8282 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Notices 

I hereby certify that the 

aforementioned determinations were 

issued during the period of January 9, 

2012 through January 13, 2012. These 

determinations are available on the 

Department’s Web site at tradeact/taa/ 

taa search form.cfm under the 

searchable listing of determinations or 

by calling the Office of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance toll-free at 888– 

365–6822. 

Dated: January 23, 2012. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3323 Filed 2–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Notice of Determinations Regarding 

Eligibility To Apply for Worker 

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 by (TA–W) number issued 

during the period of January 16, 2012 

through January 20, 2012. 

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. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the 

Following Must Be Satisfied 

(1) A significant number or proportion 

of the workers in such workers’ firm 

have become totally or partially 

separated, or are threatened to become 

totally or partially separated; 

(2) The sales or production, or both, 

of such firm have decreased absolutely; 

and 

(3) One of the following must be 

satisfied: 

(A) Imports of articles or services like 

or directly competitive with articles 

produced or services supplied by such 

firm have increased; 

(B) Imports of articles like or directly 

competitive with articles into which one 

or more component parts produced by 

such firm are directly incorporated, 

have increased; 

(C) Imports of articles directly 

incorporating one or more component 

parts produced outside the United 

States that are like or directly 

competitive with imports of articles 

incorporating one or more component 

parts produced by such firm have 

increased; 

(D) Imports of articles like or directly 

competitive with articles which are 

produced directly using services 

supplied by such firm, have increased; 

and 

(4) The increase in imports 

contributed importantly to such 

workers’ separation or threat of 

separation and to the decline in the 

sales or production of such firm; or 

II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) All of the 

Following Must Be Satisfied 

(1) A significant number or proportion 

of the workers in such workers’ firm 

have become totally or partially 

separated, or are threatened to become 

totally or partially separated; 

(2) One of the following must be 

satisfied: 

(A) 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; 

(B) 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; 

and 

(3) The shift/acquisition contributed 

importantly to the workers’ separation 

or threat of separation. 

In order for an affirmative 

determination to be made for adversely 

affected workers in public agencies 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) A significant number or proportion 

of the workers in the public agency have 

become totally or partially separated, or 

are threatened to become totally or 

partially separated; 

(2) The public agency has acquired 

from a foreign country services like or 

directly competitive with services 

which are supplied by such agency; and 

(3) The acquisition of services 

contributed importantly to such 

workers’ separation or threat of 

separation. 

In order for an affirmative 

determination to be made for adversely 

affected secondary 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(c) of the Act must be met. 

(1) A significant number or proportion 

of the workers in the workers’ 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, 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. 

In order for an affirmative 

determination to be made for adversely 

affected workers in firms identified by 

the International Trade Commission and 

a certification issued regarding 

eligibility to apply for worker 

adjustment assistance, each of the group 

eligibility requirements of Section 222(f) 

of the Act must be 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— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Notices 8283 

(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). 

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 No. Subject firm Location Impact date 

80,443 ......... Olympic Panel Products LLC ............................................................... Shelton, WA .................................. December 13, 2010. 

80,487 ......... Stimson Lumber Company, Arden Division ......................................... Colville, WA ................................... September 27, 

2010. 

81,039 ......... HDM Furniture Industries, Inc., Henredon Plant 10, Furniture Brands 

International, Furniture Brands Resource.

Mt. Airy, NC .................................. April 16, 2011. 

81,039A ....... HDM Furniture Industries, Inc., Henredon/Maitland, Furniture Brands 

International, Furniture Brands Resource.

High Point, NC .............................. March 31, 2011. 

81,039B ....... Workforce Carolina Working On-Site, at HDM Furniture Industries, 

Inc.

Mt. Airy, NC .................................. February 13, 2010. 

81,039C ....... The Personnel Center, Inc. and Onin Staffing, Working On-Site at 

HDM Furniture Industries, Inc.

High Point, NC .............................. February 13, 2010. 

81,054 ......... High Cotton Enterprises, Inc. ............................................................... Fort Payne, AL .............................. February 13, 2010. 

81,118 ......... Matrix IV Inc., The Agency Staffing ...................................................... Woodstock, IL ............................... February 13, 2010. 

81,125 ......... 1SolTech, Inc. ....................................................................................... Farmers Branch, TX ..................... February 13, 2010. 

81,207 ......... American Axle & Mfg. (AAM), Detroit Manufacturing Complex (DMC) Detroit, MI ..................................... November 25, 2010. 

