Enesco, LLC, Itasco, IL; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 27667-27668 [2011-11640]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2011 / Notices
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(d), defines the term ‘‘Downstream
Producer’’ as ‘‘a firm that performs
additional, value-added production
processes or services directly for
another firm for articles or services with
respect to which a group of workers in
such other firm has been certified under
subsection (a) [of Section 222 of the
Act]’’ and defines the term ‘‘value-added
production processes or services’’ to
‘‘include final assembly, finishing,
testing, packaging, or maintenance or
transportation services.’’
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department received
information that confirmed that the
subject facilities are not a ‘‘supplier’’ or
a ‘‘downstream producer’’ within the
meaning of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended.
The subject facilities do not produce
and directly supply component parts (or
services) to a firm that both employed
a worker group eligible to apply for
TAA and directly used the component
parts (or services) in the production of
the article or in the supply of the service
that was the basis for the TAA
certification, and do not perform
downstream producer services for a firm
that both employed a worker group
eligible to apply for TAA and directly
used the service in the production of the
article or in the supply of the service
that was the basis for the TAA
certification.
Rather, the subject facilities separate,
consolidate and package finished parts
that are produced by others, and ship
the packages to Chrysler points of
contacts, who then forward the packages
to car dealerships who ordered the parts
on behalf of the dealership’s customers.
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 Chrysler
LLC, Mopar Parts Distribution Center in
Center Line, Michigan (TA–W–70,949);
Naperville, Illinois (TA–W–70,949A);
New Boston, Michigan (TA–W–
70,949B); Beaverton, Oregon (TA–W–
70,949C0; Carrollton, Texas (TA–W–
70,949D); Fontana, California (TA–W–
70,949E); Lathrop, California (TA–W–
70,949F); Denver, Colorado (TA–W–
70,949G); Ontario, California ((TA–W–
70,949H); Hazelwood, Missouri (TA–W–
70,949I); Morrow, Georgia (TA–W–
70,949J); Memphis, Tennessee (TA–W–
70,949K); Tappan, New York (TA–W–
70,949L); Mansfield, Massachusetts
(TA–W–70,949M); Plymouth, Minnesota
(TA–W–70,949N); Streetsboro, Ohio
(TA–W–70,949O); Orlando, Florida
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 May 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
(TA–W–70,949P); Milwaukee,
Wisconsin (TA–W–70,949Q); Warren,
Michigan (TA–W–70,949R); and
Marysville, Michigan (TA–W–70,949S).
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 2nd day
of May, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011–11638 Filed 5–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–73,479A]
Enesco, LLC, Itasco, IL; Notice of
Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On October 18, 2010, the Department
of Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration for the workers and
former workers of Enesco, LLC, Gund
Division, Distribution Center, Edison,
New Jersey (Enesco-Edison). The
Department’s Notice was published in
the Federal Register on October 29,
2010 (75 FR 66795). The workers
supplied packaging and distribution
services related to giftware.
The initial investigation was initiated
in response to a petition filed on
February 17, 2010 by a State of Illinois
Workforce Office on behalf of workers of
Enesco, LLC, Itasca, Illinois. The
petition alleges that ‘‘Enesco LLC
production of giftware products is
currently in China; the company has
transferred Quality/Regulatory
Compliance Department overseas as
well in order to keep production and
quality assurance testing in one
location.’’
Because the petitioner did not provide
additional information regarding the
worker group, the Department relied on
publicly-available materials and the
company official identified on the
petition for information.
Although the company’s headquarters
are in Itasca, Illinois, the company
official provided information that
revealed that the separated workers
worked in the distribution center that
was part of the Gund Division in
Edison, New Jersey (TA–W–73,479).
Based on this information, the
Department determined that the subject
worker group was not Enesco LLC,
Itasca, Illinois but Enesco-Edison.
In the request for reconsideration, the
State Workforce Office stated that a
worker who was in the ‘‘Regulatory
Compliance/Quality Assurance
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27667
Department of Enseco, LLC, located in
Itasca, Illinois’’ had ‘‘spent over 6 hours
on the conference call with China,
training someone to perform her duties.’’
The State Workforce Office further
alleges that ‘‘all of the Regulatory
Compliance/Quality Assurance
Department of Enseco LLC was
transferred to Hong Kong.’’ In support of
the allegations, the State Workforce
Office provided a document titled
‘‘Letter to supplier regarding QA & QC’’
that states ‘‘We have expanded our team
both in China as well as in our Hong
Kong office’’ (dated March 6, 2009).
