Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 24613 

APPENDIX—Continued 

[TAA petitions instituted between 4/16/07 and 4/20/07] 

TA–W Subject Firm 

(petitioners) Location Date of institution 

Date of 

petition 

61345 ................ Acvato Services (Wkrs) ........................................................ Melbourne, FL ....................... 04/20/07 04/05/07 

61346 ................ Northland Tool Corp. (Comp) ............................................... Traverse City, MI .................. 04/20/07 04/17/07 

61347 ................ Wellman Inc. (Comp) ............................................................ Fort Mill, SC .......................... 04/20/07 04/11/07 

61348 ................ Nortech Systems (State) ...................................................... Bemidji, MN ........................... 04/20/07 04/19/07 

61349 ................ Revere Copper Products, Inc. (Comp) ................................. New Bedford, MA .................. 04/20/07 04/19/07 

[FR Doc. E7–8462 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–58,624] 

Fairchild Semiconductor International; 

Mountain Top, PA; Notice of Negative 

Determination on Remand 

On March 13, 2007, the United States 

Court of International Trade (USCIT) 

remanded to the Department of Labor 

for further investigation Former 

Employees of Fairchild Semiconductor 

Corp. v. United States Secretary of 

Labor (Court No. 06–00215). 

In the January 11, 2006 petition for 

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and 

Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (ATAA), the company 

official alleged that with regards to 

‘‘discrete semiconductor devices’’ 

produced at Fairchild Semiconductor 

International, Mountaintop, 

Pennsylvania (subject firm), production 

‘‘deteriorated because of a transfer of 

production’’ abroad and that its 

customers are ‘‘purchasing similar 

devices from other suppliers with 

locations in foreign countries such as 

Korea and China.’’ AR 3–4. 

The initial investigation revealed that 

semiconductor wafers were produced at 

the subject firm during the relevant 

period, AR 27–28, 30, 42, the subject 

firm shifted semiconductor wafer 

production to China, AR 27–28, and the 

subject firm did not import 

semiconductor wafers after the shift. AR 

7, 27, 59. 

The Department did not conduct a 

customer survey because the subject 

firm exported 100% of its 

semiconductor wafers. AR 46. Thus, 

since the subject firm had no domestic 

customer base, there could be no 

increased customer imports of 

semiconductor wafers that are like or 

directly competitive with those 

produced by the subject firm. 

On February 28, 2006, the Department 

issued a negative determination 

regarding workers’ eligibility to apply 

for TAA and ATAA for those workers of 

the subject firm. AR 41. The 

Department’s Notice of determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on March 24, 2006 (71 FR 14954). AR 

55. 

By application dated March 20, 2006, 

the petitioner requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

negative determination. The request for 

reconsideration stated that the subject 

firm produces ‘‘semiconductor wafer 

chips’’ and that semiconductor wafer 

chips are like or directly competitive 

with discrete semiconductor devices. 

AR 57. 

By letter dated April 26, 2006, the 

Department dismissed the petitioner’s 

request for reconsideration, stating that 

discrete semiconductor devices are not 

like or directly competitive with 

semiconductor wafer chips and that the 

subject firm was not directly impacted 

by increased imports of semiconductor 

wafers. AR 60. The Department’s 

Dismissal of the Application for 

Reconsideration for the subject firm was 

issued on May 1, 2006. AR 63. The 

Department’s Notice of dismissal was 

published in the Federal Register on 

May 10, 2006 (71 FR 27292). AR 64. 

In a letter filed with the USCIT on 

June 21, 2006, the Plaintiff sought 

judicial review. In the complaint, the 

Plaintiff made several allegations, 

including that: semiconductor wafer 

production shifted to Asia, imports of 

‘‘like products’’ have increased, the shift 

of semiconductor wafer production 

abroad was due to the need to be costcompetitive, and the workers should be 

certified for TAA like their predecessors 

(workers covered by TA–W–53,335 

certification issued December 2, 2003). 

On March 13, 2007, the USCIT 

directed the Department to explain why 

the Plaintiffs should be treated 

differently from their ‘‘similarly-situated 

predecessors’’ (semiconductor devices 

producers who were certified under TAW–53,335). The USCIT also directed the 

Department to determine whether the 

subject workers are eligible to apply for 

TAA and to support the determination. 

Worker Group Covered by TA–W– 

58,624 Are Different From Workers 

Covered by TA–W–53,335 

If the subject workers ‘‘comprised 100 

percent of the remaining subdivision of 

workers covered by defendant’s 

previous certification[s]’’ as alleged in 

the complaint, issuing a negative 

determination to them may seem 

unjustified. However, characterizing the 

subject workers as members of the 

worker group certified under TA–W– 

53,335 is not accurate because the 

subject workers at issue here produced 

a different article from the article 

produced by the previous TAA-certified 

workers. 

Based on the investigation here, the 

subject workers were semiconductor 

wafer producers during the relevant 

period of the investigation under TA– 

W–58,624. The accurate 

characterization of the subject workers 

is based on the article that the subject 

firm produced during the relevant 

period of January 2005 through 

December 2005—semiconductor wafers, 

not semiconductor devices. 

As stated in the previous TA–W– 

53,335 determination, the worker group 

covered by the certification consisted of 

workers engaged in the production of 

semiconductor devices because the 

workers were not separately identifiable 

by product line. While semiconductor 

wafers were also produced at the subject 

firm during the investigation period for 

TA–W–53,335, the workers producing 

the component part (semiconductor 

wafers) were not separately identifiable 

from those workers producing the 

finished article (semiconductor 

devices). As such, workers who may 

have been producing semiconductor 

wafers used in the firm’s production of 

semiconductor devices were treated 

along with the firm’s other workers as 

‘‘workers producing semiconductor 

devices.’’ 

When the subject firm ceased 

producing semiconductor devices 

during 2003, it became engaged in the 

production of another article— 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

24614 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 

semiconductor wafers, a component 

part of those semiconductor +devices. 

Once the distinction is made between 

the worker groups investigated in TA– 

W–53,335 and TA–W–58,624 (workers 

producing semiconductor devices 

versus workers producing 

semiconductor wafers), it is apparent 

that the determinations are not 

inconsistent and do not result in 

disparate treatment of the two worker 

groups. 

Whether Workers Are Eligible To 

Apply for TAA Under TA–W–58,624 

There are two ways for a worker 

group to be certified eligible to apply for 

TAA as workers of a primary firm under 

section 222(a) of the Act: 

I. A significant number or proportion 

of the workers in such workers’ firm (or 

appropriate subdivision of the firm) 

have become, or are threatened to 

become, totally or partially separated; 

sales or production, or both, of such 

firm or subdivision have decreased 

absolutely; and increases (absolute or 

relative) of imports of articles produced 

by such workers’ firm or an appropriate 

subdivision thereof contributed 

importantly to such total or partial 

separation, or threat thereof, and to such 

decline in sales or production; or 

II. A significant number or proportion 

of the workers in such workers’ firm (or 

appropriate subdivision of the firm) 

have become, or are threatened to 

become, totally or partially separated, 

and 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 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, is a 

beneficiary country under the Andean 

Trade Preference Act, African Growth 

and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean 

Basin Economic Recovery Act or 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. 

Under the definition codified at 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 

one-year period preceding the relevant 

period. The relevant period is the 

twelve month period preceding the 

petition date. 

As stated earlier, the relevant period 

for TA–W–58,624 is January 2005 

through December 2005 when the 

subject firm produced semiconductor 

wafers, and the subject workers were 

engaged in the production of 

semiconductor wafers. 

On remand, the Department 

determined that a significant number or 

proportion of the workers in such 

workers’ firm was totally separated and 

that both sales and production of 

semiconductor wafers at the subject firm 

have decreased absolutely. Therefore, 

the remaining two issues regarding the 

certification of the subject workers 

under Section 222(a) are whether there 

were either (1) increased imports during 

the relevant period (January 2005 

through December 2005) of articles like 

or directly competitive with 

semiconductor wafers produced by the 

subject workers or (2) actual or likely 

imports of articles like or directly 

competitive with semiconductor wafers 

produced by the subject workers 

following the subject firm’s shift of 

semiconductor wafers production 

abroad. 

The Department affirms its previous 

determination that increased imports of 

finished semiconductor devices cannot 

be the basis for certification of a petition 

applicable to workers engaged in the 

production of semiconductor wafers 

because those two articles are neither 

like nor directly competitive with each 

other. 

Under the Department’s interpretation 

of ‘‘like or directly competitive,’’ (29 

CFR 90.2) ‘‘like’’ articles are those 

articles which are substantially identical 

in inherent or intrinsic characteristics 

and ‘‘directly competitive’’ articles are 

those articles which are substantially 

equivalent for commercial purposes 

(essentially interchangeable and 

adapted to the same uses), even though 

the articles may not be substantially 

identical in their inherent or intrinsic 

characteristics. 

While semiconductor wafers are a 

component part of semiconductor 

devices, they are not substantially 

identical in inherent or intrinsic 

characteristics. Further, because 

semiconductor wafers are a component 

part of semiconductor devices, they are 

not substantially equivalent to each 

other for commercial purposes. In 

addition, the semiconductor wafer has 

to be further processed before it can be 

used as a component part of the 

semiconductor device. 

During the remand investigation, the 

Department also considered whether the 

subject worker group qualifies as 

adversely affected secondary workers as 

suppliers of component parts to a 

manufacturing firm primarily affected 

by increased imports or a shift of 

production abroad. In order to make an 

affirmative determination and issue a 

certification of eligibility for secondary 

workers to apply for adjustment 

assistance, the following group 

eligibility requirements under Section 

222(b) 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 (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 of business by the workers’ 

firm with the firm (or subdivision) 

described in paragraph (2) contributed 

importantly to the workers’ separation 

or threat of separation. 

