Gateway Country Store, Whitehall Mall, Whitehall, PA; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand, 37114-37115 [E5-3352]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
37114
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2005 / Notices
articles like or directly competitive with
those produced at Century Moulding
Company, Hood River, Oregon,
contributed importantly to the declines
in sales or production and to the total
or partial separation of workers at the
subject firm. In accordance with the
provisions of the Act, I make the
following certification:
All workers of Century Moulding
Company, Hood River, Oregon who became
totally or partially separated from
employment on or after March 30, 2004,
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 17th day of
June, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–3355 Filed 6–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–55,333]
Gateway Country Store, Whitehall Mall,
Whitehall, PA; Notice of Negative
Determination on Remand
The United States Court of
International Trade (USCIT) granted the
Department of Labor’s motion for
voluntary remand for further
investigation in Former Employees of
Gateway Country Stores, LLC. v. Elaine
L. Chao, United States Secretary of
Labor (Court No. 04–00588) on January
3, 2005.
On August 5, 2004, the Department of
Labor (Department) issued a negative
determination regarding eligibility to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) for the workers of Gateway
Country Stores, LLC, Whitehall Mall,
Whitehall, Pennsylvania (hereafter ‘‘the
subject facility’’). The negative
determination was based on the
investigation’s finding that the workers
at the subject facility were engaged in
retail sales of computers and providing
technical support to buyers, and thus,
did not produce an article in accordance
with Section 222 of the Trade Act of
1974. On August 20, 2004, the Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding
Eligibility to Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance for the subject
facility was published in the Federal
Register (69 FR 51715).
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:46 Jun 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
In a letter dated September 9, 2004,
the petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination. The Department
affirmed its finding that the workers of
the subject firm were not eligible to
apply for TAA on the basis that they did
not produce an article within the
meaning of Section 222 of the Trade
Act. In a letter dated September 16,
2004, the Department dismissed the
petitioner’s request for reconsideration.
A Dismissal of Application for
Reconsideration was issued on
September 17, 2004. The Notice of
Dismissal of Application for
Reconsideration was published in the
Federal Register on September 23, 2004,
(69 FR 57091).
By letter dated November 18, 2004,
the petitioner requested judicial review
by the USCIT. In that letter, the
petitioner asserts that the workers
produce an article since retail sales
should be ‘‘recognized as an intrinsic
service, bundled and inseparable from
the Gateway computer’’ and alleges that
the workers’ separations are due to a
shift of production abroad.
On January 3, 2005, the USCIT
remanded the matter to the Department
for further investigation of the subject
workers’ eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance benefits.
During the remand investigation, the
Department carefully reviewed
previously submitted information,
contacted Gateway officials to obtain
new and additional information
regarding the work done by the subject
worker group and solicited information
from the petitioners.
The remand investigation revealed
that the Gateway Country Stores
(‘‘Stores’’) operated as a showroom and
retail outlet for Gateway computers and
related products, such as monitors, and
as a service shop. (Supp. AR 93, 105)
The Stores, which opened in the United
States during the late 1990s, operated on
the basis of a European marketing
strategy. (Supp. AR 105) By April 9,
2004, Gateway had closed all the Stores.
(Supp. AR 1, 100, 105)
Customers would enter the Store and
view/test-try the floor models. (Supp.
AR 105) Customers could purchase
prepackaged computers (‘‘cash and
carry’’) or place an order with the
Store’s personnel. (Supp. AR 2, 93)
Prepackaged computers were shipped
from an off-site manufacturing plant to
a Store’s inventory room, then sold ‘‘as
is’’ to the customer. (Supp. AR 91, 93)
Aside from display models, the
prepackaged computers were not
removed from their boxes by Store
personnel. Orders placed by the
customer are assembled and packaged
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
by off-site Gateway manufacturing
plants, then shipped directly from the
plant to the customer’s mailing address.
(Supp. AR 8, 93) Customers who sought
service or repair for their units brought
them to the Stores after receiving it at
the pre-selected mailing addresses.
(Supp. AR 91, 93, 96)
In the January 31, 2005 submission,
the petitioner asserts that workers at the
subject facility ‘‘were involved in the
rework, upgrade, and final assembly of
the pc solution * * * Most sales were
customized orders with some piece of
extra software, hardware, peripherals, or
additional component as part of the
solution’’ and infers that the extra
components transform the computer
into something different and improved
and, therefore, the workers are
producing an article—the pc solution.
In the February 22, 2005 submission,
the petitioner asserts that the pc
solution included ‘‘continued customer
service, and manufacture/rework/
upgrade tasks that are bundled with the
sale.’’ The petitioner also asserts that in
many occasions, ‘‘the service and sale
then concluded with assembly of
hardware and external components to
construct the system desired, and the
installation of a customer selected
software systems * * * performed by
store personnel.’’
According to Gateway company
officials, workers at the subject facility
did not install programs or devices
unless it was post-sale and the customer
brought the unit into a Store for service.
(Supp. AR 91) Further, a careful review
of the position descriptions of the
workers at the subject facility show that
the workers were not engaged in
production work but performed sales
and marketing, sales/product training,
store opening/closing, human resources,
budgeting, customer service, inventory
control, and management functions.
(Supp. AR 8–41)
The Department has consistently held
that the performance of installation,
repair and customer service is not
production for the purposes of the Trade
Act. Thus, the Department determines
that petitioners do not produce an
article within the meaning of the Trade
Act of 1974.
The petitioner also asserts that
Gateway used the Stores to distinguish
itself from its competitors in the
personal computer market and that the
Stores’ closures were caused by the shift
of computer production abroad.
Contrary to the petitioner’s
allegations, Gateway’s creation of the
Stores was not to distinguish itself from
its competitors as an effort to secure
and/or maintain its market. Rather, the
Stores were based on a revenue channel
E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM
28JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2005 / Notices
that Gateway was already using in
Europe and Gateway had hopes that its
domestic Stores would also be
profitable. (Supp. AR 105)
Like other companies facing strained
economic conditions, Gateway
undertook a large-scale business plan to
change its direction. Information
obtained from Gateway show that the
business plan started several years
before the investigatory period (July
2003 through July 2004), that the change
of revenue sources was part of its
dynamic business revolution, and that
the Store closures were but one form of
corporate cost-reduction, as was the
independent decision to shift some
manufacturing to foreign countries. The
Stores were closed because they were
unprofitable. (Supp. AR 3, 100, 101,
105, 106) Further, those functions
which took place in the Stores were
revised over several years and shifted to
other domestic venues. For example,
sales and customer service are handled
via telephone (Supp. AR 1) and the
Internet (Supp. AR 3); Gateway products
are sold and serviced in national retail
outlets. (Supp. AR 3, 101)
Conclusion
As the result of the findings of the
investigation on remand, I affirm the
original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance for workers and
former workers of Gateway Country
Stores, LLC, Whitehall Mall, Whitehall,
Pennsylvania.
Signed at Washington, DC this 17th day of
June 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–3352 Filed 6–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–57,086]
Makita Corporation of America Buford,
GA; Notice of Termination of
Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on May 2,
2005 in response to a worker petition
filed by company official on behalf of
workers at Makita Corporation of
America, Buford, Georgia.
The petitioning group of workers is
covered by an active certification, (TA–
W–57,071) which expires on May 17,
2007. Consequently, further
investigation in this case would serve
no purpose, and the investigation has
been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of
June, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–3358 Filed 6–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA–W–56,869]
Employment And Training
Administration
National Textiles, Textiles Division,
Hodges, SC; Notice of Revised
Determination on Reconsideration
[TA–W–57,080]
Leviton Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
Hillsgrove Division, Warwick, RI;
Notice of Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, an investigation was
initiated on April 29, 2005, in response
to a petition filed by a company official
on behalf of workers at Leviton
Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
Hillsgrove Division, Warwick, Rhode
Island (TA–W–57,080).
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
further investigation in this case would
16:46 Jun 27, 2005
Signed in Washington, DC this 10th day of
June, 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–3357 Filed 6–27–05; 8:45 am]
Employment and Training
Administration
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
VerDate jul<14>2003
serve no purpose, and the investigation
has been terminated.
Jkt 205001
By application of May 26, 2005, a
company official requested
administrative reconsideration
regarding the Department’s Negative
Determination Regarding Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance, applicable to the workers of
the subject firm.
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination issued on May 5,
2005, based on the finding that imports
of fleece and jersey fabric did not
contribute importantly to worker
separations at the subject plant and that
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37115
there was no shift to a foreign country.
The denial notice will soon be
published in the Federal Register.
To support the request for
reconsideration, the company official
supplied additional information to
supplement that which was gathered
during the initial investigation. Upon
further review, it was revealed that the
company shifted production of fleece
and jersey fabric to El Salvador during
the relevant period and that this shift
contributed importantly to layoffs at the
subject firm.
In accordance with Section 246 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.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts
obtained in the investigation, I
determine that there was a shift in
production from the workers’ firm or
subdivision to El Salvador of articles
that are like or directly competitive with
those produced by the subject firm or
subdivision. In accordance with the
provisions of the Act, I make the
following certification:
‘‘All workers of National Textiles, Textiles
Division, Hodges, South Carolina who
became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after March 21, 2004
through two years from the date of
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 17th day of
June 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–3354 Filed 6–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM
28JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37114-37115]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3352]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-55,333]
Gateway Country Store, Whitehall Mall, Whitehall, PA; Notice of
Negative Determination on Remand
The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the
Department of Labor's motion for voluntary remand for further
investigation in Former Employees of Gateway Country Stores, LLC. v.
Elaine L. Chao, United States Secretary of Labor (Court No. 04-00588)
on January 3, 2005.
On August 5, 2004, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for the workers of Gateway Country Stores,
LLC, Whitehall Mall, Whitehall, Pennsylvania (hereafter ``the subject
facility''). The negative determination was based on the
investigation's finding that the workers at the subject facility were
engaged in retail sales of computers and providing technical support to
buyers, and thus, did not produce an article in accordance with Section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974. On August 20, 2004, the Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance for the subject facility was published in the
Federal Register (69 FR 51715).
In a letter dated September 9, 2004, the petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination. The Department affirmed its finding that the workers of
the subject firm were not eligible to apply for TAA on the basis that
they did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of
the Trade Act. In a letter dated September 16, 2004, the Department
dismissed the petitioner's request for reconsideration. A Dismissal of
Application for Reconsideration was issued on September 17, 2004. The
Notice of Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration was published in
the Federal Register on September 23, 2004, (69 FR 57091).
By letter dated November 18, 2004, the petitioner requested
judicial review by the USCIT. In that letter, the petitioner asserts
that the workers produce an article since retail sales should be
``recognized as an intrinsic service, bundled and inseparable from the
Gateway computer'' and alleges that the workers' separations are due to
a shift of production abroad.
On January 3, 2005, the USCIT remanded the matter to the Department
for further investigation of the subject workers' eligibility to apply
for worker adjustment assistance benefits.
During the remand investigation, the Department carefully reviewed
previously submitted information, contacted Gateway officials to obtain
new and additional information regarding the work done by the subject
worker group and solicited information from the petitioners.
The remand investigation revealed that the Gateway Country Stores
(``Stores'') operated as a showroom and retail outlet for Gateway
computers and related products, such as monitors, and as a service
shop. (Supp. AR 93, 105) The Stores, which opened in the United States
during the late 1990s, operated on the basis of a European marketing
strategy. (Supp. AR 105) By April 9, 2004, Gateway had closed all the
Stores. (Supp. AR 1, 100, 105)
Customers would enter the Store and view/test-try the floor models.
(Supp. AR 105) Customers could purchase prepackaged computers (``cash
and carry'') or place an order with the Store's personnel. (Supp. AR 2,
93) Prepackaged computers were shipped from an off-site manufacturing
plant to a Store's inventory room, then sold ``as is'' to the customer.
(Supp. AR 91, 93) Aside from display models, the prepackaged computers
were not removed from their boxes by Store personnel. Orders placed by
the customer are assembled and packaged by off-site Gateway
manufacturing plants, then shipped directly from the plant to the
customer's mailing address. (Supp. AR 8, 93) Customers who sought
service or repair for their units brought them to the Stores after
receiving it at the pre-selected mailing addresses. (Supp. AR 91, 93,
96)
In the January 31, 2005 submission, the petitioner asserts that
workers at the subject facility ``were involved in the rework, upgrade,
and final assembly of the pc solution * * * Most sales were customized
orders with some piece of extra software, hardware, peripherals, or
additional component as part of the solution'' and infers that the
extra components transform the computer into something different and
improved and, therefore, the workers are producing an article--the pc
solution.
In the February 22, 2005 submission, the petitioner asserts that
the pc solution included ``continued customer service, and manufacture/
rework/upgrade tasks that are bundled with the sale.'' The petitioner
also asserts that in many occasions, ``the service and sale then
concluded with assembly of hardware and external components to
construct the system desired, and the installation of a customer
selected software systems * * * performed by store personnel.''
According to Gateway company officials, workers at the subject
facility did not install programs or devices unless it was post-sale
and the customer brought the unit into a Store for service. (Supp. AR
91) Further, a careful review of the position descriptions of the
workers at the subject facility show that the workers were not engaged
in production work but performed sales and marketing, sales/product
training, store opening/closing, human resources, budgeting, customer
service, inventory control, and management functions. (Supp. AR 8-41)
The Department has consistently held that the performance of
installation, repair and customer service is not production for the
purposes of the Trade Act. Thus, the Department determines that
petitioners do not produce an article within the meaning of the Trade
Act of 1974.
The petitioner also asserts that Gateway used the Stores to
distinguish itself from its competitors in the personal computer market
and that the Stores' closures were caused by the shift of computer
production abroad.
Contrary to the petitioner's allegations, Gateway's creation of the
Stores was not to distinguish itself from its competitors as an effort
to secure and/or maintain its market. Rather, the Stores were based on
a revenue channel
[[Page 37115]]
that Gateway was already using in Europe and Gateway had hopes that its
domestic Stores would also be profitable. (Supp. AR 105)
Like other companies facing strained economic conditions, Gateway
undertook a large-scale business plan to change its direction.
Information obtained from Gateway show that the business plan started
several years before the investigatory period (July 2003 through July
2004), that the change of revenue sources was part of its dynamic
business revolution, and that the Store closures were but one form of
corporate cost-reduction, as was the independent decision to shift some
manufacturing to foreign countries. The Stores were closed because they
were unprofitable. (Supp. AR 3, 100, 101, 105, 106) Further, those
functions which took place in the Stores were revised over several
years and shifted to other domestic venues. For example, sales and
customer service are handled via telephone (Supp. AR 1) and the
Internet (Supp. AR 3); Gateway products are sold and serviced in
national retail outlets. (Supp. AR 3, 101)
Conclusion
As the result of the findings of the investigation on remand, I
affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to
apply for adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of
Gateway Country Stores, LLC, Whitehall Mall, Whitehall, Pennsylvania.
Signed at Washington, DC this 17th day of June 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-3352 Filed 6-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
