9290 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices 

occurring prior to July 31, 2007 are 

outside of the relevant period and are 

not relevant in this investigation as 

established by the petition date of July 

31, 2008. The investigation revealed that 

there was no production of uncoated 

freesheet paper at the subject facility 

during the relevant period. 

The petitioner also provided 

additional information regarding 

employment and layoffs at the subject 

firm. 

Upon further review of the 

employment data provided by the 

company official of the subject firm, it 

was determined that employment at the 

subject firm declined during the 

relevant period. 

In order to establish import impact 

and whether imports contributed 

importantly to worker separations, the 

Department must consider imports that 

are like or directly competitive with 

those produced at the subject firm 

(linerboard and fluff pulp) during the 

relevant period. The ‘‘contributed 

importantly’’ test is generally 

demonstrated through a survey of 

customers of the workers’ firm regarding 

their import purchases. 

On reconsideration the Department 

conducted a survey of the subject firm’s 

domestic customers regarding their 

purchases of linerboard and fluff pulp 

during 2006, 2007, January through July, 

2007 and January through July, 2008. 

The survey revealed that the customers 

did not increase their imports of 

linerboard and fluff pulp while 

decreasing purchases from the subject 

firm during the relevant period. 

Furthermore, as stated in the initial 

investigation sales and production of 

linerboard and fluff pulp did not 

decline during the relevant period 

through July 2008. 

If conditions have changed since July 

2008, the company is encouraged to file 

a new petition on behalf of the worker 

group which will encompass an 

investigative period that will include 

these changing conditions. 

Conclusion 

After reconsideration, I affirm the 

original notice of negative 

determination of eligibility to apply for 

worker adjustment assistance for 

workers and former workers of 

International Paper Company, Pensacola 

Mill, Cantonment, Florida. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

February 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–4394 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–59,517] 

Advanced Electronics, Inc., Boston, 

MA; Notice of Negative Determination 

on Remand 

On November 18, 2008, the U.S. Court 

of International Trade (USCIT) 

remanded to the Department of Labor 

(Department) for further investigation 

Former Employees of Advanced 

Electronics, Inc. v. United States 

Secretary of Labor (Court No. 06– 

00337). 

On July 18, 2006, the Department 

issued a Negative Determination 

regarding eligibility to apply for Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and 

Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (ATAA) applicable to 

workers and former workers of 

Advanced Electronics, Inc., Boston, 

Massachusetts (subject firm). The 

Department’s Notice of determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on August 4, 2006 (71 FR 44320). Prior 

to separation, the subject workers 

produced printed circuit board 

assemblies. 

The negative determination was based 

on the Department’s findings that, 

during the relevant period, the subject 

firm did not shift production of printed 

circuit board assemblies to a foreign 

country, that the subject firm did not 

import printed circuit board assemblies 

(or like or directly competitive articles), 

and that the subject firm’s major 

declining customers did not import 

printed circuit board assemblies (or like 

or directly competitive articles). 

Further, the Department determined 

that a portion of the decline in company 

sales of printed circuit board assemblies 

is attributed to declining purchases from 

a foreign customer during the relevant 

period. 

Administrative reconsideration was 

not requested by any of the parties 

pursuant to 29 CFR section 90.18. 

On October 23, 2007, the USCIT 

granted the Department’s request for 

voluntary remand to conduct further 

investigation to determine whether, 

during the relevant period, any of the 

foreign customer’s facilities located in 

the United States received printed 

circuit boards produced by the subject 

firm and, if so, whether the facility(s) 

had imported articles like or directly 

competitive with the printed circuit 

board assemblies produced by the 

subject firm. 

Based on information obtained during 

the first remand investigation (that the 

subject firm sent the articles purchased 

by the foreign customer to a facility 

located outside of the United States), the 

Department determined that the foreign 

customer did not import articles like or 

directly competitive with the printed 

circuit board assemblies produced by 

the subject firm. On December 17, 2007, 

the Department issued a Notice of 

Negative Determination on Remand. 

The Department’s Notice of negative 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register on December 31, 2007 

(72 FR 74340). 

Although the USCIT stated in its 

November 18, 2008 opinion that 

substantial evidence supported the 

Department’s finding that increasing 

imports of like or directly competitive 

articles did not contribute importantly 

to the subject firm’s decreased sales to 

domestic customers, the USCIT also 

stated that it ‘‘declines to adopt a 

construction of the Act under which 

Labor need never consider, in any 

circumstances, whether increased 

imports of a like or directly competitive 

article contributed importantly to a 

plaintiff’s separation by causing the 

employer to lose business from a 

customer outside of the United States.’’ 

