FC Meyer Packaging, LLC/Millen Industries, Inc.; Lawrence, MA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 40737 [E5-3739]

Download as PDF 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]
[Page 40737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-3739]


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

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 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