American Wood Moulding, LLC, El Paso, Texas; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 45435-45436 [E5-4213]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
45435
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 150 / Friday, August 5, 2005 / Notices
Previously established initial 2005
quotas
(grams)
Basic class—schedule II
Morphine (for sale) ..............................................................................................................................
Morphine (for conversion) ....................................................................................................................
Nabilone ...............................................................................................................................................
Noroxymorphone (for sale) ..................................................................................................................
Noroxymorphone (for conversion) .......................................................................................................
Opium ..................................................................................................................................................
Oxycodone (for sale) ...........................................................................................................................
Oxycodone (for conversion) ................................................................................................................
Oxymorphone ......................................................................................................................................
Pentobarbital ........................................................................................................................................
Phencyclidine .......................................................................................................................................
Phenmetrazine .....................................................................................................................................
Racemethorphan .................................................................................................................................
Remifentanil .........................................................................................................................................
Secobarbital .........................................................................................................................................
Sufentanil .............................................................................................................................................
Thebaine ..............................................................................................................................................
The Deputy Administrator further
proposes that aggregate production
quotas for all other Schedules I and II
controlled substances included in
Sections 1308.11 and 1308.12 of Title 21
of the Code of Federal Regulations
remain at zero.
All interested persons are invited to
submit their comments in writing or
electronically regarding this proposal
following the procedures in the
‘‘Addresses’’ section of this document.
A person may object to or comment on
the proposal relating to any of the
above-mentioned substances without
filing comments or objections regarding
the others. If a person believes that one
or more of these issues warrant a
hearing, the individual should so state
and summarize the reasons for this
belief.
In the event that comments or
objections to this proposal raise one or
more issues which the Deputy
Administrator finds warrant a hearing,
the Deputy Administrator shall order a
public hearing by notice in the Federal
Register, summarizing the issues to be
heard and setting the time for the
hearing as per 21 CFR 1303.13(c).
The Office of Management and Budget
has determined that notices of aggregate
production quotas are not subject to
centralized review under Executive
Order 12866.
This action does not preempt or
modify any provision of state law; nor
does it impose enforcement
responsibilities on any state; nor does it
diminish the power of any state to
enforce its own laws. Accordingly, this
action does not have federalism
implications warranting the application
of Executive Order 13132.
The Deputy Administrator hereby
certifies that this action will not have a
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:08 Aug 04, 2005
Jkt 205001
significant impact upon small entities
whose interests must be considered
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. The establishment of
aggregate production quotas for
Schedules I and II controlled substances
is mandated by law and by international
treaty obligations. The quotas are
necessary to provide for the estimated
medical, scientific, research and
industrial needs of the United States, for
export requirements and the
establishment and maintenance of
reserve stocks. While aggregate
production quotas are of primary
importance to large manufacturers, their
impact upon small entities is neither
negative nor beneficial. Accordingly, the
Deputy Administrator has determined
that this action does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
This action meets the applicable
standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 Civil
Justice Reform.
This action will not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $115,000,000 or more
in any one year, and will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions were
deemed necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995.
This action is not a major rule as
defined by Section 804 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996. This action will
not result in an annual effect on the
economy of $100,000,000 or more; a
major increase in costs or prices; or
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Proposed revised
2005 quotas
(grams)
35,000,000
110,774,000
2
1,002
4,000,000
1,180,000
49,200,000
920,000
534,000
18,251,000
2,006
2
2
0
2
4,000
72,453,000
35,000,000
110,774,000
2
1,002
4,000,000
1,280,000
49,200,000
920,000
534,000
18,251,000
2,006
2
2
1,800
2
4,000
72,453,000
companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and
export markets.
Dated: July 29, 2005
Michele M. Leonhart,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 05–15493 Filed 8–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–09–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,876]
American Wood Moulding, LLC, El
Paso, Texas; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application of May 18, 2005,
petitioners 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 April
13, 2005, and published in the Federal
Register on May 16, 2005 (70 FR 25859).
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.
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
45436
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 150 / Friday, August 5, 2005 / Notices
The petition for the workers of
American Wood Moulding, LLC, El
Paso, Texas engaged in distribution of
wood products was denied because the
petitioning workers did not produce an
article within the meaning of section
222 of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the
Department erred in its interpretation of
work performed at the subject facility as
a service and further conveys that
workers of the subject company
converted wood products to customer
specifications. He further states that
because moulding was cut into various
length to meet customer requests at the
subject facility, workers of the subject
firm should be considered engaged in
production.
A company official was contacted for
clarification in regard to the nature of
the work performed at the subject
facility. The official stated that the
subject firm is strictly a distribution and
warehousing facility. The official further
clarified that workers of the subject firm
do not produce an item, but only
occasionally cut finished wood
moulding into different lengths as
requested by customers. He also stated
that by cutting the moulding, workers
do not add value or transform the
finished moulding into a new and
different product, and perform cutting
for the retail purposes in the
distribution stage.
The sophistication of the work
involved is not an issue in ascertaining
whether the petitioning workers are
eligible for trade adjustment assistance,
but rather only whether they produced
an article within the meaning of section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Cutting finished products from bulk
form into various length as requested by
customers in the distribution or retail
stage is not considered production of an
article within the meaning of section
222 of the Trade Act. Petitioning
workers do not produce an ‘‘article’’
within the meaning of the Trade Act of
1974.
The investigation on reconsideration
supported the findings of the primary
investigation that the petitioning group
of workers does not produce an article.
Only in very limited instances are
service workers certified for TAA.
Namely the worker separations must be
caused by a reduced demand for their
services from a parent or controlling
firm or subdivision whose workers
produce an article and who are
currently certifiable for TAA; or if the
group of workers are leased workers
who perform their duties onsite at the
TAA certifiable location on established
contractual basis.
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:34 Aug 04, 2005
Jkt 205001
Conclusion
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
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.
Employment and Training
Administration
Signed in Washington, DC, this 13th day of
July, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–4213 Filed 8–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–57,046]
Bernhardt Furniture Company, Plant 7,
Contract Office Furniture Division,
Lenoir, NC; Dismissal of Application
for Reconsideration
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an
application for administrative
reconsideration was filed with the
Director of the Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance for workers at
Bernhardt Furniture Company, Plant 7,
Contract Office Furniture Division,
Lenoir, North Carolina. The application
contained no new substantial
information which would bear
importantly on the Department’s
determination. Therefore, dismissal of
the application was issued.
TA–W–57,046; Bernhardt Furniture
Company, Plant 7, Contract Office
Furniture Division, Lenoir, North
Carolina (July 18, 2005).
Signed in Washington, DC this 28th day of
July 2005.
Timothy Sullivan,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–4214 Filed 8–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
PO 00000
[TA–W–57,409]
Elbeco, Inc., Meyersdale
Manufacturing Co., Meyersdale, PA;
Amended Certification Regarding
Eligibility To Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance and Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and
section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, the Department of Labor
issued a Certification of Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance on July 8, 2005,
applicable to workers of Elbeco, Inc.,
Meyersdale Manufacturing Co.,
Meyersdale, Pennsylvania. The notice
will soon be published in the Federal
Register.
At the request of the State agency, the
Department reviewed the certification
for workers of the subject firm. The
workers produce woven uniform shirts.
The review shows that all workers of
Elbeco, Inc., Meyersdale Manufacturing,
Meyersdale, Pennsylvania, were
certified eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under petition number TA–
W–41,709, which expired on August 23,
2004.
In order to avoid an overlap in worker
group coverage, the Department is
amending the current certification for
workers of Elbeco, Inc., Meyersdale
Manufacturing, Meyersdale,
Pennsylvania, to change the impact date
from June 7, 2004, to August 24, 2004.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–57,409 is hereby issued as
follows:
All workers of Elbeco, Inc., Meyersdale
Manufacturing Co., Meyersdale,
Pennsylvania, who became totally or
partially separated from employment on or
after August 24, 2004, through July 8, 2007,
are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance
under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
and are also eligible to apply for alternative
trade adjustment assistance under section
246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 20th day of
July 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–4218 Filed 8–4–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 150 (Friday, August 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45435-45436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4213]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-56,876]
American Wood Moulding, LLC, El Paso, Texas; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of May 18, 2005, petitioners 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 April 13, 2005, and
published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2005 (70 FR 25859).
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.
[[Page 45436]]
The petition for the workers of American Wood Moulding, LLC, El
Paso, Texas engaged in distribution of wood products was denied because
the petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning
of section 222 of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its
interpretation of work performed at the subject facility as a service
and further conveys that workers of the subject company converted wood
products to customer specifications. He further states that because
moulding was cut into various length to meet customer requests at the
subject facility, workers of the subject firm should be considered
engaged in production.
A company official was contacted for clarification in regard to the
nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The official
stated that the subject firm is strictly a distribution and warehousing
facility. The official further clarified that workers of the subject
firm do not produce an item, but only occasionally cut finished wood
moulding into different lengths as requested by customers. He also
stated that by cutting the moulding, workers do not add value or
transform the finished moulding into a new and different product, and
perform cutting for the retail purposes in the distribution stage.
The sophistication of the work involved is not an issue in
ascertaining whether the petitioning workers are eligible for trade
adjustment assistance, but rather only whether they produced an article
within the meaning of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Cutting finished products from bulk form into various length as
requested by customers in the distribution or retail stage is not
considered production of an article within the meaning of section 222
of the Trade Act. Petitioning workers do not produce an ``article''
within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974.
The investigation on reconsideration supported the findings of the
primary investigation that the petitioning group of workers does not
produce an article.
Only in very limited instances are service workers certified for
TAA. Namely the worker separations must be caused by a reduced demand
for their services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision
whose workers produce an article and who are currently certifiable for
TAA; or if the group of workers are leased workers who perform their
duties onsite at the TAA certifiable location on established
contractual basis.
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 in Washington, DC, this 13th day of July, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-4213 Filed 8-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
