Unimatrix Americas, Greensboro, NC; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 14957-14958 [E6-4294]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 2006 / Notices
Connecticut and New Canaan,
Connecticut.
The intent of the Department’s
certification is to include all workers of
Sara Lee Branded Apparel, Division
Office, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
who was adversely affected by increased
imports.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–57,802 is hereby issued as
follows:
All workers of Sara Lee Branded Apparel,
Division Office, Division of the Sara Lee
Corporation, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
(TA–W–57,802), and including employees of
Sara Lee Branded Apparel, Division, Office,
Winston Salem, North Carolina, located in
Bristol, Connecticut (TA–W–57,802A),
Norwalk, Connecticut (TA–W–57,802B),
Madison, Connecticut (TA–W–57,802C) and
New Canaan, Connecticut (TA–W–57,802D),
who became totally or partially separated
from employment on or after July 29, 2004,
through September 28, 2007, are eligible to
apply for adjustment assistance under
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
I further determine that all workers of
Sara Lee Branded Apparel, Division of
the Sara Lee Corporation, WinstonSalem, North Carolina, are denied
eligibility to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance under Section 246
of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of
February 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–4288 Filed 3–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–58,113]
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Unimatrix Americas, Greensboro, NC;
Notice of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On February 22, 2006, the Department
issued an Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the workers and
former workers of the subject firm. The
notice was published in the Federal
Register on March 2, 2006 (71 FR
10717–10718).
The petition for the workers of
Unimatrix Americas, Greensboro, North
Carolina, engaged in production
planning and sales of apparel products
was denied because the petitioning
workers did not produce an article
within the meaning of Section 222 of
the Act.
The company official filed a request
for reconsideration in which the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:26 Mar 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
petitioners contend that the Department
erred in its interpretation of work
performed at the subject facility as a
service and further convey that workers
of the subject firm supported production
of an affiliated firm Unifi by ‘‘pulling
through Unifi’s domestically-produced
yarns into domestically-manufactured
garments’’ and ‘‘supported other
unaffiliated domestic apparel
manufacturing facilities.’’ The petitioner
further states that the subject firm
should be considered a downstream
producer for Unifi, Inc. because it
assisted Unifi, Inc. in delivering and
distributing their products to garments
manufacturers. The petitioner concludes
that because Unimatrix promoted usage
of yarn manufactured by Unifi in the
production of fabric and garments done
by independent companies which were
contracted by Unimatrix, the workers of
the subject firm should be considered in
support of production of yarn at Unifi,
Inc. The petitioner alleges that increased
foreign competition and financial health
of Unifi, Inc. had a direct negative
impact on Unimatrix Americas and thus
workers of the subject firm should be
eligible for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA).
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
petitioning group of workers at the
subject firm was coordinating all
sourcing activities for production of
apparel done by independent
contractors in Central America. The
workers were responsible for
‘‘production planning and sales of
domestically-produced apparel products
containing fabric domestically-produced
Unifi yarn.’’ The subject firm ordered,
purchased and exported supplies and
goods needed for production of
garments, including purchasing of Unifi
yarn and arranging its further
production into fabric and garments.
The workers of the subject company
located different independent
manufacturing contractors in Central
America, monitored their production
and kept customers of Unimatrix
informed of all production issues and
ship dates. The official stated that
workers of the subject firm also
coordinated importing of the goods back
into the United States and handled final
shipments and invoicing. The company
official stated that Unimatrix served as
the ‘‘middleman’’ between different
production companies and that majority
of Unimatrix’ customers, who
manufacture garments have moved to
sourcing from abroad, thus negatively
impacting the subject firm.
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14957
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.
The investigation on reconsideration
revealed that Unimatrix Americas,
Greensboro, North Carolina is affiliated
with Unifi, Inc. Workers of Unifi, Inc. in
Yadkinville, North Carolina and
Madison, North Carolina manufacture
polyester yarn and nylon. Further
investigation revealed that workers of
the subject firm did not support
production of polyester yarn and/or
nylon at these facilities but sold apparel,
utilizing Unifi products. Workers of the
subject firm purchased yarn from Unifi,
outsourced production of fabric out of
this yarn to independent companies,
exported fabric to foreign companies for
manufacturing of apparel and imported
final products back into the United
States.
Providing global sourcing, production
planning, sales and marketing 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 petitioner attached a document
on Unifi’s Fourth Quarter Results to
support the allegations.
