[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 28 (Monday, February 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6602-6603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-2284]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-58,808]


Lexmark International, Inc.; Supply Chain Workforce Printing 
Solutions And Services Division; Lexington, KY; Notice of Revised 
Determination on Remand

    On December 8, 2006, 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 Lexmark International, Inc. v. United States, Court 
No. 06-00327.
    On February 7, 2006, three workers filed a petition for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(ATAA) on behalf of workers and former workers of Lexmark 
International, Inc., Supply Chain Workforce, Printing Solutions and 
Services Division, Lexington, Kentucky (subject facility). The 
petitioners stated that the subject facility produced ``printers and 
supplies'' and attached an article which stated that Lexmark 
International, Inc. (Lexmark) planned to move jobs abroad to countries 
where Lexmark has existing ink cartridge production facilities, 
including Mexico, China, and the Philippines (``Lexmark benefits from 
its plans to trim jobs,'' Bloomberg News, January 25, 2006).
    In the negative determination, the Department stated that the 
subject workers did not work directly in the manufacture of the 
products made by Lexmark. The determination also stated that the 
predominant cause of worker separations was not a shift of production 
abroad but was Lexmark's decision to position support tasks closer to 
where Lexmark's manufacturing partners and customers are located 
worldwide, including Mexico and the Philippines.
    The Department's Notice of determination applicable to the subject 
facility was issued on February 24, 2006. The Department's Notice of 
determination was published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2006 
(71 FR 14550).
    On March 25, 2006, a worker requested administrative 
reconsideration of the Department's determination. In the request for 
reconsideration, the worker alleged that the subject workers supported 
the production of ink and printer cartridges produced by Lexmark and 
inferred that support activities were shifted overseas when production 
shifted abroad.
    The Department issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration applicable to the subject 
facility on April 13, 2006. On April 24, 2006, the Department's Notice 
of determination was published in the Federal Register (71 FR 21042).
    During the reconsideration investigation, the Department determined 
that the subject workers are an integral part of ink and printer 
cartridge production and are not separately identifiable by product 
line. However, because the Department was repeatedly informed by the 
subject firm that neither the subject facility nor Lexmark produced ink 
or cartridges domestically during the relevant period, the Department 
determined that the subject workers are not employed by a company 
covered by the statute and, therefore, are not eligible to apply for 
TAA because the subject workers were not employed by a firm (or an 
appropriate subdivision) which produced an article domestically during 
the relevant period.
    The Department's Notice of Negative Determination on 
Reconsideration applicable to the subject facility was issued on July 
19, 2006. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the 
Federal Register on July 31, 2006.
    On September 19, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the 
USCIT. In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the Department's 
determination was based on the erroneous finding that ``Lexmark did not 
produce ink or cartridges domestically during the twelve-month period 
prior to the petition date.''
    After careful review of the Plaintiff's complaint and the 
administrative record, prepared in response to the complaint, the 
Department filed a motion for voluntary remand.
    On December 8, 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).
    In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a 
certification of eligibility to apply for TAA, the group eligibility 
requirements in either paragraph (a)(2)(A) or (a)(2)(B) of Section 222 
of the Trade Act must be met. It is determined in this case that the 
requirements of (a)(2)(B) of Section 222 have been met.
    During the remand investigation, the Department reviewed the 
administrative record, contacted Plaintiff's counsel,

[[Page 6603]]

and requested additional information and clarification from Lexmark.
    During the remand investigation, the Department obtained new 
information which revealed that, contrary to information previously-
submitted by Lexmark, the subject facility produced ink and that the 
subject firm shifted ink production from the subject facility to 
existing foreign inkjet cartridge production facilities, including 
facilities in Mexico, during the relevant period, and that a 
significant proportion of the workforce at the subject facility was 
separated.
    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 
for older workers. In order for the Department to issue a certification 
of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of 
Section 246 of the Trade Act must be met.
    The Department has determined in the case at hand that the 
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 generated through the remand 
investigation, I determine that a shift of production to Mexico of 
articles like or directly competitive with ink 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 Lexmark International, Inc., Supply Chain 
Workforce, Printing Solutions and Services Division, Lexington, 
Kentucky, who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after February 7, 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, 
and are eligible to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 5th day of February 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-2284 Filed 2-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P