Aleris Recycling Bens Run, LLC, a Subsidiary of Aleris Corporation, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Winans Extras Support Staffing and CDI Corporation, Friendly, West Virginia; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 61385-61386 [2013-24188]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Notices
(1) Advanced Authentication (AA)
requirement exemption for indirect
access to Criminal Justice Information.
(2) Encryption Standards for Criminal
Justice Information at Rest.
(3) The Rap Back Focus Group
update.
The meeting will be open to the
public on a first-come, first-seated basis.
Any member of the public wishing to
file a written statement with the Council
or wishing to address this session of the
Council should notify the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Compact
Officer, Mr. Gary S. Barron at (304) 625–
2803, at least 24 hours prior to the start
of the session. The notification should
contain the individual’s name and
corporate designation, consumer
affiliation, or government designation,
along with a short statement describing
the topic to be addressed and the time
needed for the presentation. Individuals
will ordinarily be allowed up to 15
minutes to present a topic.
DATES: The Council will meet in open
session from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., on
November 6–7, 2013.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place
at the Wyndham Tampa Westshore, 700
North Westshore Boulevard, Tampa,
Florida, telephone (813) 289–8200.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Inquiries may be addressed to Mr. Gary
S. Barron, FBI Compact Officer, Module
D3, 1000 Custer Hollow Road,
Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306,
telephone (304) 625–2803, facsimile
(304) 625–2868.
Dated: September 25, 2013.
Gary S. Barron,
FBI Compact Officer, Criminal Justice
Information Services Division, Federal Bureau
of Investigation.
[FR Doc. 2013–24229 Filed 10–2–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[TA–W–82,388]
Aleris Recycling Bens Run, LLC, a
Subsidiary of Aleris Corporation,
Including On-Site Leased Workers
From Winans Extras Support Staffing
and CDI Corporation, Friendly, West
Virginia; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On May 8, 2013, the Department of
Labor (Department) issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of Aleris
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Oct 02, 2013
Jkt 232001
Recycling Bens Run, LLC, Friendly,
West Virginia (subject firm). The
Department’s Notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register
on May 24, 2013 (78 FR 31593). The
workers were engaged in employment
related to the production of pyramidand cone-shaped deoxidizers,
aluminum ingot in multiple alloys, and
recycled secondary ingot and sows.
Workers were not separately identifiable
by article produced. The worker group
included on-site leased workers from
Winans Extras Support Staffing and CDI
Corporation. The subject firm shut
down in March 2013.
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 investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
Department’s findings that worker
separations were not attributable to
increased imports of pyramid- and coneshaped deoxidizers, aluminum ingot in
multiple alloys, and recycled secondary
ingot and sows (or articles like or
directly competitive), by the subject
firm or its declining customers, or a
shift/acquisition of the production of
pyramid- and cone-shaped deoxidizers,
aluminum ingot in multiple alloys, and
recycled secondary ingot and sows (or
articles like or directly competitive) to/
from a foreign country by the workers’
firm during the time period under
investigation (2011 and 2012).
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner alleged that workers at the
subject firm were impacted by foreign
competition and that the initial negative
determination was erroneous because
the Department did not understand the
articles produced by the subject firm
and their use by the subject firm’s
customers.
Further, during the course of the
reconsideration investigation, the
petitioner provided additional
information in which he alleged that the
subject firm was a supplier to customers
whose workers were eligible to apply for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).
Therefore, the petitioner alleged that
workers of the subject firm are eligible
to apply for TAA as secondarily-affected
workers.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61385
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department reviewed
and confirmed information obtained
during the initial investigation, sought
clarification of previously-submitted
information, and collected additional
information from the subject firm and
one of its major customers.
The reconsideration investigation
findings confirmed that the subject firm
did not import articles like or directly
competitive with pyramid- and coneshaped deoxidizers, aluminum ingot in
multiple alloys, and recycled secondary
ingot and sows in the period under
investigation. Additionally, the findings
confirmed that the subject firm did not
shift the production of pyramid- and
cone-shaped deoxidizers, aluminum
ingot in multiple alloys, and recycled
secondary ingot and sows (or like or
directly competitive articles) to a foreign
country or acquire the production of
these article, or any like or directly
competitive articles, from a foreign
country during the period under
investigation.
During the initial investigation, the
Department conducted a customer
survey of the major customers of the
subject firm, which captured the
majority of the subject firm’s sales
during the relevant time period. The
surveyed customers reported no imports
of articles like or directly competitive
with those produced by the workers at
the subject firm. Because the survey
captured the majority of the subject
firm’s customer volume, no additional
customer survey was conducted during
the reconsideration investigation.
During the reconsideration
investigation, however, the Department
contacted one of the surveyed customers
to confirm information provided by this
customer during the initial
investigation.
The group eligibility requirements for
workers of a firm under Section 222(b)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(b), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are 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
E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM
03OCN1
61386
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Notices
least 20 percent of the production or sales of
the workers’ firm;
or
(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.
Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(c), defines the term ‘‘Supplier’’ as
‘‘a firm that produces and supplies
directly to another firm component
parts for articles, or services used in the
production of articles or in the supply
of services, as the case may be, that were
the basis for a certification of eligibility
under subsection (a) [of Section 222 of
the Act] of a group of workers employed
by such other firm.’’
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of
the Act, the reconsideration
investigation revealed that the subject
firm is not a Supplier 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).
