Potassium Permanganate From China, 32372 [05-10964]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
32372
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 105 / Thursday, June 2, 2005 / Notices
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731–TA–125 (Second
Review)]
Potassium Permanganate From China
Determination
On the basis of the record 1 developed
in the subject five-year review, the
United States International Trade
Commission determines, pursuant to
section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930
(the Act),2 that revocation of the
antidumping duty order on potassium
permanganate from China would be
likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of material injury to an
industry in the United States within a
reasonably foreseeable time.
Background
The Commission instituted this
review on October 1, 2004 (69 FR
58955), and determined on January 4,
2005, that it would conduct an
expedited review (70 FR 2428, January
13, 2005).
The Commission transmitted its
determination in this review to the
Secretary of Commerce on May 31,
2005. The views of the Commission are
contained in USITC Publication 3778
(June 2005), entitled Potassium
Permanganate from China: Investigation
No. 731–TA–125 (Second Review).
Issued: May 26, 2005.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–10964 Filed 6–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,286]
Duracell, a Division of the Gillette
Company, Lexington, NC; Notice of
Revised Determination on
Reconsideration
By letter postmarked April 15, 2005 a
petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration regarding the
Department’s Negative Determination
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance,
applicable to the workers of the subject
1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19
CFR 207.2(f)).
2 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:54 Jun 01, 2005
Jkt 205001
firm engaged in the production of high
power lithium film camera batteries.
The initial investigation resulted in a
split determination signed on March 2,
2005. The investigation revealed that
workers at the subject facility are
separately identifiable as workers
engaged in the packaging of zinc air
hearing aid batteries and workers
engaged in the production of high
power lithium film camera batteries.
Based on the investigation results, the
first group was certified eligible for
Trade Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance, while the second group was
denied these benefits. The negative
determination was based on the finding
that imports of high power lithium film
camera batteries did not contribute
importantly to worker separations at the
subject plant and no shift of production
to a foreign source occurred. The notice
was published in the Federal Register
on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16846).
In the request for reconsideration the
petitioner alleges that all workers of the
subject firm have been cross-trained to
perform various tasks within the subject
firm and are not separately identifiable
by the products manufactured.
A company official was contacted to
verify these allegations. The company
official stated that the information
provided by the subject firm to the
Department during the initial
investigation was not detailed. The
official further stated that in fact,
employees of Duracell in Lexington,
North Carolina are cross-trained to
perform multiple tasks and it is
impossible to separate them according
to the production lines. Therefore,
workers of the subject firm are not
separately identifiable.
In accordance with Section 246 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as
amended, the Department of Labor
herein presents the results of its
investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance (ATAA) for older
workers.
In order for the Department to issue
a certification of eligibility to apply for
ATAA, the group eligibility
requirements of Section 246 of the
Trade Act must be met. The Department
has determined in this case that the
requirements of Section 246 have been
met.
A significant number of workers at the
firm are age 50 or over and possess
skills that are not easily transferable.
Competitive conditions within the
industry are adverse.
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Conclusion
After careful review of the initial
investigation, I determine that there was
a shift in production from the workers’
firm or subdivision to a foreign country
of articles that are like or directly
competitive with those produced by the
subject firm or subdivision, and there
has been or is likely to be an increase
in imports of like or directly
competitive articles. In accordance with
the provisions of the Act, I make the
following certification:
All workers of Duracell, a division of the
Gillette Company, Lexington, North Carolina,
who became totally or partially separated
from employment on or after December 30,
2003 through two years from the date of this
certification, are eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of
the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to
apply for alternative trade adjustment
assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act
of 1974.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 19th day of
May, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–2797 Filed 6–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,923]
Engineered Machined Products, Inc.,
Plants 1 and 2, Escanaba, MI; Notice of
Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on April 7,
2005 in response to a petition filed by
a District Representative of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Local #328 on behalf of workers at
Engineered Machined Products, Inc.,
Plants 1 and 2, Escanaba, Michigan.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of
May, 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–2801 Filed 6–1–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
E:\FR\FM\02JNN1.SGM
02JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 105 (Thursday, June 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 32372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10964]
[[Page 32372]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 731-TA-125 (Second Review)]
Potassium Permanganate From China
Determination
On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year
review, the United States International Trade Commission determines,
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act),\2\ that
revocation of the antidumping duty order on potassium permanganate from
China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material
injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably
foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
\2\ 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
The Commission instituted this review on October 1, 2004 (69 FR
58955), and determined on January 4, 2005, that it would conduct an
expedited review (70 FR 2428, January 13, 2005).
The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the
Secretary of Commerce on May 31, 2005. The views of the Commission are
contained in USITC Publication 3778 (June 2005), entitled Potassium
Permanganate from China: Investigation No. 731-TA-125 (Second Review).
Issued: May 26, 2005.
By order of the Commission.
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-10964 Filed 6-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
