Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices 14103 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration, Office of 

Unemployment Insurance, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Frances 

Perkins Bldg. Room S–4231, 

Washington, DC 20210, telephone 

number (202) 693–3008 (this is not a 

toll-free number) or by e-mail: 

gibbons.scott@dol.gov. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 9th day of 

March 2011. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6026 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Announcement Regarding New Mexico 

and Colorado Triggering ‘‘On’’ to Tier 

Four of Emergency Unemployment 

Compensation 2008 (EUC08) 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Announcement regarding 

New Mexico and Colorado triggering 

‘‘on’’ to Tier Four of Emergency 

Unemployment Compensation 2008 

(EUC08). 

Public law 111–312 extended 

provisions in Public Law 111–92 which 

amended prior laws to create a Third 

and Fourth Tier of benefits within the 

EUC08 program for qualified 

unemployed workers claiming benefits 

in high unemployment states. The 

Department of Labor produces a trigger 

notice indicating which states qualify 

for EUC08 benefits within Tiers Three 

and Four and provides the beginning 

and ending dates of payable periods for 

each qualifying state. The trigger notice 

covering state eligibility for the EUC08 

program can be found at: http://

ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/claims_

arch.asp. 

Based on data published January 25, 

2011, by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

the following trigger changes have 

occurred for New Mexico and Colorado 

in the EUC08 program: 

The three month average, seasonally 

adjusted total unemployment rates for 

New Mexico and Colorado met or 

exceeded the 8.5% threshold to trigger 

‘‘on’’ to Tier Four in the EUC08 program. 

The payable period in Tier Four for New 

Mexico and Colorado began February 

13, 2011. As a result, the maximum 

potential entitlement of 34 weeks will 

increase to a maximum potential 

entitlement of 47 weeks in the EUC08 

program. 

Information for Claimants 

The duration of benefits payable in 

the EUC program, and the terms and 

conditions under which they are 

payable, are governed by Public Laws 

110–252, 110–449, 111–5, 111–92, 111– 

118, 111–144, 111–157, 111–205 and 

111–312, and the operating instructions 

issued to the states by the U.S. 

Department of Labor. Persons who 

believe they may be entitled to 

additional benefits under the EUC08 

program, or who wish to inquire about 

their rights under the program, should 

contact their State Workforce Agency. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Employment and Training 

Administration, Office of 

Unemployment Insurance, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Frances 

Perkins Bldg. Room S–4231, 

Washington, DC 20210, telephone 

number (202) 693–3008 (this is not a 

toll-free number) or by e-mail: 

gibbons.scott@dol.gov. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 9th day of 

March 2011. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–6025 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FW–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–73,145] 

The Jewelry Stream; Los Angeles, CA, 

Notice of Negative Determination on 

Reconsideration 

On November 10, 2010, the 

Department of Labor (Department) 

issued an Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration for the workers and 

former workers of The Jewelry Stream, 

Los Angeles, California. On November 

23, 2010, the Department’s Notice of 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register (75 FR 71455). Workers 

of The Jewelry Stream are engaged in 

employment related to the production of 

jewelry. 

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 termination of investigation 

(issued on August 20, 2010) was based 

on information obtained during the 

initial investigation that the firm 

identified in the Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) petition (‘‘M & L 

Manufacturing, Inc./The Jewelry 

Stream, 2520 W. 6th Street, Los Angeles, 

California’’) is not one firm but are 

separate, unaffiliated companies. 

Therefore, the Department determined 

that the petition is invalid. 

In request for reconsideration, state 

workforce official stated that the 

individual on whose behalf the TAA 

petition was filed believed that the 

aforementioned companies are one firm. 

In support of the request for 

reconsideration, the state workforce 

official supplied new and additional 

information provided by the individual 

who sought assistance from the state 

workforce official (‘‘I started to work for 

M & L Manufacturing, Inc. on August of 

1990, but for some reason and without 

notification I started to receive my 

checks in 2005 under the name of The 

Jewelry Stream * * * I was under the 

impression that I had worked for the 

same company from 1990 to 2008.’’) 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department received 

information from the individual on 

whose behalf the TAA petition was filed 

regarding his former employer. The 

individual states that he was not 

separated from M & L Manufacturing, 

Inc., but separated from The Jewelry 

Stream on December 18, 2008. 

Therefore, the Department determines 

that the subject worker group consists of 

workers and former workers of The 

Jewelry Stream, Los Angeles, California. 

Workers of a firm may be eligible to 

apply for worker adjustment assistance 

if they satisfy the criteria of subsection 

(a), (c) or (f) of Section 222 of the Act, 

19 U.S.C. 2272(a), (c), (f). For the 

Department of Labor to issue a 

certification for workers under Section 

222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), the 

following three criteria must be met: 

I. 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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
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). 

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 

(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 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES