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

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Notices 8285 

surrounding the layoffs of the workers, 

including supporting information 

relating to the allegations made in the 

complaint to the USCIT. AR 154–182. 

Plaintiffs provided a list of several 

engineering positions and functions that 

allegedly shifted to Asia from the Lake 

Forest, California facility and included 

statements on how engineering 

functions were transferred abroad, 

presenting details regarding the training 

of foreign workers who returned 

overseas to perform the same functions 

as Plaintiffs. AR 154–182. 

The Department requested voluntary 

remand to address the allegations made 

by the Plaintiffs, to determine whether 

the subject worker group is eligible to 

apply for TAA under the Trade Act of 

1974, as amended (hereafter referred to 

as the Act), and to issue an appropriate 

determination. 

At the time of the first remand 

investigation, the subject firm was in the 

process of transferring the corporate 

headquarters facility from Lake Forest, 

California to Irvine, California. AR 213. 

During the first remand investigation, 

the Department confirmed all 

previously collected information, 

obtained additional information from 

the subject firm regarding domestic and 

foreign operations, solicited input from 

the Plaintiffs, and addressed all of 

Plaintiffs’ allegations. 

The information the Department 

received during the first remand 

investigation contained more detail 

regarding the operations of the subject 

firm domestically and abroad. In order 

to determine whether there was a shift 

abroad of the engineering services 

provided by the subject worker group, 

the Department had to first determine 

whether the subject firm employs 

engineers at its facilities in Asia who 

supply engineering services like or 

directly competitive with those 

supplied by the subject worker group. 

The first remand investigation 

revealed that the business model of the 

subject firm is to develop new products 

domestically and carry out the 

manufacturing at its facilities overseas. 

AR 152, 212–218, 228–231, 244, 245– 

246, 271–279. After the design and 

development of the products is 

provided by the subject worker group, 

the production takes place at the foreign 

facilities—a process that the subject firm 

asserted did not change during the 

relevant time period for the 

investigation of this petition. AR 152, 

212–218, 228–231, 244, 245–246, 271– 

279. 

Although Plaintiffs declared that the 

subject firm shifted abroad the supply of 

engineering services which are like or 

directly competitive with those 

provided by the subject worker group 

(AR 154–182), based upon the data 

collected during the first remand 

investigation, the Department 

determined that the engineers employed 

at foreign facilities of the subject firm 

and the engineers employed at domestic 

facilities of the subject firm do not 

perform like or directly competitive 

functions. AR 152, 212–218, 228–231, 

244, 245–246, 271–279. Because of the 

stage of production at which the 

workers’ functions are performed, the 

work performed by the engineers 

domestically and the engineers abroad 

is not interchangeable; hence, the 

activities of the subject firm at the 

manufacturing facilities overseas could 

not have impacted the subject worker 

group. AR 152, 212–218, 228–231, 244, 

245–246, 271–279. 

According to the subject firm, the 

engineering work performed abroad not 

only requires the engineers to be present 

at the manufacturing location, but is 

also different and less complex than the 

development work performed by the 

domestic engineers. AR 152, 212–218, 

228–231, 244, 245–246, 271–279. 

Therefore, the Department determined 

that the work performed overseas did 

not contribute importantly to worker 

separations domestically because the 

services are not like or directly 

competitive. 

Regarding Plaintiffs’ allegation that 

the subject firm brought foreign workers 

to be trained at the Lake Forest, 

California facility, the subject firm 

asserted that the firm’s business model 

calls for the development of products 

domestically and for manufacturing at 

foreign facilities. AR 152, 212–218, 228– 

231, 244, 245–246, 271–279. The subject 

firm also stated that the foreign 

engineers must be knowledgeable about 

the new products in order to carry out 

their work; hence, they visit the 

domestic facilities of the subject firm in 

order to train on the new products to 

oversee the production at the 

manufacturing facilities. Given the 

nature of these visits, the training of 

foreign workers in the U.S. does not 

show that the roles of the domestic and 

foreign engineers are interchangeable. 

