Falcon Plastics A/K/A Grand Venture, Washington, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 10994 [E6-3063]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10994
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2006 / Notices
Room 101, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202) 205–2000.
STATUS: Open to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Agenda for future meetings: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Inv. No. 731–TA–856
(Review)(Ammonium Nitrate from
Russia)—briefing and vote. (The
Commission is currently scheduled to
transmit its determination and
Commissioners’ opinions to the
Secretary of Commerce on or before
March 27, 2006.)
5. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission
policy, subject matter listed above, not
disposed of at the scheduled meeting,
may be carried over to the agenda of the
following meeting.
PLACE:
Issued: March 1, 2006.
By order of the Commission:
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 06–2102 Filed 3–1–06; 2:39 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–58,158]
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Falcon Plastics A/K/A Grand Venture,
Washington, PA; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application postmarked January 6,
2006, a company official 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 December 30,
2005, and published in the Federal
Register on January 17, 2006 (71 FR
2568).
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:43 Mar 02, 2006
Jkt 208001
The petition for the workers of Falcon
Plastics, Washington, Pennsylvania
engaged in production of blow molded
plastics 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 no imports of blow
molded plastics during the relevant
period. The subject firm did not import
blow molded plastics nor did it shift
production to a foreign country during
the relevant period.
The petitioner states that the affected
workers lost their jobs as a result of the
U.S. manufacturers shifting production
of blow molded plastics to China and
Mexico. The petitioner stated that the
sales and production at the subject firm
has been negatively impacted by
increasing presence of foreign imports
on the market.
Upon further review of the previous
investigation and further contact with
the company official, the Department
conducted a full investigation to
determine whether imports of blow
molded plastics indeed impacted
production at the subject firm and
consequently caused workers
separations.
The Department conducted a new
survey of the customers requesting
information on imports of ‘‘like or
directly competitive products’’ to those
purchased from Falcon Plastics, a/k/a
Grand Venture in 2002, 2003 and
January through September of 2005. The
survey revealed that none of the
respondents reported increasing its
imports of ‘‘like or directly competitive
products’’ to blow molded plastics
purchased from the subject, while
decreasing its purchases from the
subject firm during the relevant time
period.
Moreover, the subject firm does not
import blow molded plastics and did
not shift production of blow molded
plastics abroad.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of
February, 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–3063 Filed 3–2–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–58,800]
ABCO Rents of Clinton, Clinton, NC;
Notice of Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on February
7, 2006, in response to a worker petition
filed by a company spokesman on
behalf of workers at ABCO Rents of
Clinton, Clinton, North Carolina.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC this 9th day of
February 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–3076 Filed 3–2–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–58,341]
Alene Candles, Inc./Wizard Candles,
Inc.; Including On-Site Leased Workers
of Placement Pros, Valley
Employment, and ET Staffing; Putnam,
CT; 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 (26
U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the
Department of Labor issued a
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance on January 13, 2006,
applicable to workers of Alene Candles,
Inc., including on-site leased workers of
Placement Pros, Valley Employment,
and ET Staffing, Putnam, Connecticut.
The notice was published in the Federal
Register on January 31, 2006 (71 FR
5072).
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 10994]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3063]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-58,158]
Falcon Plastics A/K/A Grand Venture, Washington, PA; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application postmarked January 6, 2006, a company official
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 December 30, 2005, and
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2006 (71 FR 2568).
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 Falcon Plastics, Washington,
Pennsylvania engaged in production of blow molded plastics 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 no
imports of blow molded plastics during the relevant period. The subject
firm did not import blow molded plastics nor did it shift production to
a foreign country during the relevant period.
The petitioner states that the affected workers lost their jobs as
a result of the U.S. manufacturers shifting production of blow molded
plastics to China and Mexico. The petitioner stated that the sales and
production at the subject firm has been negatively impacted by
increasing presence of foreign imports on the market.
Upon further review of the previous investigation and further
contact with the company official, the Department conducted a full
investigation to determine whether imports of blow molded plastics
indeed impacted production at the subject firm and consequently caused
workers separations.
The Department conducted a new survey of the customers requesting
information on imports of ``like or directly competitive products'' to
those purchased from Falcon Plastics, a/k/a Grand Venture in 2002, 2003
and January through September of 2005. The survey revealed that none of
the respondents reported increasing its imports of ``like or directly
competitive products'' to blow molded plastics purchased from the
subject, while decreasing its purchases from the subject firm during
the relevant time period.
Moreover, the subject firm does not import blow molded plastics and
did not shift production of blow molded plastics abroad.
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, this 16th day of February, 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6-3063 Filed 3-2-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
