Cabot Corporation, Supermetals Division, Boyertown, PA; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand, 26564-26565 [E6-6815]

Download as PDF 26564 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 2006 / Notices order to avoid an overlap in worker group coverage. Any persons showing a substantial interest in the termination of this certification are invited to submit written comments to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C–5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Submit written comments not later than May 15, 2006. Signed in Washington, DC, this 19th day of April, 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6–6840 Filed 5–4–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Bespak, Inc., Tenax Corporation, Apex, North Carolina, whose wages are reported to Castleton Group. The amended notice applicable to TA–W–58,215 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Bespak, Inc., Tenax Corporation, Castleton Group, Apex, North, Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 25, 2004, through December 2, 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 at Washington, DC, this 20th day of April, 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6–6817 Filed 5–4–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P Employment and Training Administration DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Bespak, Inc., Tenax Corporation, Castleton Group, Apex, NC; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES [TA–W–58,215] Employment and Training Administration 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 December 2, 2005, applicable to workers of Bespak, Inc., Apex, North Carolina. The notice was published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2005 (70 FR 75841). The determination was amended on January 20, 2006, to include workers of the subject firm whose wages were reported under, Tenax Corporation, a member of the Bespak Group. The notice was published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2006 (71 FR 5071). At the request of a company official, the Department again reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produce drug delivery devices (inhalers, bags, pumps, I.V. lines, and syringes). The company official provided information to the Department confirming that some of the workers wages at the subject firm are reported under the Unemployment Insurance tax account for Castleton Group. Based on this new information, the Department is again amending the certification to include workers of VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:48 May 04, 2006 Jkt 208001 [TA–W–58,037] Cabot Corporation, Supermetals Division, Boyertown, PA; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the Secretary of Labor’s motion for a voluntary remand for further investigation in Former Employees of Cabot Corporation, Supermetals Division, Boyertown, Pennsylvania v. Elaine Chao, U.S. Secretary of Labor, No. 05–00674. The Department’s initial denial for the workers of Cabot Corporation, Supermetals Division, Boyertown, Pennsylvania (hereafter ‘‘Cabot’’), issued on November 14, 2005 and published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2005 (70 FR 72655), was based on the finding that ‘‘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 tantalum powder during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import tantalum powder nor did it shift production to a foreign country during the relevant period. On December 8, 2005, the petitioner requested administrative reconsideration, asserting that the decline in tantalum powder production PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 at the subject firm was a result of the subject company purchasing the ‘‘same items from European companies’’, subject firm’s ‘‘take or pay’’ contracts, and foreign competition. On January 5, 2006, the Department issued a Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration, published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2006 (71 FR 2566), stating that the application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law. After the petitioner sought review by the USCIT, the Department requested a voluntary remand since the petitioner requested that the Department conduct a further investigation of whether there was an increase of imports of tantalum powder during the relevant time period. The review of the initial investigation revealed that the confidential data request received from the subject firm during the initial investigation refers to ‘‘tantalum’’ as a product manufactured by the subject firm during the relevant time period. The Department contacted the subject company official to verify the exact products manufactured by the subject firm during the relevant time period. The company official reported that ‘‘tantalum powder and tantalum wire’’ were products manufactured by the subject firm during the relevant time period. Consequently, the Department conducted an investigation to determine if the workers were impacted by imports of ‘‘tantalum powder and tantalum wire’’ or a shift in production abroad occurred during the relevant period. The investigation revealed that the subject firm did not import ‘‘tantalum powder and tantalum wire’’, nor did it shift production of ‘‘tantalum powder and tantalum wire’’ to a foreign country. The investigation further revealed that all declines in sales and production of tantalum powder and tantalum wire at the subject firm are attributed to a loss in foreign market sales. The subject firm provided two major declining customers, one a foreign company and another which appeared to be a domestic company. The Department conducted a customer survey with the major declining customer. The investigation revealed that the domestic customer purchases of tantalum powder and tantalum wire from the subject firm was for the purpose of exporting these products to its foreign manufacturing facilities. This customer does not import tantalum powder and tantalum wire into the E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM 05MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 2006 / Notices United States and it uses all of tantalum products in production abroad. Conclusion After reconsideration on remand, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Cabot Corporation, Supermetals Division, Boyertown, Pennsylvania. Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of April, 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6–6815 Filed 5–4–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Carolina Mills, Inc., Plant No. 9, Valdese, NC; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application of March 28, 2006, the subject company requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor’s Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers of the subject firm. The Department’s determination was signed on February 24, 2006, and the Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2006 (71 FR 14550). The subject company filed for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) as a secondarily affected company, alleging loss of dying and finishing business from customers who are import-impacted. The negative determination was based on the findings that the subject company did not shift commission dying and finishing of fabric to a foreign country or import fabric that has been dyed and finished, and that the subject company’s customers did not increase imports of commission dyed and finished fabric during the relevant period. The Department determined that because apparel is not considered like or directly competitive with fabric, increased imports of apparel cannot be a basis for TAA certification for the subject worker group. The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and has determined that the Department 18:48 May 04, 2006 Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor’s prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. 2006 in response to a worker petition filed by a state agency representative on behalf of workers at Eagle Picher, Hillsdale, Michigan. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC this 14th day of April 2006. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6–6855 Filed 5–4–06; 8:45 am] Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of April 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6–6821 Filed 5–4–06; 8:45 am] Jkt 208001 Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–59,150] Demetron Kerr, Danbury, CT; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 4, 2006 in response to a worker petition filed by a single worker on behalf of workers at Demetron Kerr, Danbury, Connecticut. The petition regarding the investigation has been deemed invalid. Valid petitions must be filed by three or more workers, by a duly authorized representative of such workers, by employers of such workers, by one-stop operators, or by one-stop partners. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of April 2006. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6–6848 Filed 5–4–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–59,159] Eagle Picher, Hillsdale, MI; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 5, PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4703 BILLING CODE 4510–30–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–57,582 and TA–W–57,582B] DEPARTMENT OF LABOR [TA–W–58,637] VerDate Aug<31>2005 will conduct an investigation to determine whether the subject workers supplied components to a company adversely impacted by imports and whether the workers are eligible to apply for TAA and ATAA. BILLING CODE 4510–30–P Employment and Training Administration 26565 Sfmt 4703 EPEC, LLC, New Bedford, MA; EPEC, LLC, Bethel, CT; Amended Notice of Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility To Apply for 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 Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and a Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on August 16, 2005, applicable to workers of EPEC, LLC, New Bedford, Massachusetts. The notice was published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2005 (70 FR 53390). At the request of a company official and the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that worker separations have occurred involving employees of the New Bedford, Massachusetts facility of EPEC, LLC located in Bethel, Connecticut. The Bethel Connecticut workers provide support function services for the production of printed circuit boards at the New Bedford, Massachusetts location of the subject firm. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include employees of the New Bedford, Massachusetts facility of EPEC, LLC located in Bethel, Connecticut. The intent of the Department’s certification is to include all workers of EPEC, LLC, New Bedford, E:\FR\FM\05MYN1.SGM 05MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26564-26565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6815]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-58,037]


