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

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 

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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES