Apex Pattern Company, Los Angeles, CA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 21246 [E5-1938]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
21246
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Notices
The amended notice applicable to TAW–56,168 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of AG Communication
Systems, a division of Lucent Technologies,
Genoa, Illinois (TA–W–56,168), including
employees of AG Communication Systems, a
division of Lucent Technologies, Genoa,
Illinois, working in Florida (TA–W–
56,168A), Wisconsin (TA–W–56,168B),
California (TA–W–56,168C) and Texas (TA–
W–56,168D), who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after
December 3, 2003, through January 4, 2007,
are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
and are also eligible to apply for alternative
trade adjustment assistance under Section
246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed at Washington, DC this 1st day of
April 2005.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–1937 Filed 4–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
[TA–W–56,838]
Alden Manufacturing, Co. Chicago, IL;
Notice of Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on October
14, 2003 in response to a petition filed
on by a company official on behalf of
workers of Alden Manufacturing, Co.,
Chicago, Illinois.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC this 30th day of
March 2005.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–1936 Filed 4–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
ADMINISTRATION
[TA–W 56,756 and TA–W 56,756A]
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Apex Pattern Company, Los Angeles,
CA; Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
Employment and Training
Administration
Ansonia Copper and Brass, Anosonia,
CT, Ansonia Copper and Brass,
Waterbury, CT; Notice of Termination
of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
14:51 Oct 19, 2009
Signed at Washington, DC this 6th day of
April 2005.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–1934 Filed 4–22–05; 8:45 am]
[TA–W–56,083]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
VerDate Nov<24>2008
investigation was initiated on March 14,
2005 in response to a petition filed by
a state agency representative on behalf
of workers at Ansonia Copper and Brass,
Ansonia, Connecticut, and Ansonia
Copper and Brass, Waterbury,
Connecticut.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Jkt 220001
By application of February 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) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA). The denial notice
was signed on February 1, 2005 and
published in the Federal Register on
March 9, 2005 (70 FR 11703).
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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of
workers at Apex Pattern Company, Los
Angeles, California engaged in
production of wheel molds was denied
because the ‘‘contributed importantly’’
group eligibility requirement of Section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not
met. The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test
is generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers’ firm’s customers.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The survey revealed no increase in
imports of wheel molds during the
relevant period. The subject firm did not
import wheel molds in the relevant
period nor did it shift production to a
foreign country.
The petitioner alleges that the subject
firm lost its business due to its major
customers importing products and
shifting their production abroad.
In order to establish import impact,
the Department must consider imports
that are like or directly competitive with
those produced at the subject firm. The
Department conducted a survey of the
subject firm’s major declining customer
regarding their purchases of wheel
molds. The survey revealed that the
declining customers did not increase
their imports of wheel molds during the
relevant period.
The petitioner further alleges that the
major customer of the subject firm has
shifted its production of wheels to
Mexico and that workers of this firm
were certified eligible for TAA.
The fact that subject firm’s customer
shifted its production abroad and were
certified eligible for TAA is relevant to
this investigation if determining
whether workers of the subject firm are
eligible for trade adjustment assistance
(TAA) based on the secondary upstream
supplier impact. For certification on the
basis of the workers’ firm being a
secondary upstream supplier, the
subject firm must produce a component
part of the article that was the basis for
the customers’ certification.
In this case, however, the subject firm
does not act as an upstream supplier,
because wheel molds do not form a
component part of the aluminum
automotive wheels. Thus the subject
firm workers are not eligible under
secondary impact.
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 31st day of
March, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–1938 Filed 4–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
E:\TEMP\25APN1.SGM
25APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 78 (Monday, April 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 21246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-1938]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-56,083]
Apex Pattern Company, Los Angeles, CA; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of February 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) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The denial notice was
signed on February 1, 2005 and published in the Federal Register on
March 9, 2005 (70 FR 11703).
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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Apex Pattern
Company, Los Angeles, California engaged in production of wheel molds
was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility
requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The
``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers' firm's customers. The survey revealed no
increase in imports of wheel molds during the relevant period. The
subject firm did not import wheel molds in the relevant period nor did
it shift production to a foreign country.
The petitioner alleges that the subject firm lost its business due
to its major customers importing products and shifting their production
abroad.
In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider
imports that are like or directly competitive with those produced at
the subject firm. The Department conducted a survey of the subject
firm's major declining customer regarding their purchases of wheel
molds. The survey revealed that the declining customers did not
increase their imports of wheel molds during the relevant period.
The petitioner further alleges that the major customer of the
subject firm has shifted its production of wheels to Mexico and that
workers of this firm were certified eligible for TAA.
The fact that subject firm's customer shifted its production abroad
and were certified eligible for TAA is relevant to this investigation
if determining whether workers of the subject firm are eligible for
trade adjustment assistance (TAA) based on the secondary upstream
supplier impact. For certification on the basis of the workers' firm
being a secondary upstream supplier, the subject firm must produce a
component part of the article that was the basis for the customers'
certification.
In this case, however, the subject firm does not act as an upstream
supplier, because wheel molds do not form a component part of the
aluminum automotive wheels. Thus the subject firm workers are not
eligible under secondary impact.
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 31st day of March, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-1938 Filed 4-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
