[Federal Register: July 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 131)]
[Notices]
[Page 39045-39046]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08jy08-101]
[[Page 39045]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-61,180]
Welex, Inc., Blue Bell, Pennsylvania; Notice of Revised
Determination on Remand
On March 28, 2008, the United States Court of International Trade
(USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's motion for voluntary remand
for further investigation in Former Employees of Welex, Inc. v. United
States, Court No. 07-00314.
The worker-filed petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), dated March 26, 2007,
stated that workers at Welex, Inc., Blue Bell, Pennsylvania (the
subject firm) produced ``extruders and sheet takeoffs (plastic
production)'' and alleged that foreign competition contributed to the
closure of the subject firm on January 31, 2007. Documentation provided
by the petitioners stated that ``Welex equipment makes PET,
polypropylene and polystyrene sheet for packaging, such as fast food
drink cups, lids for disposable coffee cups and clear clamshell
boxes.''
On April 18, 2007, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for TAA/ATAA for
workers and former workers of the subject firm.
The initial investigation revealed that the subject workers
produced plastic extrusion equipment; the subject firm did not import
plastic extrusion equipment or shift production of plastic extrusion
equipment to any foreign country; subject firm sales and production of
plastic extrusion equipment increased in 2006 compared with 2005; and
the dominant cause of separations at the subject firm was the complete
transfer of plastic extrusion equipment production to a new domestic
manufacturing facility. The Department's initial negative determination
was based on the findings that increased imports did not contribute
importantly to subject firm sales and/or production declines and to
workers' separations.
The Department's Notice of negative determination was published in
the Federal Register on May 9, 2007 (72 FR 26425).
In the request for administrative reconsideration, dated May 18,
2007, three workers alleged that increased imports contributed
importantly to subject firm sales and production declines, and to the
subject workers' separations.
By letter dated July 3, 2007, the Department informed the workers
that the request for reconsideration was dismissed on the basis that
insufficient evidence was provided to warrant administrative
reconsideration. On July 9, 2007, the Department issued a Notice of
Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration. The Department's Notice
of dismissal was published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2007 (72
FR 39080).
In the complaint to the USCIT, dated August 16, 2007, the Plaintiff
alleged that the subject firm relocated to ``the less expensive south''
in order to ``compete with the Chinese.'' The Plaintiff also alleged
that ``increased imports contributed importantly to an actual decline
in sales or production and to our permanent layoff.''
To be certified for TAA based on increased imports, the petitioning
workers must meet the group eligibility criteria:
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.
On remand, the Department sent supplemental information requests
for additional information and clarification regarding the subject
firm's sales and production process, conducted several lengthy
discussions with the subject firm, and contacted a trade association to
gain insight into this industry. As a result of these efforts, the
Department was able to obtain crucial information which was not
previously available.
TAA Criterion: Worker Separations at the Subject Firm
During the remand investigation, the Department confirmed that the
subject firm ceased operations in January 2007 and permanently closed.
Therefore, the Department determines that 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.
TAA Criterion: Absolute Sales and/or Production Declines at the Subject
Firm or Appropriate Subdivision
During the remand investigation, the Department received new
information which revealed that, although sales and production at the
subject firm increased in calendar year 2006 from calendar year 2005
levels, sales orders decreased in the latter part of 2006 and into the
earlier part of 2007. Thus, the Department determines that subject firm
sales and production declined absolutely.
TAA Criterion: Increased Imports Contributed Importantly to Subject
Firm Sales/Production Declines and Workers' Separations
29 CFR section 90.2 states that increased imports ``means that
imports have increased either absolutely or relative to domestic
production compared to a representative base period. The representative
base period shall be one year consisting of the four quarters
immediately preceding the date which is twelve months prior to the date
of the petition.'' 29 CFR 90.16(b)(3) states that ``contributed
importantly means a cause which is important but not necessarily more
important than any other cause.''
The TAA/ATAA petition date is March 26, 2007. Therefore, the
Department must determine whether imports of plastic extrusion
equipment (or articles like or directly competitive with the plastic
extrusion equipment produced at the subject firm) have increased during
March 26, 2006 through March 25, 2007 (relevant period) compared to the
base period (the four quarters immediately prior to March 26, 2006). If
the Department finds increased imports, the Department must then
determine whether the increased imports contributed importantly to the
subject firm's sale and/or production declines and workers'
separations.
Increased Imports of Plastic Extrusion Equipment
In previous submissions, the subject firm indicated that it did not
import plastic extrusion equipment or any articles like or directly
competitive with them and that customer purchases are intermittent.
On remand, the subject firm confirmed that, because plastic
extrusion equipment is not purchased regularly by customers, there are
no major customers that constitute a majority of the subject firm's
sales/production declines. The Department was also informed by the
subject firm that they do not bid on production
[[Page 39046]]
projects but fulfill sales orders (customers contact the subject firm,
the subject firm quotes a price, and if an order is placed, the subject
firm builds the equipment per order specifications).
Based on the above facts, the Department determines that a customer
survey would be unlikely to produce any meaningful results. Further,
the Department determined that, since the subject firm is a major
domestic producer and accounts for a significant portion of the
domestic plastic extrusion equipment market, aggregate U.S. import data
would better reflect the impact of increased U.S. imports on the
subject firm.
During the remand investigation, the Department conducted research
on U.S. shipments and U.S. imports of plastic extrusion equipment
during 2005, 2006, and January through April 2007. The Department's
research revealed a significant increase in imports of plastic
extrusion equipment (and articles like or directly competitive with
plastic extrusion equipment produced at the subject firm) during
January through April 2007 as compared to estimated imports during
January through April 2006.
Increased Imports Contributed Importantly to Subject Firm Sales and/or
Production Declines and Worker Separations
As previously stated, subject firm sales orders declined in the
latter part of 2006 into early 2007 and the subject firm sales
constitute a meaningful portion of the U.S. plastic extrusion equipment
market. Further, the period of increased imports corresponds with the
period during which subject firm sales orders declined. Therefore,
increased U.S. imports would likely have had a significant impact on
the subject firm.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C.
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 the firm are age 50 or over and
possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions
within the industry are adverse.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts developed in the remand
investigation, I determine that there was a total separation of a
significant number or proportion of workers at the subject firm, that
there were subject firm sales and production declines, and that
increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with plastic
extrusion equipment produced at the subject firm contributed
importantly to the subject firm declines and the workers' separations.
In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following
certification:
''All workers of Welex, Inc., Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, who
became totally or partially separated from employment on or after
March 26, 2006, 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, and are eligible to
apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246
of the Trade Act of 1974.''
Signed at Washington, DC this 26th day of June 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-15338 Filed 7-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P