[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57626-57627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20049]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-91,218]


Mesabi Radial Tire Company, 1801 5th Avenue East, Hibbing, 
Minnesota; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application 
for Reconsideration

    By application dated January 29, 2016, the state workforce office 
requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination 
regarding workers' eligibility to apply for worker adjustment 
assistance applicable to workers and former workers of Mesabi Radial 
Tire Company, 1801 5th Avenue East, Hibbing, Minnesota. The 
determination was issued on January 12, 2016.
    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 initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the findings that imports did not increase, and that the 
workers' firm does not import wholesale or repair services. Further, 
the firm did not shift the supply of wholesale or repair services or 
like or directly competitive services to a foreign country or acquire 
wholesale or repair services or like or directly competitive services 
from a foreign country. Further, the firm is not a Supplier 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

[[Page 57627]]

services supplied by the workers firm were not used in the production 
of an article, iron ore. The services supplied were used within the 
tools/equipment used to mine for ore. Finally, the firm does not act as 
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 workers' firm was not engaged in value-
added finishing processes used in the production of an article or 
supply of a service.
    The request for reconsideration states that this determination is 
erroneous and that the subject firm should be considered to be a 
downstream supplier because without their products steel cannot be 
manufactured. The request also included additional information relating 
to this statement.
    The Department of Labor has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of July, 2016.
Jessica R. Webster,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2016-20049 Filed 8-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P