The USCIT, in its November 18, 2008 

order, directs the Department during the 

second remand investigation to 

‘‘determine whether, and to what extent, 

an increase in imports into the United 

States of articles like or directly 

competitive with the Company’s printed 

circuit boards caused the Company to 

lose business from its foreign 

customer.’’ 

On second remand, the Department 

conducted an investigation to determine 

whether the foreign customer switched 

its order from the subject firm to another 

domestic firm that imported some or all 

of the printed circuit boards it supplied 

to the subject firm’s foreign customer. 

In order to apply for TAA based on 

increased imports, the subject worker 

group must meet the group eligibility 

requirements under Section 222(a) of 

the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. 

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

following criteria must be met: 

A. 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 

B. The sales or production, or both, of such 

firm or subdivision have decreased 

absolutely; and 

C. 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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 40 / Tuesday, March 3, 2009 / Notices 9291 

sales or production of such firm or 

subdivision. 

The Department has previously 

determined that because the subject firm 

closed on September 2005, criteria (A) 

and (B) have been met. Therefore, the 

only issue at hand is whether criterion 

(C) has been met. 

29 CFR Section 90.16(b)— 

Requirements for determinations— 

states, in part, that ‘‘the certifying officer 

shall make findings of fact concerning 

whether * * * (3) increases (absolute or 

relative) of imports of articles like or 

directly competitive with articles like or 

directly competitive with articles 

produced by such workers’ firm or 

appropriate subdivision thereof 

contributed importantly to such total or 

partial separation, or threat thereof, and 

to such decline in sales or production.’’ 

The corollary to the regulation is that 

if the certifying officer finds no such 

increased imports, whether or not the 

absent factor ‘‘contributed importantly’’ 

to ‘‘such total or partial separation, or 

threat thereof, and to such decline in 

sales or production’’ is moot. 

29 CFR Section 90.2—Definitions— 

states that ‘‘Increased imports means 

that imports have increased either 

absolutely or relative to domestic 

production compare to a representative 

base period. The representative base 

period shall be one year consisting of 

the four quarters immediately preceding 

the date which is twelve months prior 

to the date of the petition.’’ 

Because the date of the petition is 

June 5, 2006, the investigatory period is 

June 2005 through May 2006 and the 

representative base period is June 2004 

through May 2005. 

During the second remand 

investigation, the Department obtained 

new information that shows that when 

the subject firm ceased operations in 

2005, the foreign customer replaced 

printed circuit boards produced by the 

subject firm with those produced by a 

preferred vendor. The preferred vender 

is another domestic company. The new 

information also shows that the printed 

circuit boards supplied by the preferred 

vendor was produced outside the 

United States and shipped from the 

foreign production facility to the foreign 

customer. 

The Department determines that 

while the foreign customer did switch 

its order from the subject firm to another 

domestic vendor, the domestic vendor 

that replaced the subject firm did not 

import into the United States any of the 

printed circuit boards it sold to the 

subject firm’s foreign customer. 

Because there was no finding of 

increased imports of article like or 

directly competitive with the printed 

circuit boards produced by the subject 

firm, it is moot whether or not the 

‘‘contributed importantly’’ portion of 

the regulation has been satisfied. 

Therefore, the Department determines 

that TAA criterion (C) has not been met. 

In order for 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 subject workers are not 

eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers 

cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. 

Conclusion 

After careful reconsideration, I affirm 

the original notice of negative 

determination of eligibility to apply for 

worker adjustment assistance for 

workers and former workers of 

Advanced Electronics, Inc., Boston, 

Massachusetts. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 19th day of 

February 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–4389 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–65,018] 

National Vacuum Equipment, Traverse 

City, MI; Notice of Termination of 

Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on January 

29, 2009 in response to a worker 

petition filed by a company official on 

behalf of workers of National Vacuum 

Equipment, Traverse City, Michigan. 

The petitioner has requested that the 

petition be withdrawn. Consequently, 

the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

February 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–4403 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–65,091] 

Westpoint Home, Calhoun Falls, SC; 

Notice of Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on February 

3, 2009 in response to a worker petition 

filed by a company official, on behalf of 

workers of WestPoint Home, Calhoun 

Falls, South Carolina. 

The petitioner has requested that the 

petition be withdrawn. Consequently, 

the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of 

February 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–4404 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–65,164] 

Bradington-Young, LLC, Cherryville, 

NC; Notice of Termination of 

Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on February 

9, 2009 in response to a petition filed by 

a company official on behalf of workers 

of Bradington-Young, LLC, Cherryville, 

North Carolina. 

The workers at the subject facility are 

covered by an earlier petition (TA–W– 

65,147) filed on February 5, 2009 that is 

the subject of an ongoing investigation 

for which a determination has not been 

issued. Further investigation in this case 

would duplicate efforts and serve no 

purpose; therefore the investigation 

under this petition has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of 

February 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–4407 Filed 3–2–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES