Ash Grove Cement Company Rivergate Lime Plant; Portland, OR; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 60763-60764 [E6-17105]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 199 / Monday, October 16, 2006 / Notices
TA–W–60,073; Leviton Manufacturing
Co., Southern Devices Division,
Morganton, NC.
TA–W–60,083; QPM Aerospace,
Portland, OR.
TA–W–60,094; Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Co., Union City Plant,
Union City, TN.
TA–W–60,101; Siemon Company (The),
Watertown, CT.
The investigation revealed that
criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or
production, or both, did not decline)
and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production
to a foreign country) have not been met.
TA–W–60,011; OSRAM Sylvania, Inc.,
Central Falls, RI.
The investigation revealed that
criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased
imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in
production to a foreign country) have
not been met.
TA–W–59,744; AGX Corporation, New
York, NY.
TA–W–59,818; Sun Chemical Corp.,
North American Inks (NAI),
Winston-Salem, NC.
TA–W–59,876; Glide Lumber, LLC,
Glide, OR.
TA–W–59,898; Fenton Art Glass
Company, Williamstown, WV.
TA–W–59,940; Liberty Throwing Co.,
Inc., Kingston, PA.
TA–W–60,071; J and S Industries LLC,
Livonia, MI.
TA–W–60,074; Rebtex Company, Inc.,
East Greenwich, RI.
The investigation revealed that the
predominate cause of worker
separations is unrelated to criteria
(a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.C) (shift in production to a
foreign country under a free trade
agreement or a beneficiary country
under a preferential trade agreement, or
there has been or is likely to be an
increase in imports).
None.
The workers’ firm does not produce
an article as required for certification
under section 222 of the Trade Act of
1974.
TA–W–59,995; Bess Manufacturing Co.,
Bensalem, PA.
TA–W–59,998; Mortgage Guaranty
Insurance Corp., Concord, CA.
TA–W–60,087; Wachovia Bank,
Disbursement Operating Services,
Philadelphia, PA.
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.
None.
I hereby certify that the
aforementioned determinations were
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Oct 13, 2006
Jkt 211001
issued from September 25 through
September 29, 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: October 5, 2006.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–17102 Filed 10–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–59,463]
Ash Grove Cement Company Rivergate
Lime Plant; Portland, OR; Notice of
Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On August 7, 2006, the Department
issued an Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the workers and
former workers of Ash Grove Cement
Company, Rivergate Lime Plant,
Portland, Oregon (subject firm). The
Department’s Notice of Affirmative
Determination was published in the
Federal Register on September 26, 2006
(71 FR 56169). Although the petition
states that the subject firm produces
calcium oxide, the investigation
revealed that ground limestone, ground
dolomite, and calcium hydroxide are
produced as well as calcium oxide. The
subject workers are not separately
identifiable by product line. The
petitioner (the subject firm) requested
that the Department consider TA–W–
59,463 as both a primary and secondary
petition.
The petition for the workers of the
subject firm was denied because there
was no shift of production and the
‘‘contributed importantly’’ group
eligibility requirement of section 222 of
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was
not met. The ‘‘contributed importantly’’
test is generally demonstrated through
increased imports by either the subject
firm or its customers of those articles
produced by the subject worker group.
The investigation revealed that
although calcium oxide production had
ceased, there was no shift of production
from the subject facility to a country
that is party to a free trade agreement
with the United States, or a country that
is named as a beneficiary under the
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
60763
Andean Trade Preference Act, the
African Growth and Opportunity Act or
the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act. The investigation also revealed that
neither the subject firm nor its
customers increased imports of calcium
oxide during the relevant period.
Because the determination did not
state whether the subject worker group
is eligible for TAA as workers of a
secondarily-affected firm, the
Department issued the Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration.
In the initial petition, the company
official asserts that the subject firm
supplied calcium oxide to Oregon Steel
Mills (TAA certified on May 9, 2003;
TA–W–50,706). In the request for
reconsideration, the company official
stated that ‘‘calcium oxide produced at
the plant is sold for a variety of end uses
but is primarily used in the iron and
steel making industry.’’ The company
official also asserts that the closure of
Oregon Steel Mills, Portland, Oregon in
May 2003 (one of two major customers)
and the subject firm’s inability to secure
another high-volume customer led to
the closure of the calcium oxide line
and the workers’ separations.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the company official
confirmed that calcium oxide
production ceased at the subject facility
on May 31, 2006. Calcium oxide
constituted a meaningful portion of
production at the subject facility.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the company official
provided new information that
indicated that there are several major
declining calcium oxide customers
during the relevant period. In response
to this new information, the Department
carefully reviewed previously-submitted
information and conducted a new
survey to determine whether these
customers had increased import
purchases of calcium oxide while
declining their purchases from the
subject firm during the relevant period.
The reconsideration investigation
revealed no increased imports of
calcium oxide by these customers.
For certification on the basis of the
workers’ firm being a secondary
upstream supplier, the subject firm must
have customers that are TAA certified
during the relevant period and the TAA
certified customers must represent a
significant portion of subject firm’s
business during the relevant period. In
addition, the subject firm would have to
produce a component part of the
product that was the basis for the
customers’ certification.
Because the TAA certification for
Oregon Steel Mills, Portland, Oregon
E:\FR\FM\16OCN1.SGM
16OCN1
60764
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 199 / Monday, October 16, 2006 / Notices
had expired on May 9, 2005, that
customer cannot be a basis for
certification of the subject firm as an
affected secondary upstream supplier.
Further, since Oregon Steel Mills,
Portland, Oregon ceased production in
May 2003, that customer cannot have
represented a significant portion of the
subject firm’s business during the
relevant period. As such, the subject
workers are not eligible for TAA under
secondary impact.
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, the workers
cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I affirm
the original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of Ash
Grove Cement Company, Rivergate Lime
Plant, Portland, Oregon.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of
September, 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–17105 Filed 10–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–59,833]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
The Baxter Corporation; Shelby, NC;
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated September 27,
2006, petitioners requested
administrative reconsideration of the
Department’s negative determination
regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA),
applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject firm. The denial
notice was signed on August 28, 2006
and published in the Federal Register
on September 21, 2006 (71 FR 55217).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c),
reconsideration may be granted under
the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts
not previously considered that the
determination complained of was
erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination
complained of was based on a mistake
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:16 Oct 13, 2006
Jkt 211001
in the determination of facts not
previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying
Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justified reconsideration of the
decision.
The petition for the workers of the
Baxter Corporation, Shelby, North
Carolina engaged in production of
jacquard textile harnesses was denied
because the ‘‘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 in 2004, 2005 or January
through July 2006. The ‘‘contributed
importantly’’ test is generally
demonstrated through a survey of the
workers’ firm’s customers. The survey
revealed no imports of jacquard textile
harnesses during the relevant period.
The subject firm did not import
jacquard textile harnesses nor did it
shift production to a foreign country
during the relevant period.
The petitioner states that the affected
workers lost their jobs as a direct result
of a loss of customers in the textile
industry. The petitioner alleges that
major declining customers of the subject
firm were negatively impacted by
increased imports of various textiles,
thus they decreased their purchases of
jacquard textile harnesses from the
Baxter Corporation, Shelby, North
Carolina. The petitioner also states that
several of the subject firm’s customers
were certified eligible for TAA based on
an increase in imports of various textile
products. The petitioner concludes that
because sales and production of
jacquard textile harnesses at the subject
firm have been negatively impacted by
increasing presence of foreign imports
of textile products on the market,
workers of the subject firm should be
eligible for TAA.
In order to establish import impact,
the Department must consider imports
that are like or directly competitive with
those produced at the subject firm. The
Department conducted a survey of the
subject firm’s major declining customers
regarding their purchases of jacquard
textile harnesses. The survey revealed
that the declining customers did not
increase their imports of jacquard textile
harnesses during the relevant period.
Imports of textiles cannot be
considered like or directly competitive
with jacquard textile harnesses
produced by Baxter Corporation,
Shelby, North Carolina and imports of
textiles are not relevant in this
investigation.
The fact that subject firm’s customers
shifted their production abroad or were
import impacted is relevant to this
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
investigation if determining whether
workers of the subject firm are eligible
for TAA based on the secondary
upstream supplier of trade certified
primary firm impact. For certification
on the basis of the workers’ firm being
a secondary upstream supplier, the
subject firm must produce a component
part of the article that was the basis for
the customers’ TAA certification.
In this case, however, the subject firm
does not act as an upstream supplier,
because jacquard textile harnesses do
not form a component part of various
fabrics, yarn and other textile products.
Thus the subject firm workers are not
eligible under secondary impact.
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, day 5th of
October, 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–17118 Filed 10–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–60,006]
Bosch Sumter Plant; Automotive
Technology Chassis Division Including
Onsite Leased Workers From
Huffmaster Company, IH Services and
Olsten Staffing; Sumter, SC; 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), 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 September 22, 2006,
applicable to workers of Bosch Sumter
Plant, Automotive Technology Chassis
Division, including onsite leased
workers from Huffmaster Company, IH
Services, and Olsten Staffing, Sumter,
South Carolina. The notice was
published in the Federal Register on
October 2, 2006 (71 FR 58011–58012).
E:\FR\FM\16OCN1.SGM
16OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 199 (Monday, October 16, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60763-60764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-17105]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-59,463]
Ash Grove Cement Company Rivergate Lime Plant; Portland, OR;
Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration
On August 7, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers
and former workers of Ash Grove Cement Company, Rivergate Lime Plant,
Portland, Oregon (subject firm). The Department's Notice of Affirmative
Determination was published in the Federal Register on September 26,
2006 (71 FR 56169). Although the petition states that the subject firm
produces calcium oxide, the investigation revealed that ground
limestone, ground dolomite, and calcium hydroxide are produced as well
as calcium oxide. The subject workers are not separately identifiable
by product line. The petitioner (the subject firm) requested that the
Department consider TA-W-59,463 as both a primary and secondary
petition.
The petition for the workers of the subject firm was denied because
there was no shift of production and the ``contributed importantly''
group eligibility requirement of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended, was not met. The ``contributed importantly'' test is
generally demonstrated through increased imports by either the subject
firm or its customers of those articles produced by the subject worker
group.
The investigation revealed that although calcium oxide production
had ceased, there was no shift of production from the subject facility
to a country that is party to a free trade agreement with the United
States, or a country that is named as a beneficiary under the Andean
Trade Preference Act, the African Growth and Opportunity Act or the
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. The investigation also revealed
that neither the subject firm nor its customers increased imports of
calcium oxide during the relevant period.
Because the determination did not state whether the subject worker
group is eligible for TAA as workers of a secondarily-affected firm,
the Department issued the Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration.
In the initial petition, the company official asserts that the
subject firm supplied calcium oxide to Oregon Steel Mills (TAA
certified on May 9, 2003; TA-W-50,706). In the request for
reconsideration, the company official stated that ``calcium oxide
produced at the plant is sold for a variety of end uses but is
primarily used in the iron and steel making industry.'' The company
official also asserts that the closure of Oregon Steel Mills, Portland,
Oregon in May 2003 (one of two major customers) and the subject firm's
inability to secure another high-volume customer led to the closure of
the calcium oxide line and the workers' separations.
During the reconsideration investigation, the company official
confirmed that calcium oxide production ceased at the subject facility
on May 31, 2006. Calcium oxide constituted a meaningful portion of
production at the subject facility.
During the reconsideration investigation, the company official
provided new information that indicated that there are several major
declining calcium oxide customers during the relevant period. In
response to this new information, the Department carefully reviewed
previously-submitted information and conducted a new survey to
determine whether these customers had increased import purchases of
calcium oxide while declining their purchases from the subject firm
during the relevant period. The reconsideration investigation revealed
no increased imports of calcium oxide by these customers.
For certification on the basis of the workers' firm being a
secondary upstream supplier, the subject firm must have customers that
are TAA certified during the relevant period and the TAA certified
customers must represent a significant portion of subject firm's
business during the relevant period. In addition, the subject firm
would have to produce a component part of the product that was the
basis for the customers' certification.
Because the TAA certification for Oregon Steel Mills, Portland,
Oregon
[[Page 60764]]
had expired on May 9, 2005, that customer cannot be a basis for
certification of the subject firm as an affected secondary upstream
supplier. Further, since Oregon Steel Mills, Portland, Oregon ceased
production in May 2003, that customer cannot have represented a
significant portion of the subject firm's business during the relevant
period. As such, the subject workers are not eligible for TAA under
secondary impact.
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, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance for workers and former workers of Ash Grove Cement Company,
Rivergate Lime Plant, Portland, Oregon.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of September, 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6-17105 Filed 10-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
