10298 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Notices 

ASK/nlh 

cc: Mr. James Coyne King 

Mr. Ron Feldman 

[FR Doc. E9–5018 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

February 9, 2009, pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the National Cooperative 

Research and Production Act of 1993, 

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers (‘‘IEEE’’) has filed written 

notifications simultaneously with the 

Attorney General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing additions or 

changes to its standards development 

activities. The notifications were filed 

for the purpose of extending the Act’s 

provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Specifically, 34 new standards have 

been initiated and 9 existing standards 

are being revised. More detail regarding 

these changes can be found at http:// 

standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/ 

12–10–08.html and http:// 

standards.ieee.org/standardswire/sba/ 

01–30–09.html. 

On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its 

original notification pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the Act. The Department of 

Justice published a notice in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on November 3, 2004 (69 FR 64105). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on November 17, 2008. 

A notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on December 11, 2008 (73 FR 

75469). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–4853 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–63,422] 

Springs Global U.S., Inc., Springs 

Direct Division, Springmaid Wamsutta 

Factory Store, Lancaster, SC; Notice of 

Revised Determination on Remand 

On February 6, 2009, the U.S. Court 

of International Trade (USCIT) 

remanded to the U.S. Department of 

Labor (Department) for further review 

Former Employees of Springs Global, 

Inc., Springs Global Direct Division, 

Springmaid-Wamsutta Factory Store, 

Lancaster, South Carolina (FEO Springs 

Global) v. United States, Court No. 08– 

00255. 

On May 19, 2008, an official of 

Springs Global U.S. Inc. (subject firm) 

filed a petition for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on 

behalf of workers of Springs Global U.S. 

Inc., Springs Global Direct Division, 

Springmaid-Wamsutta Factory Store, 

Lancaster, South Carolina (subject 

facility). 

The subject facility closed during 

February 2008. Prior to the closure, 

workers at the subject facility managed 

Springs Global, U.S., Inc. (subject firm) 

retail operations, sold linen products 

manufactured by the subject firm to the 

public and other subject firm 

employees, and handled special orders 

for linen products placed by other 

subject firm employees. 

The negative determination, issued on 

May 30, 2008, stated that in order to be 

considered eligible to apply for 

adjustment assistance under Section 223 

of the Trade Act of 1974, the subject 

worker group must work for a ‘‘firm’’ or 

appropriate subdivision that produces 

an article domestically and there must 

be a relationship between the workers’ 

work and the article produced by the 

workers’ firm or appropriate 

subdivision. The determination also 

stated that although the subject firm 

produced an article, the subject workers 

did not support that production. The 

Department determined that the subject 

worker group cannot be considered 

import impacted or affected by a shift in 

production of an article. The 

Department’s Notice of determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on June 16, 2008 (73 FR 34044). 

The Department did not receive a 

request for administrative 

reconsideration. 

In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that 

workers at the subject facility, who 

‘‘provided the means by which Springs 

Global dispensed of manufactured 

goods that were not able to be sold 

otherwise * * * thereby enabling the 

company’s production operations * * * 

to reduce their per-unit overhead and 

operate more efficiently,’’ should be 

treated like the workers covered by TA– 

W–62,768 (Springs Global U.S., Inc., 

Springs Direct Division, Corporate 

Support Group, Lancaster, South 

Carolina; certified February 14, 2008). 

Workers covered by TA–W–63,422 are 

located in the same building as workers 

covered by TA–W–62,786. 

Workers covered by TA–W–62,786 are 

engaged in production estimation, 

production scheduling, distribution, 

logistics, and operational services. The 

determination for TA–W–62,786 stated 

that the workers supported production 

at a TAA-certified facility (Springs 

Global U.S., Inc., Grace Complex, 

Bedding Division, Lancaster, South 

Carolina; TA–W–61,258) and that the 

worker separations are ‘‘related to a shift 

of production and increased imports of 

textile products.’’ 

The group eligibility requirements for 

directly-impacted workers under 

Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as 

amended, based on a shift of production 

are satisfied if the criteria set forth 

under Section 222(a)(2)(B) have been 

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. 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 one of the 

following must be satisfied: 

1. 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; 

2. the country to which the workers’ firm 

has shifted production of the articles 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. 

On remand, the Department carefully 

reviewed the language of the statute, the 

Department’s policy, Plaintiffs’ 

submissions, and the administrative 

record. 

The intent of the Department is for a 

certification to cover all workers of the 

subject firm or appropriate subdivision 

who were adversely affected by 

increased imports of the article