Springs Global U.S., Inc., Springs Direct Division, Springmaid Wamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster, SC; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand, 10298-10299 [E9-5040]

Download as PDF 10298 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Notices ASK/nlh cc: Mr. James Coyne King Mr. Ron Feldman DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [FR Doc. E9–5018 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–P [TA–W–63,422] DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Springs Global U.S., Inc., Springs Direct Division, Springmaid Wamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster, SC; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Notice is hereby given that, on February 9, 2009, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (‘‘IEEE’’) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing additions or changes to its standards development activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, 34 new standards have been initiated and 9 existing standards are being revised. More detail regarding these changes can be found at http:// standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/ 12–10–08.html and http:// standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/ 01–30–09.html. On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105). The last notification was filed with the Department on November 17, 2008. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on December 11, 2008 (73 FR 75469). Patricia A. Brink, Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division. [FR Doc. E9–4853 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–M VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:20 Mar 09, 2009 Jkt 217001 On February 6, 2009, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) remanded to the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) for further review Former Employees of Springs Global, Inc., Springs Global Direct Division, Springmaid-Wamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster, South Carolina (FEO Springs Global) v. United States, Court No. 08– 00255. On May 19, 2008, an official of Springs Global U.S. Inc. (subject firm) filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of workers of Springs Global U.S. Inc., Springs Global Direct Division, Springmaid-Wamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster, South Carolina (subject facility). The subject facility closed during February 2008. Prior to the closure, workers at the subject facility managed Springs Global, U.S., Inc. (subject firm) retail operations, sold linen products manufactured by the subject firm to the public and other subject firm employees, and handled special orders for linen products placed by other subject firm employees. The negative determination, issued on May 30, 2008, stated that in order to be considered eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, the subject worker group must work for a ‘‘firm’’ or appropriate subdivision that produces an article domestically and there must be a relationship between the workers’ work and the article produced by the workers’ firm or appropriate subdivision. The determination also stated that although the subject firm produced an article, the subject workers did not support that production. The Department determined that the subject worker group cannot be considered import impacted or affected by a shift in production of an article. The Department’s Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2008 (73 FR 34044). The Department did not receive a request for administrative reconsideration. In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that workers at the subject facility, who ‘‘provided the means by which Springs PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Global dispensed of manufactured goods that were not able to be sold otherwise * * * thereby enabling the company’s production operations * * * to reduce their per-unit overhead and operate more efficiently,’’ should be treated like the workers covered by TA– W–62,768 (Springs Global U.S., Inc., Springs Direct Division, Corporate Support Group, Lancaster, South Carolina; certified February 14, 2008). Workers covered by TA–W–63,422 are located in the same building as workers covered by TA–W–62,786. Workers covered by TA–W–62,786 are engaged in production estimation, production scheduling, distribution, logistics, and operational services. The determination for TA–W–62,786 stated that the workers supported production at a TAA-certified facility (Springs Global U.S., Inc., Grace Complex, Bedding Division, Lancaster, South Carolina; TA–W–61,258) and that the worker separations are ‘‘related to a shift of production and increased imports of textile products.’’ The group eligibility requirements for directly-impacted workers under Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, based on a shift of production are satisfied if the criteria set forth under Section 222(a)(2)(B) have been 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 articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision, and 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; 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 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. On remand, the Department carefully reviewed the language of the statute, the Department’s policy, Plaintiffs’ submissions, and the administrative record. The intent of the Department is for a certification to cover all workers of the subject firm or appropriate subdivision who were adversely affected by increased imports of the article E:\FR\FM\10MRN1.SGM 10MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Notices produced by the firm or a shift in production of the article, based on the investigation of the TAA/ATAA petition. After careful review on remand, the Department determines that a significant number or proportion of the workers in the appropriate subdivision of the subject firm was separated. Further, the Department determines that these workers performed activities related to the firm’s production of an article, that the firm shifted production of that article to a foreign country (and there were increased imports of like or directly competitive articles produced by the firm), and this shift in production was a factor in Plaintiffs’ separations. Based on the above, the Department determines that the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, has been met. In accordance with Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA. The Department has determined in this case that the group eligibility 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 facts during the remand investigation, I determine that there was a shift of production from the workers’ firm or subdivision to Brazil of articles that are like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm or subdivision, and there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of like or directly competitive articles. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Springs Global U.S. Inc., Springs Global Direct Division, SpringmaidWamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster, South Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after May 19, 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. VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:20 Mar 09, 2009 Jkt 217001 Signed at Washington, DC this 23rd day of February 2009. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–5040 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–62,932] Keeper Corporation, Including On-Site Leased Workers of AAA Staffing, North Windham, CT, Including Employees in Support of Keeper Corporation, North Windham, CT, Working in the Following Locations: TA–W–62,364D, West Grove, PA; TA–W–62,364E, Bountiful, UT; 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 March 13, 2008, applicable to workers of Keeper Corporation, including leased workers of AAA Staffing, North Windham, Connecticut. The notice was published in the Federal Register on March 26, 2008 (73 FR 16064). The certification was amended on December 5, 2008 to include employees in support of the North Windham, Connecticut location working out of Lawrenceville, Georgia and Smyrna, Tennessee. The notice was published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2008 (73 FR 76058– 76059). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of cargo control products such as tie downs, towing straps and bungee cords. New information shows that worker separations have occurred involving employees in support of the North Windham, Connecticut facility of Keeper Corporation working out of West Grove, Pennsylvania and Bountiful, Utah. Mr. Paul Delaney and Mr. William Hill provided sales functions supporting the production of cargo control products such as tie down, towing straps and bungee cords at the North Windham, Connecticut location of the subject firm. PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10299 Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include employees of the North Windham, Connecticut facility of Keeper Corporation working out of West Grove, Pennsylvania and Bountiful, Utah. The intent of the Department’s certification is to include all workers of Keeper Corporation, North Windham, Connecticut who were adversely affected by a shift in production of cargo control products such as tie downs, towing straps and bungee cords to China. The amended notice applicable to TA–W–62,932 is hereby issued as follows: ‘‘All workers of Keeper Corporation, including on-site leased workers of AAA Staffing, North Windham, Connecticut (TA– W–62,932), all workers of Keeper Corporation, Manchester, Connecticut (TA– W–62,932A), including employees in support of Keeper Corporation, North Windham, Connecticut working out of Lawrenceville, Georgia (TA–W–62,932B), Smyrna, Tennessee (TA–W–62,932C), West Grove, Pennsylvania (TA–W–62,932D) and Bountiful, Utah (TA–W–62,932E), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 28, 2007, through March 13, 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 25th day of February 2009. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–5039 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–64,389] Schulmanm, Inc. Polybatch Color Center, Sharon Center, OH; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application received on February 4, 2009, the petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on December 22, 2008. The Notice of Determination was published E:\FR\FM\10MRN1.SGM 10MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10298-10299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5040]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,422]


