Milprint, Inc., a Division of Bemis Company, Denmark, WI; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 43215-43216 [E6-12208]

Download as PDF 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 43216 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 146 / Monday, July 31, 2006 / Notices not a major customer of the subject firm. Therefore, the Department determines P.H. Gladfether accounted for less than twenty percent of overall subject firm sales or production and the loss of business with this customer did not contribute importantly to the workers’ separations. In order to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for TAA as secondarily-affected workers of a company that supplied flexible plastic packaging to a firm with a currently TAA-certified worker group, the Department requested the subject firm’s 2005 sales figures for Farley’s and Sather Candy, Archibald Candy, American Safety Razor, and Bob’s Candy. The reconsideration investigation revealed that, during the relevant period, the subject firm conducted no business with three of the customers identified by the Union and conducted an insignificant amount of business with the fourth customer. As such, the Department determines that each customer accounted for less that twenty percent of overall subject firm sales or production and that the loss of business with each customer did not contribute importantly to the workers’ separations. The Union also alleged in the request for reconsideration that flexible plastic packaging production had shifted abroad. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed that flexible plastic packaging production did not shift abroad but shifted to affiliated production facilities in Lancaster, Wisconsin and Lebanon, Pennsylvania. 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 21st day of July 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6–12208 Filed 7–28–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Investigations Regarding Certifications, of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act. The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved. The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than August 10, 2006. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than August 10, 2006. The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C–5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of July 2006. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. APPENDIX [TAA petitions instituted between 7/10/06 and 7/14/06] Subject firm (petitioners) Location Morse Automotive Corp. (State) ........................................... Whirlpool Corp. (State) ......................................................... Laidlaw Corporation (Comp) ................................................ Maxtor Corp. (Comp) ............................................................ Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. (Wkrs) .................. Pace Industries Inc. (Comp) ................................................. Alliance Group Technologies Co. Kokkomo, Inc. (Comp) ... Thomson Micron, LLC (State) .............................................. Russell Corporation (Comp) ................................................. Hooker Furniture Corp. (Comp) ........................................... Bowne (Wkrs) ....................................................................... Telect, Inc. (Comp) ............................................................... Newell Rubbermaid (Comp) ................................................. Metrobility Optical Systems (Wkrs) ...................................... Scharf and Breit, Inc. (Comp) .............................................. American Fast Print Limited (Comp) .................................... Excell Data Corporation (State) ........................................... RMG Foundry LLC (USW) ................................................... Pilgrim Home and Hearth, LLC (Comp) ............................... Automatic Products Int’l., LTD (State) .................................. Demers Leather Sales Inc. (Comp) ..................................... South Park Pleating, Inc. (Wkrs) .......................................... Computer Sciences Corporation (Wkrs) .............................. Arkadelphia, AR .................... Fort Smith, AR ...................... Metropolis, IL ........................ Shrewsbury, MA .................... Philadelphia, PA .................... Harrison, AR ......................... Peru, IN ................................. Ronkonkoma, NY .................. Brundidge, AL ....................... Roanoke, VA ......................... Cleveland, OH ....................... Liberty Lake, WA .................. Centerville, IA ........................ Merrimack, NH ...................... Franklin Sq., NY .................... Greenville, SC ....................... Bellevue, WA ........................ Mishawaka, IN ...................... Fairfield, CA .......................... St. Paul, MN .......................... Lewiston, ME ........................ Oakland, CA .......................... Sterling, VA ........................... sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES TA–W 59683 59684 59685 59686 59687 59688 59689 59690 59691 59692 59693 59694 59695 59696 59697 59698 59699 59700 59701 59702 59703 59704 59705 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:49 Jul 28, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\31JYN1.SGM Date of institution 31JYN1 07/10/06 07/10/06 07/10/06 07/10/06 07/10/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/12/06 07/13/06 Date of petition 07/07/06 07/07/06 07/07/06 07/07/06 05/11/06 07/11/06 07/10/06 07/10/06 07/07/06 07/10/06 07/10/06 07/10/06 06/29/06 07/10/06 07/10/06 07/11/06 07/10/06 07/10/06 07/11/06 07/11/06 07/11/06 07/11/06 06/27/06

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 146 (Monday, July 31, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43215-43216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12208]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-58,929]


Milprint, Inc., a Division of Bemis Company, Denmark, WI; Notice 
of Negative Determination on Reconsideration

    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 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 secondarily-affected company, the subject firm 
must have a customer with a currently TAA-certified 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

[[Page 43216]]

not a major customer of the subject firm. Therefore, the Department 
determines P.H. Gladfether accounted for less than twenty percent of 
overall subject firm sales or production and the loss of business with 
this customer did not contribute importantly to the workers' 
separations.
    In order to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for 
TAA as secondarily-affected workers of a company that supplied flexible 
plastic packaging to a firm with a currently TAA-certified worker 
group, the Department requested the subject firm's 2005 sales figures 
for Farley's and Sather Candy, Archibald Candy, American Safety Razor, 
and Bob's Candy.
    The reconsideration investigation revealed that, during the 
relevant period, the subject firm conducted no business with three of 
the customers identified by the Union and conducted an insignificant 
amount of business with the fourth customer. As such, the Department 
determines that each customer accounted for less that twenty percent of 
overall subject firm sales or production and that the loss of business 
with each customer did not contribute importantly to the workers' 
separations.
    The Union also alleged in the request for reconsideration that 
flexible plastic packaging production had shifted abroad. During the 
reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed that flexible 
plastic packaging production did not shift abroad but shifted to 
affiliated production facilities in Lancaster, Wisconsin and Lebanon, 
Pennsylvania.

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 21st day of July 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E6-12208 Filed 7-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P

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