G-III Apparel Group, Starlo Dresses Division, Computer Patterns Team, New York, NY; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 31887-31888 [E8-12389]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 4, 2008 / Notices
predominant reason for the workers’
separations is the shift of preproduction activities to Asia and
Malaysia. The Department has
consistently held that a shift of nonproduction activities cannot be a basis
for certification.
In order to receive a secondary
certification, a significant number or
proportion of workers in the subject
firm have been, or are threatened to
become, totally or partially separated
and that the subject firm is a supplier or
downstream producer (finisher or
assembler) to a firm that employed a
group of workers who received a TAA
certification, and such supply or
production is related to the article that
was the basis for such certification.
In addition, if the subject firm is a
supplier to a TAA-certified company,
either the component parts supplied to
that company must account for at least
20 percent of the subject firm’s sales or
production, or a loss of business by the
subject firm with the TAA-certified firm
contributed importantly to the
petitioning workers’ separations or
threat of separation; and, if the subject
firm is a downstream producer, the TAA
certification of the primary firm must be
based on a shift of production to Canada
or Mexico or import impact from
Canada or Mexico and a loss of business
by the subject firm with the TAAcertified firm contributed importantly to
the petitioning workers’ separations or
threat of separation.
Even if NPI workers developed test
codes for a semiconductor chip that was
produced and sold to a TAA-certified
customer, the pre-production research
and development work does not
constitute production, and the workers
did not produce an article within the
meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act
of 1974. As such, the subject workers
are not eligible under secondary impact.
Conclusion
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
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 29th day of
May 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–12390 Filed 6–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Jun 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,964]
G–III Apparel Group, Starlo Dresses
Division, Computer Patterns Team,
New York, NY; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated April 22, 2008,
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 March
24, 2008 and published in the Federal
Register on April 11, 2008 (73 FR
19900).
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 signed on March
24, 2008 was based on the finding that
imports of electronically marked and
graded patterns did not contribute
importantly to worker separations at the
subject plant and there was no shift of
production to a country that is a party
to a free trade agreement with the
United States or a beneficiary country.
The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is
generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers’ firm’s declining
domestic customers. In this instance,
the subject firm did not sell
electronically marked and graded
patterns to outside domestic customers,
thus a survey was not conducted. The
subject firm did not import
electronically marked and graded
patterns into the United States during
the relevant period.
In the request for reconsideration the
petitioner refers to the events which
have occurred at the subject facility
since 1998.
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). Events occurring prior to
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
31887
February 19, 2007 are outside of the
relevant time period and thus cannot be
considered in this investigation.
The petitioner also alleges that the
statement in the initial investigation
‘‘* * * the patterns were used
exclusively in China* * *’’ is erroneous
and that some patterns were
manufactured for a domestic market. To
support this allegation, the petitioner
provided the name of a domestic retail
company, which allegedly purchased
products from the subject firm in the
relevant time period.
The Department contacted a company
official to address these allegations. The
company official stated that G–III
Apparel Group, Starlo Dresses Division,
Computer Patterns Team, New York,
New York does not sell any
electronically marked and graded
patterns to the retailers or any other
companies. All patterns are the property
of the subject firm and are used in the
in-house factories to create dresses. The
company official also clarified that the
customer mentioned by the petitioner is
a retailer who buys dresses from the
subject firm and not electronically
marked and graded patterns.
The petitioner stated that jobs were
shifted from the subject facility to
China.
The investigation confirmed that
production of electronically marked and
graded patterns indeed was shifted to
China. However, the investigation also
revealed that the subject firm did not
import electronically marked and
graded patterns from China back into
the United States during the relevant
period.
The petitioner further stated that
workers of the subject firm were
previously employed at other
companies, which were certified for
TAA.
The two companies indicated by the
petitioner were certified eligible for
TAA in August 2001 and April 2007
since the companies increased imports
of samples of dresses, and wedding and
bridesmaid gowns. The certifications of
these companies are not relevant to this
investigation.
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.
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
31888
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 4, 2008 / Notices
Signed in Washington, DC, this 29th day of
May, 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–12389 Filed 6–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,858]
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Household Utilities, Inc., Kiel, WI;
Notice of Revised Determination on
Reconsideration
On April 17, 2008, the Department
issued an Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application on
Reconsideration applicable to workers
and former workers of the subject firm.
The notice was published in the Federal
Register on April 23, 2008 (73 FR
21988).
The previous investigation initiated
on February 15, 2008, resulted in a
negative determination issued on March
5, 2008, was based on the finding that
sales and production of industrial parts,
medical carts and medical cabinets
increased in 2007 as compared to 2006
and no shift in production to a foreign
source occurred. The denial notice was
published in the Federal Register on
March 21, 2008 (73 FR 15218).
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner alleged that sales and
production decreased in 2008 and
customers of the subject firm shifted
production abroad.
The Department requested from the
subject firm sales and production
information for January and February
2008. New information revealed that
sales and production of industrial parts,
medical carts and medical cabinets
decreased in January and February 2008
when compared with the same period in
2007.
Upon further investigation it has also
been determined that Household
Utilities, Inc., Kiel, Wisconsin, supplied
industrial parts for marine outboard
motors and plastic molded parts, and at
least 20 percent of its production or
sales is supplied to a manufacturer
whose workers were certified eligible to
apply for adjustment assistance. The
parts supplied were related to the article
that was the basis of certification.
In accordance with Section 246 the
Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as
amended, the Department of Labor
herein presents the results of its
investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:46 Jun 03, 2008
Jkt 214001
adjustment assistance (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 this case 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 additional
facts obtained on reconsideration, I
determine that workers of Household
Utilities, Inc., Kiel, Wisconsin, qualify
as adversely affected secondary workers
under Section 222 of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended. In accordance with
the provisions of the Act, I make the
following certification:
All workers of Household Utilities, Inc.,
Kiel, Wisconsin, who became totally or
partially separated from employment on or
after February 13, 2007, through two years
from the date of this certification, 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.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 29th day of
May 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–12391 Filed 6–3–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment Standards Administration
Proposed Extension of the Approval of
Information Collection Requirements
ACTION:
Notice.
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as
part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent burden,
conducts a preclearance consultation
program to provide the general public
and Federal agencies with an
opportunity to comment on proposed
and/or continuing collections of
information in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This
program helps to ensure that requested
data can be provided in the desired
format, reporting burden (time and
financial resources) is minimized,
collection instruments are clearly
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
understood, and the impact of collection
requirements on respondents can be
properly assessed. Currently, the
Employment Standards Administration
is soliciting comments concerning its
proposal to extend OMB approval of the
information collection: Payment of
Compensation Without Award (LS–
206). A copy of the proposed
information collection request can be
obtained by contacting the office listed
below in the ADDRESSES section of this
Notice.
Written comments must be
submitted to the office listed in the
ADDRESSES section below on or before
August 4, 2008.
DATES:
Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Ave., NW., Room S–3201, Washington,
DC 20210, telephone (202) 693–0418,
fax (202) 693–1451, e-mail
bell.hazel@dol.gov. Please use only one
method of transmission for comments
(mail, fax, or e-mail).
ADDRESSES:
I.
Background: The Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs (OWCP)
administers the Longshore and Harbor
Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA).
The Act provides benefits to workers
injured in maritime employment on the
navigable waters of the United States or
in adjoining areas customarily used by
an employer in loading, unloading,
repairing or building a vessel. Under
sections 914(b) and (c) of the Longshore
Act, a self-insured employer or
insurance carrier is required to pay
compensation within 14 days after the
employer has knowledge of the injury or
death. Upon making the first payment,
the employer or carrier shall
immediately notify the district director
of payment. Form LS–206 has been
designated as the proper form on which
report of first payment is to be made.
The LS–206 is also used by OWCP
district offices to determine the payment
status of a given case. This information
collection is currently approved for use
through December 31, 2008.
II. Review Focus: The Department of
Labor 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;
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\04JNN1.SGM
04JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31887-31888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12389]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-62,964]
G-III Apparel Group, Starlo Dresses Division, Computer Patterns
Team, New York, NY; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated April 22, 2008, 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 March 24, 2008 and
published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2008 (73 FR 19900).
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
signed on March 24, 2008 was based on the finding that imports of
electronically marked and graded patterns did not contribute
importantly to worker separations at the subject plant and there was no
shift of production to a country that is a party to a free trade
agreement with the United States or a beneficiary country. The
``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers' firm's declining domestic customers. In this
instance, the subject firm did not sell electronically marked and
graded patterns to outside domestic customers, thus a survey was not
conducted. The subject firm did not import electronically marked and
graded patterns into the United States during the relevant period.
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner refers to the
events which have occurred at the subject facility since 1998.
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). Events occurring prior to February 19,
2007 are outside of the relevant time period and thus cannot be
considered in this investigation.
The petitioner also alleges that the statement in the initial
investigation ``* * * the patterns were used exclusively in China* *
*'' is erroneous and that some patterns were manufactured for a
domestic market. To support this allegation, the petitioner provided
the name of a domestic retail company, which allegedly purchased
products from the subject firm in the relevant time period.
The Department contacted a company official to address these
allegations. The company official stated that G-III Apparel Group,
Starlo Dresses Division, Computer Patterns Team, New York, New York
does not sell any electronically marked and graded patterns to the
retailers or any other companies. All patterns are the property of the
subject firm and are used in the in-house factories to create dresses.
The company official also clarified that the customer mentioned by the
petitioner is a retailer who buys dresses from the subject firm and not
electronically marked and graded patterns.
The petitioner stated that jobs were shifted from the subject
facility to China.
The investigation confirmed that production of electronically
marked and graded patterns indeed was shifted to China. However, the
investigation also revealed that the subject firm did not import
electronically marked and graded patterns from China back into the
United States during the relevant period.
The petitioner further stated that workers of the subject firm were
previously employed at other companies, which were certified for TAA.
The two companies indicated by the petitioner were certified
eligible for TAA in August 2001 and April 2007 since the companies
increased imports of samples of dresses, and wedding and bridesmaid
gowns. The certifications of these companies are not relevant to this
investigation.
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.
[[Page 31888]]
Signed in Washington, DC, this 29th day of May, 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-12389 Filed 6-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
