Bernhardt Furniture Company, Plant 6/11, Including On-Site Leased Workers of the Mulberry Group and Accuforce Staffing Services, Lenoir, NC; Bernhardt Furniture Company, Plant 9, Shelby, NC; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand, 72852-72853 [E8-28356]
Download as PDF
72852
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 231 / Monday, December 1, 2008 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–63,420B; TA–W–63,420C]
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Bernhardt Furniture Company, Plant 6/
11, Including On-Site Leased Workers
of the Mulberry Group and Accuforce
Staffing Services, Lenoir, NC;
Bernhardt Furniture Company, Plant 9,
Shelby, NC; Notice of Revised
Determination on Remand
On October 7, 2008, the U.S. Court of
International Trade granted the
Department of Labor’s motion for
voluntary remand for further
investigation in Former Employees of
Bernhardt Furniture Company v. United
States, Court No. 08–00271.
A petition for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) was
filed by a company official on behalf of
workers and former workers of
Bernhardt Furniture Company (subject
firm), Bernhardt Corporate Office,
Lenoir, North Carolina (TA–W–63,420),
Bernhardt Central Warehouse, Lenoir,
North Carolina (TA–W–63,420A), Plant
6/11, Lenoir, North Carolina (TA–W–
63,420B), Plant 9, Shelby, North
Carolina (TA–W–63,420C), and Plant
10, Cherryville, North Carolina (TA–W–
63,420D).
Workers covered by TA–W–63,420 are
engaged in activities in support of
company production and related
operations. Workers covered by TA–W–
63,420A are engaged in distribution
operations. Plant 6/11 (TA–W–63,420B),
Plant 9 (TA–W–63,420C), and Plant 10
(TA–W–63,420D) comprise the
Upholstered Furniture Department.
Workers at these three facilities produce
upholstered furniture and are not
separately identifiable by product line.
On June 13, 2008, the Department
issued a determination certifying
workers and former workers at Plant 10,
Cherryville, North Carolina (TA–W–
63,420D), based on increased reliance
on imports by the subject firm, and
denying certification to workers and
former workers at the other locations
(TA–W–63,420, TA–W–63,420A, TA–
W–63,420B, and TA–W–63,420C). The
Department’s Notice of Determination
was published in the Federal Register
on June 27, 2008 (73 FR 36576).
On July 17, 2008, a petitioner
requested administrative
reconsideration on behalf of workers
and former workers of Bernhardt
Furniture Company, Bernhardt Central
Warehouse, Lenoir, North Carolina (TA–
W–63,420A). On August 1, 2008, the
Department issued a Notice of Negative
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:47 Nov 28, 2008
Jkt 217001
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration applicable to the
worker group covered by TA–W–
63,420A. The Department’s Notice was
published in the Federal Register on
August 7, 2008 (73 FR 46040).
No request for administrative
reconsideration was filed on behalf of
worker groups covered by TA–W–
63,420B or TA–W–63,420C.
By letter dated August 15, 2008, a
subject firm official requested that the
U.S. Court of International Trade
(USCIT) review the negative
determinations applicable to TA–W–
63,420B (Plant 6/11) and TA–W–
63,420C (Plant 9).
The Department’s negative
determination applicable to the worker
groups covered by TA–W–63,420B and
TA–W–63,420C was based on the
Department’s findings that, for each
location, the subject firm 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
thereof, means at least three workers
with a workforce of fewer than 50
workers or five percent of the workers
with a workforce over 50 workers.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff stated
that the three facilities that comprise the
Upholstered Furniture Department—
Plants 6/11, 9, and 10—‘‘operate as one
continuous production operation’’ and
provided new information regarding
sales and production at the Upholstered
Furniture Department. The complaint
also included documentation that
indicated that the subject firm did
separate or threaten to separate a
significant number or proportion of
workers at Plant 6/11 and Plant 9.
To apply for TAA, the group
eligibility requirements under Section
222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, must be met. The group
eligibility requirements can be satisfied
in either one of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A)—
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; or
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
II. Section (a)(2)(B)—
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 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.
During the remand investigation, the
Department carefully reviewed
previously-submitted material and new
information provided by the subject
firm regarding employment levels at
Plant 6/11 and Plant 9, the number of
workers threatened with separation at
each location, sales and production
levels of the Upholstered Furniture
Department, and import of articles like
or directly competitive with upholstered
furniture produced by the subject
worker groups during the relevant
period.
Upon further review of these facts, the
Department has determined that, during
the relevant period, the subject firm did
separate or threaten to separate a
significant number or proportion of
workers at Plant 6/11 and Plant 9; that
sales and production of upholstered
furniture at Plant 6/11 and Plant 9
declined; and that the subject firm
increased its reliance on imports of
articles like or directly competitive with
those produced at Plant 6/11 and Plant
9. Therefore, the Department determines
that the worker groups covered by TA–
W–63, 420B and TA–W–63, 420C have
met the criteria set forth in Section
222(a)(2)(A).
In accordance with Section 246 the
Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as
amended, the Department herein
presents the results of its investigation
regarding certification of the subject
worker groups’ eligibility to apply for
ATAA.
The Department has determined in
this case that the group eligibility
requirements of Section 246 have been
met.
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 231 / Monday, December 1, 2008 / Notices
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 facts
developed in the remand investigation,
I determine that there was a separation
or threat of separation of a significant
number or proportion of workers at
Plant 6/11, Lenoir, North Carolina, and
Plant 9, Shelby, North Carolina, that
there were sales and production
declines of upholstered furniture at
Plant 6/11, Lenoir, North Carolina, and
Plant 9, Shelby, North Carolina, and that
increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with upholstered
furniture produced by the subject
worker groups contributed importantly
to the decline in sales and production
of upholstered furniture and worker
separations at Plant 6/11, Lenoir, North
Carolina, and Plant 9, Shelby, North
Carolina.
In accordance with the provisions of
the Act, I make the following
certification:
‘‘All workers of Bernhardt Furniture
Company, Plant 6/11, Lenoir, North Carolina,
including on-site leased workers of the
Mulberry Group and Accuforce Staffing
Services, (TA–W–63, 420B), and Plant 9,
Shelby, North Carolina (TA–W–63, 420C),
who became totally or partially separated
from employment on or after May 20, 2007,
through two years from the issuance of this
revised determination, are eligible to apply
for Trade Adjustment Assistance under
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are
eligible to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of
the Trade Act of 1974.’’
Signed at Washington, DC this 20th day of
November 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–28356 Filed 11–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
document in the Federal Register on
November 17, 2008, announcing the
availability of funds and solicitation for
grant applications (SGA) for Local
Young Offender Planning Grants, State/
Local Juvenile Offender Implementation
Grants and an Intermediary Juvenile
Reentry Grant. This notice is an
amendment to the SGA and it amends
under ‘‘Part I—Overall Funding
Opportunity Description’’ and ‘‘Part
IV—Application and Submission
Information, Section C, ‘‘Submission
Date, Times, and Addresses’’.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chari Magruder, Grant Officer, Division
of Federal Assistance, at (202) 693–
3313.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
CORRECTION: In the Federal Register
of
November 17, 2008 in FR Doc. E8–
27151. On page 67885, under the
heading, ‘‘Part I—Overall Funding
Opportunity Description,’’ specifically
under paragraph 7 is corrected to read:
‘‘The goal of the intermediary reentry
grant is to allow an organization to
design and implement a model program
for serving returning juvenile offenders
in four cities across the country as well
as four cities in the same state.’’ On page
67888, under the heading, ‘‘Part IV—
Application and Submission
Information, Section C, Submission
Date, Times, and Addresses,’’
specifically under paragraph 1 is
corrected to read: ‘‘Applications
submitted electronically through
Grants.gov must be successfully
submitted at https://www.grants.gov no
later than 5 p.m. (Eastern Time) on
December 18, 2008, and subsequently
validated by Grants.gov.’’
DATES: Effective Date: This notice is
effective December 1, 2008.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th of
November 2008.
Chari Magruder,
Grant Officer.
[FR Doc. E8–28349 Filed 11–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FT–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Employment and Training
Administration
[SGA/DFA–PY–08–09]
Solicitation for Grant Applications
(SGA)
Employment and Training
Administration (ETA), Labor.
ACTION: Notice: Amendment to SGA/
DFA–PY–08–09.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Employment and
Training Administration published a
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:47 Nov 28, 2008
Jkt 217001
Planning Guidance and Instructions
for Submission of the Strategic State
Plan and Plan Modifications for Title I
of the Workforce Investment Act of
1998 (WIA) and the Wagner-Peyser Act
Employment and Training
Administration.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
72853
SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is
to provide interested parties with the
planning guidance for use by states in
submitting their Strategic State Plans for
Title I of the Workforce Investment Act
of 1998 and the Wagner-Peyser Act as
well as Plan modifications. The
Planning Guidance provides a
framework for the collaboration of
governors, local elected officials,
businesses and other partners to
continue the development of workforce
investment systems that address
customer needs, deliver integrated userfriendly services, and are accountable to
the customers and the public.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Gay Gilbert, Administrator, Office of
Workforce Investment, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Room S–4231, Washington, DC 20210.
Telephone: (202) 693–3980 (voice) (this
is not a toll free number) or (202) 693–
7755 (TTY).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
State Planning Guidance and
Instructions for Title I of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and the
Wagner-Peyser Act
OMB Control Number: 1205–0398.
Expiration Date: Nov. 30, 2011.
Table of Contents
Statement of Purpose
Background
Part I. National Strategic Direction
A. Demand-Driven Workforce Investment
System within a Regional Economic
Development Context
B. System Reform and Increased Focus on
Workforce Education and Training
C. Enhanced Integration through the OneStop Delivery System with Improved
Service Delivery and Increased
Efficiencies
D. Vision for Serving Youth Most in Need
E. Increased Economic and Workforce
Information Data Integration and
Analysis
F. Effective Utilization of Faith-based and
Community Organizations
G. Increased Use of Flexibility Provisions
in WIA
H. An Integrated and Enhanced
Performance Accountability System that
Provides Improved System Results
Part II. State Planning Instructions
A. Plan Development Process
B. Plan Submission Requirements
C. Department of Labor Review and
Approval
D. Negotiated Performance Indicators
E. Modifications to State Plan
F. Inquiries
State Plan Contents
I. State Vision
II. State Workforce Investment Priorities
III. State Governance Structure
A. Organization of State Agencies
B. State Workforce Investment Board (WIB)
C. State Agencies and State Board
Collaboration and Communication
E:\FR\FM\01DEN1.SGM
01DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 231 (Monday, December 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72852-72853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-28356]
[[Page 72852]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-63,420B; TA-W-63,420C]
Bernhardt Furniture Company, Plant 6/11, Including On-Site Leased
Workers of the Mulberry Group and Accuforce Staffing Services, Lenoir,
NC; Bernhardt Furniture Company, Plant 9, Shelby, NC; Notice of Revised
Determination on Remand
On October 7, 2008, the U.S. Court of International Trade granted
the Department of Labor's motion for voluntary remand for further
investigation in Former Employees of Bernhardt Furniture Company v.
United States, Court No. 08-00271.
A petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) was filed by a company official on
behalf of workers and former workers of Bernhardt Furniture Company
(subject firm), Bernhardt Corporate Office, Lenoir, North Carolina (TA-
W-63,420), Bernhardt Central Warehouse, Lenoir, North Carolina (TA-W-
63,420A), Plant 6/11, Lenoir, North Carolina (TA-W-63,420B), Plant 9,
Shelby, North Carolina (TA-W-63,420C), and Plant 10, Cherryville, North
Carolina (TA-W-63,420D).
Workers covered by TA-W-63,420 are engaged in activities in support
of company production and related operations. Workers covered by TA-W-
63,420A are engaged in distribution operations. Plant 6/11 (TA-W-
63,420B), Plant 9 (TA-W-63,420C), and Plant 10 (TA-W-63,420D) comprise
the Upholstered Furniture Department. Workers at these three facilities
produce upholstered furniture and are not separately identifiable by
product line.
