International Paper Company, Pensacola Mill, Cantonment, FL; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 9289-9290 [E9-4394]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–64,529 is hereby issued as
follows:
All workers of Broyhill Furniture
Industries, Lenoir Chair #3, aka Lenoir Plant,
including on-site leased workers from Onin
Staffing, formerly Mulberry Group, Quick
Temps/Temps USA, Foothills Temp
Employment and ESI Employment Staffing,
Lenoir, North Carolina, who became totally
or partially separated from employment on or
after November 17, 2007 through December
5, 2010, 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 at Washington, DC this 18th day of
February 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–4401 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–64,801; TA–W–64,801A]
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Cequent Electrical Products, Inc.,
Formerly Known as Tekonsha Towing,
Angolia, IN; Cequent Electrical
Products, Inc., Formerly Known as
Tekonsha Towing, McAllen, TX;
Amended Certification Regarding
Eligibility To Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance and Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26
U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the
Department of Labor issued a
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance on January 15, 2009,
applicable to workers of Cequent
Electrical Products, Inc., Angolia,
Indiana and Cequent Electrical
Products, Inc., McAllen, Texas. The
notice was published in the Federal
Register on February 2, 2009 (74 FR
5870).
At the request of the State agency, the
Department reviewed the certification
for workers of the subject firm. The
workers are engaged in activities related
to warehousing and distribution
supporting Cequent Electrical Products,
Inc., Tekonsha, Michigan, a currently
TAA-certified worker group.
Information also shows that some
workers separated from employment at
the subject firm had their wages
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:42 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
reported under a separate
unemployment insurance (UI) tax
account for Tekonsha Towing.
Accordingly, the Department is
amending this certification to properly
reflect this matter.
The intent of the Department’s
certification is to include all workers of
the subject firm who were adversely
affected by increased imports of brake
controls, breakaway kits and lights
produced at the Tekonsha, Michigan
location of the subject firm.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–64,801 and TA–W–64,801A are
hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Cequent Electrical Products,
Inc., formerly known as Tekonsha Towing,
Angola, Indiana (TA–W–64,801) and Cequent
Electrical Products, Inc., formerly known as
Tekonsha Towing, McAllen, Texas (TA–W–
64,801A), who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after
December 30, 2007 through January 15, 2011,
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 at Washington, DC this 18th day of
February 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–4402 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–65,291]
Bassett Furniture Outlet; Bassett, VA;
Notice of Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on February
10, 2009 in response to a worker
petition filed on behalf of workers of
Bassett Furniture Outlet, Bassett,
Virginia.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of
February 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–4385 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
9289
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–63,805]
International Paper Company,
Pensacola Mill, Cantonment, FL;
Notice of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On December 3, 2008, 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 15, 2008 (73 FR
76057).
The initial investigation, which was
filed on behalf of workers at
International Paper Company, Pensacola
Mill, Cantonment, Florida engaged in
the production of linerboard and fluff
pulp, was denied because criteria
(1)(2)(A)(I.B) and (1)(2)(A)(II.A) had not
been met. 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.
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner stated that workers of the
subject firm used to produce uncoated
freesheet (copy paper) products. The
petitioner also stated that in 2006 the
subject firm discontinued production of
uncoated freesheet paper and was
certified eligible for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA). The petitioner
requested an extension of TAA
certification for workers of the subject
firm who lost employment or would be
terminated from the subject facility after
the expiration date of the previous
certification, based on the same
evidence revealed in the investigation in
2006. The petitioner seems to allege that
because the subject firm was previously
certified eligible for TAA, the workers of
the subject firm should be granted
another TAA certification.
The investigation revealed that the
workers of the subject firm were
certified eligible for TAA (TA–W–
59,338) on May 8, 2006 based on
increased imports of uncoated freesheet
paper. The investigation also revealed
that production of uncoated freesheet
paper at the subject firm ceased in May
2007. At that time, the subject facility
was converted to manufacture
linerboard and fluff pulp.
When assessing eligibility for TAA,
the Department exclusively considers
employment, sales, production and
import impact during the relevant
period (from one year prior to the date
of the petition). Therefore, events
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
9290
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices
occurring prior to July 31, 2007 are
outside of the relevant period and are
not relevant in this investigation as
established by the petition date of July
31, 2008. The investigation revealed that
there was no production of uncoated
freesheet paper at the subject facility
during the relevant period.
The petitioner also provided
additional information regarding
employment and layoffs at the subject
firm.
Upon further review of the
employment data provided by the
company official of the subject firm, it
was determined that employment at the
subject firm declined during the
relevant period.
In order to establish import impact
and whether imports contributed
importantly to worker separations, the
Department must consider imports that
are like or directly competitive with
those produced at the subject firm
(linerboard and fluff pulp) during the
relevant period. The ‘‘contributed
importantly’’ test is generally
demonstrated through a survey of
customers of the workers’ firm regarding
their import purchases.
On reconsideration the Department
conducted a survey of the subject firm’s
domestic customers regarding their
purchases of linerboard and fluff pulp
during 2006, 2007, January through July,
2007 and January through July, 2008.
The survey revealed that the customers
did not increase their imports of
linerboard and fluff pulp while
decreasing purchases from the subject
firm during the relevant period.
Furthermore, as stated in the initial
investigation sales and production of
linerboard and fluff pulp did not
decline during the relevant period
through July 2008.
If conditions have changed since July
2008, the company is encouraged to file
a new petition on behalf of the worker
group which will encompass an
investigative period that will include
these changing conditions.
Conclusion
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
After reconsideration, I affirm the
original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of
International Paper Company, Pensacola
Mill, Cantonment, Florida.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of
February 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–4394 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:42 Mar 02, 2009
Jkt 217001
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–59,517]
Advanced Electronics, Inc., Boston,
MA; Notice of Negative Determination
on Remand
On November 18, 2008, the U.S. Court
of International Trade (USCIT)
remanded to the Department of Labor
(Department) for further investigation
Former Employees of Advanced
Electronics, Inc. v. United States
Secretary of Labor (Court No. 06–
00337).
On July 18, 2006, the Department
issued a Negative Determination
regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA) applicable to
workers and former workers of
Advanced Electronics, Inc., Boston,
Massachusetts (subject firm). The
Department’s Notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register
on August 4, 2006 (71 FR 44320). Prior
to separation, the subject workers
produced printed circuit board
assemblies.
The negative determination was based
on the Department’s findings that,
during the relevant period, the subject
firm did not shift production of printed
circuit board assemblies to a foreign
country, that the subject firm did not
import printed circuit board assemblies
(or like or directly competitive articles),
and that the subject firm’s major
declining customers did not import
printed circuit board assemblies (or like
or directly competitive articles).
Further, the Department determined
that a portion of the decline in company
sales of printed circuit board assemblies
is attributed to declining purchases from
a foreign customer during the relevant
period.
Administrative reconsideration was
not requested by any of the parties
pursuant to 29 CFR section 90.18.
On October 23, 2007, the USCIT
granted the Department’s request for
voluntary remand to conduct further
investigation to determine whether,
during the relevant period, any of the
foreign customer’s facilities located in
the United States received printed
circuit boards produced by the subject
firm and, if so, whether the facility(s)
had imported articles like or directly
competitive with the printed circuit
board assemblies produced by the
subject firm.
Based on information obtained during
the first remand investigation (that the
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
subject firm sent the articles purchased
by the foreign customer to a facility
located outside of the United States), the
Department determined that the foreign
customer did not import articles like or
directly competitive with the printed
circuit board assemblies produced by
the subject firm. On December 17, 2007,
the Department issued a Notice of
Negative Determination on Remand.
The Department’s Notice of negative
determination was published in the
Federal Register on December 31, 2007
(72 FR 74340).