Springs Global U.S., Inc., Springs Direct Division, Springmaid 
Wamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster, SC; Notice of Revised Determination 
on Remand

    On February 6, 2009, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) 
remanded to the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) for further 
review Former Employees of Springs Global, Inc., Springs Global Direct 
Division, Springmaid-Wamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster, South Carolina 
(FEO Springs Global) v. United States, Court No. 08-00255.
    On May 19, 2008, an official of Springs Global U.S. Inc. (subject 
firm) filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of workers of 
Springs Global U.S. Inc., Springs Global Direct Division, Springmaid-
Wamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster, South Carolina (subject facility).
    The subject facility closed during February 2008. Prior to the 
closure, workers at the subject facility managed Springs Global, U.S., 
Inc. (subject firm) retail operations, sold linen products manufactured 
by the subject firm to the public and other subject firm employees, and 
handled special orders for linen products placed by other subject firm 
employees.
    The negative determination, issued on May 30, 2008, stated that in 
order to be considered eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, the subject worker group 
must work for a ``firm'' or appropriate subdivision that produces an 
article domestically and there must be a relationship between the 
workers' work and the article produced by the workers' firm or 
appropriate subdivision. The determination also stated that although 
the subject firm produced an article, the subject workers did not 
support that production. The Department determined that the subject 
worker group cannot be considered import impacted or affected by a 
shift in production of an article. The Department's Notice of 
determination was published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2008 
(73 FR 34044).
    The Department did not receive a request for administrative 
reconsideration.
    In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that workers at the subject 
facility, who ``provided the means by which Springs Global dispensed of 
manufactured goods that were not able to be sold otherwise * * * 
thereby enabling the company's production operations * * * to reduce 
their per-unit overhead and operate more efficiently,'' should be 
treated like the workers covered by TA-W-62,768 (Springs Global U.S., 
Inc., Springs Direct Division, Corporate Support Group, Lancaster, 
South Carolina; certified February 14, 2008). Workers covered by TA-W-
63,422 are located in the same building as workers covered by TA-W-
62,786.
    Workers covered by TA-W-62,786 are engaged in production 
estimation, production scheduling, distribution, logistics, and 
operational services. The determination for TA-W-62,786 stated that the 
workers supported production at a TAA-certified facility (Springs 
Global U.S., Inc., Grace Complex, Bedding Division, Lancaster, South 
Carolina; TA-W-61,258) and that the worker separations are ``related to 
a shift of production and increased imports of textile products.''
    The group eligibility requirements for directly-impacted workers 
under Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, based on a 
shift of production are satisfied if the criteria set forth under 
Section 222(a)(2)(B) have been 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 articles which are produced by such firm or 
subdivision, and 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;
    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 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.

    On remand, the Department carefully reviewed the language of the 
statute, the Department's policy, Plaintiffs' submissions, and the 
administrative record.
    The intent of the Department is for a certification to cover all 
workers of the subject firm or appropriate subdivision who were 
adversely affected by increased imports of the article

[[Page 10299]]

produced by the firm or a shift in production of the article, based on 
the investigation of the TAA/ATAA petition.
    After careful review on remand, the Department determines that a 
significant number or proportion of the workers in the appropriate 
subdivision of the subject firm was separated. Further, the Department 
determines that these workers performed activities related to the 
firm's production of an article, that the firm shifted production of 
that article to a foreign country (and there were increased imports of 
like or directly competitive articles produced by the firm), and this 
shift in production was a factor in Plaintiffs' separations.
    Based on the above, the Department determines that the group 
eligibility requirements under Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended, has been met.
    In accordance with Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 
2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its 
investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA. 
The Department has determined in this case that the group eligibility 
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 facts during the remand investigation, 
I determine that there was a shift of production from the workers' firm 
or subdivision to Brazil of articles that are like or directly 
competitive with those produced by the subject firm or subdivision, and 
there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of like or 
directly competitive articles. In accordance with the provisions of the 
Act, I make the following certification:

    All workers of Springs Global U.S. Inc., Springs Global Direct 
Division, Springmaid-Wamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster, South 
Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after May 19, 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 23rd day of February 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-5040 Filed 3-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P