Lexmark International, Inc., Supply Chain Workforce, Printing Solutions & Services Division, Lexington, KY; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 43214-43215 [E6-12196]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
43214
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 146 / Monday, July 31, 2006 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–59,554]
[TA–W–58,184]
Georgia Pacific Corporation, Mason
Street Opertions, Green Bay, WI;
Notice of Termination of Investigation
Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
Consumer Products Division, Green
Bay, WI; 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) the
Department of Labor issued a
Certification of Eligibility To Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance on November 21, 2005,
applicable to workers of Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, Consumer Products
Division, Green Bay, Wisconsin. The
notice was published in the Federal
Register on December 15, 2005 (70 FR
74368).
At the request of the State agency, the
Department reviewed the certification
for workers of the subject firm. The
workers are engaged in the production
of napkins, towels and tissue and are
not separately identifiable by product
line.
New findings show that there was a
previous certification, TA–W–55,156,
issued on August 12, 2004, for workers
of Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
Consumer Products Division, Green
Bay, Wisconsin who were engaged in
employment related to the production of
napkins, towels and tissue. That
certification expires August 12, 2006. To
avoid an overlap in worker group
coverage, the certification is being
amended to change the impact date
from October 12, 2004 to August 13,
2006, for workers of the subject firm.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–58,184 is hereby issued as
follows:
All workers of Georgia-Pacific Corporation,
Consumer Products Division, Green Bay,
Wisconsin, who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after
August 13, 2006, through November 21,
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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Department will conduct further
investigation to determine if the workers
meet the eligibility requirements of the
Trade Act of 1974.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of
July 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–12207 Filed 7–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:34 Jul 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, an investigation was
initiated on June 13, 2006 in response
to a petition filed by a company official
on behalf of workers at Georgia Pacific
Corporation, Mason Street Operations,
Green Bay, Wisconsin (TA–W–59,554).
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
further investigation in this case would
serve no purpose, and the investigation
has been terminated.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 10th day of
July, 2006.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–12205 Filed 7–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–59,436]
Jacquard, LLC, Burlington House
Division, Cliffside, NC; Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By letter dated June 26, 2006, a
petitioner 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 denial notice was
signed on June 13, 2006, and is pending
publication in the Federal Register.
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
finding that the subject firm did not
separate or threaten to separate a
significant number or proportion of
workers as required by section 222 of
the Trade Act of 1974. Significant
number or proportion of the workers in
a firm or appropriate subdivision
thereof, means that at least three
workers with a workforce of fewer than
50 workers or five percent of the
workers with a workforce of 50 or more.
The Department reviewed the request
for reconsideration and has determined
that the petitioner has provided
additional information. Therefore, the
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th of July
2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–12200 Filed 7–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–58,808]
Lexmark International, Inc., Supply
Chain Workforce, Printing Solutions &
Services Division, Lexington, KY;
Notice of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On April 13, 2006, the Department
issued an Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the workers and
former workers of Lexmark
International, Inc., Supply Chain
Workforce, Printing Solutions &
Services Division, Lexington, Kentucky
(subject firm). The Notice was published
in the Federal Register on April 24,
2006 (71 FR 21042).
The subject workers are engaged in
product planning, purchasing of
components, support and engineering,
logistics, operations, and vendor
relations.
In the initial investigation, the
Department had determined that
although production occurred within
the firm or appropriate subdivision, the
subject workers do not directly support
this production. The Department had
also found that the predominant cause
of worker separations was Lexmark
International, Inc.’s decision to position
tasks to other domestic locations in
order to be closer to their production
partners and customers, who are located
worldwide.
Workers of Lexmark International,
Inc., Lexington, Kentucky were certified
as eligible to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on
February 12, 2002 (TA–W–40,395)
based on increased company imports of
printers and inkjet cartridges.
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 146 / Monday, July 31, 2006 / Notices
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner asserts that the subject
workers supported the production of
components (ink) of articles produced
by the subject firm (ink and printer
cartridges) and that their support
functions were shifted abroad when
cartridge production shifted abroad.
New information provided by the
subject firm during the reconsideration
investigation supports the finding that
the subject workers purchased ink
components which were used in the ink
that was inserted into the ink cartridges
which were used in the printers
produced by the subject firm. As such,
the workers are an integral part of ink
and printer cartridge production.
Under the statute, the subject worker
group must be employed by a firm (or
an appropriate subdivision) which
produced an article domestically during
the twelve month period prior to the
petition date. During the
reconsideration investigation, the
Department confirmed that neither the
subject firm nor Lexmark International,
Inc. produced ink or cartridges
domestically during the relevant
perioid.
Therefore, the Department determines
that the subject workers are not
employed by a company covered by the
statute and are not eligible to apply for
TAA.
In addition, in accordance with
section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26
U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the
Department herein presents the results
of its investigation regarding
certification of eligibility to apply for
ATAA for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue
a certification of eligibility to apply for
ATAA, the subject worker group must
be certified eligible to apply for TAA.
Since the subject workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, they cannot
be certified eligible for ATAA.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–58,859]
Midland Prints and Fabrics, Inc.,
Stenfield, NC; Affirmative
Determinations for Worker Adjustment
Assistance and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance; Correction
This notice rescinds the notice of
certification of eligibility to apply for
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance applicable to TA–W–58,859,
which was published in the Federal
Register on April 12, 2006 (71 FR
18771–18773) in FR Document E6–
5369, Billing Code 4510–30–P.
