6734 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 8, 2005 / Notices 

The Department of Labor issued a 

negative determination applicable to the 

petitioning group of workers on 

December 20, 2004 (TA–W–56,096). 

Consequently, further investigation 

would serve no purpose, and the 

investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of 

January 2005. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E5–494 Filed 2–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–54,129A and TA–W–54,129D] 

Kemet Electronics Corporation, 

Simpsonville Facility, Simpsonville, 

South Carolina; Including Employees 

of Kemet Electronics Corporation, 

Simpsonville Facility, Simpsonville, 

SC, Located in Greenwood, SC; 

Amended Certification Regarding 

Eligibility, To Apply for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

In accordance with section 223 of the 

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the 

Department of Labor issued a 

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for 

Worker Adjustment Assistance and 

Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance on February 23, 2004, 

applicable to workers of KEMET 

Electronics Corporation, Simpsonville 

Facility, Simpsonville, South Carolina. 

The notice was published in the Federal 

Register on April 6, 2004 (69 FR 18111). 

At the request of a company official, 

the Department reviewed the 

certification for workers of the subject 

firm. Workers of KEMET’s headquarters 

are included in the certification for 

workers at the Simpsonville Facility 

located in Simpsonville, South Carolina. 

New information provided by the firm 

shows that Mr. Larry Budreau and Mr. 

Jimmy Arflin were separated from 

employment with the firm. They were 

reporting to headquarters but were 

working out of Greenwood, South 

Carolina. They provided support 

services related to the electronic 

capacitors produced by the firm. 

Based on these findings, the 

Department is amending this 

certification to include employees of 

KEMET Electronics Corporation, 

Simpsonville Facility, Simpsonville, 

South Carolina working in Greenwood, 

South Carolina. Since the workers of the 

Simpsonville Facility were certified 

eligible to apply for alternative trade 

adjustment assistance, the Department 

is extending this eligibility to Mr. Larry 

Budreau and Mr. Jimmy Arflin. 

The intent of the Department’s 

certification is to include all workers of 

KEMET Electronics Corporation, 

Simpsonville Facility, Simpsonville, 

South Carolina, who were adversely 

affected by a shift in production to 

Mexico. 

The amended notice applicable to 

TA–W–54,129A is hereby issued as 

follows:

All workers of KEMET Electronics 

Corporation, Simpsonville Facility, 

Simpsonville, South Carolina (TA–W–

54,129A), including employees of KEMET 

Electronics Corporation, Simpsonville 

facility, Simpsonville, South Carolina, 

located in Greenwood, South Carolina (TA–

W–54,129D), who became totally or partially 

separated from employment on or after 

January 3, 2004, through February 23, 2006, 

are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 

under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, 

and are also eligible to apply for alternative 

trade adjustment assistance under Section 

246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed in Washington, DC this 31st day of 

January 2005. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E5–489 Filed 2–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–56,127] 

Standard Corporation; A UTI 

Worldwide Company Kinston, NC; 

Notice of Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on December 

3, 2004, in response to a worker petition 

filed by company official on behalf of 

workers at Standard Corporation, a UTi 

Worldwide Company, Kinston, North 

Carolina. 

The petitioning group of workers is 

covered by an active certification, (TA–

W–55,977) which expires on December 

9, 2006. Consequently, further 

investigation in this case would serve 

no purpose, and the investigation has 

been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 7th day of 

January 2005. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E5–490 Filed 2–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Announcement of the Mailing 

Addresses for Applications Not Filed 

Electronically Under the New 

Permanent Foreign Labor Certification 

(PERM) Program

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The regulation to implement 

the re-engineered permanent foreign 

labor certification program (PERM) was 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 27, 2004, with an effective 

date of March 28, 2005. See 69 FR 

77326. The Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA) of the Department 

of Labor (Department or DOL) is issuing 

this notice to announce the mailing 

addresses for employers that choose to 

file applications by mail under the new 

permanent foreign labor certification 

program. The Department encourages 

employers to file applications 

electronically as applications submitted 

by mail will not be processed as quickly 

as those filed electronically. 

As of December 13, 2004, the 

Department opened two new National 

Processing Centers in Atlanta and 

Chicago. The National Processing 

Centers will handle permanent labor 

certification cases filed under the PERM 

system. In addition, these centers will 

process all applications that are 

withdrawn from the current permanent 

labor certification program and re-filed 

under the new PERM program.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Carlson, Chief, Division of 

Foreign Labor Certification, 

Employment and Training 

Administration, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room C–4312, 

Washington, DC 20210; Telephone: 

(202) 693–3010 (this is not a toll-free 

number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The new 

PERM regulation is effective March 28, 

2005. Under the PERM program, 

employers will submit their 

applications for permanent labor 

certification directly to DOL using either 

electronic or mail-in options. Employers 

will, among other things, be required to 

obtain a prevailing wage determination 

from the appropriate State Workforce 

Agency (SWA) prior to filing their 

applications with DOL. 

Until March 27, 2005, employers must 

continue to submit applications for 

permanent labor certification to State 

Workforce Agencies. All applications 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 8, 2005 / Notices 6735

for permanent labor certification 

received by the SWAs postmarked 

March 28, 2005 or later will be returned 

to the sender. 

Employers choosing to use the e-filing 

option under the new PERM program 

will complete their applications via the 

Internet at http://

www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/

foreign. A major advantage of e-filing is 

the on-line system’s ability to assist 

employers by instantaneously checking 

for obvious errors. This option will also 

speed the process of evaluating the 

applications, and prevent data entry 

errors. 

For employers choosing to submit an 

application for permanent employment 

certification by U.S. mail, applications 

must be sent to one of the two National 

Processing Centers, as explained below. 

If the area of intended employment is 

in one of the following states or 

territories, then the PERM application 

must be mailed to the Atlanta 

Processing Center at the address listed 

below: 

Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, 

Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, 

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Puerto 

Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, 

Tennessee, Vermont, Virgin Islands, 

Virginia, Washington DC, West Virginia, 

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment 

and Training Administration, Harris 

Tower, 233 Peachtree Street, NE., Suite 

410, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; Phone: 

(404) 893–0101, Fax: (404) 893–4642. 

If the area of intended employment is 

in one of the following states or 

territories then the PERM application 

must be mailed to the Chicago 

Processing Center at the address listed 

below: 

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, 

Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, 

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, 

Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, U.S. 

Department of Labor, Employment and 

Training Administration, 844 North 

Rush Street, 12th Floor, Chicago, Illinois 

60611; Phone: (312) 886–8000, Fax: 

(312) 886–1688.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 31st day of 

January, 2005. 

Emily Stover DeRocco, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration.

[FR Doc. 05–2373 Filed 2–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–51,173 and NAFTA–6472] 

Ericsson, Inc., Brea, CA; Notice of 

Revised Determination on Remand 

The United States Court of 

International Trade (USCIT) granted the 

Secretary of Labor’s motion for a second 

voluntary remand for further 

investigation in Former Employees of 

Ericsson, Inc. v. U.S. Secretary of Labor

(Court No. 02–00809). 

The Department’s denial of the initial 

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 

petition was issued on April 15, 2003. 

The Notice of determination was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 18, 2003 (68 FR 49522). The 

negative determination was based on 

the finding that the worker group did 

not produce an article within the 

meaning of section 222 of the Trade Act 

of 1974, as amended. The workers 

performed software development. 

The Department’s denial of the initial 

NAFTA–TAA petition was issued on 

September 24, 2002. The notice of 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register on October 10, 2002 

(67 FR 63160). The negative 

determination was based on the finding 

that the worker group did not produce 

an article within the meaning of section 

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

amended. Workers at the subject facility 

developed software for other Ericsson 

units. 

The Plaintiffs requested judicial 

review of the TAA case by letter to the 

USCIT, filed on December 18, 2002. In 

the letter, the Plaintiffs contended that 

the Department failed to fully 

investigate the TAA petition, that the 

subject worker group was misclassified, 

and that the Department did not 

correctly apply the statutory criteria. On 

August 20, 2003, the USCIT granted the 

Plaintiff’s motion to consolidate the 

TAA case into the NAFTA case. On 

September 11, 2003, the USCIT issued 

a Voluntary Remand Order, directing 

the Department to determine whether 

the workers are eligible for benefits. 

During the remand investigation, the 

Department investigated whether the 

workers produced an article and, if so, 

whether the workers were eligible to 

apply for NAFTA–TAA. The 

investigation found that the subject 

worker group did not produce an article 

within the meaning of the Trade Act. 

The Department issued a Notice of 

Negative Determination on 

Reconsideration on Remand on January 

14, 2004. The notice of determination 

was published in the Federal Register

on January 23, 2004 (69 FR 3394). 

On October 13, 2004, the USCIT again 

remanded the matter to the Department, 

finding that the Department failed to 

adequately investigate the Plaintiff’s 

claims and that the Department’s 

findings were unsupported by 

substantial evidence on the record. The 

USCIT directed the Department to 

investigate whether the workers were 

eligible for benefits. 

During the second remand 

investigation, the Department raised 

additional questions and obtained 

detailed supplemental responses from 

the company. In particular, the new 

information indicates that, in addition 

to software development, the subject 

worker group supported production at 

an affiliated software production 

facility. As such, the subject worker 

group did engage in activity related to 

the production of an article. The second 

remand investigation also revealed that 

all production at the affiliated facility 

shifted to Canada during the relevant 

period and the subject firm 

simultaneously began importing the 

product from Canada. 

The investigation revealed that the 

subject facility experienced employment 

declines during the relevant time and 

that the workers were in support of an 

affiliated production facility that is TAA 

and NAFTA–TAA certifiable. As such, 

the Department determines that the 

subject worker group meets the statutory 

criteria for TAA and NAFTA–TAA 

certification. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the additional 

facts obtained on remand, I determine 

that a shift of production to Canada of 

articles like or directly competitive with 

those produced by the subject firm and 

the simultaneous imports of those 

articles from Canada, contributed 

importantly to the worker separations 

and sales or production declines at the 

subject firm. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

the Trade Act, I make the following 

certification:

‘‘All workers of Ericsson, Inc., Brea, 

California (TA–W–51,173), who became 

totally or partially separated from 

employment on or after January 6, 2002, 

through two years from the issuance of this 

revised determination, are eligible to apply 

for worker adjustment assistance under 

section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,’’

and‘‘All workers of Ericsson, Inc., Brea, 

California (NAFTA 6472), who became 

totally or partially separated from 

employment on or after August 1, 2001, 

through two years from the issuance of this 

revised determination, are eligible to apply