Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices 1769 

APPENDIX—21 TAA—Continued 

[Petitions instituted between 12/26/06 and 12/29/06] 

TA–W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution 

Date of petition 

60674 ................. UNITE, New York Joint Board (UNITE) ................................................. Union City, NJ ... 12/28/06 12/12/06 

60675 ................. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation (Comp) ................................................. Port Allegany, 

PA.

12/28/06 12/21/06 

60676 ................. Staver Foundry, Inc. (State) ................................................................... Virginia, MN ....... 12/28/06 12/27/06 

60677 ................. Win Depot, LLC (Wkrs) .......................................................................... Long Island City, 

NY.

12/28/06 12/27/06 

60678 ................. Keystone Powdered Metal (Comp) ........................................................ St. Marys, PA .... 12/28/06 12/28/06 

60679 ................. Greenwood Mills, Inc. (Comp) ................................................................ Greenwood, SC 12/29/06 12/19/06 

60680 ................. Cecilware Corporation (Comp) ............................................................... Astoria, NY ........ 12/29/06 12/18/06 

60681 ................. Boeing Company (The) (TN/TA) ............................................................ Oak Ridge, TN ... 12/29/06 12/06/06 

60682 ................. Meridian Automotive Systems (Wkrs) .................................................... Kentwood, MI ..... 12/29/06 12/21/06 

60683 ................. Chesmore Seed Company (Wkrs) ......................................................... St. Joseph, MO .. 12/29/06 12/28/06 

60684 ................. Mohican Mills, Inc. (Comp) ..................................................................... Lincolnton, NC ... 12/29/06 12/05/06 

60685 ................. ACE Style Intimate Apparel, Inc. (Wkrs) ................................................ New York, NY .... 12/29/06 12/23/06 

60686 ................. Simonds Industries, Inc. (USWA) ........................................................... Newcomerstown, 

OH.

12/29/06 12/28/06 

60687 ................. Wheatland Tube Co. (USWA) ................................................................ Sharon, PA ........ 12/29/06 12/11/06 

[FR Doc. E7–467 Filed 1–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Notice of Determinations Regarding 

Eligibility To Apply for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

In accordance with Section 223 of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 

U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor 

herein presents summaries of 

determinations regarding eligibility to 

apply for trade adjustment assistance for 

workers (TA–W) number and alternative 

trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by 

(TA–W) number issued during the 

period of December 18 through 

December 29, 2006. 

In order for an affirmative 

determination to be made for workers of 

a primary firm and a certification issued 

regarding eligibility to apply for worker 

adjustment assistance, each of the group 

eligibility requirements of Section 

222(a) of the Act must be met. 

I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following 

must be satisfied: 

A. A significant number or proportion 

of the workers in such workers’ firm, or 

an appropriate subdivision of the firm, 

have become totally or partially 

separated, or are threatened to become 

totally or partially separated; 

B. The sales or production, or both, of 

such firm or subdivision have decreased 

absolutely; and 

C. Increased imports of articles like or 

directly competitive with articles 

produced by such firm or subdivision 

have contributed importantly to such 

workers’ separation or threat of 

separation and to the decline in sales or 

production of such firm or subdivision; 

or 

II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the 

following must be satisfied: 

A. A significant number or proportion 

of the workers in such workers’ firm, or 

an appropriate subdivision of the firm, 

have become totally or partially 

separated, or are threatened to become 

totally or partially separated; 

B. There has been a shift in 

production by such workers’ firm or 

subdivision to a foreign country of 

articles like or directly competitive with 

articles which are produced by such 

firm or subdivision; and 

C. One of the following must be 

satisfied: 

1. The country to which the workers’

firm has shifted production of the 

articles is a party to a free trade 

agreement with the United States; 

2. The country to which the workers’

firm has shifted production of the 

articles to a beneficiary country under 

the Andean Trade Preference Act, 

African Growth and Opportunity Act, or 

the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 

Act; or 

3. There has been or is likely to be an 

increase in imports of articles that are 

like or directly competitive with articles 

which are or were produced by such 

firm or subdivision. 

Also, in order for an affirmative 

determination to be made for 

secondarily affected workers of a firm 

and a certification issued regarding 

eligibility to apply for worker 

adjustment assistance, each of the group 

eligibility requirements of Section 

222(b) of the Act must be met. 

