Quantegy, Incorporated; Opelika, AL; Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration, 3735 [E5-272]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 26, 2005 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–55,704]
Quantegy, Incorporated; Opelika, AL;
Dismissal of Application for
Reconsideration
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an
application for administrative
reconsideration was filed with the
Director of the Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance for workers at
Quantegy, Incorporated, Opelika,
Alabama. The application contained no
new substantial information which
would bear importantly on the
Department’s determination. Therefore,
dismissal of the application was issued.
TA–W–55,704; Quantegy, Incorporated,
Opelika, Alabama (January 14,
2005).
Signed at Washington, DC this 18th day of
January 2005.
Timothy Sullivan,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–272 Filed 1–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–51,120, TA–W–51,120A and TA–W–
51,120B]
Sun Apparel of Texas, Armour Facility,
Sun Warehouse Facility and Goodyear
Distibution El Paso, TX; Notice of
Negative Determination on Remand
The United States Court of
International Trade (USCIT) remanded
to the Department of Labor (Department)
for further investigation in Former
Employees of Sun Apparel of Texas, et
al v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, No. 03–
00625.
On March 11, 2003, a company
official filed a petition for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on behalf
of workers at the subject firm.
Supplemental Administrative Record
(SAR) 50. While the petition was dated
January 8, 2003, 29 CFR 90.2 provides,
in the definition for ‘‘Date of the
petition,’’ that, for TAA purposes, the
date of the petition shall not be more
than thirty days prior to the date of the
filing. Thus, given the March 11, 2003
filing date, the petition date is
considered to be February 11, 2003. In
accordance with Section 223(b) of the
Trade Act, no certification may apply to
any worker whose last total or partial
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:33 Jan 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
separation from the subject company
occurred before February 11, 2002, one
year prior to the date of the petition.
Thus, any worker separated before
February 11, 2003 falls outside the
subject worker group.
In addition, 29 CFR 90.2 provides, in
the definition for ‘‘Increased imports,’’
for comparison between domestic
production 12 months prior to the date
of petition and domestic production for
the 12-month period starting two years
before the date of the petition.
Therefore, during the initial
investigation, the Department requested
and received sales, production,
employment, import and shift of
production information from the subject
company for the period that the
Department determined to be the
relevant period: The two calendar years
prior to the date of the petition (2001
and 2002). SAR 74. Information
pertaining to 2001 is relevant only to the
extent that it provides a basis for
comparison with 2002 events. The
Department determined that the petition
covered three facilities in El Paso,
Texas: Armour, Sun Warehouse, and
Goodyear Distribution. Further, the
Department found that the only
production of an article (manufacture of
jeans at the Armour Facility) had ceased
by June 2000 and that the production
activity had been shifted to Mexico.
On April 7, 2003, the Department
issued a negative determination
regarding eligibility to apply for TAA
for the workers of the subject facilities.
SAR 82. Workers at the Armour Facility
generated patterns used for jeans
production in Mexico. Workers at the
Sun Warehouse Facility included
laundry workers, trim workers and
administrative staff. Workers at the
Goodyear Distribution facility were
forklift operators and shipping and
receiving clerks. The negative
determination was based on the
investigation’s finding that the Armour
Facility did not import patterns or shift
pattern production abroad during the
investigatory time period (2001 and
2002) and that neither the Sun
Warehouse Facility nor the Goodyear
Distribution facility produced an article.
The Notice of determination was
published in the Federal Register on
April 24, 2003 (68 FR 20177). SAR 87.
On May 22, 2003, the petitioners
requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination. In the request,
the petitioners stated that the workers at
the Armour Facility produced samples
and that a shift of sample production
from the Armour Facility to Mexico was
supported by a TAA certification that
expired in September 2002. SAR 111.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3735
On July 1, 2003, the Department
issued a Notice of Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration. SAR 130. The Notice
of determination was published in the
Federal Register on July 15, 2003 (68 FR
41847). SAR 137. The allegations about
the production of samples had first
appeared in the request for
reconsideration. In response, the
Department conducted a comprehensive
inquiry of all operations, including
sample production, at the subject
facilities during the relevant period
(2001 and 2002). SAR 123–129.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioners alleged that sample
production at the Armour Facility
shifted to Mexico and inferred that
samples were being imported from
Mexico by the subject firm. The
Department conducted an inquiry into
this allegation and determined that
sample production did not shift to
Mexico and that the subject firm did not
import samples from Mexico. SAR 123–
129.
The reconsideration investigation also
revealed that patterns were generated
and transmitted ‘‘primarily’’ (See SAR
123) electronically and, therefore, did
not constitute an article. SAR 123–129.
Therefore, the Department determined
that, with regard to the petitioner’s
allegations, production of an article did
not occur at the Armour Facility.
Accordingly, the Department reaffirmed
the negative determination for that
worker group.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department also
found that the functions at the Armour
Facility’s ‘‘Print Shop’’ constituted
production, that label production had
shifted to Mexico during the relevant
period, and that the subject firm was
relying exclusively on the labels
produced at the affiliated facility in
Mexico. SAR 123–129. Therefore, the
Department determined that there were
increased subject firm imports of labels
and certified the separately-identifiable
‘‘Print Shop’’ workers.
The petitioners also stated that trim
functions shifted to Mexico. According
to the petitioners, the ‘‘TRIM
Department in the administrative area’’
controlled entry and exit of inventory of
sample production (See SAR 96) and
involved ‘‘checking that the orders for
thread, zippers, patches, whatever
accessories were needed for the
production were distributed correctly
here in El Paso as well as Mexico.’’ SAR
121. In response to the allegations, the
Department inquired into the matter
(See SAR 123–129) and determined that
trim work was a service incidental to
internal quality control procedures and
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 3735]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-272]
[[Page 3735]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-55,704]
Quantegy, Incorporated; Opelika, AL; Dismissal of Application for
Reconsideration
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative
reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance for workers at Quantegy, Incorporated, Opelika,
Alabama. The application contained no new substantial information which
would bear importantly on the Department's determination. Therefore,
dismissal of the application was issued.
TA-W-55,704; Quantegy, Incorporated, Opelika, Alabama (January 14,
2005).
Signed at Washington, DC this 18th day of January 2005.
Timothy Sullivan,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-272 Filed 1-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