After careful review of the request for
reconsideration, previously-submitted
information, and information obtained
during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department
determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not
been met.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that
the requirements of Section 222 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272, have not been met
and, therefore, deny the petition for
group eligibility of Aleris Recycling
Bens Run, LLC, a subsidiary of Aleris
Corporation, Friendly, West Virginia, to
apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act,
19 U.S.C. 2273.
Signed in Washington, DC on this 6th day
of September, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013–24188 Filed 10–2–13; 8:45 am]
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:29 Oct 02, 2013
Jkt 232001
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–82,287; TA–W–82,287A]
Hewlett Packard Company, AMS Call
Center-Conway, CSS–Americas
Support (AMSS) Division, Personal
Systems Business Unit, Conway,
Arkansas; Hewlett Packard Company,
TS AMS GD FS Central on Site,
Enterprise Services Organization
Business Unit, Bentonville, Arkansas;
Notice of Revised Determination on
Reconsideration
In accordance with Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended (‘‘Act’’),
19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor
(Department) herein presents the results
of an investigation regarding
certification of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for
worker adjustment assistance if they
satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (b)
or (e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19
U.S.C. 2272(a), (b) and (e). For the
Department to issue a certification for
workers under Section 222(a) of the Act,
19 U.S.C. 2272(a), the following criteria
must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section
222(a)(1) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1))
requires that a significant number or
proportion of the workers in the workers’
firm must have become totally or partially
separated or be threatened with total or
partial separation.
(2) 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.
(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.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(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
(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; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the
acquisition of articles or services described in
clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such
workers’ separation or threat of separation.
For the Department to issue a
secondary worker certification under
Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(b), 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
(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.
Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(c), defines the terms ‘‘Supplier’’
and ‘‘Downstream Producer.’’
Workers of a firm may also be
considered eligible if they are publicly
identified by name by the International
Trade Commission (ITC) as a member of
a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in a category of determination
that is listed in Section 222(e) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for
workers of a firm under Section 222(e)
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(e), 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));
E:\FR\FM\03OCN1.SGM
03OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61385-61386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24188]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-82,388]
Aleris Recycling Bens Run, LLC, a Subsidiary of Aleris
Corporation, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Winans Extras
Support Staffing and CDI Corporation, Friendly, West Virginia; Notice
of Negative Determination on Reconsideration
On May 8, 2013, the Department of Labor (Department) issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for
the workers and former workers of Aleris Recycling Bens Run, LLC,
Friendly, West Virginia (subject firm). The Department's Notice of
determination was published in the Federal Register on May 24, 2013 (78
FR 31593). The workers were engaged in employment related to the
production of pyramid- and cone-shaped deoxidizers, aluminum ingot in
multiple alloys, and recycled secondary ingot and sows. Workers were
not separately identifiable by article produced. The worker group
included on-site leased workers from Winans Extras Support Staffing and
CDI Corporation. The subject firm shut down in March 2013.
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 investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the Department's findings that worker separations were not
attributable to increased imports of pyramid- and cone-shaped
deoxidizers, aluminum ingot in multiple alloys, and recycled secondary
ingot and sows (or articles like or directly competitive), by the
subject firm or its declining customers, or a shift/acquisition of the
production of pyramid- and cone-shaped deoxidizers, aluminum ingot in
multiple alloys, and recycled secondary ingot and sows (or articles
like or directly competitive) to/from a foreign country by the workers'
firm during the time period under investigation (2011 and 2012).
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that
workers at the subject firm were impacted by foreign competition and
that the initial negative determination was erroneous because the
Department did not understand the articles produced by the subject firm
and their use by the subject firm's customers.
Further, during the course of the reconsideration investigation,
the petitioner provided additional information in which he alleged that
the subject firm was a supplier to customers whose workers were
eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). Therefore, the
petitioner alleged that workers of the subject firm are eligible to
apply for TAA as secondarily-affected workers.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department reviewed
and confirmed information obtained during the initial investigation,
sought clarification of previously-submitted information, and collected
additional information from the subject firm and one of its major
customers.
The reconsideration investigation findings confirmed that the
subject firm did not import articles like or directly competitive with
pyramid- and cone-shaped deoxidizers, aluminum ingot in multiple
alloys, and recycled secondary ingot and sows in the period under
investigation. Additionally, the findings confirmed that the subject
firm did not shift the production of pyramid- and cone-shaped
deoxidizers, aluminum ingot in multiple alloys, and recycled secondary
ingot and sows (or like or directly competitive articles) to a foreign
country or acquire the production of these article, or any like or
directly competitive articles, from a foreign country during the period
under investigation.
During the initial investigation, the Department conducted a
customer survey of the major customers of the subject firm, which
captured the majority of the subject firm's sales during the relevant
time period. The surveyed customers reported no imports of articles
like or directly competitive with those produced by the workers at the
subject firm. Because the survey captured the majority of the subject
firm's customer volume, no additional customer survey was conducted
during the reconsideration investigation. During the reconsideration
investigation, however, the Department contacted one of the surveyed
customers to confirm information provided by this customer during the
initial investigation.
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(b), can be satisfied if the
following criteria are 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. Sec.
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
[[Page 61386]]
least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm;
or
(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.
Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(c), defines the term
``Supplier'' as ``a firm that produces and supplies directly to another
firm component parts for articles, or services used in the production
of articles or in the supply of services, as the case may be, that were
the basis for a certification of eligibility under subsection (a) [of
Section 222 of the Act] of a group of workers employed by such other
firm.''
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the reconsideration
investigation revealed that the subject firm is not a Supplier 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).
After careful review of the request for reconsideration,
previously-submitted information, and information obtained during the
reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that 29 CFR
90.18(c) has not been met.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that the requirements of Section
222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272, have not been met and, therefore, deny
the petition for group eligibility of Aleris Recycling Bens Run, LLC, a
subsidiary of Aleris Corporation, Friendly, West Virginia, to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19
U.S.C. 2273.
Signed in Washington, DC on this 6th day of September, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013-24188 Filed 10-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
