Century Moulding Company Hood River, OR; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration, 37113-37114 [E5-3355]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 123 / Tuesday, June 28, 2005 / Notices
Type of Review: Extension of
currently approved collection.
Title: Housing Terms and Conditions.
OMB Number: 1215–0146.
Frequency: On occasion.
Type of Response: Third party
disclosure.
Affected Public: Farms and business
or other for-profit.
Number of Respondents: 1,300.
Estimated Annual Responses: 1,300.
Average Response Time: 30 minutes.
Annual Burden Hours: 650.
Total Annualized Capital/Startup
Costs: $0.
Total Annual Costs (Operating/
Maintaining Systems or Purchasing
Services): $0.
Description: The Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection
Act (MSPA), 29 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.,
section 201(c) requires any farm labor
contractor, agricultural employer or
agricultural association providing
housing to any migrant agricultural
worker to post in a conspicuous place,
or present to the migrant worker, a
statement of any housing occupancy
terms and conditions. In addition,
MSPA section 201(g) requires a farm
labor contractor, agricultural employer
or agricultural association providing
housing to any migrant agricultural
worker to give such information in
English, or as necessary and reasonable,
in a language common to the worker
and that the Department of Labor (DOL)
makes forms available to provide such
information. The implementing
regulations for the MSPA set forth, at 29
CFR 500.75(f) and (g), the housing terms
that a farm labor contractor, agricultural
employer or agricultural association
providing housing to any migrant
agricultural worker must post or give in
a written statement to the worker.
Regulation 29 CFR 500.1(i)(2) provides
for Form WH–521 that a farm labor
contractor, agricultural employer or
agricultural association may use, at its
option, to satisfy MSPA requirements.
Form WH–521 is an optional form that
a farm labor contractor, agricultural
employer or agricultural association
may post or present to a migrant
agricultural worker to list the housing
terms and conditions. While use of the
Form WH–521 is optional, the MSPA
requires disclosure of the information.
Agency: Employment Standards
Administration.
Type of Review: Extension of
currently approved collection.
Title: Rehabilitation Action Report.
OMB Number: 1215–0182.
Frequency: On occasion.
Type of Response: Reporting.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:46 Jun 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
Number of Respondents: 7,000.
Estimated Annual Responses: 7,000.
Average Response Time: 10 minutes.
Annual Burden Hours: 1,169.
Total Annualized Capital/Startup
Costs: $0.
Total Annual Costs (Operating/
Maintaining Systems or Purchasing
Services): $0.
Description: The Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs (OWCP)
administers the Federal Employees’
Compensation Act (FECA) and the
Longshore and Harbor Workers’
Compensation Act (LHWCA). These
Acts provide vocational rehabilitation
services to eligible workers with
disabilities. Section 8104(a) of the FECA
and section 939(c) of the LHWCA
provides that eligible injured workers
are to be furnished vocational
rehabilitation services, and section
8111(b) of the FECA and section 908(g)
of the LHWCA provide that persons
undergoing such vocational
rehabilitation receive maintenance
allowances as additional compensation.
Form OWCP–44 is used to collect
information necessary to decide if
maintenance allowances should
continue to be paid.
Ira L. Mills,
Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–12696 Filed 6–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–CK–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–57,182]
AMI Doduco, Chase Precision
Products Division, Subsidary of
Technitrol Reidsville, NC; Notice of
Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on May 16,
2005 in response to a petition filed by
a company official on behalf of workers
at AMI Doduco, Chase Precision
Products Division, a subsidiary of
Technitrol, Reidsville, North Carolina.
A company official has requested that
the petition be withdrawn.
Consequently, further investigation
would serve no purpose, and the
investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of
June 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–3359 Filed 6–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37113
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment And Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,887]
Century Moulding Company Hood
River, OR; Notice of Revised
Determination on Reconsideration
By letter dated June 10, 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 signed on May
24, 2005, was based on the finding that
imports of picture frames did not
contribute importantly to worker
separations at the subject plant and no
shift of production to a foreign source
occurred. The denial notice will soon be
published in the Federal Register.
To support the request for
reconsideration, the company official
supplied additional information. Upon
further review and contact with the
subject firm’s major customer, it was
revealed that the customer significantly
increased its import purchases of
picture frames while decreasing its
purchases from the subject firm during
the relevant period. The imports
accounted for a meaningful portion of
the subject plant’s lost sales and
production. The investigation further
revealed that production and
employment at the subject firm declined
during the relevant time period.
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 additional
facts obtained on reconsideration, I
conclude that increased imports of
E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM
28JNN1
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
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37113-37114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3355]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment And Training Administration
[TA-W-56,887]
Century Moulding Company Hood River, OR; Notice of Revised
Determination on Reconsideration
By letter dated June 10, 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
signed on May 24, 2005, was based on the finding that imports of
picture frames did not contribute importantly to worker separations at
the subject plant and no shift of production to a foreign source
occurred. The denial notice will soon be published in the Federal
Register.
To support the request for reconsideration, the company official
supplied additional information. Upon further review and contact with
the subject firm's major customer, it was revealed that the customer
significantly increased its import purchases of picture frames while
decreasing its purchases from the subject firm during the relevant
period. The imports accounted for a meaningful portion of the subject
plant's lost sales and production. The investigation further revealed
that production and employment at the subject firm declined during the
relevant time period.
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 additional facts obtained on
reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of
[[Page 37114]]
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
