[Federal Register: May 3, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 85)]
[Notices]               
[Page 24615]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03my07-88]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-52,050]

 
Merrill Corporation; St. Paul, MN; Notice of Revised 
Determination on Remand

    On March 28, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade 
(USCIT) remanded Former Employees of Merrill Corporation v. Elaine 
Chao, U.S. Secretary of Labor, Court No. 03-00662, to the Department of 
Labor (Department) for further investigation.
    The Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for 
Worker Adjustment Assistance for workers and former workers of Merrill 
Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota (subject firm) was issued on July 2, 
2003 and published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2003 (68 FR 
43373). The first negative determination on remand was issued on April 
2, 2004 and published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2004 (69 FR 
20645). The second negative remand determination was issued on November 
17, 2005 and published in the Federal Register on December 7, 2005 (70 
FR 72857). In these determinations, the Department determined that the 
workers' electronic creations do not constitute ``articles'' for 
purposes of the Trade Act of 1974 (the Act) and that the shift of the 
workers' functions to India was irrelevant.
    On March 24, 2006, the Department revised its policy to recognize 
tangible and intangible articles and reiterated its policy that workers 
who produce an article incidental to the provision of a service are 
not, for the purposes of the Act, engaged in production.
    The third negative determination on remand was issued on August 24, 
2006 and published in the Federal Register on September 5, 2006 (71 FR 
52346). The Department applied the revised article policy to the case 
at hand and determined that the workers produce electronic documents. 
The Department concluded, however, that each document was unique, and 
there were not articles ``like or directly competitive'' to any 
document. The Department also determined that the workers' application 
should be denied because the production of the electronic documents was 
incidental to the provision of a service.
    In its March 28, 2007 opinion, the USCIT disagreed with the 
Department's policy and the third remand determination, and remanded 
the matter to the Department.
    During the immediate investigation, the Department carefully 
reviewed the record and has determined that Merrill Corporation has a 
distinct subdivision producing printed matter sold to Merrill clients 
and another subdivision that provides services. The Department further 
determines that the subject worker group is affiliated with both 
subdivisions. Therefore, the subject worker group made articles not 
only incidental to the provision of a service.
    The Department determines that production of the electronic 
documents produced by the subject worker group shifted from the subject 
firm to India and, following the shift, the subject firm increased 
imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced by 
the subject worker group.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the facts, I determine that the shift of 
electronic document production to India followed by increased imports 
of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at the 
subject facility contributed to the total or partial separation of a 
significant number or proportion of workers at the subject facility. I 
also determine that the electronic documents were not produced solely 
incidental to the production of an article.
    In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following 
certification:

    All workers of Merrill Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota, who 
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after 
June 10, 2002, 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.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-8465 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P