Cabot Corporation, Supermetals Division, Boyertown, PA; Notice of 
Negative Determination on Remand

    The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the 
Secretary of Labor's motion for a voluntary remand for further 
investigation in Former Employees of Cabot Corporation, Supermetals 
Division, Boyertown, Pennsylvania v. Elaine Chao, U.S. Secretary of 
Labor, No. 05-00674.
    The Department's initial denial for the workers of Cabot 
Corporation, Supermetals Division, Boyertown, Pennsylvania (hereafter 
``Cabot''), issued on November 14, 2005 and published in the Federal 
Register on December 6, 2005 (70 FR 72655), was based on the finding 
that ``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 tantalum powder during the relevant period. The subject firm did not 
import tantalum powder nor did it shift production to a foreign country 
during the relevant period.
    On December 8, 2005, the petitioner requested administrative 
reconsideration, asserting that the decline in tantalum powder 
production at the subject firm was a result of the subject company 
purchasing the ``same items from European companies'', subject firm's 
``take or pay'' contracts, and foreign competition.
    On January 5, 2006, the Department issued a Dismissal of 
Application for Reconsideration, published in the Federal Register on 
January 17, 2006 (71 FR 2566), stating that the application did not 
contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination 
was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for 
reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken 
facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law.
    After the petitioner sought review by the USCIT, the Department 
requested a voluntary remand since the petitioner requested that the 
Department conduct a further investigation of whether there was an 
increase of imports of tantalum powder during the relevant time period. 
The review of the initial investigation revealed that the confidential 
data request received from the subject firm during the initial 
investigation refers to ``tantalum'' as a product manufactured by the 
subject firm during the relevant time period. The Department contacted 
the subject company official to verify the exact products manufactured 
by the subject firm during the relevant time period. The company 
official reported that ``tantalum powder and tantalum wire'' were 
products manufactured by the subject firm during the relevant time 
period. Consequently, the Department conducted an investigation to 
determine if the workers were impacted by imports of ``tantalum powder 
and tantalum wire'' or a shift in production abroad occurred during the 
relevant period. The investigation revealed that the subject firm did 
not import ``tantalum powder and tantalum wire'', nor did it shift 
production of ``tantalum powder and tantalum wire'' to a foreign 
country. The investigation further revealed that all declines in sales 
and production of tantalum powder and tantalum wire at the subject firm 
are attributed to a loss in foreign market sales.
    The subject firm provided two major declining customers, one a 
foreign company and another which appeared to be a domestic company. 
The Department conducted a customer survey with the major declining 
customer. The investigation revealed that the domestic customer 
purchases of tantalum powder and tantalum wire from the subject firm 
was for the purpose of exporting these products to its foreign 
manufacturing facilities. This customer does not import tantalum powder 
and tantalum wire into the

[[Page 26565]]

United States and it uses all of tantalum products in production 
abroad.

Conclusion

    After reconsideration on remand, I affirm the original notice of 
negative determination of eligibility to apply for adjustment 
assistance for workers and former workers of Cabot Corporation, 
Supermetals Division, Boyertown, Pennsylvania.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of April, 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E6-6815 Filed 5-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.