Hoover Precision Products, Inc.; Washington, IN; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand, 6292-6293 [E7-2165]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6292
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Notices
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534
Telephone: 202–514–6470 / Facsimile:
202–616–6024 / siteselection@bop.gov.
February 5, 2007.
Issac J. Gaston,
Site Selection and Environmental Review
Branch, Federal Bureau of Prisons.
[FR Doc. E7–2143 Filed 2–8–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–5–P
Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of
February 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–2163 Filed 2–8–07; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
[TA–W–58,246]
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Fibrex, LLC; Formerly Known as
Wellington Cordage, LLC; Currently
Known as the Lehigh Group; Madison,
GA; 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 November 28, 2005,
applicable to workers of Fibrex, LLC,
formerly known as Wellington Cordage,
LLC, Madison, Georgia. The notice was
published in the Federal Register on
December 21, 2005 (70 FR 75842).
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 rope (i.e. cordage).
The subject firm originally named
Fibrex, LLC, formerly known as
Wellington Cordage, Madison, Georgia,
became known as The Lehigh Group in
January 2006 due to a change in
ownership. The State agency reports
that workers wages at the subject firm
are being reported under the
Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax
account for The Lehigh Group, Madison,
Georgia.
Accordingly, the Department is
amending the certification to properly
reflect this matter.
The intent of the Department’s
certification is to include all workers of
Fibrex, LLC, formerly known as
Wellington Cordage, LLC, Madison,
Georgia, who were adversely affected by
increased company imports.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–58,246 is hereby issued as
follows:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:06 Feb 08, 2007
All workers of Fibrex, LLC, formerly
known as Wellington Cordage, LLC, currently
known as The Lehigh Group, Madison,
Georgia, who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after
November 27, 2005, through November 28,
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.
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–60,059]
Hoover Precision Products, Inc.;
Washington, IN; Notice of Revised
Determination on Remand
On December 13, 2006, the United
States Court of International Trade
(USCIT) granted the Department of
Labor’s request for voluntary remand in
Former Employees of Hoover Precision
Products, Inc. v. United States (Court
No. 06–00381).
In the September 11, 2006 Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA) petition, a company
official indicated that Hoover Precision
Products, Inc., Washington, Indiana
(subject facility) was a distribution and
warehouse center of carbon steel balls,
that the facility was scheduled to close
on September 15, 2006, and that three
workers would be separated as a result
of the closure. In support of the petition,
the company official cited NAFTA–4916
(certified on June 18, 2001; shift of
production to Mexico).
During the initial investigation, it was
revealed that the subject facility was
engaged in warehousing and
distributing articles produced at an
affiliated facility in Mexico, and that the
warehousing and distributing functions
were shifting to an affiliated facility in
Georgia.
Based on information obtained during
the initial investigation, the Department
determined that the subject workers
were ineligible to apply for TAA
because they did not produce an article
within the meaning of Section 222(a)(2)
of the Trade Act of 1974.
On September 15, 2006, the
Department issued a negative
determination regarding workers’
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
eligibility to apply for workers
adjustment assistance for the subject
workers. The Department’s Notice of
determination was published in the
Federal Register on September 26, 2006
(71 FR 56172).
By application dated September 29,
2006, three workers requested
administrative reconsideration of the
Department’s negative determination. In
the request for reconsideration, the
workers stated that ‘‘Washington, IN is
a distribution facility. We distributed
components to companies who
manufactured them into their finished
products. Hoover Precision in Indiana
has lost a substantial amount of
business from at least 3 companies who
are TAA certified. This qualifies our
company in Washington, IN as
secondary workers affected by foreign
trade.’’
For purposes of the Trade Act, a
secondarily-affected company is a
company that either supplies
components parts for articles produced
by a firm with a currently TAA-certified
worker group or is an assembler or
finisher for a firm with a currently TAAcertified worker group.
In order to be certified as eligible to
apply for TAA as workers of a
secondarily-affect company, the
following eligibility requirements must
be met:
(1) The workers’ firm or appropriate
subdivision produced an article during the
one year period prior to the petition date; and
(2) A required minimum of the workforce
has been laid off in the 12 months preceding
the date of the petition or is threatened with
layoffs (3 workers in groups of fewer than 50,
or 5% of the workforce in groups of 50 or
more); and
(3) Loss of business (during the relevant
period) as a supplier of component parts, a
final assembler, or a finisher for a firm that
is currently TAA-certified contributed
importantly to an actual decline in sales or
production, and to a layoff or threat of a
layoff.
By letter dated October 3, 2006, the
Department dismissed the workers’
request for reconsideration because the
subject facility did not produce an
article, the workers were service
workers who processed imported
articles, and the workers were not
eligible for TAA as workers of a
secondarily-affected company. The
Department’s Notice of Dismissal of
Application for Reconsideration for the
subject facility was published in the
Federal Register on October 16, 2006
(71 FR 60766).
By letter dated October 9, 2006, the
workers appealed to the USCIT for
judicial review. The Plaintiffs alleged
that they were production workers and
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 27 / Friday, February 9, 2007 / Notices
provided personal statements in support
of the allegation. After careful review of
the complaint and the administrative
record, the Department filed a motion
for voluntary remand.
On December 13, 2006, the USCIT
granted the Department’s motion for
voluntary remand to conduct further
investigation and to make a
redetermination regarding the Plaintiffs’
eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance (TAA and
ATAA).
To be certified as eligible to apply for
TAA, the following criteria must be met:
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
(1) A significant number or proportion of
the workers in such workers’ firm (or
appropriate subdivision of the firm) have
become, or are threatened to become, totally
or partially separated;
(2) Sales or production, or both, of such
firm or subdivision have decreased
absolutely; and
(3) Increases (absolute or relative) of
imports of articles produced by such
workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision
thereof contributed importantly to such total
or partial separation, or threat thereof, and to
such decline in sales or production, or
(4) There has been a shift in production by
such workers’ firm or subdivision to a foreign
country of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
by such firm or subdivision; and the country
to which the workers’ firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to a free
trade agreement with the United States, is a
beneficiary country under the Andean Trade
Preference Act, African Growth and
Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act or there has been or
is likely to be an increase in imports of
articles that are like or directly competitive
with articles which are or were produced by
such firm or subdivision.
During the remand investigation, the
Department reviewed previouslysubmitted information, contacted the
Plaintiffs, and requested additional
information and clarification from
Hoover Precision Products, Inc. (subject
firm).
During the remand investigation, the
subject firm provided new information
which revealed that a majority of the
subject workers’ activities was related to
production and that the remaining
activities consisted of warehousing and
shipping functions. Based on this new
information, the Department determines
that, for purposes of the Trade Act,
workers of the subject facility were
engaged in production.
Information obtained during the
remand investigation confirmed
previously-submitted information that
the subject facility ceased to operate in
September 2006 and that the subject
firm faced increased foreign competition
during the relevant time period.
During the remand investigation, the
Department received additional
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:06 Feb 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
information which revealed that
increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with carbon steel
balls produced at the subject facility
contributed importantly to the subject
workers’ separations.
Based on new information and
confirmations obtained during the
remand investigation, the Department
determines that TAA criteria (1), (2) and
(3) have been met.
In addition, in accordance with
Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, the Department herein
presents the results of its investigation
regarding certification of eligibility to
apply for ATAA for older workers.
The group eligibility criteria for
ATAA that the Department must
consider under Section 246 of the Trade
Act are:
1. Whether a significant number of workers
in the workers’ firm are 50 years of age or
older.
2. Whether the workers in the workers’
firm possess skills that are not easily
transferable.
3. The competitive conditions within the
workers’ industry (i.e., conditions within the
industry are adverse).
The Department has determined in
the case at hand that ATAA criterion (1)
has not been met. For purposes of the
ATAA program, a significant number
means at least three or more workers in
a firm with a workforce of fewer than 50
workers.
During the remand investigation, the
Department confirmed with the subject
firm and the Plaintiffs that one worker
at the subject facility is age 50 or over.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts
generated through the remand
investigation, I determine that increased
imports of articles like or directly
competitive with carbon steel balls
produced at the subject facility
contributed to the total or partial
separation of a significant number or
proportion of workers at the subject
facility.
In accordance with the provisions of
the Act, I make the following
certification:
‘‘All workers of Hoover Precision Products,
Inc., Washington, Indiana, who became
totally or partially separated from
employment on or after September 11, 2005,
through two years from the issuance of this
revised determination, are eligible to apply
for Trade Adjustment Assistance under
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.’’
I further determine that all workers of
Hoover Precision Products, Inc.,
Washington, Indiana, are denied
eligibility to apply for alternative trade
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6293
adjustment assistance under Section 246
of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of
January 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–2165 Filed 2–8–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–59,956; TA–W–59,956A; TA–W–
59,956B; TA–W–59,956C; TA–W–59,956D;
TA–W–59,956E]
International Textile Group,
Incorporated, Corporate Headquarters;
Greensboro, NC; Including Employees
of International Textile Group,
Incorporated, Corporate Headquarters;
Greensboro, NC; Located at the
Following Locations: Stratford, CT;
Plano, TX; Chino, CA; Denver, CO;
Winnetka, IL; 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 Regarding Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance on September 8,
2006, applicable to workers of
International Textile Group,
Incorporated, Corporate Headquarters,
Greensboro, North Carolina. The notice
was published in the Federal Register
on September 21, 2006 (71 FR 55218).
At the request of a company official,
the Department reviewed the
certification for workers of the subject
firm. New information shows that
worker separations have occurred
involving employees of the Corporate
Headquarters, Greensboro, North
Carolina facility of International Textile
Group, Incorporated.
Employees of the Corporate
Headquarters working out of Stratford,
Connecticut, Plano, Texas, Chino,
California, Denver, Colorado, and
Winnetka, Illinois provided sales
function services for the production of
broadwoven synthetic and wool fabric
produced by the subject firm.
Based on these findings, the
Department is amending this
certification to include employees of the
Corporate Headquarters, Greensboro,
E:\FR\FM\09FEN1.SGM
09FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 27 (Friday, February 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6292-6293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2165]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-60,059]
Hoover Precision Products, Inc.; Washington, IN; Notice of
Revised Determination on Remand
On December 13, 2006, the United States Court of International
Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's request for voluntary
remand in Former Employees of Hoover Precision Products, Inc. v. United
States (Court No. 06-00381).
In the September 11, 2006 Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) petition, a company
official indicated that Hoover Precision Products, Inc., Washington,
Indiana (subject facility) was a distribution and warehouse center of
carbon steel balls, that the facility was scheduled to close on
September 15, 2006, and that three workers would be separated as a
result of the closure. In support of the petition, the company official
cited NAFTA-4916 (certified on June 18, 2001; shift of production to
Mexico).
During the initial investigation, it was revealed that the subject
facility was engaged in warehousing and distributing articles produced
at an affiliated facility in Mexico, and that the warehousing and
distributing functions were shifting to an affiliated facility in
Georgia.
Based on information obtained during the initial investigation, the
Department determined that the subject workers were ineligible to apply
for TAA because they did not produce an article within the meaning of
Section 222(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974.
On September 15, 2006, the Department issued a negative
determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for workers
adjustment assistance for the subject workers. The Department's Notice
of determination was published in the Federal Register on September 26,
2006 (71 FR 56172).
By application dated September 29, 2006, three workers requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination. In the request for reconsideration, the workers stated
that ``Washington, IN is a distribution facility. We distributed
components to companies who manufactured them into their finished
products. Hoover Precision in Indiana has lost a substantial amount of
business from at least 3 companies who are TAA certified. This
qualifies our company in Washington, IN as secondary workers affected
by foreign trade.''
For purposes of the Trade Act, a secondarily-affected company is a
company that either supplies components parts for articles produced by
a firm with a currently TAA-certified worker group or is an assembler
or finisher for a firm with a currently TAA-certified worker group.
In order to be certified as eligible to apply for TAA as workers of
a secondarily-affect company, the following eligibility requirements
must be met:
(1) The workers' firm or appropriate subdivision produced an
article during the one year period prior to the petition date; and
(2) A required minimum of the workforce has been laid off in the
12 months preceding the date of the petition or is threatened with
layoffs (3 workers in groups of fewer than 50, or 5% of the
workforce in groups of 50 or more); and
(3) Loss of business (during the relevant period) as a supplier
of component parts, a final assembler, or a finisher for a firm that
is currently TAA-certified contributed importantly to an actual
decline in sales or production, and to a layoff or threat of a
layoff.
By letter dated October 3, 2006, the Department dismissed the
workers' request for reconsideration because the subject facility did
not produce an article, the workers were service workers who processed
imported articles, and the workers were not eligible for TAA as workers
of a secondarily-affected company. The Department's Notice of Dismissal
of Application for Reconsideration for the subject facility was
published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2006 (71 FR 60766).
By letter dated October 9, 2006, the workers appealed to the USCIT
for judicial review. The Plaintiffs alleged that they were production
workers and
[[Page 6293]]
provided personal statements in support of the allegation. After
careful review of the complaint and the administrative record, the
Department filed a motion for voluntary remand.
On December 13, 2006, the USCIT granted the Department's motion for
voluntary remand to conduct further investigation and to make a
redetermination regarding the Plaintiffs' eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance (TAA and ATAA).
To be certified as eligible to apply for TAA, the following
criteria must be met:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm (or appropriate subdivision of the firm) have become,
or are threatened to become, totally or partially separated;
(2) Sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision
have decreased absolutely; and
(3) Increases (absolute or relative) of imports of articles
produced by such workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision thereof
contributed importantly to such total or partial separation, or
threat thereof, and to such decline in sales or production, or
(4) There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm
or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or
subdivision; and the country to which the workers' firm has shifted
production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with
the United States, is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade
Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean
Basin Economic Recovery Act or there has been or is likely to be an
increase in imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or
subdivision.
During the remand investigation, the Department reviewed
previously-submitted information, contacted the Plaintiffs, and
requested additional information and clarification from Hoover
Precision Products, Inc. (subject firm).
During the remand investigation, the subject firm provided new
information which revealed that a majority of the subject workers'
activities was related to production and that the remaining activities
consisted of warehousing and shipping functions. Based on this new
information, the Department determines that, for purposes of the Trade
Act, workers of the subject facility were engaged in production.
Information obtained during the remand investigation confirmed
previously-submitted information that the subject facility ceased to
operate in September 2006 and that the subject firm faced increased
foreign competition during the relevant time period.
During the remand investigation, the Department received additional
information which revealed that increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with carbon steel balls produced at the subject
facility contributed importantly to the subject workers' separations.
Based on new information and confirmations obtained during the
remand investigation, the Department determines that TAA criteria (1),
(2) and (3) have been met.
In addition, in accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its
investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA
for older workers.
The group eligibility criteria for ATAA that the Department must
consider under Section 246 of the Trade Act are:
1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm
are 50 years of age or older.
2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that
are not easily transferable.
3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry
(i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse).
The Department has determined in the case at hand that ATAA
criterion (1) has not been met. For purposes of the ATAA program, a
significant number means at least three or more workers in a firm with
a workforce of fewer than 50 workers.
During the remand investigation, the Department confirmed with the
subject firm and the Plaintiffs that one worker at the subject facility
is age 50 or over.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts generated through the remand
investigation, I determine that increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with carbon steel balls produced at the subject
facility contributed to the total or partial separation of a
significant number or proportion of workers at the subject facility.
In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following
certification:
``All workers of Hoover Precision Products, Inc., Washington,
Indiana, who became totally or partially separated from employment
on or after September 11, 2005, through two years from the issuance
of this revised determination, are eligible to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.''
I further determine that all workers of Hoover Precision Products,
Inc., Washington, Indiana, are denied eligibility to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade
Act of 1974.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of January 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-2165 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
