Lexmark International, Inc.; Supply Chain Workforce Printing Solutions And Services Division; Lexington, KY; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand, 6602-6603 [E7-2284]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6602
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 28 / Monday, February 12, 2007 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–58,808]
[TA–W–60,756]
Eramet Marietta; Marietta, OH; Notice
of Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on January
12, 2007 in response to a petition filed
by the United Steel Workers, Local 1–
00639–01, on behalf of workers at
Eramet Marietta, Marietta, Ohio.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of
February 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–2286 Filed 2–9–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–60,776]
Kirchner Corporation; Golden Valley,
MN; Notice of Termination of
Investigation
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on January
17, 2007, in response to a worker
petition filed by the Service Employees
International Union, Local 26, on behalf
of workers at Kirchner Corporation,
Golden Valley, Minnesota.
The petitioning group of workers is
covered by an active certification (TA–
W–60,722) which expires on January 22,
2009. Consequently, further
investigation in this case would serve
no purpose, and the investigation has
been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC this 2nd day of
February 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–2283 Filed 2–9–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:52 Feb 09, 2007
Jkt 211001
Lexmark International, Inc.; Supply
Chain Workforce Printing Solutions
And Services Division; Lexington, KY;
Notice of Revised Determination on
Remand
On December 8, 2006, the U.S. Court
of International Trade (USCIT) granted
the U.S. Department of Labor’s motion
for a voluntary remand in Former
Employees of Lexmark International,
Inc. v. United States, Court No. 06–
00327.
On February 7, 2006, three workers
filed a petition for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on
behalf of workers and former workers of
Lexmark International, Inc., Supply
Chain Workforce, Printing Solutions
and Services Division, Lexington,
Kentucky (subject facility). The
petitioners stated that the subject
facility produced ‘‘printers and
supplies’’ and attached an article which
stated that Lexmark International, Inc.
(Lexmark) planned to move jobs abroad
to countries where Lexmark has existing
ink cartridge production facilities,
including Mexico, China, and the
Philippines (‘‘Lexmark benefits from its
plans to trim jobs,’’ Bloomberg News,
January 25, 2006).
In the negative determination, the
Department stated that the subject
workers did not work directly in the
manufacture of the products made by
Lexmark. The determination also stated
that the predominant cause of worker
separations was not a shift of
production abroad but was Lexmark’s
decision to position support tasks closer
to where Lexmark’s manufacturing
partners and customers are located
worldwide, including Mexico and the
Philippines.
The Department’s Notice of
determination applicable to the subject
facility was issued on February 24,
2006. The Department’s Notice of
determination was published in the
Federal Register on March 22, 2006 (71
FR 14550).
On March 25, 2006, a worker
requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
determination. In the request for
reconsideration, the worker alleged that
the subject workers supported the
production of ink and printer cartridges
produced by Lexmark and inferred that
support activities were shifted overseas
when production shifted abroad.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Department issued a Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
applicable to the subject facility on
April 13, 2006. On April 24, 2006, the
Department’s Notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register
(71 FR 21042).
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department
determined that the subject workers are
an integral part of ink and printer
cartridge production and are not
separately identifiable by product line.
However, because the Department was
repeatedly informed by the subject firm
that neither the subject facility nor
Lexmark produced ink or cartridges
domestically during the relevant period,
the Department determined that the
subject workers are not employed by a
company covered by the statute and,
therefore, are not eligible to apply for
TAA because the subject workers were
not employed by a firm (or an
appropriate subdivision) which
produced an article domestically during
the relevant period.
The Department’s Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
applicable to the subject facility was
issued on July 19, 2006. The
Department’s Notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register
on July 31, 2006.
On September 19, 2006, the Plaintiff
filed a complaint with the USCIT. In the
complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the
Department’s determination was based
on the erroneous finding that ‘‘Lexmark
did not produce ink or cartridges
domestically during the twelve-month
period prior to the petition date.’’
After careful review of the Plaintiff’s
complaint and the administrative
record, prepared in response to the
complaint, the Department filed a
motion for voluntary remand.
On December 8, 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).
In order to make an affirmative
determination and issue a certification
of eligibility to apply for TAA, the group
eligibility requirements in either
paragraph (a)(2)(A) or (a)(2)(B) of
Section 222 of the Trade Act must be
met. It is determined in this case that
the requirements of (a)(2)(B) of Section
222 have been met.
During the remand investigation, the
Department reviewed the administrative
record, contacted Plaintiff’s counsel,
E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM
12FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 28 / Monday, February 12, 2007 / Notices
and requested additional information
and clarification from Lexmark.
During the remand investigation, the
Department obtained new information
which revealed that, contrary to
information previously-submitted by
Lexmark, the subject facility produced
ink and that the subject firm shifted ink
production from the subject facility to
existing foreign inkjet cartridge
production facilities, including facilities
in Mexico, during the relevant period,
and that a significant proportion of the
workforce at the subject facility was
separated.
In accordance with Section 246 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 group eligibility
requirements of Section 246 of the
Trade Act must be met.
The Department has determined in
the case at hand that the requirements
of Section 246 have been met.
A significant number of workers at the
firm are age 50 or over and possess
skills that are not easily transferable.
Competitive conditions within the
industry are adverse.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts
generated through the remand
investigation, I determine that a shift of
production to Mexico of articles like or
directly competitive with ink 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:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
All workers of Lexmark International, Inc.,
Supply Chain Workforce, Printing Solutions
and Services Division, Lexington, Kentucky,
who became totally or partially separated
from employment on or after February 7,
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, and are
eligible to apply for Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance under Section 246 of
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Signed at Washington, DC this 5th day of
February 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–2284 Filed 2–9–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:52 Feb 09, 2007
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–60,140]
Tap Holdings, LLC; Los Angeles, CA;
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application postmarked December
18, 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 November 16,
2006 and published in the Federal
Register on November 28, 2006 (71 FR
68841).
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
in the determination of facts not
previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying
Officer, a mis-interpretation of facts or
of the law justified reconsideration of
the decision.
The petition for the workers of TAP
Holdings, LLC, Los Angeles, California
engaged in production of remanufactured carburetors and throttle
body injection units 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 August, 2006. The ‘‘contributed
importantly’’ test is generally
demonstrated through a survey of the
workers’ firm’s customers. The survey
revealed no imports of re-manufactured
carburetors and throttle body injection
units during the relevant period. The
subject firm did not import remanufactured carburetors and throttle
body injection units nor did it shift
production to a foreign country during
the relevant period.
The petitioner states that the subject
firm lost its business producing
carburetors as a direct result of the
increasing presence of electronic fuel
injectors in the automobile industry.
The petitioner also states that imports of
electronic fuel injectors have increased
and thus workers of the subject firm
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6603
who manufacture re-manufactured
carburetors and throttle body injection
units 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 remanufactured carburetors and throttle
body injection units. The survey
revealed that the declining customers
did not increase their imports of remanufactured carburetors and throttle
body injection units during the relevant
period.
The petitioner also requested that
workers of TAP Holdings, LLC, Los
Angeles, California be considered
eligible for TAA as a secondary affected
company. The petitioner provided a list
of TAA certified companies to which
the subject firm allegedly supplied
components during the relevant time
period.
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’
certification.
A company official was contacted to
verify whether the subject firm supplied
re-manufactured carburetors and
throttle body injection units to the
companies provided by the petitioner.
The company official stated that TAP
Holdings, LLC, Los Angeles, California
did not directly sell to these companies
and that these companies were not
customers of the subject firm during the
relevant time period. The Department
conducted a further investigation and
determined that none of the customers
of the subject firm were certified eligible
for TAA during the relevant time
period.
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 5th day of
February, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–2285 Filed 2–9–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM
12FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 28 (Monday, February 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6602-6603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2284]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-58,808]
Lexmark International, Inc.; Supply Chain Workforce Printing
Solutions And Services Division; Lexington, KY; Notice of Revised
Determination on Remand
On December 8, 2006, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT)
granted the U.S. Department of Labor's motion for a voluntary remand in
Former Employees of Lexmark International, Inc. v. United States, Court
No. 06-00327.
On February 7, 2006, three workers filed a petition for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA) on behalf of workers and former workers of Lexmark
International, Inc., Supply Chain Workforce, Printing Solutions and
Services Division, Lexington, Kentucky (subject facility). The
petitioners stated that the subject facility produced ``printers and
supplies'' and attached an article which stated that Lexmark
International, Inc. (Lexmark) planned to move jobs abroad to countries
where Lexmark has existing ink cartridge production facilities,
including Mexico, China, and the Philippines (``Lexmark benefits from
its plans to trim jobs,'' Bloomberg News, January 25, 2006).
In the negative determination, the Department stated that the
subject workers did not work directly in the manufacture of the
products made by Lexmark. The determination also stated that the
predominant cause of worker separations was not a shift of production
abroad but was Lexmark's decision to position support tasks closer to
where Lexmark's manufacturing partners and customers are located
worldwide, including Mexico and the Philippines.
The Department's Notice of determination applicable to the subject
facility was issued on February 24, 2006. The Department's Notice of
determination was published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2006
(71 FR 14550).
On March 25, 2006, a worker requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department's determination. In the request for
reconsideration, the worker alleged that the subject workers supported
the production of ink and printer cartridges produced by Lexmark and
inferred that support activities were shifted overseas when production
shifted abroad.
The Department issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration applicable to the subject
facility on April 13, 2006. On April 24, 2006, the Department's Notice
of determination was published in the Federal Register (71 FR 21042).
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department determined
that the subject workers are an integral part of ink and printer
cartridge production and are not separately identifiable by product
line. However, because the Department was repeatedly informed by the
subject firm that neither the subject facility nor Lexmark produced ink
or cartridges domestically during the relevant period, the Department
determined that the subject workers are not employed by a company
covered by the statute and, therefore, are not eligible to apply for
TAA because the subject workers were not employed by a firm (or an
appropriate subdivision) which produced an article domestically during
the relevant period.
The Department's Notice of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration applicable to the subject facility was issued on July
19, 2006. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register on July 31, 2006.
On September 19, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the
USCIT. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the Department's
determination was based on the erroneous finding that ``Lexmark did not
produce ink or cartridges domestically during the twelve-month period
prior to the petition date.''
After careful review of the Plaintiff's complaint and the
administrative record, prepared in response to the complaint, the
Department filed a motion for voluntary remand.
On December 8, 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).
In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a
certification of eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility
requirements in either paragraph (a)(2)(A) or (a)(2)(B) of Section 222
of the Trade Act must be met. It is determined in this case that the
requirements of (a)(2)(B) of Section 222 have been met.
During the remand investigation, the Department reviewed the
administrative record, contacted Plaintiff's counsel,
[[Page 6603]]
and requested additional information and clarification from Lexmark.
During the remand investigation, the Department obtained new
information which revealed that, contrary to information previously-
submitted by Lexmark, the subject facility produced ink and that the
subject firm shifted ink production from the subject facility to
existing foreign inkjet cartridge production facilities, including
facilities in Mexico, during the relevant period, and that a
significant proportion of the workforce at the subject facility was
separated.
In accordance with Section 246 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 group eligibility requirements of
Section 246 of the Trade Act must be met.
The Department has determined in the case at hand that the
requirements of Section 246 have been met.
A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and
possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions
within the industry are adverse.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts generated through the remand
investigation, I determine that a shift of production to Mexico of
articles like or directly competitive with ink 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 Lexmark International, Inc., Supply Chain
Workforce, Printing Solutions and Services Division, Lexington,
Kentucky, who became totally or partially separated from employment
on or after February 7, 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,
and are eligible to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Signed at Washington, DC this 5th day of February 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-2284 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