AR 152, 212–218, 228–231, 244, 245– 

246, 271–279. 

Plaintiffs submitted a list of job 

announcements posted by the subject 

firm in Malaysia. AR 154–182. The 

subject firm maintained that at the time 

of the domestic reduction in force (RIF) 

in late 2008 and early 2009, hiring 

efforts on a global level were suspended. 

AR 208–218. The Department collected 

employment numbers of engineers at 

Lake Forest, California, Malaysia, and 

Thailand. AR 271–285. The numbers 

revealed that employment of engineers 

decreased from December 2008 to June 

2009, but started to increase at all three 

locations in late 2009. AR 241, 242, 243, 

271–285. Based on the findings 

pertaining to the work performed by the 

domestic and foreign engineers, the 

Department did not consider the 

services of the domestic engineers like 

or directly competitive with those 

provided by the engineers at the 

production facilities overseas. 

Therefore, the employment levels in 

these groups were not pertinent to the 

outcome of the investigation. 

Plaintiffs also alleged that increased 

imports of hard disk drives contributed 

to worker separations. AR 154–182. 

Aggregate U.S. import data of hard disk 

drives or articles like or directly 

competitive showed a decline in the 

period under investigation. Nonetheless, 

the Department determined that 

increased imports of articles could not 

have contributed to worker separations 

because the subject firm develops hard 

disk drives domestically and 

manufactures them at the facilities in 

Asia. Therefore, an increase in imports 

of articles could not have contributed to 

a decline in the engineering services 

supplied by the subject worker group. 

For Section 222(a)(A)(ii)(II)(bb) of the 

Act to be met, imports of articles like or 

directly competitive with articles which 

are produced directly using services 

supplied by such firm, must have 

increased. Because the subject firm does 

not produce articles like or directly 

competitive with hard disk drives 

domestically, this criterion was not met. 

Based on careful consideration of all 

previously submitted information and 

new facts obtained during the first 

remand investigation, the Department 

determined that the subject worker 

group did not meet the eligibility 

criteria of the Act and issued a Negative 

Determination on Remand on 

September 23, 2011. AR 301. The Notice 

of Determination was published in the 

Federal Register on October 5, 2011 (76 

FR 61746). SAR 1. 

Second Remand Investigation 

On October 25, 2011, one of the 

Plaintiffs filed comments with the 

USCIT regarding the negative remand 

determination. In the comments, the 

Plaintiff made new allegations, stating 

that the Department’s determination 

was erroneous because engineers at the 

subject firm’s foreign facilities provide 

engineering services like or directly 

competitive with those of the domestic 

engineers and that the subject firm 

manufactures hard disk drives 

domestically. In particular, the Plaintiffs 

alleged that the subject worker group 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

8286 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Notices 

was engaged in activity related to the 

production of hard disk drives—‘‘white 

label’’ pilot products—and attached 

seven exhibits. 

In response to the Plaintiffs’ 

comments, the Department requested a 

second voluntary remand to review 

previously collected information and 

conduct further investigation to address 

the new allegations raised by the 

Plaintiff. 

The comments contained statements 

intended to support the Plaintiff’s claim 

that engineers at the foreign facilities 

engage in design work and domestic 

engineers engage in production. The 

comments included a list of job 

vacancies at the subject firm’s facilities 

in Asia for engineering positions 

involving production, design, and 

development work. In addition, the 

Plaintiff stated that during his 

employment with the subject firm, he 

provided services related to the 

domestic production of hard disk 

drives. Further, the Plaintiff claimed 

that he trained foreign engineers to 

perform design and development work, 

and asserted that the employment data 

collected by the Department during the 

first remand investigation demonstrated 

a shift of engineering services abroad. 

AR 241, 242, 243, 271–285. The 

comments highlighted that the subject 

firm manufactures hard disk drives 

domestically through a pilot, or 

prototype, hard disk drive production 

line, which produces hard disk drives 

for sale to customers and that the hard 

disk drives imported from Malaysia are 

like or directly competitive with the 

ones produced by Western Digital 

domestically. Lastly, the Plaintiff 

commented that the Department failed 

to collect import data of disk drives 

during the first remand investigation. 

In support of the allegations, the 

Plaintiff provided seven exhibits. The 

first exhibit was a statement, which 

included the Plaintiff’s position 

description at the subject firm and 

information intended to establish that 

the Department had based its negative 

determinations on erroneous findings 

that (1) the work of the subject firm’s 

foreign and domestic engineers was not 

interchangeable and that (2) the subject 

firm did not produce hard disk drives, 

domestically. 

In the first exhibit, the Plaintiff 

pointed to the list of positions, 

submitted with the initial complaint to 

the USCIT, of engineering services that 

appear to relate to production and 

design work and one position advertised 

by Western Digital in Malaysia that 

called for co-development of new 

product ‘‘with U.S. counterpart’’. The 

Plaintiff compared his job duties to 

those advertised in Malaysia in an effort 

to show that the duties overlapped. The 

Plaintiff added that he was engaged in 

New Product Integration (NPI) work, 

which was considered production work. 

The Plaintiff also stated that he trained 

foreign engineers to perform the same 

development functions that he 

performed during his employment with 

the subject firm, noting that he worked 

directly with a foreign engineer who 

returned to the subject firm’s Malaysian 

facility to perform the same work. In 

addition, the Plaintiff claimed that the 

subject firm produces hard disk drives 

domestically for sale to customers and 

that much of its pilot hard disk drive 

production was transferred to Asia, 

along with the associated engineering 

services. 

In addition, the Plaintiff stated that 

the majority of the job vacancies 

identified in the complaint to the USCIT 

involved production and development 

work. However, according to the 

position descriptions, none of the 

vacant positions involved the design or 

development of hard disk drives. 

Further, careful examination of the 

duties listed for each position 

establishes that the work of these 

engineers relates to manufacturing. For 

example, positions include duties such 

as ‘‘Willing to travel to Asia QC 

Manufacturing-Drive’’ and 

‘‘Communicate with US counterpart to 

resolve factory issues.’’ The subject firm 

confirmed that the engineering teams in 

Asia have never performed new product 

design and their duties extend to 

sustaining production. AR 152, 212– 

218, 228–231, 244, 245–246, 271–279. 

Exhibit 1 also contained additional 

Asian job postings. However, those 

vacancies were posted in October 2011, 

which is almost three years after the 

reduction in force from which this 

proceeding arose. Since that time, 

employment at the subject firm has 

increased, both domestically and 

abroad. AR 241, 242, 243, 271–285. 

Therefore, the posting of these 

positions, almost three years after 

worker separations occurred, could not 

have contributed to the layoffs. 

The Plaintiff stated that during his 

employment with Western Digital he 

engaged in work related to domestic 

production of hard disk drives. Based 

on the Plaintiff’s position description in 

Exhibit 1, the Plaintiff had no work 

duties related to production, other than 

program management support, which 

did not specify location. Additionally, 

the Plaintiff was employed at the 

headquarters facility of the subject firm, 

where no production lines are operated. 

(Domestic manufacturing and the role of 

the subject worker group in that 

production are discussed below.) 

The Plaintiff also stated that the 

Department had ignored employment 

data which demonstrated a shift in 

engineering services abroad. Because, as 

determined during the initial remand 

investigation, the functions of the 

subject worker group were not like or 

directly competitive with those of the 

engineers at Western Digital’s foreign 

facilities, the employment data in 

question could not demonstrate that a 

relative increase in employment abroad 

contributed to layoffs at the subject 

facility. AR 292–300. During the second 

remand investigation, the subject firm 

provided information which confirmed 

that domestic engineers are solely 

responsible for the development and 

design of hard disk drives. SAR 20. 

The Plaintiff also claimed that the 

Department failed to collect import data 

of hard disk drives. As explained in the 

first remand determination, above, 

because there is no domestic production 

of these products (see below for more 

information on domestic production), 

any increases in imports of hard disk 

drives would not have contributed to 

layoffs in the subject worker group. As 

such, import statistics of hard disk 

drives were irrelevant to the 

determination. 

During the second remand 

investigation, the Department contacted 

the subject firm to obtain more 

information regarding the Plaintiff’s 

involvement in any domestic pilot hard 

disk drive production. SAR 6. In 

response to the claim that the Plaintiff 

was part of the New Product Integration 

team (NPI) and provided work related to 

domestic production, the subject firm 

responded that the NPI team handles 

the initial design work before mass 

production takes place in Asia. SAR 8, 

20, 26. The NPI team also administers 

the pilot hard disk drive production at 

the San Jose, California facility of the 

subject firm (see below for more 

information on domestic production). 

As this team plays a role in validating 

the design of a product before 

production, this part of the process is 

considered part of the design and 

development work. SAR 8, 20, 26. 

Therefore, the Department has 

concluded that Exhibit 1 does not 

support a finding that the plaintiffs have 

met the criteria for TAA eligibility. 

The second exhibit consisted of a list 

of 17 positions posted by Western 

Digital in Malaysia. The listings are 

dated October 19, 2011, which is almost 

three years after the separations in the 

subject worker group were announced 

in December 2008. Close examination of 

the listings showed that only one 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2012 / Notices 8287 

position called for ‘‘co-develop new 

product and channel feature with U.S. 

counterpart’’. In any event, the position 

description does not specify that the 

‘‘co-development’’ refers to hard disk 

drives. None of the other positions 

listed call for development work of hard 

disk drives or any other products. Also, 

out of the 17 listings, only three contain 

the words ‘‘develop’’ or ‘‘design’’ and 

these three positions call for the 

development and design of software and 

code applications, not hard disk drives, 

which the subject firm has ascertained 

is the function of the domestic 

engineers. AR 152, 212–218, 228–231, 

244, 245–246, 271–279 and SAR 8, 20, 

26. Also, none of the positions provided 

by the Plaintiffs with the complaint 

contained the words ‘‘develop’’ or 

‘‘design’’. 

The third exhibit consisted of a job 

announcement and position description 

of ‘‘Western Digital Senior Engineer/ 

Staff Engineer—Asia R&D—Advance 

Read Channel Engineering’’. The 

description of this position does not 

mention new product design or any 

related duties. The description, 

however, mentions ‘‘failure analysis’’, 

which is a duty that the subject firm has 

explained that occurs both domestically 

and in Asia, depending on the life stage 

of a product. AR 208, 292 and SAR 8, 

20, 26. Additionally, this position was 

posted in August 2011, more than two 

and a half years after the RIF was 

announced at the subject firm. 

The fourth exhibit consisted of a 

position description of a Product 

Engineer. This position announcement 

mentions that the position may include 

failure analysis and research and 

development but it does not include a 

specific description of duties. The work 

duties listed in this announcement are 

consistent with those described by the 

subject firm. In particular, the subject 

firm has stated that the work of the 

engineers overseas is designed to carry 

out the manufacturing process and 

sustain the work performed on existing 

hard disk drives. AR 152, 212–218, 228– 

231, 244, 245–246, 271–279. 

The fifth exhibit consisted of the 

profile, as listed on an online social 

network, of an engineer employed at 

one of the subject firm’s facilities in 

Asia. Although the profile shows that 

the engineer was employed at the Lake 

Forest, California facility and then 

transferred to Malaysia, the profile does 

not include a description of job duties 

performed at either location. 

