Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices 15163 

11 U.S.C. Dollar amount 

to be adjusted 

New 

(adjusted) dollar amount 

(4)—in paragraph (2)(B)(iv)(I) ........................................................................................................................... 6,000 6,575 

(5)—in paragraph (2)(B)(iv)(II) .......................................................................................................................... 10,000 10,950 

(6)—in paragraph (5)(B) ................................................................................................................................... 1,000 1,100 

(7)—in paragraph 6(C) ..................................................................................................................................... 525 575 

(8)—in paragraph 7(A)(iii) ................................................................................................................................. 525 575 

Official Bankruptcy Forms 1, 6C, 6E, 

7, 10, 22A, and 22C also will be 

amended to reflect these adjusted dollar 

amounts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Francis F. Szczebak, Chief, Bankruptcy 

Judges Division, Administrative Office 

of the United States Courts, Washington, 

DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1900. 

Dated: March 26, 2007. 

Francis F. Szczebak, 

Chief, Bankruptcy Judges Division. 

[FR Doc. E7–5922 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 2210–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–61,123] 

A.O. Smith Electrical Products 

Company, Mcminnville, TN; Notice of 

Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on March 16, 

2007 in response to a petition filed by 

a company official on behalf of workers 

of A.O. Smith Electrical Products 

Company, McMinnville, Tennessee. 

This petition is a duplicate of an 

earlier petition (TA–W–61,080) filed on 

March 8, 2007, that is the subject of an 

ongoing investigation for which a 

determination has not yet been issued. 

Further investigation in this case would 

serve no purpose. Therefore, the 

investigation under this petition has 

been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of 

March, 2007. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7–5851 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–58,958] 

Alcan Global Pharmaceutical 

Packaging, Inc.; Plastics American 

Division; Centralia, IL; Notice of 

Negative Determination on Remand 

On December 18, 2006, the U.S. Court 

of International Trade (USCIT) granted 

the Department of Labor’s motion for a 

voluntary remand in Former Employees 

of Alcan Global Pharmaceuticals 

Packaging, Inc. v. U.S Secretary of 

Labor, Court No. 06–00180. SAR 47. 

Case History 

On March 2, 2006, the Glass, Molders, 

Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers 

International Union, Local 267, (Union) 

filed a petition for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) with the 

U.S. Department of Labor (Department) 

on behalf of workers and former workers 

of Alcan Global Pharmaceutical 

Packaging, Inc., Plastics Americas 

Division, Centralia, Illinois (subject 

firm). AR 2–18. 

Alcan, Inc. (Alcan) is a Canadian 

company and the subject firm is part of 

Alcan’s North American pharmaceutical 

packaging network (‘‘Plastics Americas 

Division’’). The closure of the subject 

firm was announced on November 30, 

2005. AR 72. 

The initial investigation revealed that 

the subject firm produced plastic 

bottles; sales and production increased 

in 2005 from 2004 levels; the subject 

firm shut down on June 30, 2006; the 

subject firm did not import plastic 

bottles in 2004, 2005, or during January 

through February 2006; and subject firm 

production shifted to other domestic 

Alcan facilities. AR 21, 26, 37–40, 43, 

69–71. 

Because subject firm sales and 

production did not decline in 2005 from 

2004 levels, the Department did not 

consider it to be a declining company. 

However, because the subject firm 

closed, the Department conducted a 

survey of the subject firm’s major 

declining customers. The survey 

revealed no increased import purchases 

of plastic bottles during the relevant 

period. AR 65, 67, 68. 

The negative determination, issued 

April 11, 2006, stated that the subject 

firm did not shift production abroad and 

that neither the subject firm nor its 

major declining customers imported 

plastic bottles during the relevant 

period. AR 77–80. The Department’s 

notice of determination was published 

in the Federal Register on April 24, 

2006 (71 FR 21044–5). AR 85–87. 

In its request for administrative 

reconsideration, the Union alleging that 

‘‘the company is sending their mold 

equipment to Puerto Rico * * * has 

reported losses * * * likely as a result 

of competing manufacturers from 

overseas.’’ AR 88. 

The Department’s May 12, 2006 letter 

informed the Union that the request for 

reconsideration was being dismissed 

because no evidence was presented that 

the Department erred in its 

interpretation of facts or of the law. The 

dismissal letter also stated that because 

Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory, a shift 

of production to Puerto Rico is not 

considered to be a shift of production 

abroad, for purposes of the Trade Act of 

1974. AR 90–91. 

The Dismissal of Application for 

Reconsideration applicable to the 

subject firm was issued on May 15, 

2006, AR 92, and published in the 

Federal Register on May 24, 2006 (71 

FR 29981). AR 94. Subsequent to the 

dismissal of the request for 

reconsideration, SAR 46, the 

Department received additional 

information from the Union. SAR 2–45. 

In a letter dated May 30, 2006, the 

Union appealed the Department’s action 

to the USCIT. Plaintiff alleged that 

‘‘[t]here is word that the company is 

sending their mold equipment to Puerto 

Rico * * * Also, the company has 

reported losses for years from the 

Centralia facility, likely as a result of 

competing manufacturers from 

overseas.’’ SAR 1. 

In order to consider the additional 

information and make a redetermination 

regarding Plaintiff’s eligibility to apply 

for worker adjustment assistance, the 

Department sought, and was granted, a 

voluntary remand. SAR 47. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
15164 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices 

Remand Investigation 

The group eligibility requirements for 

directly-impacted (primary) workers 

under Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 

1974, as amended, can be satisfied in 

either one of two ways: 

(A)(1) 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; and (2) the sales or 

production, or both, of such firm or 

subdivision have decreased absolutely; 

and (3) 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 

(B)(1) 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, and (2) 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. 

Further, 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, or 

2. the country to which the workers’

firm has shifted production of the 

articles is 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. 

Because the subject firm shut down, 

AR 21, the Department determines that 

a significant number or proportion of 

workers at the subject firm have become 

totally separated and that the sales or 

production of the subject firm decreased 

absolutely. 

In order for criterion (A)(3) to be 

satisfied, it must be shown that 

increased imports of plastic bottles 

during the relevant period ‘‘contributed 

importantly’’ to the workers’’

separations and subject firm sales and/ 

or production declines. 

Per 29 CFR 90.2, ‘‘increased imports’’

means that imports have increased, 

absolutely or relative to domestic 

production, compared to a 

representative base period. The 

regulation also establishes the 

representative base period as the oneyear period proceeding the relevant 

period (the twelve-month period prior 

to the date of the petition). 

Because subject firm sales and 

production increased in 2005 from 2004 

levels, there were no apparent sales 

and/or production declines during the 

relevant period. Rather, subject firm’s 

sales and production declines occurred 

after the relevant period. Therefore, 

there were no sales or production 

declines at the subject firm to which 

increased imports could have 

contributed importantly. 

Assuming, however, that there were 

subject firm sales and/or production 

declines during the relevant period, the 

Department conducted a survey of the 

subject firm’s major declining customers 

regarding their import purchases of 

plastic bottles. SAR 50–51, 189–199, 

207–221, 226–227. None of the 

respondents reported increased imports, 

either direct or indirect, of plastic 

bottles or articles like or directly 

competitive with plastic bottles during 

the relevant period. SAR 49–50, 207, 

215–216, 219–220, 226–227, 233. 

Further, the subject firm did not have 

any imports of plastic bottles during the 

relevant period. AR 43. 

During the remand investigation, 

Alcan explained that the subject firm’s 

sudden closure (sales and production 

increased in 2005 from 2004 levels and 

the plant closure was announced in 

November 2005, AR 72) was the result 

of the loss of two major contracts. SAR 

49, 71–72, 74–75. When the Department 

contacted the two ‘‘lost’’ customers, the 

Department was informed by both 

customers that the contracts were not 

‘‘lost’’ because of any import factors and 

that the contracts were awarded to other 

domestic vendors. SAR 52, 216, 226–

227. 

Given the above-stated reasons, the 

Department determines that TAA 

criterion (A)(3) has not been met. 

The Department affirms that a shift of 

production to Puerto Rico is not 

considered a shift of production abroad, 

for purposes of the Trade Act, because 

it is a U.S. Territory. Therefore, a shift 

of production to Puerto Rico cannot be 

a basis for satisfaction of TAA criterion 

(B)(2). 

In response to Plaintiff’s allegation 

that subject firm production shifted 

abroad, the Department requested that 

Alcan identify those domestic facilities 

to which subject firm production shifted 

and explain the documents which 

indicate that machines were shipped to 

Brazil and Australia. SAR 49, 52–71. 

Alcan stated that subject firm 

production was either discontinued or 

shifted to Alcan production facilities in 

Des Plaines, Illinois or Youngsville, 

North Carolina, SAR 73, 228. Alcan also 

stated that the machines identified by 

Plaintiff were surplus equipment, SAR 

49, 71; that the surplus equipment sent 

to Alcan’s Brazilian facility was used to 

produce articles for the Brazilian 

market, SAR 49, 71; and that the surplus 

equipment sent to Australia was sold to 

third-party vendors only. SAR 71. 

Given the above-stated reasons, the 

Department determines that TAA 

criterion (B)(2) has not been met. 

In addition, in accordance with 

Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as 

amended, the Department herein 

presents the results of its investigation 

regarding certification of eligibility to 

apply for ATAA. 

In order to apply the Department to 

issue a certification of eligibility to 

apply for ATAA, the subject worker 

group must be certified eligible to apply 

for TAA. Since the workers are denied 

eligibility to apply for TAA, they cannot 

be certified eligible to apply for ATAA. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the findings of 

the remand investigation, I affirm the 

notice of negative determination of 

eligibility to apply for worker 

adjustment assistance for workers and 

former workers of Alcan Global 

Pharmaceutical Packaging, Inc., Plastics 

Americas Division, Centralia, Illinois. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 19th day of 

March 2007. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7–5843 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Investigations Regarding Certifications 

of Eligibility To Apply for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Petitions have been filed with the 

Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) 

of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and 

are identified in the Appendix to this 

notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, 

the Director of the Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance, Employment 

and Training Administration, has 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES