Irving Forest Products, Nashville Plantation, Maine; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 45475-45476 [E8-17884]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,853]
[TA–W–63,605]
Irving Forest Products, Nashville
Plantation, Maine; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
CPU2, LLC, Arden, NC; Notice of
Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on June 26,
2008 in response to a worker petition
filed by a company official on behalf of
workers of CPU2, LLC, Arden, North
Carolina.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of
July 2008.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–17887 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–63,648]
Hanesbrands Inc., Oak Summit
Division, Winston-Salem, NC; Notice of
Termination of Investigation
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on July 8,
2008 in response to a worker petition
filed on behalf of workers of
Hanesbrands Inc., Oak Summit
Division, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina.
The petitioning group of workers is
covered by an active certification, (TA–
W–61,962A) which expires on
September 13, 2009. Consequently,
further investigation in this case would
serve no purpose, and the investigation
has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of
July 2008.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–17888 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:19 Aug 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
By application dated July 12, 2008,
the United Steel Workers, Local 4–1310
(the Union) requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination regarding
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA)
applicable to workers and former
workers of Irving Forest Products,
Nashville Plantation, Maine (the subject
firm). The determination was signed on
May 30, 2008. The Department’s Notice
of determination was published in the
Federal Register on June 16, 2008 (73
FR 34044). The workers produce lumber
and woodchips, and are not separately
identifiable by product line.
The denial was based on the
Department’s findings that the subject
firm did not import lumber or
woodchips and did not shift production
of lumber or woodchips to a foreign
country during the relevant period.
A survey of the subject firm’s major
declining customers regarding their
purchases of lumber and woodchips
revealed that most customers decreased
imports during the relevant period and
that any imports did not contribute
importantly to subject firm sales and
production declines.
Aggregate U.S. imports of coniferous
lumber declined in 2007 compared with
2006, and continued to decline in
January 2008 compared with the
corresponding 2007 period. Aggregate
U.S. imports of both coniferous and
non-coniferous wood in chips or
particles declined in 2007 compared
with 2006, and declined in January
through February 2008 over the
corresponding 2007 period.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
45475
In the request for reconsideration, the
Union asserts the following three points:
(1) With regards to the TAA group
eligibility requirements for directlyimpacted workers, ‘‘the reasons for
denial are unfair as it relates to choosing
1 area from each section when only the
criteria from one section needs to be
met’’;
(2) ‘‘We feel it is inaccurate to first
look at the entire United States
aggregate imports of coniferous lumber’’
because in order ‘‘for the Trade Act to
protect the workers that it is intended to
protect it should be pliable in its review
as it relates to specific regions’’ and that
the Department’s review should
consider that ‘‘trade may only have
slowed over the past 12 months due to
high transportation costs as well as
equalizing the value of the dollar while
discounting the impact trade has had
leading up to the devastation of the
lumber industry all along the eastern
seaboard’’; and
(3) The Department failed to receive
information from the subject firm
regarding ‘‘the possible shift or planned
shift in production from its Nashville
Plantation, Maine mill to its other
facilities’’.
In order to apply for TAA, petitioners
must satisfy the group eligibility
requirements for directly-impacted
(primary) workers under Section 222(a)
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. The
group eligibility requirements can be
satisfied in one of two ways, either
Section (a)(2)(A) or Section (a)(2)(B).
In order to satisfy Section (a)(2)(A), all
of the following criteria must be met:
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; and
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.
In order to satisfy Section (a)(2)(B), all
of the following criteria must be met:
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; and
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
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
45476
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices
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; or
2. The country to which the workers’
firm has shifted production of the
articles is 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.
The Union appears to assert that
because the Department identified in
the negative determination two criteria
that were not met, the Department
requires that, in order for a worker
group to be certified for TAA, both of
the aforementioned sections must be
met.
In determining whether a worker
group has met the criteria set forth in
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the
Department investigates whether the
worker group has met the criteria of
either Section (a)(2)(A) or Section
(a)(2)(B), not both. If the criteria of
either Section are met, the Department
will certify the worker group as eligible
to apply for TAA.
The Union asserts that it is unfair that
the Department considers only ‘‘United
Stated aggregate imports’’ because to do
so would discount the disproportionate
impact that imports have on a specific
region, such as the Eastern Seaboard.
Section (a)(2)(A)(C) requires that there
be a finding of increased imports. 29
CFR section 90.2 states that ‘‘increased
imports means that imports have
increased either absolutely or relatively
to domestic production compared to a
representative bade period.’’ As asserted
by the Union, imports did not increase
in 2007 compared to 2006. Absent a
finding of increased imports, the
Department cannot determine whether
or not increased imports contributed
importantly to subject firm sales and/or
production declines and worker
separations.
Section (a)(2)(B)(B) requires that there
‘‘has been’’ a shift of production. That
the requirement is in the past tense
means that the shift is an event in the
past and not in the future. Therefore, the
subject firm’s ‘‘possible shift or planned
shift’’ (if any) would not have been a
basis for TAA certification.
After careful review of the request for
reconsideration, the Department
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:19 Aug 04, 2008
Jkt 214001
determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not
been met.
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 28th day of
July 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–17884 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–63,287]
Paulstra CRC Sales Office, Novi, MI;
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application postmarked July 1,
2008, a 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 19, 2008 and
published in the Federal Register on
June 3, 2008 (73 FR 31716).
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 negative TAA determination
issued by the Department for workers of
Paulstra CRC, Sales Office, Novi,
Michigan was based on the finding that
the worker group does not produce an
article within the meaning of Section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The petitioner stated that the workers
of the subject firm were Customer
Service Representatives and that their
job duties directly supported production
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
at Paulstra CRC. The petitioner further
stated that the duties of a Customer
Service Representative were to input
orders, schedule delivery, customer
negotiations, price negotiations, etc. and
that ‘‘without these functions there
would not have been any production.’’
The petitioner alleged that because
other facilities of Paulstra CRC had been
certified eligible for TAA, workers of the
Sales Office who are engaged in sales
and customer support services should
be certified eligible for TAA.
A review of the initial investigation
confirmed that the workers of the
subject facility support production at
Paulstra CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
(TA–W–61,908) during the relevant
period. The above mentioned
production facility was certified eligible
for adjustment assistance on September
24, 2007.
However, the investigation also
revealed that only one worker was
separated from the Sales Office since
April 2007 and there was no threat of
future separations.
The subject company did not separate
or threaten to separate a significant
number or proportion of workers, as
required by Section 222 of the Trade Act
of 1974. Significant number or
proportion of the workers in a firm or
appropriate subdivision means at least
three workers in a workforce of fewer
than 50 workers, five percent of the
workers in a workforce of over 50
workers, or at least 50 workers.
Therefore, the subject facility did not
meet the threshold of employment
declines and there was no threat of
separations 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 28th day of
July 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–17886 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45475-45476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17884]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-62,853]
Irving Forest Products, Nashville Plantation, Maine; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated July 12, 2008, the United Steel Workers, Local
4-1310 (the Union) requested administrative reconsideration of the
Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers and former workers of Irving
Forest Products, Nashville Plantation, Maine (the subject firm). The
determination was signed on May 30, 2008. The Department's Notice of
determination was published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2008
(73 FR 34044). The workers produce lumber and woodchips, and are not
separately identifiable by product line.
The denial was based on the Department's findings that the subject
firm did not import lumber or woodchips and did not shift production of
lumber or woodchips to a foreign country during the relevant period.
A survey of the subject firm's major declining customers regarding
their purchases of lumber and woodchips revealed that most customers
decreased imports during the relevant period and that any imports did
not contribute importantly to subject firm sales and production
declines.
Aggregate U.S. imports of coniferous lumber declined in 2007
compared with 2006, and continued to decline in January 2008 compared
with the corresponding 2007 period. Aggregate U.S. imports of both
coniferous and non-coniferous wood in chips or particles declined in
2007 compared with 2006, and declined in January through February 2008
over the corresponding 2007 period.
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.
In the request for reconsideration, the Union asserts the following
three points:
(1) With regards to the TAA group eligibility requirements for
directly-impacted workers, ``the reasons for denial are unfair as it
relates to choosing 1 area from each section when only the criteria
from one section needs to be met'';
(2) ``We feel it is inaccurate to first look at the entire United
States aggregate imports of coniferous lumber'' because in order ``for
the Trade Act to protect the workers that it is intended to protect it
should be pliable in its review as it relates to specific regions'' and
that the Department's review should consider that ``trade may only have
slowed over the past 12 months due to high transportation costs as well
as equalizing the value of the dollar while discounting the impact
trade has had leading up to the devastation of the lumber industry all
along the eastern seaboard''; and
(3) The Department failed to receive information from the subject
firm regarding ``the possible shift or planned shift in production from
its Nashville Plantation, Maine mill to its other facilities''.
In order to apply for TAA, petitioners must satisfy the group
eligibility requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers under
Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. The group eligibility
requirements can be satisfied in one of two ways, either Section
(a)(2)(A) or Section (a)(2)(B).
In order to satisfy Section (a)(2)(A), all of the following
criteria must be met:
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; and
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.
In order to satisfy Section (a)(2)(B), all of the following
criteria must be met:
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; and
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
[[Page 45476]]
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; or
2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of
the articles is 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.
The Union appears to assert that because the Department identified
in the negative determination two criteria that were not met, the
Department requires that, in order for a worker group to be certified
for TAA, both of the aforementioned sections must be met.
In determining whether a worker group has met the criteria set
forth in the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Department investigates
whether the worker group has met the criteria of either Section
(a)(2)(A) or Section (a)(2)(B), not both. If the criteria of either
Section are met, the Department will certify the worker group as
eligible to apply for TAA.
The Union asserts that it is unfair that the Department considers
only ``United Stated aggregate imports'' because to do so would
discount the disproportionate impact that imports have on a specific
region, such as the Eastern Seaboard.
Section (a)(2)(A)(C) requires that there be a finding of increased
imports. 29 CFR section 90.2 states that ``increased imports means that
imports have increased either absolutely or relatively to domestic
production compared to a representative bade period.'' As asserted by
the Union, imports did not increase in 2007 compared to 2006. Absent a
finding of increased imports, the Department cannot determine whether
or not increased imports contributed importantly to subject firm sales
and/or production declines and worker separations.
Section (a)(2)(B)(B) requires that there ``has been'' a shift of
production. That the requirement is in the past tense means that the
shift is an event in the past and not in the future. Therefore, the
subject firm's ``possible shift or planned shift'' (if any) would not
have been a basis for TAA certification.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
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 28th day of July 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-17884 Filed 8-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