This rescinds the certification of
eligibility for workers of TA–W–58,859,
to apply for Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance and confirms
eligibility to apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance as identified on
page 18771 in the third column, the
eleventh TA–W–number listed.
The Department appropriately
published in the Federal Register April
12, 2006, page 18773, under the notice
of Negative Determinations for
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance, the denial of eligibility
applicable to workers of TA–W–58,859.
The notice appears on page 18773 in the
first column, the second TA–W–number
listed.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 24th day of
July 2006.
Erica R. Cantor,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–12190 Filed 7–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–58,929]
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 revision of the
Department of Labor’s prior decision.
Accordingly, the application is denied.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Conclusion
Milprint, Inc., a Division of Bemis
Company, Denmark, WI; Notice of
Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of
July 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–12196 Filed 7–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:34 Jul 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
On May 10, 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 May 17, 2006 (71 FR 28712).
The workers produce flexible plastic
packaging, used largely in confectionary
and snack food markets, and paper for
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
43215
packaging cigarettes. Workers are not
separately identifiable by product line.
The petition for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) filed on
behalf of the workers of Milprint, Inc.,
A Division of Bemis Company,
Denmark, Wisconsin (subject firm) was
denied because the subject firm neither
imported flexible plastic packaging or
cigarette paper, nor shifted production
of either article abroad during the
relevant period. The investigation also
revealed that the parent firm
experienced increased sales of articles
like or directly competitive with those
produced by the subject facility during
the investigatory period.
The petitioners had also filed as
workers of a secondarily-affected
company (supplied component parts for
articles produced by a firm with a
currently TAA-certified worker group).
In the initial determination, the
Department stated that the subject
facility does not supply cigarette paper
component parts to any TAA-certified
firm in the relevant time period and that
flexible plastic packaging is not a
component part of confectionaries.
In the request for reconsideration, the
United Steel Workers, Local 7–1203
(Union) stated that cigarette packaging
paper constituted ten percent of subject
firm production and that it was
supplied to a TAA-certified firm, P.H.
Gladfether, Neenah, Wisconsin (TA–W–
53,612). The Union also stated that
flexible plastic packaging constituted
ninety percent of subject firm
production and that this article was
supplied to TAA-certified companies:
Farley’s and Sather Candy (TA–W–
51,546), Archibald Candy (TA–W–
53,983), American Safety Razor (TA–W–
57,323), and Bob’s Candy (TA–W–
57,772).
To be certified as a secondarilyaffected company, the subject firm must
have a customer with a currently TAAcertified worker group and the subject
firm produces a component part of the
product that was the basis for the
customer’s certification. In addition, the
TAA-certified customer must account
for at least twenty percent of subject
firm’s sales or production or the loss of
business with the customer contributed
importantly to the workers’ separations.
According to the Union, cigarette
paper production constituted only ten
percent of subject firm production. Even
if P.H. Gladfether, Neenah, Wisconsin
was the subject firm’s only customer of
this product, sales to P.H. Gladfether
would have accounted for less than
twenty percent of overall sales or
production of the subject firm. Further,
P.H. Gladfether, Neenah, Wisconsin was
E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM
31JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 146 (Monday, July 31, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43214-43215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12196]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-58,808]
Lexmark International, Inc., Supply Chain Workforce, Printing
Solutions & Services Division, Lexington, KY; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On April 13, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers
and former workers of Lexmark International, Inc., Supply Chain
Workforce, Printing Solutions & Services Division, Lexington, Kentucky
(subject firm). The Notice was published in the Federal Register on
April 24, 2006 (71 FR 21042).
The subject workers are engaged in product planning, purchasing of
components, support and engineering, logistics, operations, and vendor
relations.
In the initial investigation, the Department had determined that
although production occurred within the firm or appropriate
subdivision, the subject workers do not directly support this
production. The Department had also found that the predominant cause of
worker separations was Lexmark International, Inc.'s decision to
position tasks to other domestic locations in order to be closer to
their production partners and customers, who are located worldwide.
Workers of Lexmark International, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky were
certified as eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on
February 12, 2002 (TA-W-40,395) based on increased company imports of
printers and inkjet cartridges.
[[Page 43215]]
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner asserts that the
subject workers supported the production of components (ink) of
articles produced by the subject firm (ink and printer cartridges) and
that their support functions were shifted abroad when cartridge
production shifted abroad.
New information provided by the subject firm during the
reconsideration investigation supports the finding that the subject
workers purchased ink components which were used in the ink that was
inserted into the ink cartridges which were used in the printers
produced by the subject firm. As such, the workers are an integral part
of ink and printer cartridge production.
Under the statute, the subject worker group must be employed by a
firm (or an appropriate subdivision) which produced an article
domestically during the twelve month period prior to the petition date.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed that
neither the subject firm nor Lexmark International, Inc. produced ink
or cartridges domestically during the relevant perioid.
Therefore, the Department determines that the subject workers are
not employed by a company covered by the statute and are not eligible
to apply for TAA.
In addition, in accordance with section 246 of the Trade Act of
1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the
results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to
apply for ATAA for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility
to apply for ATAA, the subject worker group must be certified eligible
to apply for TAA. Since the subject workers are denied eligibility to
apply for TAA, they cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
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 revision of the Department of
Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 19th day of July 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6-12196 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