The sixth exhibit consisted of Western 

Digital’s career opportunities page from 

the subject firm’s Web site which shows 

that there are manufacturing facilities in 

California. As the findings of the first 

remand investigation showed, the 

subject firm operates two domestic 

manufacturing sites in California. The 

articles produced at the domestic 

locations are component parts used for 

internal purposes. The second remand 

investigation found that one of the 

domestic facilities also manufactures 

pilot hard disk drives (see below). 

The last exhibit consisted of the 

subject firm’s company profile from an 

employment Web site. The profile does 

not list any specifics related to positions 

domestically or abroad but mentions 

that the subject firm operates 

manufacturing facilities in California. 

The domestic manufacturing operations 

of the subject firm are addressed above. 

The second remand investigation 

produced further explanation of the 

process by which the subject firm 

produces hard disk drives. As discussed 

above, the subject worker group designs 

the hard disk drives domestically. 

Before the design is sent overseas for 

mass production, the subject firm 

manufactures prototype hard disk drives 

to ensure that the new designs are 

functional. SAR 8, 20, 26. The subject 

firm stated that prototype creation is 

part of the design of hard drives because 

a prototype must be created, tested, and 

validated before sending the product for 

mass production. SAR 8, 20, 26. 

Although the pilot hard disk drives 

produced are used mainly for 

development purposes, the subject firm 

operates a White Label program via 

which it sells a portion of the pilot hard 

disk drives externally. SAR 8, 20, 26. 

The subject firm has three prototype 

production lines located in San Jose, 

California, Malaysia, and Thailand. SAR 

20, 26. In response to Plaintiff’s 

allegation that prototype production has 

shifted abroad, the subject firm 

substantiated that no domestic 

production of the pilot drives has 

shifted overseas in the period under 

investigation. SAR 20, 26. 

The Department collected information 

from the subject firm related to the size 

of each operation and the number of 

prototypes that are sold. The numbers 

revealed that the domestic production of 

the pilot drives constitutes a small 

number of the prototypes sold under the 

White Label program and a negligible 

portion of overall hard disk drive 

production. SAR 8, 20, 26. 

It is well-established that a negligible 

shift of production to a foreign country 

cannot be a basis for TAA certification. 

In Barry Callebaut USA, Inc., Van Leer 

Division, Jersey City, New Jersey (TA– 

W–37,000; USCIT No. 03–1113; 

February 10, 2004), the Department 

determined that a three percent shift of 

production was not sufficient basis to 

satisfy the criteria for certification. 

Appling the same analysis in the 

present case, the Department has 

determined that because the pilot hard 

disk drive production at the subject firm 

is not significant relative to overall hard 

disk drive production, any trade impact 

on the pilot hard disk drive production 

line could not have contributed to 

separations in the subject worker group. 

Upon review of the facts collected 

during the earlier investigations and the 

additional information procured 

through the second remand 

investigation, the Department has 

determined that the services provided 

by engineers at the subject firm’s Asian 

facilities are not like or directly 

competitive with the services of the 

engineers located at the subject facility. 

Additionally, the domestic production 

of hard disk drives is de minimus 

relative to the subject firm’s overall 

operations, such that any trade impact 

could not have contributed to worker 

separations at the subject firm. 

Accordingly, the Department reaffirms 

that the petitioning workers have not 

met the eligibility criteria of section 

222(a) of the Act. 

Conclusion 

After careful consideration of the 

record, I affirm the original notice of 

negative determination of eligibility to 

apply for worker adjustment assistance 

applicable to workers and former 

workers of Western Digital 

Technologies, Inc., Hard Drive 

Development Engineering Group, Irvine 

(formerly at Lake Forest) California. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of 

January, 2012. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2012–3324 Filed 2–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–80,041] 

Quad/Graphics, a Subdivision of Quad 

Graphics, Inc., Including On-Site 

Leased Workers From SPS 

Temporaries, Depew, NY; Notice of 

Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated in response 

to a petition filed on March 15, 2011, on 

behalf of workers of Quad/Graphics, a 

Subdivision of Quad Graphics, Inc., 

Depew, New York. The negative 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES