[Federal Register: June 13, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 34158]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13jn05-83]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-56,701]
Twigs & Ivy Boutique, Potosi, MO; Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of April 14, 2005, a petitioner 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). The
denial notice was signed on May 2, 2005, (70 FR 22710).
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, which was filed on behalf of workers at Twigs &
Ivy Boutique, Potosi, Missouri engaged in the production of floral
arrangements, was denied based on the findings that during the relevant
time period, the subject company did not separate or threaten to
separate a significant number or proportion of workers, as required by
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges that
there was an additional employee of Twigs & Ivy Boutique who was
mistakenly omitted from the employment list originally submitted to the
Department by the company official.
This alleged employee was contacted by the Department to confirm
the above statement. The employee stated that she worked for Twigs &
Ivy Boutique, Potosi, Missouri in 2002.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively
considers the relevant employment data for the facility where the
petitioning worker group was employed. The relevant period represents
four quarters back from the date of the petition, thus data from 2002
is irrelevant in this investigation. As fewer than three workers were
impacted at the subject firm during the relevant time period,
employment threshold requirement as outlined in Section 222 of the
Trade Act of 1974 was not 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 27th day of May, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-3030 Filed 6-10-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P