American Woodmark, Hardy County Plant, Moorefield, WV; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 7321-7322 [E8-2236]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Notices 7321 APPENDIX—Continued [TAA petitions instituted between 1/22/08 and 1/25/08] TA–W 62711 62712 62713 62714 62715 62716 62717 62718 62719 62720 62721 62722 62723 62724 62725 62726 62727 62728 62729 62730 62731 62732 62733 62734 62735 62736 62737 62738 62739 62740 62741 62742 62743 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 62744 ................ 62745 ................ Carrollton Specialty Products (Wkrs) ................................... Emerson Motor Co/Hurst Manufacturing (Comp) ................ NGT Controls, Inc. (State) .................................................... F.W. Rickard Seeds (Wrks) .................................................. Formica Corporation (Comp) ................................................ Lunt Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Comp) ................................... EGS Electrical Group (TLC) ................................................. Fraser Timber Limited (Comp) ............................................. OSRAM Sylvania (IAMAW) .................................................. Pfizer Company (Wrks) ........................................................ Kirby Lester, LLC (State) ...................................................... Benson Manufacturing, Inc. (Wkrs) ...................................... Chestertown Foods, Inc. (State) .......................................... Keola Precision Technology, Inc. (State) ............................. Elmet Technologies (State) .................................................. Metaldyne (Wkrs) ................................................................. KAM Plastics, Inc. (State) .................................................... Haldex Brake Products Corporation (Comp) ....................... McComb Mill Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Comp) ........... Bartech Group (workers assigned to Delphi) (Wkrs) ........... Lufkin Industries, Inc. (Comp) .............................................. Tall, Inc. (Rep) ...................................................................... Ravenna Aluminum, Inc. (Comp) ......................................... Imerys Kaolin (USWA) ......................................................... GKN Driveline North America, Inc. (Comp) ......................... Meade Instruments Corporation (State) ............................... Cherry Electrical Products (Rep) .......................................... Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. (Comp) .................... Plymouth Rubber Co. LLC (Comp) ...................................... Tail, Inc. (Rep) ...................................................................... Corel (Wkrs) ......................................................................... Edge Builder Wall Panels, Inc./Norse Division (Wkrs) ......... Hearthstone Enterprises, Inc./dba Charleston Forge (Comp). Epitec Group (State) ............................................................. Fourth Generation Services, Inc. (State) ............................. Carrollton, MO ....................... Princeton, IN ......................... Irvine, CA .............................. Winchester, KY ..................... Odenton, MD ......................... Hampshire, IL ........................ Celina, TN ............................. Ashland, ME .......................... Warren, PA ........................... Portage, MI ........................... Stamford, CT ......................... Mineral Wells, WV ................ Chestertown, MD .................. Fremont, CA .......................... Lewiston, ME ........................ Farmington Hills, MI .............. Holland, MI ............................ Prattville, AL .......................... McComb, MS ........................ Oak Creek, WI ...................... Lufkin, TX .............................. Miami, FL .............................. Ravenna, OH ........................ Dry Branch, GA ..................... Sanford, NC .......................... Irvine, CA .............................. Pleasant Prairie, WI .............. Mountain View, CA ............... Canton, MA ........................... Miami, FL .............................. Eden Prairie, MN .................. Oakdale, MN ......................... Boone, NC ............................ 01/22/08 01/22/08 01/22/08 01/22/08 01/22/08 01/23/08 01/23/08 01/23/08 01/23/08 01/23/08 01/23/08 01/23/08 01/23/08 01/23/08 01/23/08 01/23/08 01/23/08 01/24/08 01/24/08 01/24/08 01/24/08 01/24/08 01/24/08 01/24/08 01/25/08 01/25/08 01/25/08 01/25/08 01/25/08 01/25/08 01/25/08 01/25/08 01/25/08 01/17/08 01/21/08 01/18/08 01/21/08 01/17/08 01/18/08 01/22/08 01/19/08 01/22/08 01/22/08 01/22/08 01/03/08 01/07/08 01/14/08 01/22/08 01/17/08 01/22/08 01/23/08 01/22/08 01/18/08 01/16/08 01/18/08 12/28/07 01/21/08 01/24/08 01/24/08 01/22/08 01/23/08 01/24/08 01/18/08 01/22/08 01/11/08 01/24/08 Southfield, MI ........................ Troy, MI ................................. 01/25/08 01/25/08 01/15/08 01/15/08 BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–62,101] American Woodmark, Hardy County Plant, Moorefield, WV; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Date of petition Location [FR Doc. E8–2233 Filed 2–6–08; 8:45 am] On November 30, 2007, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2007 (72 FR 70344). The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that imports of kitchen cabinet parts did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm VerDate Aug<31>2005 Date of institution Subject firm (petitioners) 17:02 Feb 06, 2008 Jkt 214001 and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. The investigation also revealed that the products manufactured at the subject firm are sent to other affiliated facilities for further finishing and assembly. The Carpenters Industrial Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America filed a request for reconsideration in which they contend that the workers of the subject firm build and assemble the finished products, which does not require further manufacturing and are sold to customers. The petitioner also requested that the Department of Labor investigate whether there was an increase in imports of articles like or directly competitive with products manufactured at the subject firm. The Department contacted a company official to verify products manufactured at the subject firm and whether the subject firm had any outside customers. During reconsideration, the company official provided new information and confirmed that the subject firm manufactures kitchen cabinet parts and PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 hardwood cabinets which are sold to outside customers. The official also supplied the Department with a list of major declining customers who purchased hardwood cabinets from the subject firm. The Department of Labor surveyed the major declining customers of the subject firm regarding their purchases of like or directly competitive products with hardwood cabinets purchased from the subject firm in 2005, 2006, and during January through September 2007 over the corresponding 2006 period. The survey revealed that the customers did not increase their import purchases while decreasing purchases from the subject firm. The subject firm did not import hardwood cabinets nor was there a shift in production from subject firm abroad during the relevant period. Conclusion After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM 07FEN1 7322 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Notices workers and former workers of American Woodmark, Hardy County Plant, Moorefield, West Virginia. Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of January, 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8–2236 Filed 2–6–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–62,189] jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Diaz Intermediates Corporation, West Memphis, AR; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By letter dated December 28, 2007, a company official requested administrative reconsideration regarding the Department’s Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to the workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on November 28, 2007 and published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2007 (72 FR 70346). 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 misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination which was based on the finding that imports of brominated chemical intermediates (i.e. bromobenzene, m-bromoanisole, n-propyl bromide, and other organics) did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject plant and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s declining customers. The survey revealed customers did not purchase imported brominated chemical intermediates during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import brominated chemical intermediates and no shifted in production of brominated VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:02 Feb 06, 2008 Jkt 214001 chemical intermediates to a foreign country occurred. The petitioner stated that most of the subject firm’s sales were for export, however, there were losses in sales to domestic customers. The petitioner provided the name of a customer which ceased purchases from the subject firm in 2005 and at the same time started importing products like or directly competitive with brominated chemical intermediates produced by the subject firm. When assessing eligibility for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), the Department exclusively considers import impact during the relevant time period (one year prior to the date of the petition). The Department surveyed customers of the subject firm regarding their purchases of brominated chemical intermediates during the relevant period. The survey revealed no imports of brominated chemical intermediates during the relevant 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 in Washington, DC, this 30th day of January 2008. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E8–2237 Filed 2–6–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–62,207] Diaz Intermediates Corporation, Brockport, NY; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated December 28, 2007, a company official 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 28, 2007 and published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2007 (72 FR 70346). PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The investigation revealed that workers of the subject firm were in support of production of brominated chemical intermediates at Diaz Intermediates Corporation, West Memphis, Arkansas. The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination which was based on the finding that imports of brominated chemical intermediates (i.e., bromobenzene, m-bromoanisole, n-propyl bromide, and other organics) did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject plant and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s declining customers. The survey revealed customers did not purchase imports of brominated chemical intermediates during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import brominated chemical intermediates and no shifted in production of brominated chemical intermediates to a foreign country occurred. The petitioner stated that most of the subject firm’s sales were for export, and that there were losses in sales to domestic customers. The petitioner provided the name of a customer which ceased purchases from the subject firm in 2005 and at the same time started importing products like or directly competitive with brominated chemical intermediates produced by the subject firm. When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively considers import impact during the relevant time period (one year prior to the date of the petition). The Department surveyed customers of the subject firm regarding their purchases of brominated chemical intermediates during the relevant period. The survey revealed no imports of brominated chemical intermediates during the relevant period. Conclusion After review of the application and investigative findings, I conclude that E:\FR\FM\07FEN1.SGM 07FEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7321-7322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-2236]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,101]


American Woodmark, Hardy County Plant, Moorefield, WV; Notice of 
Negative Determination on Reconsideration

    On November 30, 2007, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on December 11, 2007 (72 FR 70344).
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the finding that imports of kitchen cabinet parts did not 
contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no 
shift of production to a foreign source occurred. The investigation 
also revealed that the products manufactured at the subject firm are 
sent to other affiliated facilities for further finishing and assembly.
    The Carpenters Industrial Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters 
and Joiners of America filed a request for reconsideration in which 
they contend that the workers of the subject firm build and assemble 
the finished products, which does not require further manufacturing and 
are sold to customers. The petitioner also requested that the 
Department of Labor investigate whether there was an increase in 
imports of articles like or directly competitive with products 
manufactured at the subject firm.
    The Department contacted a company official to verify products 
manufactured at the subject firm and whether the subject firm had any 
outside customers. During reconsideration, the company official 
provided new information and confirmed that the subject firm 
manufactures kitchen cabinet parts and hardwood cabinets which are sold 
to outside customers. The official also supplied the Department with a 
list of major declining customers who purchased hardwood cabinets from 
the subject firm.
    The Department of Labor surveyed the major declining customers of 
the subject firm regarding their purchases of like or directly 
competitive products with hardwood cabinets purchased from the subject 
firm in 2005, 2006, and during January through September 2007 over the 
corresponding 2006 period. The survey revealed that the customers did 
not increase their import purchases while decreasing purchases from the 
subject firm.
    The subject firm did not import hardwood cabinets nor was there a 
shift in production from subject firm abroad during the relevant 
period.

Conclusion

    After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative 
determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance 
for

[[Page 7322]]

workers and former workers of American Woodmark, Hardy County Plant, 
Moorefield, West Virginia.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of January, 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-2236 Filed 2-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P