As previously stated, the subject firm 

did not have any domestic customers 

that purchased semiconductor wafers 

produced by the subject workers during 

the relevant period because all 

semiconductor wafer production was 

exported. AR 46. Therefore, the subject 

company did not have any customers 

that employed a group of workers who 

received a certification of eligibility to 

apply for trade adjustment assistance 

benefits. As such, the Department 

determines that the subject worker 

group did not consist of adversely 

affected secondary workers. 

In accordance with Section 246 the 

Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 

amended, the Department herein 

presents the results of its investigation 

regarding certification of the subject 

workers’ eligibility to apply for ATAA. 

Since the subject workers are denied 

eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers 

cannot be certified for ATAA. 

Conclusion 

After reconsideration on remand, I 

affirm the original notice of negative 

determination of eligibility to apply for 

worker adjustment assistance for 

workers and former workers of Fairchild 

Semiconductor International, 

Mountaintop, Pennsylvania. 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 24615 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of 

April 2007. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7–8466 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–52,050] 

Merrill Corporation; St. Paul, MN; 

Notice of Revised Determination on 

Remand 

On March 28, 2007, the United States 

Court of International Trade (USCIT) 

remanded Former Employees of Merrill 

Corporation v. Elaine Chao, U.S. 

Secretary of Labor, Court No. 03–00662, 

to the Department of Labor (Department) 

for further investigation. 

The Negative Determination 

Regarding Eligibility to Apply for 

Worker Adjustment Assistance for 

workers and former workers of Merrill 

Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota 

(subject firm) was issued on July 2, 2003 

and published in the Federal Register 

on July 22, 2003 (68 FR 43373). The first 

negative determination on remand was 

issued on April 2, 2004 and published 

in the Federal Register on April 16, 

2004 (69 FR 20645). The second 

negative remand determination was 

issued on November 17, 2005 and 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 7, 2005 (70 FR 72857). In 

these determinations, the Department 

determined that the workers’ electronic 

creations do not constitute ‘‘articles’’ for 

purposes of the Trade Act of 1974 (the 

Act) and that the shift of the workers’ 

functions to India was irrelevant. 

On March 24, 2006, the Department 

revised its policy to recognize tangible 

and intangible articles and reiterated its 

policy that workers who produce an 

article incidental to the provision of a 

service are not, for the purposes of the 

Act, engaged in production. 

The third negative determination on 

remand was issued on August 24, 2006 

and published in the Federal Register 

on September 5, 2006 (71 FR 52346). 

The Department applied the revised 

article policy to the case at hand and 

determined that the workers produce 

electronic documents. The Department 

concluded, however, that each 

document was unique, and there were 

not articles ‘‘like or directly 

competitive’’ to any document. The 

Department also determined that the 

workers’ application should be denied 

because the production of the electronic 

documents was incidental to the 

provision of a service. 

In its March 28, 2007 opinion, the 

USCIT disagreed with the Department’s 

policy and the third remand 

determination, and remanded the matter 

to the Department. 

During the immediate investigation, 

the Department carefully reviewed the 

record and has determined that Merrill 

Corporation has a distinct subdivision 

producing printed matter sold to Merrill 

clients and another subdivision that 

provides services. The Department 

further determines that the subject 

worker group is affiliated with both 

subdivisions. Therefore, the subject 

worker group made articles not only 

incidental to the provision of a service. 

The Department determines that 

production of the electronic documents 

produced by the subject worker group 

shifted from the subject firm to India 

and, following the shift, the subject firm 

increased imports of articles like or 

directly competitive with those 

produced by the subject worker group. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the facts, I 

determine that the shift of electronic 

document production to India followed 

by increased imports of articles like or 

directly competitive with those 

produced at the subject facility 

contributed to the total or partial 

separation of a significant number or 

proportion of workers at the subject 

facility. I also determine that the 

electronic documents were not 

produced solely incidental to the 

production of an article. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

the Act, I make the following 

certification: 

All workers of Merrill Corporation, St. 

Paul, Minnesota, who became totally or 

partially separated from employment on or 

after June 10, 2002, through two years from 

the issuance of this revised determination, 

are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance under Section 223 of the Trade 

Act of 1974. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of 

April 2007. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7–8465 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–61,236] 

Precision Technologies Incorporated; 

Reno, PA; Notice of Termination of 

Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on April 3, 

2007 in response to a petition filed by 

a company official on behalf of workers 

at Precision Technologies Incorporated, 

Reno, Pennsylvania. 

The petitioner has requested that the 

petition be withdrawn. Consequently, 

the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 23rd day 

of April 2007. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7–8468 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–61,238] 

Quality Transparent Bag Company, 

Inc.; Bay City, MI; Notice of 

Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on April 3, 

2007 in response to a petition filed by 

a company official on behalf of workers 

of Quality Transparent Bag Company, 

Inc., Bay City, Michigan. 

The petitioner has requested that the 

petition be withdrawn. Consequently, 

the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of 

April, 2007. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7–8464 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB