which included an inquiry of both 
subject firm and customer imports, did not reveal increased imports of 
articles like or directly competitive with those produced at the 
subject firm 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. 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.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 28th day of April, 2014.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2014-11642 Filed 5-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P