(1) 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 (or subdivision) 

is a supplier or downstream producer to 

a firm (or subdivision) that employed a 

group of workers who received a 

certification of eligibility to apply for 

trade adjustment assistance benefits and 

such supply or production is related to 

the article that was the basis for such 

certification; and 

(3) Either—

(A) The workers’ firm is a supplier 

and the component parts it supplied for 

the firm (or subdivision) described in 

paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 

percent of the production or sales of the 

workers’ firm; or 

(B) A loss or business by the workers’

firm with the firm (or subdivision) 

described in paragraph (2) contributed 

importantly to the workers’ separation 

or threat of separation. 

In order for the Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance to issue a 

certification of eligibility to apply for 

Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, 

the group eligibility requirements of 

Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act 

must be met. 

1. Whether a significant number of 

workers in the workers’ firm are 50 

years of age or older. 

2. Whether the workers in the 

workers’ firm possess skills that are not 

easily transferable. 

3. The competitive conditions within 

the workers’ industry (i.e., conditions 

within the industry are adverse). 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
1770 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices 

Affirmative Determinations for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance 

The following certifications have been 

issued. The date following the company 

name and location of each 

determination references the impact 

date for all workers of such 

determination. 

The following certifications have been 

issued. The requirements of Section 

222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the 

Trade Act have been met. 

TA–W–60,531; Intelliden, Inc., Colorado 

Springs, CO: November 29, 2005. 

TA–W–60,560; Electronic Data Systems, 

EDS-Xerox Account, Rochester, NY: 

November 21, 2005. 

TA–W–60,371; Grupo Antolin North 

America, CAD Department, Auburn 

Hills, MI: November 6, 2005. 

The following certifications have been 

issued. The requirements of Section 

222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of the 

Trade Act have been met. 

None. 

The following certifications have been 

issued. The requirements of Section 

222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers 

are certified eligible to apply for TAA) 

of the Trade Act have been met. 

TA–W–60,302; BMC Software, Inc., 

Waltham, MA: October 25, 2005. 

TA–W–60,575; Storeroom Solutions, 

Inc., Working Onsite at Tower 

Automotive, Inc., Granite City, IL: 

December 11, 2005. 

The following certifications have been 

issued. The requirements of Section 

222(b) (downstream producer for a firm 

whose workers are certified eligible to 

apply for TAA based on increased 

imports from or a shift in production to 

Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act 

have been met. 

None. 

Affirmative Determinations for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

The following certifications have been 

issued. The date following the company 

name and location of each 

determination references the impact 

date for all workers of such 

determination. 

The following certifications have been 

issued. The requirements of Section 

222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and 

Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act 

have been met. 

TA–W–60,126; Michelin North America, 

BF Goodrich Tire Manufacturing, 

Opelika, AL: September 20, 2005. 

TA–W–60,256; Eaton Corporation, 

Clutch Division, Auburn, IN: 

December 17, 2006. 

TA–W–60,438; Graphic Electronics, Inc., 

Tulsa, OK: November 14, 2005. 

TA–W–60,515; Maytag Corporation, A 

Wholly Owned Subsidiary of 

Whirlpool Corporation, Newton, IA: 

December 24, 2006. 

TA–W–60,527; Danley IEM, LLC, 

Cleveland, OH: November 13, 2005. 

TA–W–60,570; Sanyo Manufacturing 

Corporation, A Subsidiary of Sanyo 

Electric, Forrest City, AR: December 

8, 2005. 

TA–W–60,446; Vollrath Company LLC 

(The), Oconomowoc, WI: November 

9, 2005. 

TA–W–60,474; General Chemical 

Performance Products, Newark, NJ: 

November 22, 2005. 

TA–W–60,475; Deco Engineering, Inc., A 

Subsidiary of Newcor, Inc., Royal 

Oak, MI: November 22, 2005. 

TA–W–60,478; Ford Motor Company, St. 

Louis Assembly Plant, Vehicle 

Operations, Hazelwood, MO: 

November 21, 2005. 

The following certifications have been 

issued. The requirements of Section 

222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and 

Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act 

have been met. 

TA–W–60,387; Arimon Technologies, 

Inc., Manitowoc, WI: November 1, 

2005. 

TA–W–60,496; Hill Rom Company, Inc., 

Batesville Manufacturing 

Operation, Batesville, IN: November 

27, 2005. 

TA–W–60,502; Superior Industries 

International, Inc., Johnson City, 

TN: November 28, 2005. 

TA–W–60,541; Siemens VDO 

Automotive Corp., Elkhart, IN: 

December 4, 2005. 

TA–W–60,561; Aramark Uniform 

Services, Lawrenceville, GA: 

December 7, 2005. 

