Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Notices 10303 

and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade 

Act have been met. 

TA–W–64,974; Fredon Development 

Industries, LLC, Newton, NJ: 

January 23, 2008 

TA–W–64,421; Pacific Automotive 

Components and Systems 

International, ImLay City, MI: 

November 12, 2007 

TA–W–64,870; Molded Fiber Glass Co., 

Stevenson, WA: January 12, 2008 

TA–W–64,902; Shin Etsu Handoti 

America, Inc., Leased Workers of 

Volt and Kelly Temporary, 

Vancouver, WA: January 14, 2008 

TA–W–64,960; Pax Machine Works, Inc., 

Celina, OH: January 21, 2008 

TA–W–65,102; Kelsey Hayes Company, 

North American Braking and 

Suspension Division Fenton, MI: 

February 3, 2008 

TA–W–65,178; Louis Lavitt Company, 

Inc., Hickory, NC: February 6, 2008 

The following certifications have been 

issued. The requirements of Section 

222(b) (downstream producer for a firm 

whose workers are certified eligible to 

apply for TAA based on increased 

imports from or a shift in production to 

Mexico or Canada) and Section 

246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have 

been met. 

None 

Negative Determinations for Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

In the following cases, it has been 

determined that the requirements of 

246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for 

the reasons specified. 

The Department has determined that 

criterion (1) of Section 246 has not been 

met. The firm does not have a 

significant number of workers 50 years 

of age or older. 

TA–W–64,952; Heritage Footwear, Inc., 

Fort Payne, AL 

The Department has determined that 

criterion (2) of Section 246 has not been 

met. Workers at the firm possess skills 

that are easily transferable. 

TA–W–64,802; HR Solutions, LLC, 

Subsidiary of Affiliated Computer 

Services, Pittsburgh, PA 

The Department has determined that 

criterion (3) of Section 246 has not been 

met. Competition conditions within the 

workers’ industry are not adverse. 

None 

Negative Determinations for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

In the following cases, the 

investigation revealed that the eligibility 

criteria for worker adjustment assistance 

have not been met for the reasons 

specified. 

Because the workers of the firm are 

not eligible to apply for TAA, the 

workers cannot be certified eligible for 

ATAA. 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) 

(employment decline) have not been 

met. 

TA–W–64,420; Nordyne, Inc., On-Site 

Leased Workers From Lifestyle 

Staffing Poplar Bluff, MO. 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or 

production, or both, did not decline) 

and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production 

to a foreign country) have not been met. 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased 

imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in 

production to a foreign country) have 

not been met. 

TA–W–64,186; American Polymers, Inc., 

Oxford, MA. 

TA–W–64,793; Lukas Confections, Inc., 

dba The Classic Caramel Co., York, 

PA. 

TA–W–64,846; Tracker Marine Group, 

LLC, Bolivar, MO. 

TA–W–64,875A; Rosboro Lumber 

Company, Plywood Division 

Springfield, OR. 

TA–W–64,875B; Rosboro Lumber 

Company, Glulam Beams Division 

Springfield, OR. 

TA–W–65,252; Hutchinson Technology, 

Inc., Plymouth, MN. 

TA–W–65,160; Hutchinson Technology, 

Inc., Hutchinson, MN. 

The workers’ firm does not produce 

an article as required for certification 

under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 

1974. 

TA–W–64,912; Road and Rail Services, 

Venice, IL. 

TA–W–65,013; Axcelis Technologies, 

Global Customer Operations, 

Portland, OR. 

TA–W–65,021; EcoLab, Inc., Accounts 

Receivable Division, Research and 

Development Division, Eagan, MN. 

The investigation revealed that 

criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been 

met. The workers’ firm (or subdivision) 

is not a supplier to or a downstream 

producer for a firm whose workers were 

certified eligible to apply for TAA. 

TA–W–64,570; ZF Lemforder, LLC, 

Chicago, IL. 

I hereby certify that the 

aforementioned determinations were 

issued during the period of February 17 

through February 20, 2009. Copies of 

these determinations are available for 

inspection in Room N–5428, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 

during normal business hours or will be 

mailed to persons who write to the 

above address. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

Dated: March 3, 2009. 

[FR Doc. E9–5037 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,190] 

Hafner USA, Inc., New York, NY; Notice 

of Negative Determination on 

Reconsideration 

On January 13, 2009, the Department 

issued an Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration of the negative 

determination regarding workers’ 

eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) 

applicable to workers and former 

workers of Hafner USA, Inc., New York, 

New York (subject firm). The 

Department’s Notice was published in 

the Federal Register on January 26, 

2009 (74 FR 4460). 

The initial determination was based 

on the Department’s findings that the 

subject worker group does not support 

a firm or appropriate subdivision that 

produces an article domestically. 

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 

sales or production of such firm or 

subdivision. 

29 CFR 90.2 states that a group means 

‘‘three or more workers in a firm or an 

appropriate subdivision thereof’’ and 

that a significant number or proportion 

of the workers means ‘‘at least three 

workers in a firm (or appropriate 

subdivision thereof) with a work force 

10304 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 10, 2009 / Notices 

of fewer than 50 workers.’’ The 

regulation also states that ‘‘increased 

imports means that imports have 

increased either absolutely or relative to 

domestic production compared 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 petition date is October 3, 

2008, the relevant period (the twelve 

months prior to the date of the petition) 

is October 2007 through September 

2008 and the representative base period 

is October 2006 through September 

2007. 

The Department has carefully 

reviewed information submitted during 

the initial and reconsideration 

investigations. The Department 

determines that the petition did not 

cover a valid worker group (the group 

consisted of only two workers at the 

subject firm) and that, during relevant 

period, less that three workers were 

separated or were threatened with 

separation from the subject firm. 

Based on the information above, the 

Department determines that the group 

eligibility requirements under Section 

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

amended, were not met. 

Even if there was a valid worker 

group and the worker separation 

threshold was met, the Department 

would not have issued a certification 

applicable to the subject worker group. 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department confirmed 

that the subject firm ceased production 

in the United States in 2005. The North 

Carolina facility identified in the 

request for reconsideration was a 

marketing office. The Virginia facility 

identified in the request for 

reconsideration (Hafner LLC, a 

subsidiary of Hafner, Inc., Gordonsville, 

Virginia) was certified on May 16, 2005 

(TA–W–57,119) based on a shift of 

production to Canada. 

Because there was no domestic 

production during the relevant period, 

the Department determines that there 

was no domestic production that 

increased imports could have impacted. 

Further, the Department determines that 

there was no shift of production to a 

foreign country during the relevant 

period. 

In order for the Department to issue 

a certification of eligibility to apply for 

Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (ATAA), the subject worker 

group must be certified eligible to apply 

for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). 

Since the subject workers are denied 

eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers 

cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. 

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 Hafner 

USA, Inc., New York, New York. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

February 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–5042 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–65,280] 

Eaton Corporation, Mentor, OH; Notice 

of Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on February 

18, 2009 in response to a worker 

petition filed by a company official on 

behalf of workers of Eaton Corporation, 

Mentor, Ohio. 

The petitioner has requested that the 

petition be withdrawn. Consequently, 

the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

February 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–5047 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–65,214] 

Everett Charles Technologies, Inc., 

Fixture and Services Group, 

Longmont, CO; Notice of Termination 

of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on February 

11, 2009 in response to a worker 

petition filed by a company official on 

behalf of workers of Everett Charles 

Technologies, Inc., Fixture and Services 

Group, Longmont, Colorado. 

The petitioner has requested that the 

petition be withdrawn. Consequently, 

the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

February 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–5046 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–65,326] 

Horton Mfg. Co. LLC, Tallmadge, OH; 

Notice of Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on February 

23, 2009 in response to a worker 

petition filed on behalf of workers of 

Horton Mfg. Co. LLC, Tallmadge, Ohio. 

The petitioner has requested that the 

petition be withdrawn. Consequently, 

the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of 

February 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–5049 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–65, 359] 

The Modesto Bee; Ad Production 

Group; Modesto, CA; Notice of 

Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on February 

24, 2009, in response to a worker 

petition filed on behalf of workers at 

The Modesto Bee; Ad Production 

Group; Modesto, California. 

The petitioning group of workers is 

covered by an active certification (TA– 

W–64, 860) which expires on February 

11, 2011. 

Consequently, further investigation in 

this case would serve no purpose, and 

the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 25th day of 

February 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–5036 Filed 3–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P