Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, a Subsidiary of AMG; Newfield, NJ; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 14104-14105 [2011-5931]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14104
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices
II. The second criterion (set forth in
Section 222(a)(2) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the
workers’ firm must have decreased
absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or
directly competitive with articles or services
produced or supplied by the workers’ firm
have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the
component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have
increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly
incorporating component parts not produced
in the U.S. that are like or directly
competitive with the article into which the
component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have
increased.
(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’
firm to a foreign country in the production
of articles or supply of services like or
directly competitive with those produced/
supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a
foreign country by the workers’ firm of
articles/services that are like or directly
competitive with those produced/supplied
by the workers’ firm.
III. The third criterion requires that the
increase in imports or shift/acquisition must
have contributed importantly to the workers’
separation or threat of separation. See
Sections 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii),
2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(d), defines the terms ‘‘Supplier’’
and ‘‘Downstream Producer.’’ For the
Department to issue a secondary worker
certification under Section 222(c) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(c), to workers of a
Supplier or a Downstream Producer, the
following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of
the workers in the workers’ firm or an
appropriate subdivision of the firm have
become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially
separated;
(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or
Downstream Producer to a firm that
employed a group of workers who received
a certification of eligibility under Section
222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), and such
supply or production is related to the article
or service that was the basis for such
certification; and
(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the
component parts it supplied to the firm
described in paragraph (2) accounted for at
least 20 percent of the production or sales of
the workers’ firm; or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm
with the firm described in paragraph (2)
contributed importantly to the workers’
separation or threat of separation.
Workers of a firm may also be
considered eligible to apply for worker
adjustment assistance if they are
publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a
member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in a category of
determination that is listed in Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(f).
The group eligibility requirements for
workers of a firm under Section 222(f)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(f), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified
by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in—
(A) an affirmative determination of serious
injury or threat thereof under section
202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market
disruption or threat thereof under section
421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of
material injury or threat thereof under
section 705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A)
and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year
period beginning on the date on which—
(A) a summary of the report submitted to
the President by the International Trade
Commission under section 202(f)(1) with
respect to the affirmative determination
described in paragraph (1)(A) is published in
the Federal Register under section 202(f)(3);
or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination
described in subparagraph (1) is published in
the Federal Register; and
(3) the workers have become totally or
partially separated from the workers’ firm
within—
(A) the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the
1-year period preceding the 1-year period
described in paragraph (2).
Information obtained during the
initial investigation confirmed that
Criterion II has not been met because
The Jewelry Stream did not shift to a
foreign country the production of
articles like or directly competitive with
jewelry produced by the subject worker
group and, during the relevant period,
did not increase imports of articles like
or directly competitive with jewelry
produced by the subject worker group.
As such, the subject workers have not
met the criteria set forth in Section
222(a).
Moreover, The Jewelry Stream did not
produce a component part that was used
by a firm that both employed a worker
group eligible to apply for TAA and
directly incorporated the component
PO 00000
Frm 00137
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
part in the production of an article or
supply of a service that was the basis for
the TAA certification. As such, the
subject workers have not met the criteria
set forth in Section 222(c).
Further, The Jewelry Stream has not
been identified by name in an
affirmative finding of injury by the
International Trade Commission. As
such, the subject workers have not met
the criteria set forth in Section 222(f).
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 Jewelry
Stream, Los Angeles, California.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 14th
day of February 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011–5930 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–73,301]
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation,
a Subsidiary of AMG; Newfield, NJ;
Notice of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On October 7, 2010, the Department
of Labor (Department) issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, a
subsidiary of AMG, Newfield, New
Jersey (subject firm). The Department’s
Notice was published in the Federal
Register on October 25, 2010 (75 FR
65515).
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 petition states that the workers’
separations occurred between October
2009 and February 2010 and described
the service supplied as ‘‘aluminum
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices
products (shipped/received) shipping,
receiving, customer service.’’ The
petition also states that ‘‘production,
shipping/receiving, customer service, is
being done at a facility in UK.’’ In an
attachment to the petition, the
petitioners stated that ‘‘(since 2006) the
company has had to shift production
* * * the (grinding) department
suffered from cheaper imports * * *
has shut down permanently . * * *’’
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
finding that a shift of production by the
subject firm to Canada in 2006 did not
contribute importantly to workers’
separations because, during the period
of the investigation, the subject firm did
not produce an article. Rather, the
subject firm supplied storage services
for other subsidiaries of AMG (the
parent company) and those storage
services were shifted to an affiliate
domestic facility. Further, the subject
firm did not, during the relevant period,
increased imports of services like or
directly competitive with the storage
services supplied by the workers. In
addition, the subject firm did not supply
services to a firm that both employed a
worker group that employed a worker
group eligible to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and used
the services supplied by the subject firm
in the production of an article or the
supply of the service that was the basis
for the TAA certification.
In the request for reconsideration, a
former worker of the subject firm
reiterated that the subject firm shifted
operations to various facilities
throughout the United States, as well as
Canada, Brazil, England, and Mexico.
Information obtained during the
reconsideration investigation confirmed
that, during the relevant period, workers
at the subject firm were engaged in
activities related to the supply of storage
and shipment services, which consist of
receiving finished products from related
companies and shipping these products
to customers. Information obtained
during the reconsideration investigation
also confirmed that, during the relevant
period, the workers’ firm neither shifted
to a foreign country the supply of
services like or directly competitive
with the services supplied by the
subject workers, nor acquired from a
foreign country services like or directly
competitive with those supplied by the
subject workers.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:50 Mar 14, 2011
Jkt 223001
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, a
subsidiary of AMG, Newfield, New
Jersey.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 16th
day of February 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011–5931 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–72,729]
International Paper Company, Pineville
Mill Industrial Packaging Group;
Pineville, LA; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On October 15, 2010, the Department
of Labor (Department) issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of
International Paper Company, Pineville
Mill, Industrial Packaging Group,
Pineville, Louisiana (subject facility).
The Department’s Notice was published
in the Federal Register on October 29,
2010 (75 FR 66795). The subject workers
produce containerboard/paperboard
(uncoated freesheet containerboard).
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 initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
findings that neither International Paper
Company (subject firm) nor any of its
customers imported articles like or
directly competitive with uncoated
freesheet containerboard produced at
the subject facility, and that the subject
firm neither shifted production to a
foreign country nor acquired from
another country articles like or directly
competitive with the uncoated freesheet
containerboard produced at the subject
facility. The initial investigation also
revealed that the workers are not
eligible to apply for TAA as adverselyimpacted secondary workers because
the subject facility did not produce a
PO 00000
Frm 00138
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14105
component part that was used by a firm
that both employed a worker group that
is currently eligible to apply for TAA
and directly incorporated the
containerboard in the production of the
article that was the basis for the TAA
certification.
In the request for reconsideration, a
subject firm official provided new
information regarding the article
produced at the subject facility, possible
customer imports, and the possibility
that workers are adversely-impacted
secondary workers.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department contacted
the subject firm to confirm and clarify
previously-submitted information. The
Department also reviewed previous
International Paper Company
certifications to determine whether the
subject workers are adversely-impacted
secondary workers.
Information obtained during the
reconsideration investigation confirmed
that the workers at the subject facility
were engaged in employment related to
the production of containerboard/
paperboard.
Information obtained during the
reconsideration investigation also
confirmed that, during the relevant
period, the subject firm did not import
either articles like or directly
competitive with containerboard/
paperboard, or articles directly
incorporating foreign-produced
component parts which are like or
directly competitive with imports of
articles incorporating component parts
produced by the subject facility.
Information obtained during the
reconsideration investigation also
confirmed that the subject facility
supplies directly to box production
plants and that a customer survey is not
necessary because the majority of the
customers of the subject facility are
other subject firm facilities.
Information obtained during the
reconsideration investigation also
confirmed that the subject facility did
not produce and supply a component
part that was used by a firm (including
an affiliated facility of the subject firm)
that both employed a worker group that
is currently eligible to apply for TAA
and directly incorporated the
containerboard/paperboard in the
production of that article that was the
basis for the TAA certification.
Although four subject firm facilities
employed workers eligible to apply for
TAA, none can be the basis for a
secondary impact certification in the
case at hand.
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14104-14105]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5931]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-73,301]
Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corporation, a Subsidiary of AMG;
Newfield, NJ; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration
On October 7, 2010, the Department of Labor (Department) issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for
the workers and former workers of Shieldalloy Metallurgical
Corporation, a subsidiary of AMG, Newfield, New Jersey (subject firm).
The Department's Notice was published in the Federal Register on
October 25, 2010 (75 FR 65515).
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 petition states that the workers' separations occurred between
October 2009 and February 2010 and described the service supplied as
``aluminum
[[Page 14105]]
products (shipped/received) shipping, receiving, customer service.''
The petition also states that ``production, shipping/receiving,
customer service, is being done at a facility in UK.'' In an attachment
to the petition, the petitioners stated that ``(since 2006) the company
has had to shift production * * * the (grinding) department suffered
from cheaper imports * * * has shut down permanently . * * *''
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the finding that a shift of production by the subject firm to
Canada in 2006 did not contribute importantly to workers' separations
because, during the period of the investigation, the subject firm did
not produce an article. Rather, the subject firm supplied storage
services for other subsidiaries of AMG (the parent company) and those
storage services were shifted to an affiliate domestic facility.
Further, the subject firm did not, during the relevant period,
increased imports of services like or directly competitive with the
storage services supplied by the workers. In addition, the subject firm
did not supply services to a firm that both employed a worker group
that employed a worker group eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) and used the services supplied by the subject firm in
the production of an article or the supply of the service that was the
basis for the TAA certification.
In the request for reconsideration, a former worker of the subject
firm reiterated that the subject firm shifted operations to various
facilities throughout the United States, as well as Canada, Brazil,
England, and Mexico.
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that, during the relevant period, workers at the subject firm
were engaged in activities related to the supply of storage and
shipment services, which consist of receiving finished products from
related companies and shipping these products to customers. Information
obtained during the reconsideration investigation also confirmed that,
during the relevant period, the workers' firm neither shifted to a
foreign country the supply of services like or directly competitive
with the services supplied by the subject workers, nor acquired from a
foreign country services like or directly competitive with those
supplied by the subject workers.
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 Shieldalloy Metallurgical
Corporation, a subsidiary of AMG, Newfield, New Jersey.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 16th day of February 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-5931 Filed 3-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