A careful review of this document
revealed Unifi’s decision to focus on the
internal resources to support the
downstream initiatives around the
globe. The document clarifies that Unifi,
Inc. developed internal knowledge,
expertise, and relationships to drive
Unifi’s products to the market and as a
result it will discontinue Unimatrix
Americas. All functions performed by
Unimatrix Americas will be utilized
within Unifi because it established a
new very successful business model to
have a successful sourcing.
The investigation on reconsideration
supported the findings of the primary
investigation that the petitioning group
of workers did not produce an article.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the
original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of
Unimatrix Americas, Greensboro, North
Carolina.
E:\FR\FM\24MRN1.SGM
24MRN1
14958
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 57 / Friday, March 24, 2006 / Notices
Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of
March, 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–4294 Filed 3–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
administrative judges in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.202.
Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th
day of March 2006.
G. Paul Bollwerk, III,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. E6–4269 Filed 3–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
In the Matter of David Geisen;
Establishment of Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board
[IA–05–053; ASLBP No. 06–846–02–EA]
Pursuant to delegation by the
Commission dated December 29, 1972,
published in the Federal Register, 37 FR
28,710 (1972), and the Commission’s
regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.202,
2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and
2.321, notice is hereby given that an
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is
being established to preside over the
following proceeding:
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
David Geisen (Enforcement Action)
This proceeding concerns a request
for a hearing submitted on February 23,
2006, by David Geisen in response to a
January 4, 2006 NRC staff ‘‘Order
Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-License
Activities,’’ 71 FR 2571 (January 17,
2006). Under the terms of that
immediately effective staff order, the
staff concluded that because Mr. Geisen
(1) had knowledge of the degraded
condition of the reactor pressure vessel
(RPV) head at the Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Station and the limitations
experienced during RPV head
inspections; and (2) had deliberately
provided materially incomplete and
inaccurate information in connection
with the continued operation of the
Davis-Besse facility for a period prior to
a February 2002 refueling outage that
resulted in a significant adverse
condition going uncorrected, Mr. Geisen
was, among other things, prohibited for
five years from engaging in NRClicensed activities.
The Board is comprised of the
following administrative judges:
Michael C. Farrar, Chair, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
E. Roy Hawkens, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
Nicholas G. Trikouros, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
All correspondence, documents, and
other materials shall be filed with the
18:26 Mar 23, 2006
Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th
day of March 2006.
G. Paul Bollwerk, III,
Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board Panel.
[FR Doc. E6–4272 Filed 3–23–06; 8:45 am]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[IA–05–052; ASLBP No. 06–845–01–EA]
VerDate Aug<31>2005
All correspondence, documents, and
other materials shall be filed with the
administrative judges in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.202.
Jkt 208001
In the Matter of Dale L. Miller;
Establishment of Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board
Pursuant to delegation by the
Commission dated December 29, 1972,
published in the Federal Register, 37 FR
28,710 (1972), and the Commission’s
regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.202,
2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and
2.321, notice is hereby given that an
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is
being established to preside over the
following proceeding:
Dale L. Miller (Enforcement Action)
This proceeding concerns a request
for a hearing submitted on February 23,
2006, by Dale L. Miller in response to
a January 4, 2006 NRC staff ‘‘Order
Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-License
Activities,’’ 71 FR 2579 (January 17,
2006). Under the terms of that
immediately effective staff order, the
staff concluded that because Mr. Miller
(1) had knowledge of the degraded
condition of the reactor pressure vessel
(RPV) head at the Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Station and the limitations
experienced during RPV head
inspections; and (2) had deliberately
provided materially incomplete and
inaccurate information in connection
with the continued operation of the
Davis-Besse facility for a period prior to
a February 2002 refueling outage that
resulted in a significant adverse
condition going uncorrected, Mr. Miller
was, among other things, prohibited for
five years from engaging in NRClicensed activities.