81,207A ....... MSX International, American Axle & Mfg., Detroit Manufacturing 

Complex, Detroit Manufacturing.

Detroit, MI ..................................... February 13, 2010. 

The following certifications have been 

issued. The requirements of Section 

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

services) of the Trade Act have been 

met. 

TA–W No. Subject firm Location Impact date 

80,448 ......... Hampton Lumber Mills, Randle Division .............................................. Randle, WA ................................... September 14, 

2010. 

81,024 ......... Atmel Corporation, Colorado Springs, Colorado Division, Planning 

and Assembly Groups.

Colorado Springs, CO ................... February 13, 2010. 

81,040 ......... HDM Furniture Industries, Inc., Drexel Heritage Plant 75, Furniture 

Brands International.

Morganton, NC .............................. January 24, 2011. 

81,040A ....... HDM Furniture Industries, Inc., Drexel Heritage Plant 60, Furniture 

Brands International.

Morganton, NC .............................. January 24, 2011. 

81,040B ....... Friday Staffing Services Working On-Site at Drexel Heritage, Plant 

60 and Drexel Heritage Plant 75, HDM Furniture Industries, Inc.

Lenoir, NC ..................................... February 13, 2010. 

81,137 ......... Wellpoint, Inc., Credentialing: CDO and CPC Division, Aerotek, Kelly 

Services, etc.

Andover, MA ................................. February 13, 2010. 

81,140 ......... Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services, Inc., Global Quality Assurance Department.Amherst, NY .................................. February 13, 2010. 

81,149 ......... CQMS Razer, Jean Simpson Personnel Services, Inc. ....................... Mansfield, LA ................................ February 13, 2010. 

81,171 ......... The Seydel Companies, Seydel-Woolley & Co., Inc. Division, 

Spherion Staffing, LLC.

Pendergrass, GA .......................... February 13, 2010. 

81,177 ......... Heartland Bakery Company, LLC, Maplehurst Bakeries, LLC, 

Selectremedy.

Du Quoin, IL .................................. February 13, 2010. 

81,178 ......... Sunpower Corporation, Systems, Pluto Acquisition Co., LLC., 

Aerotek, Bayside Solutions, Robert Half, etc.

Richmond, CA ............................... February 13, 2010. 

81,191 ......... Bristol, Inc., A Business Unit of Emerson Electric Co, dba Emerson 

Process, etc.

Watertown, CT .............................. August 19, 2011. 

81,208 ......... American Axle & Manufacturing (AAM), Metal Forming Division ........ Cheektowaga, NY ......................... July 18, 2010. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

8284 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Notices 

I hereby certify that the 

aforementioned determinations were 

issued during the period of January 16, 

2012 through January 20, 2012. These 

determinations are available on the 

Department’s Web site tradeact/taa/taa 

search form.cfm under the searchable 

listing of determinations or by calling 

the Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance toll-free at 888–365–6822. 

Dated: January 25, 2012. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3322 Filed 2–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–72,949] 

Western Digital Technologies, Inc., 

Hard Drive Development Engineering 

Group Irvine (Formerly at Lake Forest), 

CA; Notice of Negative Determination 

on Remand 

On November 22, 2011, the U. S. 

Court of International Trade (USCIT) 

granted the Department of Labor’s 

second request for voluntary remand to 

conduct further investigation in Former 

Employees of Western Digital 

Technologies, Inc. v. United States 

Secretary of Labor (Court No. 11– 

00085). 

On November 25, 2009, former 

workers of Western Digital 

Technologies, Inc., Hard Drive 

Development Engineering Group, Lake 

Forest, California (subject firm) filed a 

petition for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) on behalf of workers 

at the subject firm. AR 1. The worker 

group covered under this petition 

(subject worker group) consists of 

workers engaged in the supply of 

engineering functions for the 

development of hard disk drives. 

The initial investigation revealed that 

the subject firm had not shifted abroad 

the supply of services like or directly 

competitive with those provided by the 

subject worker group, that the subject 

firm had not acquired such services 

from abroad, and there had not been an 

increase in imports of articles or 

services like or directly competitive 

with those produced or supplied by the 

subject firm. AR 72–77. Further, the 

initial investigation revealed that the 

subject firm could not be considered a 

Supplier or Downstream Producer to a 

firm that employed a worker group 

eligible to apply for TAA. AR 72–77. On 

August 5, 2010, the Department of Labor 

(Department) issued a Negative 

Determination regarding eligibility to 

apply for TAA applicable to workers 

and former workers of the subject firm. 

The Department’s Notice of Negative 

Determination was published in the 

Federal Register on August 23, 2010 (75 

FR 51849). AR 82. 

The group eligibility requirements for 

workers of a Firm under Section 222(a) 

of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), can be 

satisfied if the following criteria are met: 

(1) A significant number or proportion of 

the workers in such workers’ firm have 

become totally or partially separated, or are 

threatened to become totally or partially 

separated; and 

(2)(A)(i) The sales or production, or both, 

of such firm have decreased absolutely; 

(ii)(I) Imports of articles or services like or 

directly competitive with articles produced 

or services supplied by such firm have 

increased; 

(II) Imports of articles like or directly 

competitive with articles— 

(aa) Into which one or more component 

parts produced by such firm are directly 

incorporated, or 

(bb) Which are produced directly using 

services supplied by such firm, have 

increased; or 

(III) Imports of articles directly 

incorporating one or more component parts 

produced outside the United States that are 

like or directly competitive with imports of 

articles incorporating one or more 

component parts produced by such firm have 

increased; and 

(iii) The increase in imports described in 

clause (ii) contributed importantly to such 

workers’ separation or threat of separation 

and to the decline in the sales or production 

of such firm; or 

(B)(i)(I) There has been a shift by such 

workers’ firm to a foreign country in the 

production of articles or the supply of 

services like or directly competitive with 

articles which are produced or services 

which are supplied by such firm; or 

(II) Such workers’ firm has acquired from 

a foreign country articles or services that are 

like or directly competitive with articles 

which are produced or services which are 

supplied by such firm; and 

(ii) The shift described in clause (i)(I) or 

the acquisition of articles or services 

described in clause (i)(II) contributed 

importantly to such workers’ separation or 

threat of separation. 

By application dated September 14, 

2010, the petitioning workers requested 

administrative reconsideration of the 

Department’s negative determination. 

AR 83. In the request, the petitioners 

alleged that increased imports of articles 

that were produced using the services 

supplied by the subject worker group 

contributed importantly to worker 

separations at the subject firm. AR 83. 

To investigate the petitioners’ claim, 

the Department issued a Notice of 

Affirmative Determination Regarding 

Application for Reconsideration on 

October 7, 2010. AR 84. The 

Department’s Notice of Affirmative 

Determination was published in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 2010 

(75 FR 65517). AR 286. 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department obtained 

information from the subject firm 

regarding the petitioners’ claims and 

collected data from the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

regarding imports of articles like or 

directly competitive with those 

produced using the services supplied by 

the subject worker group. AR 89–125, 

126, 127. 

Based on the findings of the 

reconsideration investigation, the 

Department concluded that worker 

separations at the subject firm were not 

caused by a shift in services abroad or 

increased imports of services like or 

directly competitive with those 

provided by the subject worker group. 

AR 89–125. Further, the reconsideration 

investigation revealed that the subject 

firm did not import articles like or 

directly competitive with those 

produced directly using services 

supplied by the subject worker group, 

AR 89–125, and U.S. aggregate imports 

of articles like or directly competitive 

with hard disk drives declined in the 

relevant time period. AR 126, 134–136, 

137, 141–142, 143–145. Consequently, 

the Department issued a Notice of 

Negative Determination on 

Reconsideration on February 4, 2011. 

AR 129–130. The Department’s Notice 

of determination was published in the 

Federal Register, on February 24, 2011 

(75 FR 10403). AR 287. 

First Remand Investigation 

On April 11, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a 

complaint with the USCIT in which 

they claimed that their separations were 

directly caused by the subject firm’s 

foreign operations and increased 

imports of hard disk drives, and 

provided information in support of 

these claims. The Plaintiffs stated that 

the subject firm trained foreign 

engineers at the Lake Forest, California 

facility, who then returned to their 

respective countries to perform the same 

services as the Plaintiffs, and provided 

a list of job announcements for 

engineers posted by the subject firm in 

Malaysia at the same time as the 

domestic layoffs. Further, the Plaintiffs 

provided import statistics pertaining to 

hard disk drives, specifically pointing to 

increased imports of these articles from 

Malaysia. 

In a letter submitted to the 

Department on June 13, 2011, Plaintiffs 

provided additional information 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES