[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 27 (Friday, February 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6292-6293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2165]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,059]


Hoover Precision Products, Inc.; Washington, IN; Notice of 
Revised Determination on Remand

    On December 13, 2006, the United States Court of International 
Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's request for voluntary 
remand in Former Employees of Hoover Precision Products, Inc. v. United 
States (Court No. 06-00381).
    In the September 11, 2006 Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) petition, a company 
official indicated that Hoover Precision Products, Inc., Washington, 
Indiana (subject facility) was a distribution and warehouse center of 
carbon steel balls, that the facility was scheduled to close on 
September 15, 2006, and that three workers would be separated as a 
result of the closure. In support of the petition, the company official 
cited NAFTA-4916 (certified on June 18, 2001; shift of production to 
Mexico).
    During the initial investigation, it was revealed that the subject 
facility was engaged in warehousing and distributing articles produced 
at an affiliated facility in Mexico, and that the warehousing and 
distributing functions were shifting to an affiliated facility in 
Georgia.
    Based on information obtained during the initial investigation, the 
Department determined that the subject workers were ineligible to apply 
for TAA because they did not produce an article within the meaning of 
Section 222(a)(2) of the Trade Act of 1974.
    On September 15, 2006, the Department issued a negative 
determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for workers 
adjustment assistance for the subject workers. The Department's Notice 
of determination was published in the Federal Register on September 26, 
2006 (71 FR 56172).
    By application dated September 29, 2006, three workers requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination. In the request for reconsideration, the workers stated 
that ``Washington, IN is a distribution facility. We distributed 
components to companies who manufactured them into their finished 
products. Hoover Precision in Indiana has lost a substantial amount of 
business from at least 3 companies who are TAA certified. This 
qualifies our company in Washington, IN as secondary workers affected 
by foreign trade.''
    For purposes of the Trade Act, a secondarily-affected company is a 
company that either supplies components parts for articles produced by 
a firm with a currently TAA-certified worker group or is an assembler 
or finisher for a firm with a currently TAA-certified worker group.
    In order to be certified as eligible to apply for TAA as workers of 
a secondarily-affect company, the following eligibility requirements 
must be met:

    (1) The workers' firm or appropriate subdivision produced an 
article during the one year period prior to the petition date; and
    (2) A required minimum of the workforce has been laid off in the 
12 months preceding the date of the petition or is threatened with 
layoffs (3 workers in groups of fewer than 50, or 5% of the 
workforce in groups of 50 or more); and
    (3) Loss of business (during the relevant period) as a supplier 
of component parts, a final assembler, or a finisher for a firm that 
is currently TAA-certified contributed importantly to an actual 
decline in sales or production, and to a layoff or threat of a 
layoff.

    By letter dated October 3, 2006, the Department dismissed the 
workers' request for reconsideration because the subject facility did 
not produce an article, the workers were service workers who processed 
imported articles, and the workers were not eligible for TAA as workers 
of a secondarily-affected company. The Department's Notice of Dismissal 
of Application for Reconsideration for the subject facility was 
published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2006 (71 FR 60766).
    By letter dated October 9, 2006, the workers appealed to the USCIT 
for judicial review. The Plaintiffs alleged that they were production 
workers and

[[Page 6293]]

provided personal statements in support of the allegation. After 
careful review of the complaint and the administrative record, the 
Department filed a motion for voluntary remand.
    On December 13, 2006, the USCIT granted the Department's motion for 
voluntary remand to conduct further investigation and to make a 
redetermination regarding the Plaintiffs' eligibility to apply for 
worker adjustment assistance (TAA and ATAA).
    To be certified as eligible to apply for TAA, the following 
criteria must be met:

    (1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such 
workers' firm (or appropriate subdivision of the firm) have become, 
or are threatened to become, totally or partially separated;
    (2) Sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision 
have decreased absolutely; and
    (3) Increases (absolute or relative) of imports of articles 
produced by such workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision thereof 
contributed importantly to such total or partial separation, or 
threat thereof, and to such decline in sales or production, or
    (4) There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm 
or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly 
competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or 
subdivision; and the country to which the workers' firm has shifted 
production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with 
the United States, is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade 
Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean 
Basin Economic Recovery Act or there has been or is likely to be an 
increase in imports of articles that are like or directly 
competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or 
subdivision.
    During the remand investigation, the Department reviewed 
previously-submitted information, contacted the Plaintiffs, and 
requested additional information and clarification from Hoover 
Precision Products, Inc. (subject firm).
    During the remand investigation, the subject firm provided new 
information which revealed that a majority of the subject workers' 
activities was related to production and that the remaining activities 
consisted of warehousing and shipping functions. Based on this new 
information, the Department determines that, for purposes of the Trade 
Act, workers of the subject facility were engaged in production.
    Information obtained during the remand investigation confirmed 
previously-submitted information that the subject facility ceased to 
operate in September 2006 and that the subject firm faced increased 
foreign competition during the relevant time period.
    During the remand investigation, the Department received additional 
information which revealed that increased imports of articles like or 
directly competitive with carbon steel balls produced at the subject 
facility contributed importantly to the subject workers' separations.
    Based on new information and confirmations obtained during the 
remand investigation, the Department determines that TAA criteria (1), 
(2) and (3) have been met.
    In addition, in accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974, 
as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its 
investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA 
for older workers.
    The group eligibility criteria for ATAA that the Department must 
consider under Section 246 of the Trade Act are:

    1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm 
are 50 years of age or older.
    2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that 
are not easily transferable.
    3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry 
(i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse).

    The Department has determined in the case at hand that ATAA 
criterion (1) has not been met. For purposes of the ATAA program, a 
significant number means at least three or more workers in a firm with 
a workforce of fewer than 50 workers.
    During the remand investigation, the Department confirmed with the 
subject firm and the Plaintiffs that one worker at the subject facility 
is age 50 or over.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the facts generated through the remand 
investigation, I determine that increased imports of articles like or 
directly competitive with carbon steel balls produced at the subject 
facility contributed to the total or partial separation of a 
significant number or proportion of workers at the subject facility.
    In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following 
certification:

    ``All workers of Hoover Precision Products, Inc., Washington, 
Indiana, who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after September 11, 2005, through two years from the issuance 
of this revised determination, are eligible to apply for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.''

    I further determine that all workers of Hoover Precision Products, 
Inc., Washington, Indiana, are denied eligibility to apply for 
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade 
Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of January 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-2165 Filed 2-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P