On June 13, 2008, the Department issued a determination certifying
workers and former workers at Plant 10, Cherryville, North Carolina
(TA-W-63,420D), based on increased reliance on imports by the subject
firm, and denying certification to workers and former workers at the
other locations (TA-W-63,420, TA-W-63,420A, TA-W-63,420B, and TA-W-
63,420C). The Department's Notice of Determination was published in the
Federal Register on June 27, 2008 (73 FR 36576).
On July 17, 2008, a petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration on behalf of workers and former workers of Bernhardt
Furniture Company, Bernhardt Central Warehouse, Lenoir, North Carolina
(TA-W-63,420A). On August 1, 2008, the Department issued a Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
applicable to the worker group covered by TA-W-63,420A. The
Department's Notice was published in the Federal Register on August 7,
2008 (73 FR 46040).
No request for administrative reconsideration was filed on behalf
of worker groups covered by TA-W-63,420B or TA-W-63,420C.
By letter dated August 15, 2008, a subject firm official requested
that the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) review the negative
determinations applicable to TA-W-63,420B (Plant 6/11) and TA-W-63,420C
(Plant 9).
The Department's negative determination applicable to the worker
groups covered by TA-W-63,420B and TA-W-63,420C was based on the
Department's findings that, for each location, the subject firm 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 thereof, means at least three workers with a
workforce of fewer than 50 workers or five percent of the workers with
a workforce over 50 workers.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff stated that the three facilities
that comprise the Upholstered Furniture Department--Plants 6/11, 9, and
10--``operate as one continuous production operation'' and provided new
information regarding sales and production at the Upholstered Furniture
Department. The complaint also included documentation that indicated
that the subject firm did separate or threaten to separate a
significant number or proportion of workers at Plant 6/11 and Plant 9.
To apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, must be met. The group
eligibility requirements can be satisfied in either one of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A)--
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;
or
II. Section (a)(2)(B)--
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 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.
During the remand investigation, the Department carefully reviewed
previously-submitted material and new information provided by the
subject firm regarding employment levels at Plant 6/11 and Plant 9, the
number of workers threatened with separation at each location, sales
and production levels of the Upholstered Furniture Department, and
import of articles like or directly competitive with upholstered
furniture produced by the subject worker groups during the relevant
period.
Upon further review of these facts, the Department has determined
that, during the relevant period, the subject firm did separate or
threaten to separate a significant number or proportion of workers at
Plant 6/11 and Plant 9; that sales and production of upholstered
furniture at Plant 6/11 and Plant 9 declined; and that the subject firm
increased its reliance on imports of articles like or directly
competitive with those produced at Plant 6/11 and Plant 9. Therefore,
the Department determines that the worker groups covered by TA-W-63,
420B and TA-W-63, 420C have met the criteria set forth in Section
222(a)(2)(A).
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C.
2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its
investigation regarding certification of the subject worker groups'
eligibility to apply for ATAA.
The Department has determined in this case that the group
eligibility requirements of Section 246 have been met.
[[Page 72853]]
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 facts developed in the remand
investigation, I determine that there was a separation or threat of
separation of a significant number or proportion of workers at Plant 6/
11, Lenoir, North Carolina, and Plant 9, Shelby, North Carolina, that
there were sales and production declines of upholstered furniture at
Plant 6/11, Lenoir, North Carolina, and Plant 9, Shelby, North
Carolina, and that increased imports of articles like or directly
competitive with upholstered furniture produced by the subject worker
groups contributed importantly to the decline in sales and production
of upholstered furniture and worker separations at Plant 6/11, Lenoir,
North Carolina, and Plant 9, Shelby, North Carolina.
In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following
certification:
``All workers of Bernhardt Furniture Company, Plant 6/11,
Lenoir, North Carolina, including on-site leased workers of the
Mulberry Group and Accuforce Staffing Services, (TA-W-63, 420B), and
Plant 9, Shelby, North Carolina (TA-W-63, 420C), who became totally
or partially separated from employment on or after May 20, 2007,
through two years from the issuance of this revised determination,
are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance under Section
223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the
Trade Act of 1974.''
Signed at Washington, DC this 20th day of November 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-28356 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P