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 initial negative determination
was based on the findings that EnescoEdison did not shift to/acquire from a
foreign country the supply of services
like or directly competitive with the
services supplied by the workers; that
the workers’ separation, or threat of
separation, was not related to an
increase in imports of like or directly
competitive services; and that the
workers are not adversely affected
secondary workers.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department contacted
Enesco, LLC and obtained information
regarding Enesco, LLC, Itasca, Illinois
(Enesco-Itasca) and the worker on
whose behalf the petition and request
for reconsideration were filed.
New information provided by the
subject firm revealed that there is no
Regulatory Compliance/Quality
Assurance Department; that workers at
Enesco-Itasca are separately identifiable
by division and separately identifiable
within each division by service
supplied; and that the worker on whose
behalf the petition and the request for
reconsideration were filed worked in
the logistics division of Enesco-Itasca
and supplied quality control services
related to the production of toys.
Further, Enesco-Itasca does not produce
toys; rather, Enesco-Itasca supplies
services related to the sales, marketing
and development of toys.
Additional information obtained
during the reconsideration investigation
revealed that the group eligibility
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
27668
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2011 / Notices
requirements under Section 222(a) and
(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a) and (c),
have not been met. 29 CFR 90.2 states
that a significant number or proportion
of the workers means at least three
workers in a firm (or appropriate
subdivision thereof) with a workforce of
fewer than 50 workers, or five percent
of the workers or 50 workers, whichever
is less, in a workforce of 50 or more
workers.
Although the Department was able to
confirm separations at the Itasca, Illinois
facility, the number or proportion of
workers totally or partially separated, or
threatened with such separation, at
Enesco, LLC, Itasca, Illinois, does not
meet the regulatory definition.
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 Enesco,
LLC, Itasca, Illinois (TA–W–73,479A).
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 2nd day
of May, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011–11640 Filed 5–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–72,971]
wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1
ASC Machine Tools, Inc., Spokane
Valley, WA; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On October 7, 2010, the Department
of Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration for the workers and
former workers of ASC Machine Tools,
Inc., Spokane Valley, Washington (the
subject firm). The Department’s Notice
was published in the Federal Register
on October 25, 2010 (75 FR 65516). The
workers produce custom-order metal
cutting machinery used to form and cut
metal, including assembled equipment,
component parts of equipment, and
spare parts. Workers are not separately
identifiable by article produced.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:49 May 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
finding that the subject firm sales
decline was due to loss of export sales
of foreign customers’ bids to
competitors outside the United States.
The initial investigation also revealed
decreased aggregate imports of metal
cutting equipment during the relevant
period, and that the subject firm is not
a supplier or downstream producer for
any firm that employed a worker group
eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA).
The International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
District Lodge 751, in the request for
reconsideration, alleges increased
imports from Sen Fung Rollform
Machinery Corporation in Taiwan and
Metform International in Canada. The
request for reconsideration also
articulates the concern that ‘‘the affected
workers are being penalized due to the
inconsistent customer base of the
company’’ and requests that aggregate
import data during 2007 and 2008 be
considered.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department received
information that confirmed that Sen
Fung Rollform Machinery Corporation
in Taiwan and Metform International in
Canada are competitors of the subject
firm and not customers, as inferred in
the request for reconsideration. As such,
the Department did not conduct a bid
survey in regard to the aforementioned
companies.
In regard to the request that aggregate
import data be considered for 2007 and
2008, the Department can not consider
data for this period because it is outside
of the relevant period under
investigation.
29 CFR 90.2 states that increased
imports means that imports have
increased either absolutely or relative to
domestic production compared to a
representative base period. The
representative base period shall be one
year consisting of the four quarters
immediately preceding the date which
is twelve months prior to the date of the
petition.
Machine Tools, Inc., Spokane Valley,
Washington.
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 2nd day
of May, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011–11639 Filed 5–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–74,549]
Algonac Cast Products, Inc., Algonac,
MI; Notice of Revised Determination on
Reconsideration
Conclusion
On November 10, 2010, the
Department issued a Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of Algonac
Cast Products, Inc., Algonac, Michigan
(subject firm) to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The
Department’s Notice was published in
the Federal Register on November 23,
2010 (75 FR 7145). Workers are engaged
in employment related to the
production of marine hardware and are
not separately identifiable by article
produced.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department received
additional and new information from
the subject firm, conducted an
expanded customer survey, and
analyzed import data of like or directly
competitive articles.
Section 222(a)(1) has been met
because a significant number or
proportion of workers at the subject firm
became totally or partially separated, or
threatened with such separation.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) has been met
because subject firm sales and
production decreased during 2009 from
2008 levels.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) has been met
because there were increased imports of
articles like or directly competitive with
marine hardware produced by the
subject firm.
Finally, Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) has
been met because the increased imports
contributed importantly to the worker
group separations and sales/production
declines at Algonac Cast Products, Inc.,
Algonac, Michigan.
After reconsideration, I affirm the
original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of ASC
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional
facts obtained on reconsideration, I
determine that workers and former
workers of Algonac Cast Products, Inc.,
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM
12MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27667-27668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11640]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-73,479A]
Enesco, LLC, Itasco, IL; Notice of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
On October 18, 2010, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers
and former workers of Enesco, LLC, Gund Division, Distribution Center,
Edison, New Jersey (Enesco-Edison). The Department's Notice was
published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2010 (75 FR 66795).
The workers supplied packaging and distribution services related to
giftware.
The initial investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on February 17, 2010 by a State of Illinois Workforce Office on
behalf of workers of Enesco, LLC, Itasca, Illinois. The petition
alleges that ``Enesco LLC production of giftware products is currently
in China; the company has transferred Quality/Regulatory Compliance
Department overseas as well in order to keep production and quality
assurance testing in one location.''
Because the petitioner did not provide additional information
regarding the worker group, the Department relied on publicly-available
materials and the company official identified on the petition for
information.
Although the company's headquarters are in Itasca, Illinois, the
company official provided information that revealed that the separated
workers worked in the distribution center that was part of the Gund
Division in Edison, New Jersey (TA-W-73,479). Based on this
information, the Department determined that the subject worker group
was not Enesco LLC, Itasca, Illinois but Enesco-Edison.
In the request for reconsideration, the State Workforce Office
stated that a worker who was in the ``Regulatory Compliance/Quality
Assurance Department of Enseco, LLC, located in Itasca, Illinois'' had
``spent over 6 hours on the conference call with China, training
someone to perform her duties.'' The State Workforce Office further
alleges that ``all of the Regulatory Compliance/Quality Assurance
Department of Enseco LLC was transferred to Hong Kong.'' In support of
the allegations, the State Workforce Office provided a document titled
``Letter to supplier regarding QA & QC'' that states ``We have expanded
our team both in China as well as in our Hong Kong office'' (dated
March 6, 2009).
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 initial negative determination was based on the findings that
Enesco-Edison did not shift to/acquire from a foreign country the
supply of services like or directly competitive with the services
supplied by the workers; that the workers' separation, or threat of
separation, was not related to an increase in imports of like or
directly competitive services; and that the workers are not adversely
affected secondary workers.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department contacted
Enesco, LLC and obtained information regarding Enesco, LLC, Itasca,
Illinois (Enesco-Itasca) and the worker on whose behalf the petition
and request for reconsideration were filed.
New information provided by the subject firm revealed that there is
no Regulatory Compliance/Quality Assurance Department; that workers at
Enesco-Itasca are separately identifiable by division and separately
identifiable within each division by service supplied; and that the
worker on whose behalf the petition and the request for reconsideration
were filed worked in the logistics division of Enesco-Itasca and
supplied quality control services related to the production of toys.
Further, Enesco-Itasca does not produce toys; rather, Enesco-Itasca
supplies services related to the sales, marketing and development of
toys.
Additional information obtained during the reconsideration
investigation revealed that the group eligibility
[[Page 27668]]
requirements under Section 222(a) and (c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)
and (c), have not been met. 29 CFR 90.2 states that a significant
number or proportion of the workers means at least three workers in a
firm (or appropriate subdivision thereof) with a workforce of fewer
than 50 workers, or five percent of the workers or 50 workers,
whichever is less, in a workforce of 50 or more workers.
Although the Department was able to confirm separations at the
Itasca, Illinois facility, the number or proportion of workers totally
or partially separated, or threatened with such separation, at Enesco,
LLC, Itasca, Illinois, does not meet the regulatory definition.
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 Enesco, LLC, Itasca, Illinois (TA-W-
73,479A).
Signed in Washington, DC, on this 2nd day of May, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-11640 Filed 5-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