The Board is comprised of the
following administrative judges:
Michael C. Farrar, Chair, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
E. Roy Hawkens, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
Nicholas G. Trikouros, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[IA–05–054; ASLBP No. 06–847–03–EA]
In the Matter of Steven P. Moffitt;
Establishment of Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board
Pursuant to delegation by the
Commission dated December 29, 1972,
published in the Federal Register, 37 FR
28,710 (1972), and the Commission’s
regulations, see 10 CFR 2.104, 2.202,
2.300, 2.303, 2.309, 2.311, 2.318, and
2.321, notice is hereby given that an
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is
being established to preside over the
following proceeding:
Steven P. Moffitt (Enforcement Action)
This proceeding concerns a request
for a hearing submitted on February 23,
2006, by Steven P. Moffitt in response
to a January 4, 2006 NRC staff ‘‘Order
Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-License
Activities,’’ 71 FR 2581 (January 17,
2006). Under the terms of that
immediately effective staff order, the
staff concluded that because Mr. Moffitt
(1) had knowledge of the degraded
condition of the reactor pressure vessel
(RPV) head at the Davis-Besse Nuclear
Power Station and the limitations
experienced during RPV head
inspections; and (2) had deliberately
provided materially incomplete and
inaccurate information in connection
with the continued operation of the
Davis-Besse facility for a period prior to
a February 2002 refueling outage that
resulted in a significant adverse
condition going uncorrected, Mr. Moffitt
was, among other things, prohibited for
five years from engaging in NRClicensed activities.
The Board is comprised of the
following administrative judges:
Michael C. Farrar, Chair, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
E. Roy Hawkens, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001.
E:\FR\FM\24MRN1.SGM
24MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14957-14958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-4294]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-58,113]
Unimatrix Americas, Greensboro, NC; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On February 22, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers
and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the
Federal Register on March 2, 2006 (71 FR 10717-10718).
The petition for the workers of Unimatrix Americas, Greensboro,
North Carolina, engaged in production planning and sales of apparel
products was denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an
article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Act.
The company official filed a request for reconsideration in which
the petitioners contend that the Department erred in its interpretation
of work performed at the subject facility as a service and further
convey that workers of the subject firm supported production of an
affiliated firm Unifi by ``pulling through Unifi's domestically-
produced yarns into domestically-manufactured garments'' and
``supported other unaffiliated domestic apparel manufacturing
facilities.'' The petitioner further states that the subject firm
should be considered a downstream producer for Unifi, Inc. because it
assisted Unifi, Inc. in delivering and distributing their products to
garments manufacturers. The petitioner concludes that because Unimatrix
promoted usage of yarn manufactured by Unifi in the production of
fabric and garments done by independent companies which were contracted
by Unimatrix, the workers of the subject firm should be considered in
support of production of yarn at Unifi, Inc. The petitioner alleges
that increased foreign competition and financial health of Unifi, Inc.
had a direct negative impact on Unimatrix Americas and thus workers of
the subject firm should be eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA).
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 petitioning group of workers at the subject firm was
coordinating all sourcing activities for production of apparel done by
independent contractors in Central America. The workers were
responsible for ``production planning and sales of domestically-
produced apparel products containing fabric domestically-produced Unifi
yarn.'' The subject firm ordered, purchased and exported supplies and
goods needed for production of garments, including purchasing of Unifi
yarn and arranging its further production into fabric and garments. The
workers of the subject company located different independent
manufacturing contractors in Central America, monitored their
production and kept customers of Unimatrix informed of all production
issues and ship dates. The official stated that workers of the subject
firm also coordinated importing of the goods back into the United
States and handled final shipments and invoicing. The company official
stated that Unimatrix served as the ``middleman'' between different
production companies and that majority of Unimatrix' customers, who
manufacture garments have moved to sourcing from abroad, thus
negatively impacting the subject firm.
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.
The investigation on reconsideration revealed that Unimatrix
Americas, Greensboro, North Carolina is affiliated with Unifi, Inc.
Workers of Unifi, Inc. in Yadkinville, North Carolina and Madison,
North Carolina manufacture polyester yarn and nylon. Further
investigation revealed that workers of the subject firm did not support
production of polyester yarn and/or nylon at these facilities but sold
apparel, utilizing Unifi products. Workers of the subject firm
purchased yarn from Unifi, outsourced production of fabric out of this
yarn to independent companies, exported fabric to foreign companies for
manufacturing of apparel and imported final products back into the
United States.
Providing global sourcing, production planning, sales and marketing
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 petitioner attached a document on Unifi's Fourth Quarter
Results to support the allegations.
A careful review of this document revealed Unifi's decision to
focus on the internal resources to support the downstream initiatives
around the globe. The document clarifies that Unifi, Inc. developed
internal knowledge, expertise, and relationships to drive Unifi's
products to the market and as a result it will discontinue Unimatrix
Americas. All functions performed by Unimatrix Americas will be
utilized within Unifi because it established a new very successful
business model to have a successful sourcing.
The investigation on reconsideration supported the findings of the
primary investigation that the petitioning group of workers did not
produce an article.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance
for workers and former workers of Unimatrix Americas, Greensboro, North
Carolina.
[[Page 14958]]
Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of March, 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6-4294 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