TA–W–60,584; Hart and Cooley, Inc., 

Holland, MI: December 11, 2005. 

TA–W–60,586; Dyno Nobel, Inc., Wolf 

Lake, IL: November 21, 2005. 

TA–W–60,629; General Electric Lighting, 

Inc., Austintown Products Plant, 

Youngstown, OH: December 12, 

2005. 

TA–W–60,411; Littelfuse, Inc., 

Electronic Testing and Packaging 

Department, Des Plaines, IL: 

November 9, 2005. 

TA–W–60,569; Metaldyne, Powertrain 

Products, Solon, OH: December 5, 

2005. 

TA–W–60,580; Lear Corporation, 

Electronic Switch Division, 

Zanesville, OH: November 30, 2005. 

TA–W–60,642; M.A. Moslow and 

Brothers, Inc., Buffalo, NY: July 30, 

2006. 

The following certifications have been 

issued. The requirements of Section 

222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers 

are certified eligible to apply for TAA) 

and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade 

Act have been met. 

TA–W–60,421; Fisher and Company, 

Inc., Corporate Offices, St. Clair 

Shores, MI: October 11, 2005. 

The following certifications have been 

issued. The requirements of Section 

222(b) (downstream producer for a firm 

whose workers are certified eligible to 

apply for TAA based on increased 

imports from or a shift in production to 

Mexico or Canada) and Section 

246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have 

been met. 

None. 

Negative Determinations for Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

In the following cases, it has been 

determined that the requirements of 

246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for 

the reasons specified. 

The Department has determined that 

criterion (1) of Section 246 has not been 

met. Workers at the firm are 50 years of 

age or older. 

TA–W–60,575; Storeroom Solutions, 

Inc., Working Onsite at Tower 

Automotive, Inc., Granite City, IL. 

TA–W–60,531; Intelliden, Inc., Colorado 

Springs, CO. 

TA–W–60,371; Grupo Antolin North 

America, CAD Department, Auburn 

Hills, MI. 

The Department has determined that 

criterion (2) of Section 246 has not been 

met. Workers at the firm possess skills 

that are easily transferable. 

TA–W–60,302; BMC Software, Inc., 

Waltham, MA. 

The Department has determined that 

criterion (3) of Section 246 has not been 

met. Competition conditions within the 

workers’ industry are not adverse. 

TA–W–60,560; Electronic Data Systems, 

EDS-Xerox Account, Rochester, NY. 

Negative Determinations for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

In the following cases, the 

investigation revealed that the eligibility 

criteria for worker adjustment assistance 

have not been met for the reasons 

specified. 

Because the workers of the firm are 

not eligible to apply for TAA, the 

workers cannot be certified eligible for 

ATAA. 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) 

(employment decline) have not been 

met. 

TA–W–60,436; Watts Regulator, 

Carolinas Division, Spindale, NC. 

TA–W–60,458; Wheeling Pittsburgh 

Steel Corp., Allenport, PA. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices 1771 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or 

production, or both, did not decline) 

and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production 

to a foreign country) have not been met. 

TA–W–60,542; GreatBatch Hittman, 

Inc., Columbia, MD. 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased 

imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in 

production to a foreign country) have 

not been met. 

TA–W–59,863; Delphi Corporation, 

Automotive Holdings Group, 

Moraine, OH. 

TA–W–60,399; Customized 

Manufacturing, Inc., McKenzie, TN. 

TA–W–60,454; Forest City Technologies, 

Wixom Division, Wixom, MI. 

TA–W–60,508; Enhanced Presentations, 

Inc., Wilmington, NC. 

TA–W–60,464; Key Technology, Inc., 

Medford Office Division, Medford, 

OR. 

TA–W–60,480; Emcor Facilities 

Services, Inc., On-Site Contracted 

Workers at Hewlett-Packard Co., 

Corvallis, OR. 

The investigation revealed that the 

predominate cause of worker 

separations is unrelated to criteria 

(a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and 

(a)(2)(B)(II.C) (shift in production to a 

foreign country under a free trade 

agreement or a beneficiary country 

under a preferential trade agreement, or 

there has been or is likely to be an 

increase in imports). 

None. 

The workers’ firm does not produce 

an article as required for certification 

under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 

1974. 

TA–W–60,507; Washington Mutual 

Bank, Florence, SC. 

TA–W–60,517; CDI Corporation, IT 

Solutions Division, Lexington, KY. 

TA–W–60,567; Accordis, Inc., Chicago 

Service Center, A Subsidiary of 

Zavata, Chicago, IL. 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been 

met. The workers’ firm (or subdivision) 

is not a supplier to or a downstream 

producer for a firm whose workers were 

certified eligible to apply for TAA. 

None. 

I hereby certify that the aforementioned 

determinations were issued during the period 

of December 18 through December 29, 2006. 

Copies of these determinations are available 

for inspection in Room C–5311, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during 

normal business hours or will be mailed to 

persons who write to the above address. 

Dated: January 8, 2007. 

Ralph DiBattista, 

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7–462 Filed 1–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–57,700] 

Joy Technologies, Inc.; DBA Joy 

Mining Machinery; MT. Vernon Plant, 

MT. Vernon, IL; Notice of Negative 

Determination on Remand 

On September 25, 2006, the U.S. 

Court of International Trade (USCIT) 

granted the U.S. Department of Labor’s 

motion for a voluntary remand in 

Former Employees of Joy Technologies, 

Inc. v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, Court No. 

06–00088. SAR 240. 

Case History 

On August 9, 2005, the International 

Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship 

Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and 

Helpers, Local 483, (‘‘Union’’) filed a 

petition for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on 

behalf of workers and former workers of 

Joy Technologies, Inc., DBA Joy Mining 

Machinery, Mt. Vernon Plant, Mt. 

Vernon, Illinois (the subject facility) 

producing underground mining 

machinery (the subject worker group). 

AR 2. 

The Department’s negative 

determination, issued on September 15, 

2005, was based on findings that sales 

and employment at the subject facility 

increased in 2004 from 2003 levels, that 

sales remained stable in January through 

July 2005 over the corresponding 2004 

period, and that employment increased 

during January through July 2005 over 

the corresponding 2004 period. The 

denial was also based on the findings of 

no shift of underground mining 

machinery production abroad and no 

increased imports of underground 

mining machinery during the relevant 

period. AR 130–135. The Notice of the 

Department’s determination was 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 31, 2005 (70 FR 62345). AR 142. 

On November 3, 2005, workers 

requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department of 

Labor’s Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Eligibility to 

Apply for Worker Adjustment 

Assistance, applicable to workers of the 

subject firm. In the request for 

reconsideration, the workers asserted 

that the Department’s interpretation of 

the reasons for the plant closure and the 

activities of the subject workers was 

erroneous. According to the workers, 

production and employment increased 

at the subject facility from 2003 to 2004 

due to a ‘‘Contract Agreement’’ between 

the subject firm and the Union and that 

‘‘the worker group at Joy, Mt. Vernon, IL 

has been an upstream supplier to the Joy 

Mining Machinery facility located in 

Franklin, PA. [p]roducing various 

components used in the final assembly 

of the firms products’’ and that in 

‘‘2004, the worker group * * * resumed 

being an upstream supplier of 

component parts * * * to be used in 

final production or to be sold as new 

replacement components to Joy Mining 

Machinery customers.’’ The workers 

allege that ‘‘[t]hese components are 

being produced in a foreign country 

(Mexico).’’ AR 145–147. 

In support of the allegation, the 

workers provided the Department with 

a copy of a November 17, 2005 

electronic message from a Joy official to 

the Union which confirmed that the Joy, 

Mt. Vernon, Illinois facility supplied 

components for Joy, Franklin, 

Pennsylvania, AR 159, and stated that 

‘‘three sets of track frames that were 

fabricated in Mexico were finished in 

the Mt. Vernon machine and weld 

shops.’’ AR 160. 

On November 16, 2005, the 

Department issued an Affirmative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration for the workers and 

former workers of the subject firm. The 

Notice of affirmative determination was 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 15, 2005 (70 FR 74373). 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Union informed the 

Department that it is not involved with 

the request for reconsideration and 

directed the Department to speak with 

the workers. AR 149. 

According to workers Jerome Tobin 

and John Moore, the subject facility is 

an upstream supplier to the Joy plant in 

Franklin, Pennsylvania; the Franklin, 

Pennsylvania facility outsourced 

production to Mexico; the component 

parts made at the subject facility were 

outsourced to Mexico, and the 

components were sent to Joy, Eagle 

Pass, Texas. Id. During a conference 

call, the workers also stated that they 

would file a new petition as 

secondarily-affected workers. Id. In a 

later conference call, Jerome Tobin, John 

Moore, and Steve Lisenbey, stated that 

Joy had outsourced production to 

Extreme Machine. Id. 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department found that 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES