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