Camaco, LLC; Mariana Division, Marianna, AR; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 20366-20367 [E7-7726]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
20366
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 78 / Tuesday April 24, 2007 / Notices
Dated: March 12, 2007.
Anthony J. Schetzsle,
Deputy Director, Intermountain Region,
National Park Service.
[FR Doc. E7–7739 Filed 4–23–07; 8:45 am]
Scenic River, P.O. Box 591, O’Neill,
Nebraska 68763, or by calling 402–336–
3970. Copies of the final EIS and ROD
are available upon request from the
above address or may be viewed online
at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/.
BILLING CODE 4312–CX–P
Dated: March 29, 2007.
Ernest Quintana,
Regional Director, Midwest Region.
[FR Doc. E7–7745 Filed 4–23–07; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
BILLING CODE 4312–BM–P
Notice of Availability for the Record of
Decision on the Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Niobrara
National Scenic River General
Management Plan, Nebraska
National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, the National Park Service
(NPS) announces the availability of the
Record of Decision (ROD) Niobrara
National Scenic River (Scenic River)
General Management Plan/final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
Scenic River. On March 26, the Midwest
Regional Director approved the ROD for
the project. As soon as practicable, the
NPS will begin to implement the
Preferred Alternative contained in the
final EIS issued on February 23.
Management Alternative B develops a
vision for cooperative management of
the Scenic River, with the NPS
providing stewardship directly and
through Federal, State, and local
partners on a landscape that would
remain largely in private ownership.
The alternative’s boundary protects, as
equitably as possible, the river’s
outstandingly remarkable scenic,
recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife,
and paleontological values. This
alternative encompasses 23,074 acres
and is within the acreage limitations of
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
This course of action and three
alternatives were analyzed in the draft
and the final EIS. The full range of
foreseeable environmental
consequences was assessed and
appropriate mitigating measures were
identified.
The ROD includes a statement of the
decision made, synopses of other
alternatives considered, the basis for the
decision, a description of the
environmentally preferable alternative,
a finding on impairment of park
resources and values, a listing of
measures to minimize environmental
harm, and an overview of public
involvement in the decisionmaking
process.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Superintendent, Niobrara National
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:32 Apr 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Construction of New Utah Museum of
Natural History, Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Salt Lake County,
UT
National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
AGENCY:
Notice of Availability of a
Record of Decision on the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the
Construction and Operation of a
Proposed New Utah Museum of Natural
History at the University of Utah.
ACTION:
Pursuant to § 102(2)(C) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, 83 Stat. 852, 853, codified as
amended at 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the
National Park Service and the
University of Utah announce the
availability of the Record of Decision for
the Construction and Operation of a
Proposed New Utah Museum of Natural
History at the University of Utah, Salt
Lake County, Utah. On March 26, 2007,
the Director, Intermountain Region
approved the Record of Decision for the
project. As soon as practicable, the
University of Utah will begin to
implement the Preferred Alternative
contained in the FEIS issued on
February 23, 2007. The following course
of action will occur under the preferred
alternative: the new museum building
will be built uphill from the pipeline
corridor/Bonneville Shoreline Trail that
pass through the new site. Parking will
be provided in a joint Red Butte Garden
and Arboretum/Utah Museum of
Natural History facility, or if a joint
facility is not viable, downhill from the
pipeline corridor. Flexibility is afforded
for site design and placement of
facilities. A portion of the development
area extends into Red Butte Garden and
Arboretum property. This course of
action and five alternatives were
analyzed in the Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statements. The
full range of foreseeable environmental
consequences was assessed, and
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
appropriate mitigating measures were
identified.
The Record of Decision includes a
statement of the decision made,
synopses of other alternatives
considered, the basis for the decision, a
description of the environmentally
preferable alternative, a listing of
measures to minimize environmental
harm, and an overview of public
involvement in the decision-making
process.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ralph E. Becker, The Shipley Group and
Bear West, 1584 South 500 West, Suite
201, Woods Cross, Utah 84010; phone
801–355–8816; e-mail to
rbecker@bearwest.com.
Copies of
the Record of Decision may be obtained
from the contact listed above or online
at https://www.umnh.utah.edu.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: March 26, 2007.
Anthony J. Schetzsle,
Deputy Director, Intermountain Region,
National Park Service.
[FR Doc. E7–7742 Filed 4–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–60,882]
Camaco, LLC; Mariana Division,
Marianna, AR; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated April 4, 2007, a
company official requested
administrative reconsideration of the
Department’s negative determination
regarding eligibility for workers and
former workers of the subject firm to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The
denial notice was signed on March 16,
2007 and published in the Federal
Register on March 30, 2007 (72 FR
15168).
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
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 78 / Tuesday April 24, 2007 / Notices
of the law justified reconsideration of
the decision.
The TAA petition, filed on behalf of
workers at Camaco, LLC, Marianna
Division, Marianna, Arkansas engaged
in production of automotive parts, such
as metal seat frames, brackets and
reinforcement was denied because the
‘‘contributed importantly’’ group
eligibility requirement of Section 222 of
the Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The
‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is
generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers’ firm’s customers.
The survey revealed no imports of
automotive parts, such as metal seat
frames, brackets and reinforcement in
2005, 2006 and January of 2007 when
compared with January of 2006. The
subject firm did not import automotive
parts, such as metal seat frames,
brackets and reinforcement in the
relevant period nor did it shift
production to a foreign country.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner stated that the subject firm
made parts for a company which shifted
production to Mexico. As a result of this
shift, the subject firm experienced
declines in sales. Therefore, workers of
the subject firm should be eligible for
TAA and ATAA.
A company official was contacted to
verify the business relationship between
the subject firm and the alleged
company. The company official stated
that the company mentioned in the
request for reconsideration was not the
subject firm’s customer and that the
subject firm did not sell parts directly to
this firm during the relevant time
period. Because the alleged company
was not the subject firm’s customer
during the relevant time period, any
information regarding business
activities of this company is not relevant
to this investigation.
The request for reconsideration also
states that ‘‘some of the equipment that
was utilized here at CAMACO-Marianna
is being sent to India to be used at a
manufacturing facility there for
production of automotive parts.’’
Further contact with the company
official confirmed that CAMACO, LLC,
Marianna Division, Marianna, Arkansas
is planning to shift a portion of its
manufacturing equipment from
Marianna, Arkansas to India. The
company official further indicated that
no production has been moved from the
Marianna facility to India as of April 12,
2007, and no time line was established
to when this may occur.
Should the shift to India occur, the
petitioner is encouraged to file a new
petition on behalf of workers at the
CAMACO, LLC, Marianna Division,
Marianna, Arkansas, thereby creating a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:32 Apr 23, 2007
Jkt 211001
relevant period of investigation that
would include changing conditions.
The petitioner further refers to the
TAA certifications issued to various
businesses and industries located in
Marianna, Arkansas. The petitioner
alleges that because the subject firm has
been the largest employer in Marianna,
Arkansas and hence other companies in
the area were certified eligible for TAA,
workers of the subject firm should also
be eligible.
A review of other businesses is not
relevant to an investigation concerning
import impact on workers applying for
trade adjustment assistance. As noted
above, ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is
generally demonstrated through a
survey of customers of the workers’ firm
to examine the direct impact on a
specific firm. No increased imports were
evidenced during the survey of subject
firm’s customers and the subject firm
did not shift production to a foreign
country.
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 13th day of
April, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–7726 Filed 4–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–60,556]
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 February 16, 2007,
applicable to workers of Hitachi
Fmt 4703
All workers of Hitachi Electronic Devices
(USA), Inc., including on-site leased workers
from Action Staffing, American Services,
Greenville, South Carolina, who became
totally or partially separated from
employment on or after November 25, 2006,
through February 16, 2009, 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.
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.,
Including On-Site Leased Workers of
Action Staffing (American Services),
Greenville, SC; Amended Certification
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance
Frm 00050
Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.,
including on-site leased workers of
Action Staffing, Greenville, South
Carolina. The notice was published in
the Federal Register on February 27,
2007 (72 FR 8795).
At the request of the State agency, the
Department reviewed the certification
for workers of the subject firm. The
workers were engaged in the production
of projection tubes for televisions.
New information provided by the
subject firm, shows that American
Services is the parent company of the
leasing firm, Action Staffing. Leased
workers separated from employment at
the subject firm had their wages
reported under the unemployment
insurance (UI) tax account for American
Services.
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
Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.
who were adversely affected by
increased imports.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–60,556 is hereby issued as
follows:
Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of
April 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–7725 Filed 4–23–07; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
PO 00000
20367
Sfmt 4703
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
E:\FR\FM\24APN1.SGM
24APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20366-20367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7726]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-60,882]
Camaco, LLC; Mariana Division, Marianna, AR; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated April 4, 2007, a company official requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The denial notice was
signed on March 16, 2007 and published in the Federal Register on March
30, 2007 (72 FR 15168).
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
[[Page 20367]]
of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
The TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Camaco, LLC,
Marianna Division, Marianna, Arkansas engaged in production of
automotive parts, such as metal seat frames, brackets and reinforcement
was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility
requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The
``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers' firm's customers. The survey revealed no imports
of automotive parts, such as metal seat frames, brackets and
reinforcement in 2005, 2006 and January of 2007 when compared with
January of 2006. The subject firm did not import automotive parts, such
as metal seat frames, brackets and reinforcement in the relevant period
nor did it shift production to a foreign country.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that the
subject firm made parts for a company which shifted production to
Mexico. As a result of this shift, the subject firm experienced
declines in sales. Therefore, workers of the subject firm should be
eligible for TAA and ATAA.
A company official was contacted to verify the business
relationship between the subject firm and the alleged company. The
company official stated that the company mentioned in the request for
reconsideration was not the subject firm's customer and that the
subject firm did not sell parts directly to this firm during the
relevant time period. Because the alleged company was not the subject
firm's customer during the relevant time period, any information
regarding business activities of this company is not relevant to this
investigation.
The request for reconsideration also states that ``some of the
equipment that was utilized here at CAMACO-Marianna is being sent to
India to be used at a manufacturing facility there for production of
automotive parts.''
Further contact with the company official confirmed that CAMACO,
LLC, Marianna Division, Marianna, Arkansas is planning to shift a
portion of its manufacturing equipment from Marianna, Arkansas to
India. The company official further indicated that no production has
been moved from the Marianna facility to India as of April 12, 2007,
and no time line was established to when this may occur.
Should the shift to India occur, the petitioner is encouraged to
file a new petition on behalf of workers at the CAMACO, LLC, Marianna
Division, Marianna, Arkansas, thereby creating a relevant period of
investigation that would include changing conditions.
The petitioner further refers to the TAA certifications issued to
various businesses and industries located in Marianna, Arkansas. The
petitioner alleges that because the subject firm has been the largest
employer in Marianna, Arkansas and hence other companies in the area
were certified eligible for TAA, workers of the subject firm should
also be eligible.
A review of other businesses is not relevant to an investigation
concerning import impact on workers applying for trade adjustment
assistance. As noted above, ``contributed importantly'' test is
generally demonstrated through a survey of customers of the workers'
firm to examine the direct impact on a specific firm. No increased
imports were evidenced during the survey of subject firm's customers
and the subject firm did not shift production to a foreign country.
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 13th day of April, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-7726 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
