Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Notices 7321 

APPENDIX—Continued 

[TAA petitions instituted between 1/22/08 and 1/25/08] 

TA–W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution 

Date of petition 

62711 ................ Carrollton Specialty Products (Wkrs) ................................... Carrollton, MO ....................... 01/22/08 01/17/08 

62712 ................ Emerson Motor Co/Hurst Manufacturing (Comp) ................ Princeton, IN ......................... 01/22/08 01/21/08 

62713 ................ NGT Controls, Inc. (State) .................................................... Irvine, CA .............................. 01/22/08 01/18/08 

62714 ................ F.W. Rickard Seeds (Wrks) .................................................. Winchester, KY ..................... 01/22/08 01/21/08 

62715 ................ Formica Corporation (Comp) ................................................ Odenton, MD ......................... 01/22/08 01/17/08 

62716 ................ Lunt Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Comp) ................................... Hampshire, IL ........................ 01/23/08 01/18/08 

62717 ................ EGS Electrical Group (TLC) ................................................. Celina, TN ............................. 01/23/08 01/22/08 

62718 ................ Fraser Timber Limited (Comp) ............................................. Ashland, ME .......................... 01/23/08 01/19/08 

62719 ................ OSRAM Sylvania (IAMAW) .................................................. Warren, PA ........................... 01/23/08 01/22/08 

62720 ................ Pfizer Company (Wrks) ........................................................ Portage, MI ........................... 01/23/08 01/22/08 

62721 ................ Kirby Lester, LLC (State) ...................................................... Stamford, CT ......................... 01/23/08 01/22/08 

62722 ................ Benson Manufacturing, Inc. (Wkrs) ...................................... Mineral Wells, WV ................ 01/23/08 01/03/08 

62723 ................ Chestertown Foods, Inc. (State) .......................................... Chestertown, MD .................. 01/23/08 01/07/08 

62724 ................ Keola Precision Technology, Inc. (State) ............................. Fremont, CA .......................... 01/23/08 01/14/08 

62725 ................ Elmet Technologies (State) .................................................. Lewiston, ME ........................ 01/23/08 01/22/08 

62726 ................ Metaldyne (Wkrs) ................................................................. Farmington Hills, MI .............. 01/23/08 01/17/08 

62727 ................ KAM Plastics, Inc. (State) .................................................... Holland, MI ............................ 01/23/08 01/22/08 

62728 ................ Haldex Brake Products Corporation (Comp) ....................... Prattville, AL .......................... 01/24/08 01/23/08 

62729 ................ McComb Mill Manufacturing Company, Inc. (Comp) ........... McComb, MS ........................ 01/24/08 01/22/08 

62730 ................ Bartech Group (workers assigned to Delphi) (Wkrs) ........... Oak Creek, WI ...................... 01/24/08 01/18/08 

62731 ................ Lufkin Industries, Inc. (Comp) .............................................. Lufkin, TX .............................. 01/24/08 01/16/08 

62732 ................ Tall, Inc. (Rep) ...................................................................... Miami, FL .............................. 01/24/08 01/18/08 

62733 ................ Ravenna Aluminum, Inc. (Comp) ......................................... Ravenna, OH ........................ 01/24/08 12/28/07 

62734 ................ Imerys Kaolin (USWA) ......................................................... Dry Branch, GA ..................... 01/24/08 01/21/08 

62735 ................ GKN Driveline North America, Inc. (Comp) ......................... Sanford, NC .......................... 01/25/08 01/24/08 

62736 ................ Meade Instruments Corporation (State) ............................... Irvine, CA .............................. 01/25/08 01/24/08 

62737 ................ Cherry Electrical Products (Rep) .......................................... Pleasant Prairie, WI .............. 01/25/08 01/22/08 

62738 ................ Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. (Comp) .................... Mountain View, CA ............... 01/25/08 01/23/08 

62739 ................ Plymouth Rubber Co. LLC (Comp) ...................................... Canton, MA ........................... 01/25/08 01/24/08 

62740 ................ Tail, Inc. (Rep) ...................................................................... Miami, FL .............................. 01/25/08 01/18/08 

62741 ................ Corel (Wkrs) ......................................................................... Eden Prairie, MN .................. 01/25/08 01/22/08 

62742 ................ Edge Builder Wall Panels, Inc./Norse Division (Wkrs) ......... Oakdale, MN ......................... 01/25/08 01/11/08 

62743 ................ Hearthstone Enterprises, Inc./dba Charleston Forge 

(Comp).

Boone, NC ............................ 01/25/08 01/24/08 

62744 ................ Epitec Group (State) ............................................................. Southfield, MI ........................ 01/25/08 01/15/08 

62745 ................ Fourth Generation Services, Inc. (State) ............................. Troy, MI ................................. 01/25/08 01/15/08 

[FR Doc. E8–2233 Filed 2–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–62,101] 

American Woodmark, Hardy County 

Plant, Moorefield, WV; Notice of 

Negative Determination on 

Reconsideration 

On November 30, 2007, the 

Department issued an Affirmative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration for the workers and 

former workers of the subject firm. The 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register on December 11, 2007 (72 FR 

70344). 

The initial investigation resulted in a 

negative determination based on the 

finding that imports of kitchen cabinet 

parts did not contribute importantly to 

worker separations at the subject firm 

and no shift of production to a foreign 

source occurred. The investigation also 

revealed that the products manufactured 

at the subject firm are sent to other 

affiliated facilities for further finishing 

and assembly. 

The Carpenters Industrial Council, 

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and 

Joiners of America filed a request for 

reconsideration in which they contend 

that the workers of the subject firm 

build and assemble the finished 

products, which does not require further 

manufacturing and are sold to 

customers. The petitioner also requested 

that the Department of Labor investigate 

whether there was an increase in 

imports of articles like or directly 

competitive with products 

manufactured at the subject firm. 

The Department contacted a company 

official to verify products manufactured 

at the subject firm and whether the 

subject firm had any outside customers. 

During reconsideration, the company 

official provided new information and 

confirmed that the subject firm 

manufactures kitchen cabinet parts and 

hardwood cabinets which are sold to 

outside customers. The official also 

supplied the Department with a list of 

major declining customers who 

purchased hardwood cabinets from the 

subject firm. 

The Department of Labor surveyed the 

major declining customers of the subject 

firm regarding their purchases of like or 

directly competitive products with 

hardwood cabinets purchased from the 

subject firm in 2005, 2006, and during 

January through September 2007 over 

the corresponding 2006 period. The 

survey revealed that the customers did 

not increase their import purchases 

while decreasing purchases from the 

subject firm. 

The subject firm did not import 

hardwood cabinets nor was there a shift 

in production from subject firm abroad 

during the relevant period. 

Conclusion 

After reconsideration, I affirm the 

original notice of negative 

determination of eligibility to apply for 

worker adjustment assistance for 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
7322 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 26 / Thursday, February 7, 2008 / Notices 

workers and former workers of 

American Woodmark, Hardy County 

Plant, Moorefield, West Virginia. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of 

January, 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–2236 Filed 2–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–62,189] 

Diaz Intermediates Corporation, West 

Memphis, AR; Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration 

By letter dated December 28, 2007, a 

company official requested 

administrative reconsideration 

regarding the Department’s Negative 

Determination Regarding Eligibility to 

Apply for Worker Adjustment 

Assistance, applicable to the workers of 

the subject firm. The denial notice was 

signed on November 28, 2007 and 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 11, 2007 (72 FR 70346). 

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) 

reconsideration may be granted under 

the following circumstances: 

(1) If it appears on the basis of facts 

not previously considered that the 

determination complained of was 

erroneous; 

(2) If it appears that the determination 

complained of was based on a mistake 

in the determination of facts not 

previously considered; or 

(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying 

Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of 

the law justified reconsideration of the 

decision. 

The initial investigation resulted in a 

negative determination which was 

based on the finding that imports of 

brominated chemical intermediates (i.e. 

bromobenzene, m-bromoanisole, 

n-propyl bromide, and other organics) 

did not contribute importantly to 

worker separations at the subject plant 

and no shift of production to a foreign 

source occurred. The ‘‘contributed 

importantly’’ test is generally 

demonstrated through a survey of the 

workers’ firm’s declining customers. 

The survey revealed customers did not 

purchase imported brominated chemical 

intermediates during the relevant 

period. The subject firm did not import 

brominated chemical intermediates and 

no shifted in production of brominated 

chemical intermediates to a foreign 

country occurred. 

The petitioner stated that most of the 

subject firm’s sales were for export, 

however, there were losses in sales to 

domestic customers. The petitioner 

provided the name of a customer which 

ceased purchases from the subject firm 

in 2005 and at the same time started 

importing products like or directly 

competitive with brominated chemical 

intermediates produced by the subject 

firm. 

When assessing eligibility for Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (TAA), the 

Department exclusively considers 

import impact during the relevant time 

period (one year prior to the date of the 

petition). The Department surveyed 

customers of the subject firm regarding 

their purchases of brominated chemical 

intermediates during the relevant 

period. The survey revealed no imports 

of brominated chemical intermediates 

during the relevant period. 

Conclusion 

After review of the application and 

investigative findings, I conclude that 

there has been no error or 

misinterpretation of the law or of the 

facts which would justify 

reconsideration of the Department of 

Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the 

application is denied. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 30th day of 

January 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–2237 Filed 2–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–62,207] 

Diaz Intermediates Corporation, 

Brockport, NY; Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration 

By application dated December 28, 

2007, a company official requested 

administrative reconsideration of the 

Department’s negative determination 

regarding eligibility to apply for Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (TAA), 

applicable to workers and former 

workers of the subject firm. The denial 

notice was signed on November 28, 

2007 and published in the Federal 

Register on December 11, 2007 (72 FR 

70346). 

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) 

reconsideration may be granted under 

the following circumstances: 

(1) If it appears on the basis of facts 

not previously considered that the 

determination complained of was 

erroneous; 

(2) If it appears that the determination 

complained of was based on a mistake 

in the determination of facts not 

previously considered; or 

(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying 

Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of 

the law justified reconsideration of the 

decision. 

The investigation revealed that 

workers of the subject firm were in 

support of production of brominated 

chemical intermediates at Diaz 

Intermediates Corporation, West 

Memphis, Arkansas. The initial 

investigation resulted in a negative 

determination which was based on the 

finding that imports of brominated 

chemical intermediates (i.e., 

bromobenzene, m-bromoanisole, 

n-propyl bromide, and other organics) 

did not contribute importantly to 

worker separations at the subject plant 

and no shift of production to a foreign 

source occurred. The ‘‘contributed 

importantly’’ test is generally 

demonstrated through a survey of the 

workers’ firm’s declining customers. 

The survey revealed customers did not 

purchase imports of brominated 

chemical intermediates during the 

relevant period. The subject firm did not 

import brominated chemical 

intermediates and no shifted in 

production of brominated chemical 

intermediates to a foreign country 

occurred. 

The petitioner stated that most of the 

subject firm’s sales were for export, and 

that there were losses in sales to 

domestic customers. The petitioner 

provided the name of a customer which 

ceased purchases from the subject firm 

in 2005 and at the same time started 

importing products like or directly 

competitive with brominated chemical 

intermediates produced by the subject 

firm. 

When assessing eligibility for TAA, 

the Department exclusively considers 

import impact during the relevant time 

period (one year prior to the date of the 

petition). The Department surveyed 

customers of the subject firm regarding 

their purchases of brominated chemical 

intermediates during the relevant 

period. The survey revealed no imports 

of brominated chemical intermediates 

during the relevant period. 

Conclusion 

After review of the application and 

investigative findings, I conclude that 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES