Lawson-Hemphill Sales, Inc., Spartanburg, SC; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 40736-40737 [E5-3738]

Download as PDF 40736 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2005 / Notices (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Darrin King on 202–693– 4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail: king.darrin@dol.gov. Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202–395–7316 (this is not a tollfree number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the Federal Register. The OMB is particularly interested in comments which: • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Agency: Mine Safety and Health Administration. Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection. Title: Permissible Equipment Testing. OMB Number: 1219–0066. Forms: MSHA 2000–38. Frequency: On occasion. Type of Response: Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Third party disclosure. Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. Number of Respondents: 190. Average Response Time: Varies by activity. Cite/Reference (30 CFR) Part Part Part Part Part 6 ................ 7 ................ 15 .............. 18 .............. 19 .............. VerDate jul<14>2003 Estimated number of annual responses 3 120 2 383 5 18:32 Jul 13, 2005 Cite/Reference (30 CFR) Part Part Part Part Part Part Part Part 20 22 23 27 28 33 35 36 Estimated number of annual responses Estimated annual burden hours .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 6 17 6 4 3 3 6 5 49 60 23 21 20 20 144 30 Grand Total 563 2,788 Total Annualized capital/startup costs: $0. Total Annual Costs (operating/ maintaining systems or purchasing services): $1,164,160. Description: MSHA is responsible for the inspection, testing, approval and certification, and quality control of mining equipment and components, materials, instruments, and explosives used in both underground and surface coal, metal, and nonmetal mines. Title 30 CFR parts 6 through 36 require that an investigation leading to approval or certification will be undertaken by MSHA only pursuant to a written application accompanied by prescribed drawings and specifications identifying the piece of equipment. This information is used by engineers and scientists to evaluate the design in conjunction with tests to assure conformance to standards prior to approval for use in mines. Agency: Mine Safety and Health Administration. Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection. Title: Hazard Communication—30 CFR part 47. OMB Number: 1219–0133. Forms: None. Frequency: On occasion. Type of Response: Recordkeeping and Third party disclosure. Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. Number of Respondents: 21,031. Number of Annual Responses: 845,370. Average Response Time: Varies by mine size and type. Total Annual Burden Hours: 203,438. Total Annualized capital/startup costs: $0. Total Annual Costs (operating/ Estimated maintaining systems or purchasing annual burservices): $496,166. den hours Description: 30 CFR part 47 (the ‘‘HazCom’’ Standard) requires mine 2 1,391 operators and/or contractors to assess 10.00 the hazards of chemicals they produce 996 or use and provide information to their 22 miners concerning the chemicals’ Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 hazards. The mine operators and/or contractors must develop a written hazard communication program that describes how they will inform miners of chemical hazards and safe handling procedures through miner training, labeling containers of hazardous chemicals, and providing miners access to material safety data sheets (MSDSs). The purpose of the information sharing is to provide miners with the right to know the hazards and identities of the chemicals they are exposed to while working, as well as the measures they can take to protect themselves from these hazards. Through HazCom mine operators and/or contractors also have the necessary information regarding the hazards of chemicals present at their mines, so that work methods are improved or instituted to minimize exposure to these chemicals. HazCom provides miners with access to this information, so that they can take action to protect themselves. Darrin A. King, Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. [FR Doc. 05–13850 Filed 7–13–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–43–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–56,586] Lawson-Hemphill Sales, Inc., Spartanburg, SC; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration On April 6, 2005, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject facility. The notice of determination was published on April 25, 2005 in the Federal Register (70 FR 21250). Workers at the subject facility sell textile testing instruments. On January 24, 2005, a company official filed the petition as a secondarily-affected company (affected by loss of business as a supplier, assembler, or finisher of products or components produced for a TAA certified firm). The Department denied Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) to workers and former workers of Lawson-Hemphill Sales, Inc., Spartanburg, South Carolina because the worker separation eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The investigation revealed that the subject facility neither separated nor E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM 14JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2005 / Notices threatened to separate a significant number or proportion of workers at the subject facility during the relevant period (January–December 2004). In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that the subject facility supported an affiliated production facility, Lawson-Hemphill, Inc., Central Falls, Rhode Island. A careful review of previouslysubmitted documents revealed that a significant number of the workers at the South Carolina facility were separated or threatened with separation during the relevant period and that the primary function of the South Carolina facility is to sell textile testing instruments produced at the Rhode Island facility. Even if the subject worker group supported production at the Rhode Island facility, they could not be certified for TAA under this petition because the Rhode Island facility was not affected by loss of business as a supplier, assembler, or finisher of products or components produced for the TAA-certified firms identified in the petition: Globe Manufacturing, Fall River, Massachusetts (TA–W–38,840); Cavalier Specialty Yarn, Gastonia, North Carolina (TA–W–53,226); Cone Mills Corporation, Cliffside, North Carolina (TA–W–53,291A); Pillowtex Corporation, Kannapolis, North Carolina (TA–W–39,416); Burlington Industries, Greensboro, North Carolina (TA–W– 40,205); and Spartan Mills, Spartanburg, South Carolina (TA–W–37,126). Lawson-Hemphill, Inc. cannot be considered a secondarily-affected company because textile testing instruments is not a component of textiles and the company neither assembles nor finishes an article produced by the above-identified companies. Since the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. Conclusion After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of LawsonHemphill Sales, Inc., Spartanburg, South Carolina. Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of June, 2005. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5–3738 Filed 7–13–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P VerDate jul<14>2003 18:32 Jul 13, 2005 Jkt 205001 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [[TA–W–56,782] FC Meyer Packaging, LLC/Millen Industries, Inc.; Lawrence, MA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application of May 20, 2005, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department’s negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on May 6, 2005, and published in the Federal Register on May 25, 2005 (70 FR 30145). 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 petition for the workers of FC Meyer Packaging, LLC/Millen Industries, Inc., Lawrence, Massachusetts engaged in production of shoe boxes was denied because the ‘‘contributed importantly’’ group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met, nor was there a shift in production from that firm to a foreign country. The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s customers. The survey revealed that imports of shoe boxes were minimal during the relevant period and imports did not contribute importantly to separations at the subject firm. The subject firm did not import shoe boxes nor did it shift production to a foreign country during the relevant period. The petitioner alleges that the subject firm lost its business due to the customers shifting their production of shoes abroad and buying shoe boxes overseas. The petitioner concludes that, because the production of shoes occurs abroad, the subject firm workers producing shoe boxes are import impacted. In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider imports PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 40737 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 shoe boxes. The survey revealed that the declining customers did not import shoe boxes during the relevant period. The petitioner further cites a list of customers which shifted their production overseas and imported shoe boxes back to the United States. Some of these customers were already surveyed by the Department during the original investigation. A review of the survey responses confirms import purchases of show boxes were minimal and did not contribute importantly to the layoffs at the subject plant during the relevant period. A company official was contacted to verify the allegations regarding the customers which were not surveyed during the initial investigation. The official stated that all of these companies were customers of the subject firm in the years prior to 2001, which is outside of the relevant time period. 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 day 22nd of June, 2005. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5–3739 Filed 7–13–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–51,750] Federated Merchandising Group, a Part of the Federated Department Stores, New York, NY; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand By Order dated February 7, 2005, the United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) directed the Department of Labor (Department) to further investigate Former Employees of Federated Merchandising Group, a Part of Federated Department Stores v. United States (Court No. 03–00689). The Department’s denial of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM 14JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40736-40737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3738]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-56,586]


Lawson-Hemphill Sales, Inc., Spartanburg, SC; Notice of Negative 
Determination on Reconsideration

    On April 6, 2005, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of the subject facility. The notice of determination 
was published on April 25, 2005 in the Federal Register (70 FR 21250). 
Workers at the subject facility sell textile testing instruments.
    On January 24, 2005, a company official filed the petition as a 
secondarily-affected company (affected by loss of business as a 
supplier, assembler, or finisher of products or components produced for 
a TAA certified firm). The Department denied Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) to 
workers and former workers of Lawson-Hemphill Sales, Inc., Spartanburg, 
South Carolina because the worker separation eligibility requirement of 
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The 
investigation revealed that the subject facility neither separated nor

[[Page 40737]]

threatened to separate a significant number or proportion of workers at 
the subject facility during the relevant period (January-December 
2004).
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that the 
subject facility supported an affiliated production facility, Lawson-
Hemphill, Inc., Central Falls, Rhode Island.
    A careful review of previously-submitted documents revealed that a 
significant number of the workers at the South Carolina facility were 
separated or threatened with separation during the relevant period and 
that the primary function of the South Carolina facility is to sell 
textile testing instruments produced at the Rhode Island facility.
    Even if the subject worker group supported production at the Rhode 
Island facility, they could not be certified for TAA under this 
petition because the Rhode Island facility was not affected by loss of 
business as a supplier, assembler, or finisher of products or 
components produced for the TAA-certified firms identified in the 
petition: Globe Manufacturing, Fall River, Massachusetts (TA-W-38,840); 
Cavalier Specialty Yarn, Gastonia, North Carolina (TA-W-53,226); Cone 
Mills Corporation, Cliffside, North Carolina (TA-W-53,291A); Pillowtex 
Corporation, Kannapolis, North Carolina (TA-W-39,416); Burlington 
Industries, Greensboro, North Carolina (TA-W-40,205); and Spartan 
Mills, Spartanburg, South Carolina (TA-W-37,126).
    Lawson-Hemphill, Inc. cannot be considered a secondarily-affected 
company because textile testing instruments is not a component of 
textiles and the company neither assembles nor finishes an article 
produced by the above-identified companies.
    Since the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the 
workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.

Conclusion

    After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of 
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment 
assistance for workers and former workers of Lawson-Hemphill Sales, 
Inc., Spartanburg, South Carolina.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of June, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-3738 Filed 7-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P