Although the USCIT stated in its
November 18, 2008 opinion that
substantial evidence supported the
Department’s finding that increasing
imports of like or directly competitive
articles did not contribute importantly
to the subject firm’s decreased sales to
domestic customers, the USCIT also
stated that it ‘‘declines to adopt a
construction of the Act under which
Labor need never consider, in any
circumstances, whether increased
imports of a like or directly competitive
article contributed importantly to a
plaintiff’s separation by causing the
employer to lose business from a
customer outside of the United States.’’
The USCIT, in its November 18, 2008
order, directs the Department during the
second remand investigation to
‘‘determine whether, and to what extent,
an increase in imports into the United
States of articles like or directly
competitive with the Company’s printed
circuit boards caused the Company to
lose business from its foreign
customer.’’
On second remand, the Department
conducted an investigation to determine
whether the foreign customer switched
its order from the subject firm to another
domestic firm that imported some or all
of the printed circuit boards it supplied
to the subject firm’s foreign customer.
In order to apply for TAA based on
increased imports, the subject worker
group must meet the group eligibility
requirements under Section 222(a) of
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), 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
E:\FR\FM\03MRN1.SGM
03MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 3, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9289-9290]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4394]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-63,805]
International Paper Company, Pensacola Mill, Cantonment, FL;
Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration
On December 3, 2008, 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 15, 2008 (73 FR 76057).
The initial investigation, which was filed on behalf of workers at
International Paper Company, Pensacola Mill, Cantonment, Florida
engaged in the production of linerboard and fluff pulp, was denied
because criteria (1)(2)(A)(I.B) and (1)(2)(A)(II.A) had not been met.
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.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that
workers of the subject firm used to produce uncoated freesheet (copy
paper) products. The petitioner also stated that in 2006 the subject
firm discontinued production of uncoated freesheet paper and was
certified eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The
petitioner requested an extension of TAA certification for workers of
the subject firm who lost employment or would be terminated from the
subject facility after the expiration date of the previous
certification, based on the same evidence revealed in the investigation
in 2006. The petitioner seems to allege that because the subject firm
was previously certified eligible for TAA, the workers of the subject
firm should be granted another TAA certification.
The investigation revealed that the workers of the subject firm
were certified eligible for TAA (TA-W-59,338) on May 8, 2006 based on
increased imports of uncoated freesheet paper. The investigation also
revealed that production of uncoated freesheet paper at the subject
firm ceased in May 2007. At that time, the subject facility was
converted to manufacture linerboard and fluff pulp.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively
considers employment, sales, production and import impact during the
relevant period (from one year prior to the date of the petition).
Therefore, events
[[Page 9290]]
occurring prior to July 31, 2007 are outside of the relevant period and
are not relevant in this investigation as established by the petition
date of July 31, 2008. The investigation revealed that there was no
production of uncoated freesheet paper at the subject facility during
the relevant period.
The petitioner also provided additional information regarding
employment and layoffs at the subject firm.
Upon further review of the employment data provided by the company
official of the subject firm, it was determined that employment at the
subject firm declined during the relevant period.
In order to establish import impact and whether imports contributed
importantly to worker separations, the Department must consider imports
that are like or directly competitive with those produced at the
subject firm (linerboard and fluff pulp) during the relevant period.
The ``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through
a survey of customers of the workers' firm regarding their import
purchases.
On reconsideration the Department conducted a survey of the subject
firm's domestic customers regarding their purchases of linerboard and
fluff pulp during 2006, 2007, January through July, 2007 and January
through July, 2008. The survey revealed that the customers did not
increase their imports of linerboard and fluff pulp while decreasing
purchases from the subject firm during the relevant period.
Furthermore, as stated in the initial investigation sales and
production of linerboard and fluff pulp did not decline during the
relevant period through July 2008.
If conditions have changed since July 2008, the company is
encouraged to file a new petition on behalf of the worker group which
will encompass an investigative period that will include these changing
conditions.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance
for workers and former workers of International Paper Company,
Pensacola Mill, Cantonment, Florida.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of February 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-4394 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
