Georgia Pacific Corrugated Number 1 LLC A.K.A. Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Ridgeway, VA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 35514-35515 [E7-12518]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
35514
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 124 / Thursday, June 28, 2007 / Notices
create a greater hazard. The alternative
procedures (plan) must be written. Also,
employers who use safety net systems
may certify that the installation meets
the Standard’s criteria in lieu of
performing a drop-test on the net. The
Training Requirements Standard (29
CFR 1926.503) requires employers to
prepare training certification records for
their employees. The plan and
certification records ensure that
employers comply with the
requirements to protect employees from
falls.
Darrin A. King,
Acting Departmental Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. E7–12522 Filed 6–27–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–26–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Submission for OMB Review:
Comment Request
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
June 22, 2007.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has
submitted the following public
information collection request (ICR) to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13,
44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of this
ICR, with applicable supporting
documentation, may be obtained at
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain, or contact Ira Mills on 202–
693–4122 (this is not a toll-free number)
or e-mail: Mills.Ira@dol.gov.
Comments should be sent to the
Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for U.S.
Department of Labor/Employment and
Training Administration (ETA), Office
of Management and Budget, Room
10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202–
395–7316 (this is not a toll free number),
within 30 days from the date of this
publication in the Federal Register.
The OMB is particularly interested in
comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Jun 27, 2007
Jkt 211001
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Agency: Employment and Training
Administration.
Type of Review: Revision of a
Currently Approved Collection.
Title: Job Corps Health Questionnaire.
OMB Number: 1205–0033.
Frequency: Other; once.
Affected Public: Individuals or
households; business or other for-profit;
not-for-profit institutions; Federal
Government; State, Local, or Tribal govt.
Type of Response: Recordkeeping and
reporting.
Number of Respondents: 87,943.
Annual Responses: 87,943.
Average Response Time: 5 minutes.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 7,329.
Total Annualized Capital/Startup
Costs: 0.
Total Annual Costs (operating/
maintaining systems or purchasing
services): 0.
Description: Applicants wishing to
enroll in the Job Crops program must
first be deemed eligible based on the
eligibility criteria as defined in 20 CFR
670.400 and then selected based on the
additional selection factors in 20 CFR
670.410. This admission process is
carried out by admission counselors.
The information on the ETA 6–53 is
collected by the admissions counselors
to enable the centers to determine the
health needs of the applicant. After the
admission counselors have determined
eligibility and the applicant has been
selected for assignment into the Job
Corps program, completes the form and
sends it with the admission packet to
the Job Corps center for review.
Ira L. Mills,
Departmental Clearance Officer/Team
Leader.
[FR Doc. E7–12528 Filed 6–27–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–61,634]
Corsair Memory, Fremont, CA; Notice
of Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on June 6,
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2007 in response to a petition filed by
a state of California One-Stop
representative on behalf of workers at
Corsair Memory, Fremont, California.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of
June, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–12515 Filed 6–27–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–61,293]
Georgia Pacific Corrugated Number 1
LLCA.K.A. Great Northern Nekoosa
Corporation, Ridgeway, VA; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated June 6, 2007, the
petitioner 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 May
10, 2007 and published in the Federal
Register on May 24, 2007 (72 FR 29182).
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
Georgia Pacific Corrugated Number 1
LLC, a.k.a. Great Northern Nekoosa
Corporation, Ridgeway, Virginia
engaged in production of corrugated
packaging 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 2005, 2006 and January
through March of 2007. The
‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is
generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers’ firm’s declining
E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM
28JNN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 124 / Thursday, June 28, 2007 / Notices
customers. The survey revealed no
imports of corrugated packaging by
declining customers during the relevant
period. The subject firm did not import
corrugated packaging nor 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 and
furniture industry. The petitioner
alleges that customers of the subject
firm which manufacture textile products
and furniture decreased purchases of
corrugated packaging from the subject
firm because their business was in its
turn negatively impacted by increased
imports of textiles and furniture. As a
result, several of the customers were
certified eligible for TAA. Therefore, the
petitioner concludes that because sales
and production of corrugated packaging
at the subject firm have been negatively
impacted by the closure of other
businesses in the area and by increasing
presence of foreign imports of textile
products and furniture 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 customer
regarding their purchases of corrugated
packaging. The survey revealed that the
declining customers did not increase
their imports of corrugated packaging
during the relevant period.
Imports of textiles and furniture
cannot be considered like or directly
competitive with corrugated packaging
produced by Georgia Pacific Corrugated
Number 1, LLC, Ridgeway, Virginia and
imports of textiles and furniture are not
relevant in this investigation.
The fact that subject firm’s customers
were certified for TAA is relevant to this
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’ certification.
In this case, however, the subject firm
does not act as an upstream supplier,
because corrugated packaging does not
form a component part of textile
products and furniture. Thus the subject
firm workers are not eligible under
secondary impact.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Jun 27, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 in Washington, DC, this 20th day of
June, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–12518 Filed 6–27–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Notice of Determinations Regarding
Eligibility To Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance and Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19
U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor
herein presents summaries of
determinations regarding eligibility to
apply for trade adjustment assistance for
workers (TA–W) number and alternative
trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by
(TA–W) number issued during the
period of June 11 through June 15, 2007.
In order for an affirmative
determination to be made for workers of
a primary firm and a certification issued
regarding eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance, each of the group
eligibility requirements of Section
222(a) of the Act must be met.
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following
must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion
of the workers in such workers’ firm, or
an appropriate subdivision of the firm,
have become totally or partially
separated, or are threatened to become
totally or partially separated;
B. The sales or production, or both, of
such firm or subdivision have decreased
absolutely; and
C. Increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with articles
produced by such firm or subdivision
have contributed importantly to such
workers’ separation or threat of
separation and to the decline in sales or
production of such firm or subdivision;
or
II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the
following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion
of the workers in such workers’ firm, or
an appropriate subdivision of the firm,
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35515
have become totally or partially
separated, or are threatened to become
totally or partially separated;
B. 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
C. One of the following must be
satisfied:
1. 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;
2. The country to which the workers’
firm has shifted production of the
articles to a beneficiary country under
the Andean Trade Preference Act,
African Growth and Opportunity Act, or
the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery
Act; or
3. 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.
Also, in order for an affirmative
determination to be made for
secondarily affected workers of a firm
and a certification issued regarding
eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance, each of the group
eligibility requirements of section 222(b)
of the Act must be met.
(1) Significant number or proportion
of the workers in the workers’ firm or
an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially
separated, or are threatened to become
totally or partially separated;
(2) The workers’ firm (or subdivision)
is a supplier or downstream producer to
a firm (or subdivision) that employed a
group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility to apply for
trade adjustment assistance benefits and
such supply or production is related to
the article that was the basis for such
certification; and
(3) Either—
(A) The workers’ firm is a supplier
and the component parts it supplied for
the firm (or subdivision) described in
paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20
percent of the production or sales of the
workers’ firm; or
(B) A loss or business by the workers’
firm with the firm (or subdivision)
described in paragraph (2) contributed
importantly to the workers’ separation
or threat of separation.
In order for the Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance to issued a
certification of eligibility to apply for
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA) for older workers,
the group eligibility requirements of
E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM
28JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 124 (Thursday, June 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35514-35515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12518]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-61,293]
Georgia Pacific Corrugated Number 1 LLCA.K.A. Great Northern
Nekoosa Corporation, Ridgeway, VA; Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated June 6, 2007, the petitioner 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 May 10, 2007 and
published in the Federal Register on May 24, 2007 (72 FR 29182).
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 Georgia Pacific Corrugated Number 1
LLC, a.k.a. Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, Ridgeway, Virginia
engaged in production of corrugated packaging 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 2005, 2006
and January through March of 2007. The ``contributed importantly'' test
is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's
declining
[[Page 35515]]
customers. The survey revealed no imports of corrugated packaging by
declining customers during the relevant period. The subject firm did
not import corrugated packaging nor 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 and furniture
industry. The petitioner alleges that customers of the subject firm
which manufacture textile products and furniture decreased purchases of
corrugated packaging from the subject firm because their business was
in its turn negatively impacted by increased imports of textiles and
furniture. As a result, several of the customers were certified
eligible for TAA. Therefore, the petitioner concludes that because
sales and production of corrugated packaging at the subject firm have
been negatively impacted by the closure of other businesses in the area
and by increasing presence of foreign imports of textile products and
furniture 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 customer regarding their purchases of corrugated
packaging. The survey revealed that the declining customers did not
increase their imports of corrugated packaging during the relevant
period.
Imports of textiles and furniture cannot be considered like or
directly competitive with corrugated packaging produced by Georgia
Pacific Corrugated Number 1, LLC, Ridgeway, Virginia and imports of
textiles and furniture are not relevant in this investigation.
The fact that subject firm's customers were certified for TAA is
relevant to this 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' certification.
In this case, however, the subject firm does not act as an upstream
supplier, because corrugated packaging does not form a component part
of textile products and furniture. 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 in Washington, DC, this 20th day of June, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-12518 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
