Hutchinson Technology, Eau Claire, WI; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand, 6213-6215 [E8-1826]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
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–62,597; Parma Corporation,
Denton, NC.
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.
None.
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–62,400; Janesville Acoustics,
Grand Rapids, MI.
TA–W–62,541; GE Consumer and
Industrial, Electrical Equipment
Division, West Burlington, IA.
The workers’ firm does not produce
an article as required for certification
under section 222 of the Trade Act of
1974.
TA–W–62,341; Nortel Networks
Corporation, Global Order
Fulfillment, Research Triangle Park,
NC.
TA–W–62,479; Grand Knitting Mills,
Blueberry Boulevard, LLC,
Amityville, NY.
TA–W–62,493; Electronic Data Systems,
Computer Operators of the
Mainframe Disaster, Recovery
Testing for GM, Flint, MI.
TA–W–62,599; J.C. Matthews and
Company, Inc., Galax, VA.
TA–W–62,627; Newton Transportation
Company, Inc., Hudson, NC.
TA–W–62,675; Syncreon-US, JNAP
Operation, Division of Syncreon
Automotive, Detroit, MI.
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:22 Jan 31, 2008
Jkt 214001
None.
6213
I hereby certify that the aforementioned
determinations were issued during the period
of January 14 through January 18, 2008.
Copies of these determinations are available
for inspection in Room C–5311, 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.
workers of Syngenta Inc., Crop
Protection Division, Bucks, Alabama.
The petitioning group of workers is
covered by an active certification (TA–
W–59,181), which expires on April 21,
2008. Consequently, further
investigation in this case would serve
no purpose, and the investigation has
been terminated.
Dated: January 24, 2008.
Ralph DiBattista,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–1825 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am]
Signed in Washington, DC, this 25th day of
January 2008.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–1823 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–62,677]
[TA–W–62,670]
Llink Technologies, LLC, Brown City,
MO; Notice of Termination of
Investigation
Visteon Concordia VRAP, Concordia,
MO; Notice of Termination of
Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on January
14, 2008 in response to a petition filed
by a company official on behalf of
workers of Llink Technologies, LLC,
Brown City, Missouri.
The Department has determined that
this petition is a photocopy of petition
number TA–W–62,630, instituted on
January 3, 2008. The investigation of
that petition is ongoing and
determination has not yet been issued.
Therefore, further investigation in the
case would serve no purpose, and this
investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on January
14, 2008 in response to a petition filed
by the International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America on
behalf of workers of Visteon Concordia
VRAP, Concordia, Missouri.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of
January, 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–1828 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am]
Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of
January, 2008.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–1827 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
Employment and Training
Administration
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA–W–61,760]
Employment and Training
Administration
Hutchinson Technology, Eau Claire,
WI; Notice of Negative Determination
on Remand
[TA–W–62,703]
Syngenta Inc. Crop Protection
Division, Bucks, AL; Notice of
Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on January
18, 2008 in response to a petition filed
by a company official on behalf of
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
On November 6, 2007, the U.S. Court
of International Trade (USCIT) granted
the U.S. Department of Labor’s motion
for a voluntary remand in Former
Employees of Hutchinson Technology v.
U.S. Secretary of Labor, Court No. 07–
335.
On June 21, 2007, a TAA Coordinator
for the State of Wisconsin filed a
E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM
01FEN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
6214
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices
petition for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on
behalf of workers and former workers at
Hutchinson Technology, Eau Claire,
Wisconsin (the subject facility)
producing suspension assemblies for
disc drives(the subject worker group).
Administrative Record (AR) 1–3.
The Department’s negative
determination, issued on July 10, 2007
(72 41088, July 26, 2007), was based on
findings that worker separations at the
subject facility were caused by declining
sales due to decreased exports and that
the subject firm did not import
suspension assemblies for disc drives.
AR 19.
On August 22, 2007, a former
employee of the subject firm (the
petitioner) requested administrative
reconsideration of the negative
determination. Supplemental
Administrative Record (SAR) 28–30. In
that request, the petitioner asserted that
‘‘the decision made on July 10, 2007
was made in error because the U.S.
Department of Labor did not have all of
the facts relevant to the application.’’
SAR 28. On September 28, 2007, the
Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration for the workers and
former workers of the subject firm,
because the Department determined that
additional information received from
the petitioner concerning the subject
firm’s customers merited investigation.
The Department’s Notice of
determination was published in the
Federal Register on October 5, 2007 (72
FR 57070). SAR 34.
On September 7, 2007, while the
request for reconsideration was pending
before the Department, the petitioner
appealed the denial of its petition to the
USCIT. The appeal was based on the
same information that appeared in the
request for reconsideration. On
November 6, 2007 the Department
obtained a voluntary remand of the
USCIT proceeding so that the
Department could investigate the
allegations and information provided by
the Plaintiff in the request for
reconsideration.
In the request for reconsideration the
petitioner acknowledged that ‘‘currently
the majority of hard drive suspensions
are exported overseas’’. AR 29.
However, the requester also stated that
the subject firm separated a significant
number of workers and that sales and
production have decreased during the
relevant time period, and that this
negative impact was a direct result of
the loss of the Argon product line at the
subject firm to a foreign competitor
based in Singapore.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:22 Jan 31, 2008
Jkt 214001
The Department contacted the
petitioner to obtain additional
information regarding the Argon
product line and the imports impacting
the subject firm. The petitioner did not
have any additional information and
requested the Department to verify all
the information with the officials of the
subject firm. SAR 64.
The Department contacted a company
official to address this allegation. The
company official clarified that Argon is
the name of a specific suspension
assembly product that was
manufactured for a major customer
headquartered in the United States. The
company official further confirmed that
Argon product line was lost to a foreign
competitor, which resulted in declines
in total sales, production and
employment at the subject firm. SAR 36.
The decline in sales to this customer
represented nearly the entire subject
firm’s total domestic sales decline. The
official also stated that Argon product
line was specifically sold and shipped
to a customer’s foreign subsidiary and
was not sold on the domestic market.
SAR 39, 45. Therefore, the losses in
sales and production of Argon line and
consequent decline in employment at
the subject firm are the direct result of
the decrease in exports.
The Department contacted the major
domestic customer who purchased the
Argon-line products to confirm this
information. It was confirmed that this
customer purchased these products for
export to a foreign subsidiary and no
suspension assembly products have
been imported into the United States by
this customer. SAR 45,46,67.
The request for reconsideration
further alleged that ‘‘the majority of
hard drive suspensions are exported
overseas to be assembled into computer
hard drives and imported back into the
United States.’’ SAR 29. The petitioner
concluded that imported finished
products which contain foreign
manufactured components are like or
directly competitive with imported
finished products containing
components manufactured by the
subject firm and therefore, the subject
firm should be considered import
impacted.
In order to establish import impact,
the Department must consider imports
that are like or directly competitive with
the products manufactured by the
petitioning worker group. Suspension
assemblies are components of computer
hard drives, which incorporate multiple
components. Therefore, suspension
assemblies are not like or directly
competitive with the computer hard
drives produced abroad and imported
by the subject firm or its customers.
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Accordingly, imports of computer hard
drives are not relevant in this
investigation and increased imports of
computer hard drives cannot be the
basis for certification of the subject
worker group. International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW, Local 834 v. Donovan,
592 F. Supp. 673, 677–679 (C.I.T. 1984).
In the request for reconsideration the
petitioner further alleged that
Hutchinson Technology, Inc. shifted
functions of the microscope inspection
labor to either Singapore, Thailand and/
or China via sub-contracting. SAR 29,
30.
The Department contacted the
petitioner to obtain additional
information regarding the sorting
functions. The petitioner stated that
sorting was not a part of the production
process, but is integrated into the
production cost and that workers
performing these functions should be
considered in support of production.
While uncertain, the petitioner
conjectured that the sorting functions
had been shifted to Singapore but that
the Department should rely on
information received from the officials
of the subject firm. SAR 64.
The Department contacted a company
official to address this allegation. The
company official stated that the subject
firm used its service center in Thailand
to undertake inspection and sorting and
that some sorting functions have been
shifted from the subject firm to Thailand
in the relevant time period. The official
also stated that workers performing
sorting and inspection functions do not
produce suspension assemblies for disk
drives, but rather support production of
all suspension assemblies for disk
drives. SAR 47, 66. The subject firm did
not shift production of suspension
assemblies for disk drives abroad. SAR
36.
Furthermore, Thailand is not a
country that is a party to a free trade
agreement with the United States or a
country that is named as a beneficiary
under the Andean Trade Preference Act,
the African Growth and Opportunity
Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act. Any shift to Thailand
cannot be the basis for certification of
the subject worker group.
During the initial phase of the
reconsideration/remand investigation,
the Department contacted Plaintiff for
additional information and clarification
of his allegations. Once Plaintiff had
retained Counsel, the parties filed a
consent motion for a 30-day extension
of the remand period so that Plaintiff’s
Counsel had an opportunity to review
the record and provide the Department
E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM
01FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices
with comments and other pertinent
information. That motion was granted
on December 12, 2007. The Counsel was
provided with the business confidential
information from the initial
administrative record as well as with
the material generated in the
reconsideration/remand investigation.
While the investigator contacted
Plaintiff’s Counsel to remind him of his
opportunity, the Department received
no substantive input. SAR 68–70.
In addition, in accordance with
section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, the Department herein
presents the results of its remand
investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA.
In order for the Department to issue
a certification of eligibility to apply for
ATAA, the subject worker group must
be certified as eligible to apply for TAA.
Since the workers have been denied
certification for TAA, they cannot be
certified for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the findings of
the remand investigation, I affirm the
original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
trade adjustment assistance for workers
and former workers of Hutchinson
Technology, Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of
January 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8–1826 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Proposed Collection, Comment
Request
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
ACTION:
Notice.
SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as
part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent burden,
conducts a pre-clearance consultation
program to provide the general public
and Federal agencies with an
opportunity to comment on proposed
and/or continuing collections of
information in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This
program helps to ensure that requested
data can be provided in the desired
format, reporting burden (time and
financial resources) is minimized,
collection instruments are clearly
understood, and the impact of collection
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:22 Jan 31, 2008
Jkt 214001
requirements on respondents can be
properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments
concerning the proposed extension of
the Quarterly Census of Employment
and Wages Program. A copy of the
proposed information collection request
(ICR) can be obtained by contacting the
individual listed below in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted to the office listed in the
Addresses section of this notice on or
before April 1, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Amy A.
Hobby, BLS Clearance Officer, Division
of Management Systems, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Room 4080, 2
Massachusetts Avenue, NE.,
Washington, DC 20212, 202–691–7628.
(This is not a toll free number.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy A. Hobby, BLS Clearance Officer,
202–691–7628. (See ADDRESSES section.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Quarterly Census of Employment
and Wages (QCEW) program, a Federal/
State cooperative effort, produces
monthly employment and quarterly
wage information. It is a by-product of
quarterly reports submitted to State
Workforce Agencies (SWAs) by
employers subject to State
Unemployment Insurance (UI) laws.
The collection of these data is
authorized by 29 U.S.C. 1, 2. The QCEW
data, which are compiled for each
calendar quarter, provide a
comprehensive business name and
address file with employment and wage
information for employers subject to
State UI laws. Similar data for Federal
Government employers covered by the
Unemployment Compensation for
Federal Employees program also are
included. These data are submitted to
the BLS by all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
Islands. The BLS summarizes these data
to produce totals for all counties,
Metropolitan Statistical Areas, the
States, and the nation. The QCEW
program provides a virtual census of
nonagricultural employees and their
wages, with about 51 percent of the
workers in agriculture covered as well.
The QCEW program is a
comprehensive and accurate source of
data on the number of establishments,
monthly employment, and quarterly
wages, by industry, at the six-digit
North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) level, and at the
national, State, Metropolitan Statistical
Area, and county levels. The QCEW
series has broad economic significance
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
6215
in measuring labor trends and major
industry developments, in time series
analyses and industry comparisons, and
in special studies such as analyses of
establishments, employment, and wages
by size of establishment.
II. Current Action
Office of Management and Budget
clearance is being sought for the
Quarterly Census of Employment and
Wages (QCEW) program.
The QCEW program is the only
Federal statistical program that provides
information on establishments, wages,
tax contributions and the number of
employees subject to State UI laws and
the Unemployment Compensation for
Federal Employees program. The
consequences of not collecting QCEW
data would be grave to the Federal
statistical community. The BLS would
not have a sampling frame for its
establishment surveys; it would not be
able to publish as accurate current
estimates of employment for the U.S.,
States, and metropolitan areas; and it
would not be able to publish quarterly
census totals of local establishment
counts, employment and wages. The
Bureau of Economic Analysis would not
be able to publish as accurate personal
income data in a timely manner for the
U.S., States, and local areas. Finally, the
Employment Training Administration
would not have the information it needs
to administer the Unemployment
Insurance Program.
III. Desired Focus of Comments
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is
particularly interested in comments
that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected.
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submissions
of responses.
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Agency: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
E:\FR\FM\01FEN1.SGM
01FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 22 (Friday, February 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6213-6215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-1826]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-61,760]
Hutchinson Technology, Eau Claire, WI; Notice of Negative
Determination on Remand
On November 6, 2007, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT)
granted the U.S. Department of Labor's motion for a voluntary remand in
Former Employees of Hutchinson Technology v. U.S. Secretary of Labor,
Court No. 07-335.
On June 21, 2007, a TAA Coordinator for the State of Wisconsin
filed a
[[Page 6214]]
petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of workers and former workers at
Hutchinson Technology, Eau Claire, Wisconsin (the subject facility)
producing suspension assemblies for disc drives(the subject worker
group). Administrative Record (AR) 1-3.
The Department's negative determination, issued on July 10, 2007
(72 41088, July 26, 2007), was based on findings that worker
separations at the subject facility were caused by declining sales due
to decreased exports and that the subject firm did not import
suspension assemblies for disc drives. AR 19.
On August 22, 2007, a former employee of the subject firm (the
petitioner) requested administrative reconsideration of the negative
determination. Supplemental Administrative Record (SAR) 28-30. In that
request, the petitioner asserted that ``the decision made on July 10,
2007 was made in error because the U.S. Department of Labor did not
have all of the facts relevant to the application.'' SAR 28. On
September 28, 2007, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former
workers of the subject firm, because the Department determined that
additional information received from the petitioner concerning the
subject firm's customers merited investigation. The Department's Notice
of determination was published in the Federal Register on October 5,
2007 (72 FR 57070). SAR 34.
On September 7, 2007, while the request for reconsideration was
pending before the Department, the petitioner appealed the denial of
its petition to the USCIT. The appeal was based on the same information
that appeared in the request for reconsideration. On November 6, 2007
the Department obtained a voluntary remand of the USCIT proceeding so
that the Department could investigate the allegations and information
provided by the Plaintiff in the request for reconsideration.
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner acknowledged that
``currently the majority of hard drive suspensions are exported
overseas''. AR 29. However, the requester also stated that the subject
firm separated a significant number of workers and that sales and
production have decreased during the relevant time period, and that
this negative impact was a direct result of the loss of the Argon
product line at the subject firm to a foreign competitor based in
Singapore.
The Department contacted the petitioner to obtain additional
information regarding the Argon product line and the imports impacting
the subject firm. The petitioner did not have any additional
information and requested the Department to verify all the information
with the officials of the subject firm. SAR 64.
The Department contacted a company official to address this
allegation. The company official clarified that Argon is the name of a
specific suspension assembly product that was manufactured for a major
customer headquartered in the United States. The company official
further confirmed that Argon product line was lost to a foreign
competitor, which resulted in declines in total sales, production and
employment at the subject firm. SAR 36. The decline in sales to this
customer represented nearly the entire subject firm's total domestic
sales decline. The official also stated that Argon product line was
specifically sold and shipped to a customer's foreign subsidiary and
was not sold on the domestic market. SAR 39, 45. Therefore, the losses
in sales and production of Argon line and consequent decline in
employment at the subject firm are the direct result of the decrease in
exports.
The Department contacted the major domestic customer who purchased
the Argon-line products to confirm this information. It was confirmed
that this customer purchased these products for export to a foreign
subsidiary and no suspension assembly products have been imported into
the United States by this customer. SAR 45,46,67.
The request for reconsideration further alleged that ``the majority
of hard drive suspensions are exported overseas to be assembled into
computer hard drives and imported back into the United States.'' SAR
29. The petitioner concluded that imported finished products which
contain foreign manufactured components are like or directly
competitive with imported finished products containing components
manufactured by the subject firm and therefore, the subject firm should
be considered import impacted.
In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider
imports that are like or directly competitive with the products
manufactured by the petitioning worker group. Suspension assemblies are
components of computer hard drives, which incorporate multiple
components. Therefore, suspension assemblies are not like or directly
competitive with the computer hard drives produced abroad and imported
by the subject firm or its customers. Accordingly, imports of computer
hard drives are not relevant in this investigation and increased
imports of computer hard drives cannot be the basis for certification
of the subject worker group. International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, Local 834
v. Donovan, 592 F. Supp. 673, 677-679 (C.I.T. 1984).
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner further alleged
that Hutchinson Technology, Inc. shifted functions of the microscope
inspection labor to either Singapore, Thailand and/or China via sub-
contracting. SAR 29, 30.
The Department contacted the petitioner to obtain additional
information regarding the sorting functions. The petitioner stated that
sorting was not a part of the production process, but is integrated
into the production cost and that workers performing these functions
should be considered in support of production. While uncertain, the
petitioner conjectured that the sorting functions had been shifted to
Singapore but that the Department should rely on information received
from the officials of the subject firm. SAR 64.
The Department contacted a company official to address this
allegation. The company official stated that the subject firm used its
service center in Thailand to undertake inspection and sorting and that
some sorting functions have been shifted from the subject firm to
Thailand in the relevant time period. The official also stated that
workers performing sorting and inspection functions do not produce
suspension assemblies for disk drives, but rather support production of
all suspension assemblies for disk drives. SAR 47, 66. The subject firm
did not shift production of suspension assemblies for disk drives
abroad. SAR 36.
Furthermore, Thailand is not a country that is a party to a free
trade agreement with the United States or a country that is named as a
beneficiary under the Andean Trade Preference Act, the African Growth
and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. Any
shift to Thailand cannot be the basis for certification of the subject
worker group.
During the initial phase of the reconsideration/remand
investigation, the Department contacted Plaintiff for additional
information and clarification of his allegations. Once Plaintiff had
retained Counsel, the parties filed a consent motion for a 30-day
extension of the remand period so that Plaintiff's Counsel had an
opportunity to review the record and provide the Department
[[Page 6215]]
with comments and other pertinent information. That motion was granted
on December 12, 2007. The Counsel was provided with the business
confidential information from the initial administrative record as well
as with the material generated in the reconsideration/remand
investigation. While the investigator contacted Plaintiff's Counsel to
remind him of his opportunity, the Department received no substantive
input. SAR 68-70.
In addition, in accordance with section 246 of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its
remand investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply
for ATAA.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility
to apply for ATAA, the subject worker group must be certified as
eligible to apply for TAA. Since the workers have been denied
certification for TAA, they cannot be certified for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the findings of the remand investigation, I
affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to
apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of
Hutchinson Technology, Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of January 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-1826 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
