The Marlin Firearms Company, Inc., a Subsidiary of Remington Arms Company Including On-Site Leased Workers From Randstat, Reitman, and Hamilton Connections, North Haven, Connecticut; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand, 58842-58843 [2011-24363]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
58842
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Notices
attorney filed a response in support of
the joint motion.
On August 23, 2011, the ALJ issued
the subject ID, granting the joint motion
to terminate the investigation pursuant
to Commission rules 210.21(a)(2) and
(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(a)(2) and (b)(1)).
No petitions for review of this ID were
filed.
The Commission has determined not
to review the ID.
The authority for the Commission’s
determination is contained in section
337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in
section 210.42 of the Commission’s
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR
210.42).
Issued: September 16, 2011.
By order of the Commission.
James R. Holbein,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011–24336 Filed 9–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–73,857]
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The Marlin Firearms Company, Inc., a
Subsidiary of Remington Arms
Company Including On-Site Leased
Workers From Randstat, Reitman, and
Hamilton Connections, North Haven,
Connecticut; Notice of Revised
Determination on Remand
On June 8, 2011, the U.S. Court of
International Trade (USCIT) granted the
U.S. Department of Labor’s
(Department’s) motion for voluntary
remand for further investigation in
Former Employees of Marlin Firearms
Company, Inc., a subsidiary of
Remington Arms Company, North
Haven, Connecticut v. United States,
Case No. 11–00060.
On April 6, 2010, a state workforce
official filed a petition for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on behalf
of workers of Marlin Firearms Company,
Inc. (‘‘Marlin’’), a subsidiary of
Remington Arms Company, North
Haven, Connecticut (hereafter referred
to as the subject firm). The subject
worker group includes on-site leased
workers from Randstat, Reitman, and
Hamilton Connections. (AR 394)
The subject worker group was
engaged in activities related to the
production of lever-action and boltaction sporting rifles. (AR 376) The
Department considered the following
articles to be like or directly competitive
with lever-action and bolt-action
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
sporting rifles: ‘‘over and under’’, ‘‘semiauto’’, ‘‘over and under shotgun/rifle
combo’’, ‘‘side by side’’, ‘‘semi-auto’’.
(AR 805)
During the initial investigation, it was
revealed that a significant number or
proportion of workers at the subject firm
were totally or partially separated from
employment or were threatened to
become totally or partially separated
during the relevant period. (AR 14–15)
However, during the initial
investigation, it was determined that
imports of articles like or directly
competitive with the articles produced
by the subject firm have not increased
and that there has not been a shift in
production to a foreign country by the
workers’ firm, of like or directly
competitive articles. (AR 10–84, 1322–
1348)
During the initial investigation, the
Department also conducted a customer
survey; however, the survey revealed
that during the relevant period,
customers did not increase reliance on
imports of articles like or directly
competitive with those produced by the
subject worker group. (AR 270–283,
1322–1348)
The initial investigation also revealed
that the subject worker group did not
produce component parts or supply a
service directly to a firm with a TAAcertified worker group. Further, the
initial investigation revealed that the
subject firm has not been identified in
an affirmative finding of injury by the
International Trade Commission. (AR
14–15)
A negative determination regarding
the subject worker group’s eligibility to
apply for TAA was issued on December
17, 2010. The Department’s Notice of
Determination was published in the
Federal Register on January 14, 2011
(76 FR 2716). (AR 293–306, 312)
Administrative reconsideration of the
Departments’ negative determination
was not requested.
In the Complaint to the USCIT, dated
March 15, 2011, the Plaintiff’s Counsel
claimed that the Plaintiff’s separation
occurred because Marlin experienced
import competition due to increasing
importation of sporting rifles. The
Plaintiff’s Counsel also claimed that the
Department should take into account
information related to the application of
Marlin for the TAA for Firms program.
The Plaintiff’s Counsel also claimed that
the Department should take into
consideration information related to the
certification of Marlin’s subsidiary,
Harrington & Richardson 1871 (TA–W–
63,361).
The USCIT’S order granting voluntary
remand, dated June 8, 2011, directed the
Department to (1) Conduct additional
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
surveys of the subject firm’s customers;
(2) contact Plaintiff to solicit
information relevant to his petition and
review any submitted material; (3)
request from the subject firm names and
contact information for other separated
workers and solicit from those workers
information relevant to Plaintiff’s
complaint; (4) request from the subject
firm any submissions to the U.S.
Department of Commerce in connection
with Marlin’s certification under the
TAA for Firms program and consider
the contents of those submissions; (5)
request from the U.S. Department of
Commerce any documents related to
Marlin’s certification under the TAA for
Firms program and consider the
contents of those documents; and (6)
consider the facts related to the
certification of Harrington & Richardson
1871 (TA–W–63,361).
During the remand investigation, the
Department: (1) Conducted an expanded
customer survey; (2) contacted the
Plaintiff to solicit information relevant
to his petition and reviewed the
submitted materials; (3) requested and
received from the subject firm names
and contact information for other
separated workers and solicited from
those workers information relevant to
the Plaintiff’s complaint; (4) requested
and received from Marlin any
submissions to the U.S. Department of
Commerce in connection to Marlin’s
TAA for Firms petition and considered
the contents of those documents; (5)
requested from the U.S. Department of
Commerce any documents related to
Marlin’s TAA for Firms petition and
considered the contents of those
documents; and (6) considered the facts
related to the certification of TA–W–
63,361. The Department also conducted
industry analysis related to the articles
produced by the subject firm, leveraction and bolt-action sporting rifles.
(AR 1322–1348)
The Department fully reviewed all
material received during the remand
investigation, and considered the
contents of each document and
statement as they apply to the TAA for
workers program in accordance with the
statute, regulations, and other authority.
(AR 1322–1348)
The group eligibility requirements for
workers of a Firm under Section 222(a)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), are
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) A significant number or proportion of
the workers in such workers’ firm have
become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially
separated; and
(2)(A)(i) The sales or production, or both,
of such firm have decreased absolutely; and
E:\FR\FM\22SEN1.SGM
22SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 184 / Thursday, September 22, 2011 / Notices
(ii)(I) Imports of articles or services like or
directly competitive with articles produced
or services supplied by such firm have
increased; and
(iii) The increase in imports described in
clause (ii) contributed importantly to such
workers’ separation or threat of separation
and to the decline in the sales or production
of such firm.
jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In the case at hand, the relevant time
periods are April 1, 2009 through April
1, 2010, and the articles at issue are
those that are like or directly
competitive with the lever-action and
bolt-action sporting rifles.
Based on the information collected
during the remand investigation, the
Department determined that imports of
articles like or directly competitive with
the lever-action and bolt-action sporting
rifles produced by the subject firm
increased during the relevant period
and contributed importantly to worker
separations or threat of separation, and
to the decline in production at the
subject firm. (AR 14, 15, 389, 531)
Criterion I has been met because a
significant number or proportion of
workers at the subject firm were totally
or partially separated during the
relevant period. (AR 14 and 15)
Criterion II has been met because
production of lever-action and boltaction sporting rifles at the subject firm
decreased absolutely during the relevant
period. (AR 531, 1322–1348)
Criterion III has been met because
imports of articles like or directly
competitive with the lever-action and
bolt-action sporting rifles produced by
the subject firm increased during the
relevant period and contributed
importantly to worker separations, or
threat of separations, and to the decline
in the production at the subject facility.
(AR 14, 15, 389, 531)
Conclusion
After careful review of the complete
administrative record, including the
additional facts obtained on remand
investigation, I determine that workers
and former workers of Marlin Firearms
Company, Inc., a subsidiary of
Remington Arms Company, including
on-site leased workers from Randstat,
Reitman, and Hamilton Connections,
North Haven, Connecticut, who are
engaged in employment related to the
production of lever-action and boltaction sporting rifles, meet the worker
group certification criteria under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(a).
In accordance with Section 223 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, I make the
following certification:
All workers of Marlin Firearms Company,
Inc., a subsidiary of Remington Arms
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Sep 21, 2011
Jkt 223001
Company, including on-site leased workers
from Randstat, Reitman, and Hamilton
Connections, North Haven, Connecticut, who
became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after April 1, 2009,
through two years from the date of
certification, and all workers in the group
threatened with total or partial separation
from employment on the date of certification
through two years from the date of
certification, are eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of
Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of
September, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011–24363 Filed 9–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice 11–082]
NASA Advisory Council; Aeronautics
Committee; Meeting
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public
Law 92–463, as amended, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
announces a meeting of the Aeronautics
Committee of the NASA Advisory
Council. The meeting will be held for
the purpose of soliciting, from the
aeronautics community and other
persons, research and technical
information relevant to program
planning.
SUMMARY:
Thursday, October 13, 2011, 8
a.m. to 5 p.m., Local Time.
ADDRESSES: National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Headquarters,
Room 6B42, 300 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20546.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Susan L. Minor, Executive Secretary for
the Aeronautics Committee, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546,
(202) 358–0566, or susan.l.minor@nasa.
gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
meeting will be open to the public up
to the capacity of the room. Any person
interested in participating in the
meeting by Webex and telephone
should contact Ms. Susan L. Minor at
(202) 358–0566 for the web link, tollfree number and passcode. The agenda
for the meeting includes the following
topics:
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
58843
• Green Aviation Research Portfolio.
• Interagency Relationships for
Alternative Fuels Research.
• UAS Subcommittee.
• Aeronautics Committee 2012
Planning.
It is imperative that these meetings be
held on this date to accommodate the
scheduling priorities of the key
participants. Attendees will be
requested to comply with NASA
security requirements, including the
presentation of a valid picture ID, before
receiving an access badge. U.S. citizens
will need to show valid, officiallyissued picture identification such as
driver’s license to enter the NASA
Headquarters building (West Lobby—
Visitor Control Center) and must state
that they are attending the NASA
Advisory Council Aeronautics
Committee meeting in conference room
6B42 before receiving an access badge.
All non-U.S. citizens must fax a copy of
their passport, and print or type their
name, current address, citizenship,
company affiliation (if applicable) to
include address, telephone number, and
their title, place of birth, date of birth,
U.S. visa information to include type,
number, and expiration date, U.S. Social
Security Number (if applicable),
Permanent Resident Alien card number
and expiration date (if applicable), and
place and date of entry into the U.S., to
Susan Minor, NASA Advisory Council
Aeronautics Committee Executive
Secretary, fax 202–358–3602, by no less
than 8 working days prior to the
meeting. Non-U.S. citizens will need to
show their Passport or Permanent
Resident Alien card to enter the NASA
Headquarters building. For questions,
please call Susan Minor at (202) 358–
0566.
September 16, 2011.
P. Diane Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer,
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–24383 Filed 9–21–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Notice of Permit Applications Received
Under the Antarctic Conservation Act
of 1978 (Pub. L. 95–541)
National Science Foundation
Notice of Permit Applications
Received under the Antarctic
Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law
95–541.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Science
Foundation (NSF) is required to publish
a notice of permit applications received
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22SEN1.SGM
22SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58842-58843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24363]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-73,857]
The Marlin Firearms Company, Inc., a Subsidiary of Remington Arms
Company Including On-Site Leased Workers From Randstat, Reitman, and
Hamilton Connections, North Haven, Connecticut; Notice of Revised
Determination on Remand
On June 8, 2011, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT)
granted the U.S. Department of Labor's (Department's) motion for
voluntary remand for further investigation in Former Employees of
Marlin Firearms Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Remington Arms Company,
North Haven, Connecticut v. United States, Case No. 11-00060.
On April 6, 2010, a state workforce official filed a petition for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on behalf of workers of Marlin
Firearms Company, Inc. (``Marlin''), a subsidiary of Remington Arms
Company, North Haven, Connecticut (hereafter referred to as the subject
firm). The subject worker group includes on-site leased workers from
Randstat, Reitman, and Hamilton Connections. (AR 394)
The subject worker group was engaged in activities related to the
production of lever-action and bolt-action sporting rifles. (AR 376)
The Department considered the following articles to be like or directly
competitive with lever-action and bolt-action sporting rifles: ``over
and under'', ``semi-auto'', ``over and under shotgun/rifle combo'',
``side by side'', ``semi-auto''. (AR 805)
During the initial investigation, it was revealed that a
significant number or proportion of workers at the subject firm were
totally or partially separated from employment or were threatened to
become totally or partially separated during the relevant period. (AR
14-15)
However, during the initial investigation, it was determined that
imports of articles like or directly competitive with the articles
produced by the subject firm have not increased and that there has not
been a shift in production to a foreign country by the workers' firm,
of like or directly competitive articles. (AR 10-84, 1322-1348)
During the initial investigation, the Department also conducted a
customer survey; however, the survey revealed that during the relevant
period, customers did not increase reliance on imports of articles like
or directly competitive with those produced by the subject worker
group. (AR 270-283, 1322-1348)
The initial investigation also revealed that the subject worker
group did not produce component parts or supply a service directly to a
firm with a TAA-certified worker group. Further, the initial
investigation revealed that the subject firm has not been identified in
an affirmative finding of injury by the International Trade Commission.
(AR 14-15)
A negative determination regarding the subject worker group's
eligibility to apply for TAA was issued on December 17, 2010. The
Department's Notice of Determination was published in the Federal
Register on January 14, 2011 (76 FR 2716). (AR 293-306, 312)
Administrative reconsideration of the Departments' negative
determination was not requested.
In the Complaint to the USCIT, dated March 15, 2011, the
Plaintiff's Counsel claimed that the Plaintiff's separation occurred
because Marlin experienced import competition due to increasing
importation of sporting rifles. The Plaintiff's Counsel also claimed
that the Department should take into account information related to the
application of Marlin for the TAA for Firms program. The Plaintiff's
Counsel also claimed that the Department should take into consideration
information related to the certification of Marlin's subsidiary,
Harrington & Richardson 1871 (TA-W-63,361).
The USCIT'S order granting voluntary remand, dated June 8, 2011,
directed the Department to (1) Conduct additional surveys of the
subject firm's customers; (2) contact Plaintiff to solicit information
relevant to his petition and review any submitted material; (3) request
from the subject firm names and contact information for other separated
workers and solicit from those workers information relevant to
Plaintiff's complaint; (4) request from the subject firm any
submissions to the U.S. Department of Commerce in connection with
Marlin's certification under the TAA for Firms program and consider the
contents of those submissions; (5) request from the U.S. Department of
Commerce any documents related to Marlin's certification under the TAA
for Firms program and consider the contents of those documents; and (6)
consider the facts related to the certification of Harrington &
Richardson 1871 (TA-W-63,361).
During the remand investigation, the Department: (1) Conducted an
expanded customer survey; (2) contacted the Plaintiff to solicit
information relevant to his petition and reviewed the submitted
materials; (3) requested and received from the subject firm names and
contact information for other separated workers and solicited from
those workers information relevant to the Plaintiff's complaint; (4)
requested and received from Marlin any submissions to the U.S.
Department of Commerce in connection to Marlin's TAA for Firms petition
and considered the contents of those documents; (5) requested from the
U.S. Department of Commerce any documents related to Marlin's TAA for
Firms petition and considered the contents of those documents; and (6)
considered the facts related to the certification of TA-W-63,361. The
Department also conducted industry analysis related to the articles
produced by the subject firm, lever-action and bolt-action sporting
rifles. (AR 1322-1348)
The Department fully reviewed all material received during the
remand investigation, and considered the contents of each document and
statement as they apply to the TAA for workers program in accordance
with the statute, regulations, and other authority. (AR 1322-1348)
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a Firm under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), are satisfied if the
following criteria are met:
(1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated; and
(2)(A)(i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have
decreased absolutely; and
[[Page 58843]]
(ii)(I) Imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm
have increased; and
(iii) The increase in imports described in clause (ii)
contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of
separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such
firm.
In the case at hand, the relevant time periods are April 1, 2009
through April 1, 2010, and the articles at issue are those that are
like or directly competitive with the lever-action and bolt-action
sporting rifles.
Based on the information collected during the remand investigation,
the Department determined that imports of articles like or directly
competitive with the lever-action and bolt-action sporting rifles
produced by the subject firm increased during the relevant period and
contributed importantly to worker separations or threat of separation,
and to the decline in production at the subject firm. (AR 14, 15, 389,
531)
Criterion I has been met because a significant number or proportion
of workers at the subject firm were totally or partially separated
during the relevant period. (AR 14 and 15)
Criterion II has been met because production of lever-action and
bolt-action sporting rifles at the subject firm decreased absolutely
during the relevant period. (AR 531, 1322-1348)
Criterion III has been met because imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the lever-action and bolt-action sporting
rifles produced by the subject firm increased during the relevant
period and contributed importantly to worker separations, or threat of
separations, and to the decline in the production at the subject
facility. (AR 14, 15, 389, 531)
Conclusion
After careful review of the complete administrative record,
including the additional facts obtained on remand investigation, I
determine that workers and former workers of Marlin Firearms Company,
Inc., a subsidiary of Remington Arms Company, including on-site leased
workers from Randstat, Reitman, and Hamilton Connections, North Haven,
Connecticut, who are engaged in employment related to the production of
lever-action and bolt- action sporting rifles, meet the worker group
certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(a).
In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, I make
the following certification:
All workers of Marlin Firearms Company, Inc., a subsidiary of
Remington Arms Company, including on-site leased workers from
Randstat, Reitman, and Hamilton Connections, North Haven,
Connecticut, who became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after April 1, 2009, through two years from the
date of certification, and all workers in the group threatened with
total or partial separation from employment on the date of
certification through two years from the date of certification, are
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of September, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-24363 Filed 9-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
