WSW Company of Sharon, Inc., a Subsidiary of Wormser Company, Sharon, TN; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 44321 [E6-12621]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 150 / Friday, August 4, 2006 / Notices TA–W–59,627; Liebert Corporation, Irvine, CA. The workers’ firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. TA–W–59,494; Sun Microsystems, Inc., Information Technology Group, Santa Clara, CA. TA–W–59,521; Dora L. International, Customer Service Division, Los Angeles, CA. TA–W–59,632; Lightmaster Systems, Inc., Cupertino, CA. TA–W–59,637; Americas Finance Organization, A Subdivision of Lenovo USA, Research Triangle Park, NC. TA–W–59,640; Armstrong World Industries Inc., Customer Service Call Center, Lancaster, PA. TA–W–59,662; Geneva Steel LLC, A Subsidiary of Geneva Steel Holdings, Vineyard, UT. TA–W–59,683; Morse Automotive Corp., Arkadelphia, AR. The investigation revealed that criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers’ firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA. TA–W–59,534; Pictorial Engraving Co., Charlotte, NC. I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the month of July 2006. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C– 5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address. Dated: July 28, 2006. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6–12623 Filed 8–3–06; BILLING CODE 4510–30–P Notice was published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2006 (71 FR 29184). The petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), dated February 28, 2006, filed on behalf of workers of WSW Company of Sharon, Inc., a Subsidiary of Wormser Company, Sharon, Tennessee (subject facility) was denied because, during the relevant period, the workers did not produce an article within the meaning of the Trade Act and did not support a domestic production facility that was importimpacted. While the subject facility was previously certified for TAA (TA–W– 51,848), the certification expired prior to the petition date (expired on June 30, 2005). In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners assert that, during the relevant period, they were engaged in activity related to the production of an article (children’s sleepwear) manufactured by Wormser Company (subject firm). During the reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed that domestic production had ceased in 2004 and, therefore, determined that production did not take place at the subject facility during the relevant period. In subsequent submissions, the petitioners asserted that they produced ‘‘pick tickets’’ (internal-use distribution documents) and labels used for shipping. Although the workers’ activities resulted in printed material, this material is incidental to the provision of distribution services. The Department has consistently determined that items produced as a result of the provision of services are not marketable and not an article for purposes of the Trade Act. Further, information provided by the petitioners reveal that the activities in which they were engaged supported a domestic warehousing and shipping facility, not a production facility. Conclusion DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 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. Employment and Training Administration gechino on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES [TA–W–58,935] WSW Company of Sharon, Inc., a Subsidiary of Wormser Company, Sharon, TN; 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:39 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 208001 Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of July 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6–12621 Filed 8–3–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44321 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA); Community-Based Job Training Grants Correction Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor. ACTION: Notice; correction and supplemental information. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration published a document in the Federal Register on July 3, 2006, concerning the availability of grant funds to support workforce training for high-growth/high-demand industries through the national system of community and technical colleges. This correction is to explain how OneStop Career Center applicants must apply and to provide additional clarification regarding direct training costs, tuition payments, and the leveraging of Workforce Investment Act resources. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Brumback, Grants Management Specialist, Division of Federal Assistance, (202) 693–3381. Corrections In the Federal Register of July 3, 2006, in FR Volume 71, Number 127: On Page 37953, in the third column, Section III(A)(4) is corrected to read: 4. One-Stop Career Centers, as established under Section 121 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105–220). The eligible applicant for One-Stop Career Centers is the One-Stop Operator, as defined under Section 121 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105–220), on behalf of the OneStop Career Center. The applicant must: (1) Have a letter of concurrence from all signatories to the One-Stop Career Center Memorandum of Understanding, including the Local Workforce Investment Board (WIB) and all mandatory partners, as specified in Section 121 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998; (2) demonstrate that the proposed activities are consistent with the state strategic Workforce Investment Act plan; and (3) demonstrate that the Local Workforce Investment Board, or its designated fiscal agent, will serve as the fiscal agent for the grant. The Workforce Investment Board’s support and involvement in the project should be detailed in the letter of concurrence, which should also address the above requirements (2) and (3). The WIB may also address above requirements 2 and 3 in a separate letter E:\FR\FM\04AUN1.SGM 04AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 44321]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-12621]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-58,935]


WSW Company of Sharon, Inc., a Subsidiary of Wormser Company, 
Sharon, TN; 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 19, 2006 (71 FR 29184).
    The petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), dated February 
28, 2006, filed on behalf of workers of WSW Company of Sharon, Inc., a 
Subsidiary of Wormser Company, Sharon, Tennessee (subject facility) was 
denied because, during the relevant period, the workers did not produce 
an article within the meaning of the Trade Act and did not support a 
domestic production facility that was import-impacted. While the 
subject facility was previously certified for TAA (TA-W-51,848), the 
certification expired prior to the petition date (expired on June 30, 
2005).
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners assert that, 
during the relevant period, they were engaged in activity related to 
the production of an article (children's sleepwear) manufactured by 
Wormser Company (subject firm).
    During the reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed 
that domestic production had ceased in 2004 and, therefore, determined 
that production did not take place at the subject facility during the 
relevant period.
    In subsequent submissions, the petitioners asserted that they 
produced ``pick tickets'' (internal-use distribution documents) and 
labels used for shipping. Although the workers' activities resulted in 
printed material, this material is incidental to the provision of 
distribution services. The Department has consistently determined that 
items produced as a result of the provision of services are not 
marketable and not an article for purposes of the Trade Act.
    Further, information provided by the petitioners reveal that the 
activities in which they were engaged supported a domestic warehousing 
and shipping facility, not a production facility.

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 27th day of July 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E6-12621 Filed 8-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P