Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 94 / Monday, May 18, 2009 / Notices 23215 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–63,943] 

Dana Holding Corporation, Sealing 

Products Group, Including On-Site 

Temporary Agency Workers from 

Pomeroy, Paris, TN; 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), and 

Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 

U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the 

Department of Labor issued a 

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for 

Worker Adjustment Assistance and 

Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance on November 3, 2008, 

applicable to workers of Dana Holding 

Corporation, Sealing Products Group, 

Paris, Tennessee. The notice was 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71696). 

At the request of the State agency, the 

Department reviewed the certification 

for workers of the subject firm. The 

workers produce composite covers and 

rubber gaskets for the automotive 

industry. 

The intent of the Department’s 

certification is to include all workers of 

the subject firm adversely affected by 

the shift in production of rubber gaskets 

to Mexico. 

New information shows that 

temporary agency workers from 

Pomeroy were employed on-site at the 

Paris, Tennessee, location of Dana 

Holding Corporation, Sealing Products 

Group. The Department has determined 

that these workers were sufficiently 

under the control of the subject firm. 

Based on these findings, the 

Department is amending this 

certification to include temporary 

agency employees of Pomeroy working 

on-site at the subject firm. 

The amended notice applicable to 

TA–W–63,943 is hereby issued as 

follows: 

‘‘All workers of Dana Holding Corporation, 

Sealing Products Group, Paris, Tennessee, 

including on-site temporary agency workers 

from Pomeroy, who became totally or 

partially separated from employment on or 

after August 27, 2007 through November 3, 

2010, 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 5th day of 

May 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–11433 Filed 5–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–62,655] 

Warp Processing Company, Inc. 

Exeter, PA; Notice of Revised 

Determination on Remand 

On February 20, 2009, the U.S. Court 

of International Trade (USCIT) 

remanded to the U.S. Department of 

Labor (Department) for further review 

Former Employees of Warp Processing 

Company, Inc. v. United States, Court 

No. 08–00179. 

The investigation was initiated on 

January 10, 2008, by three petitioning 

workers for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on 

behalf of workers and former workers of 

Warp Processing Company, Inc., Exeter, 

Pennsylvania (subject firm). The 

petition stated that the subject firm 

produced warped synthetic fibers, the 

subject firm’s customers increased 

imports from a foreign country, and the 

subject firm supplied component parts 

for articles produced by firms with 

currently TAA-certified worker groups. 

AR 3–5, 7. 

The petition also states that the 

subject firm furloughed forty-seven 

workers, AR 4,6, and that the imported 

article are not beamed fibers but ‘‘fabric 

and other finished product.’’ AR 7. 

The petition further states that ‘‘At 

Warp Processing we supply the 

component part for the finished 

products. We supply our customers 

with warped synthetic fibers and then 

they weave it into fabric and material 

and produce the finished product. Our 

company is an upstream supplier and/ 

or a downstream producer to a certified 

primary firm and is secondarily 

affected.’’ AR 7. 

The negative determination 

applicable to the subject workers stated 

that the subject firm ‘‘warped synthetic 

fibers’’ and that ‘‘Warping is a process 

by which yarn is placed onto beams for 

the textile industry.’’ The determination 

also stated that the subject firm did not 

import warped synthetic fibers or shift 

production to a foreign country, the 

subject firm’s major declining customers 

did not import like or directly 

competitive articles, and the subject 

workers did not qualify as adversely 

affected secondary workers. The 

negative determination was signed on 

February 19, 2008. AR 109–113. The 

Department’s Notice of determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on March 7, 2008 (73 FR 12466). AR 

126. 

In a submission dated March 14, 

2008, the petitioners requested 

administrative reconsideration of the 

Department’s negative determination, 

stated that the information received by 

the Department was erroneous and reasserted that the workers qualify as 

adversely affected secondary workers. 

AR 136–139. 

Stating that the requirement identified 

in 29 CFR 90.18 (Reconsideration of 

determination) was not met, the 

Department issued a Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration on March 18, 2008. 

AR 140–143. The Notice was published 

in the Federal Register on March 26, 

2008 (73 FR 16066). 

By letter dated May 16, 2008, 

Plaintiffs filed a complaint with the 

USCIT. The Plaintiffs asserted that the 

subject workers are eligible to apply for 

TAA as either adversely affected 

primary workers or adversely affected 

secondary workers. On February 20, 

2009, the USCIT remanded the matter to 

the Department. 

To apply for worker adjustment 

assistance under Section 222(a)(2)(A) of 

the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, 

petitioning workers must meet the 

following group eligibility requirements: 

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. 

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 

produced by the firm or a shift in 

production of the article, based on the 

investigation of the TAA/ATAA 

petition. 

For purposes of the Trade Act, a 

‘‘firm, together with any predecessor or 

successor-in-interest, or together with 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES
23216 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 94 / Monday, May 18, 2009 / Notices 

any affiliated firm controlled or 

substantially beneficially owned by 

substantially the same persons, may be 

considered a single firm.’’ 29 CFR 90.2 

(definition of ‘‘firm’’) 

During the remand investigation, the 

Department obtained additional 

information that establishes that 

although Brawer Bros, Inc. and the 

subject firm are separate entities, they 

are controlled by the same owners. 

Further, because the function performed 

by Warp Processing Company, Inc. 

supports the production of knit fabric at 

Brawer Bros, Inc., the subject workers 

are engaged in activity related to the 

production of knit fabric. Therefore, the 

Department determines that, in the case 

at hand, the subject firm is ‘‘Warp 

Processing Company, Inc. and Brawer 

Bros, Inc.,’’ Warp Processing Company, 

Inc. is an affiliate of the firm, and the 

article at issue is knit fabric. 

A careful review of the administrative 

record reveals that a significant number 

or proportion of workers at Warp 

Processing Company, Inc. has been 

separated or threatened with separation. 

Therefore, the Department determines 

that the first criterion of Section 

222(a)(2)(A) has been met. 

A careful review of the administrative 

record reveals that sales and production 

at Warp Processing Company, Inc. have 

absolutely declined. Therefore, the 

Department determines that the second 

criterion of Section 222(a)(2)(A) has 

been met. 

During the remand investigation, the 

Department conducted a survey of the 

subject firm’s major declining 

customers. The survey revealed 

increased imports during the relevant 

period of articles like or directly 

competitive with those produced by the 

subject firm which contributed 

importantly to worker separations at 

Warp Processing Company, Inc. and to 

the subject firm’s sales/production 

declines. Therefore, the Department 

determines that the third criterion of 

Section 222(a)(2)(A) has been met. 

Based on the above information, the 

Department determines that the 

petitioning workers are eligible to apply 

for TAA and, therefore, it is moot 

whether or not the workers are eligible 

to apply for TAA as adversely affected 

secondary workers. 

In accordance with Section 246 of the 

Trade Act of 1974 (26 USC 2813), as 

amended, the Department herein 

presents the results of its investigation 

regarding certification of eligibility to 

apply for ATAA. The Department has 

determined in this case that the group 

eligibility requirements of Section 246 

have been met. 

A significant number of workers at 

Warp Processing Company, Inc. are age 

50 or over and possess skills that are not 

easily transferable. Competitive 

conditions within the knit fabric 

industry are adverse. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the facts 

developed in the remand investigation, 

I determine that there was a separation 

of a significant number or proportion of 

workers at the subject firm or 

appropriate subdivision, that there were 

subject firm sales and production 

declines, and that increased imports of 

articles like or directly competitive with 

knit fabric produced by the subject firm 

contributed importantly to the subject 

firm’s declines and the workers’ 

separations. 

In accordance with the provisions of 

the Act, I make the following 

certification: 

‘‘All workers of Warp Processing Company, 

Inc., Exeter, Pennsylvania, who became 

totally or partially separated from 

employment on or after January 9, 2007, 

through two years from this revised 

determination, are eligible to apply for Trade 

Adjustment Assistance under Section 223 of 

the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to 

apply for alternative trade adjustment 

assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act 

of 1974.’’ 

Signed at Washington, DC this 1st day of 

May 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–11431 Filed 5–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,647] 

Trane US, Inc., Residential Systems 

Division, Tyler, TX; Notice of 

Affirmative Determination Regarding 

Application for Reconsideration 

By application dated March 20, 2009, 

the International Union of Electronics, 

Electrical, Salaried Machine and 

Furniture Workers (IUE), AFL–CIO, 

Local 86782 requested administrative 

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 the subject firm. The 

determination was issued on February 

13, 2009. The Notice of Determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on March 3, 2009 (74 FR 9279). 

The initial investigation resulted in a 

negative determination based on the 

finding that imports of air conditioning 

units did not contribute importantly to 

worker separations at the subject firm. 

The investigation revealed that the 

subject firm did not shift production of 

air conditioning units to foreign 

countries during the period under 

investigation. 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioner alleged that the workers of the 

subject firm manufactured components 

for air conditioners and that the subject 

firm shifted production of these 

components to Mexico during the 

relevant period. The petitioner also 

alleged that the subject firm has shifted 

production to China and that there was 

an increase in imports of air 

conditioning units from China. 

The Department has carefully 

reviewed the request for reconsideration 

and the existing record and has 

determined that the Department will 

conduct further investigation to 

determine if the workers meet the 

eligibility requirements of the Trade Act 

of 1974. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the 

application, I conclude that the claim is 

of sufficient weight to justify 

reconsideration of the U.S. Department 

of Labor’s prior decision. The 

application is, therefore, granted. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of 

May 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–11436 Filed 5–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,643; TA–W–64,643A; TA–W– 

64,643B] 

Amended Certification Regarding 

Eligibility To Apply for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

TA–W–64,643 

Chrysler LLC, Headquarters, Including 

On-Site Leased Workers from Aerotek, 

Ajilon, Argos, Bartech Group, CDI 

Information Services, Computer 

Consultants of America, Inc., 

Computer Engrg Services, Epitec 

Group, Inc., GTECH Professional 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with NOTICES