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