[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20366-20367]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7726]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,882]


Camaco, LLC; Mariana Division, Marianna, AR; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated April 4, 2007, a company official requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of 
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The denial notice was 
signed on March 16, 2007 and published in the Federal Register on March 
30, 2007 (72 FR 15168).
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under 
the following circumstances:
    (1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously considered 
that the determination complained of was erroneous;
    (2) If it appears that the determination complained of was based on 
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered; or
    (3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-
interpretation of facts or

[[Page 20367]]

of the law justified reconsideration of the decision.
    The TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Camaco, LLC, 
Marianna Division, Marianna, Arkansas engaged in production of 
automotive parts, such as metal seat frames, brackets and reinforcement 
was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility 
requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The 
``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a 
survey of the workers' firm's customers. The survey revealed no imports 
of automotive parts, such as metal seat frames, brackets and 
reinforcement in 2005, 2006 and January of 2007 when compared with 
January of 2006. The subject firm did not import automotive parts, such 
as metal seat frames, brackets and reinforcement in the relevant period 
nor did it shift production to a foreign country.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated that the 
subject firm made parts for a company which shifted production to 
Mexico. As a result of this shift, the subject firm experienced 
declines in sales. Therefore, workers of the subject firm should be 
eligible for TAA and ATAA.
    A company official was contacted to verify the business 
relationship between the subject firm and the alleged company. The 
company official stated that the company mentioned in the request for 
reconsideration was not the subject firm's customer and that the 
subject firm did not sell parts directly to this firm during the 
relevant time period. Because the alleged company was not the subject 
firm's customer during the relevant time period, any information 
regarding business activities of this company is not relevant to this 
investigation.
    The request for reconsideration also states that ``some of the 
equipment that was utilized here at CAMACO-Marianna is being sent to 
India to be used at a manufacturing facility there for production of 
automotive parts.''
    Further contact with the company official confirmed that CAMACO, 
LLC, Marianna Division, Marianna, Arkansas is planning to shift a 
portion of its manufacturing equipment from Marianna, Arkansas to 
India. The company official further indicated that no production has 
been moved from the Marianna facility to India as of April 12, 2007, 
and no time line was established to when this may occur.
    Should the shift to India occur, the petitioner is encouraged to 
file a new petition on behalf of workers at the CAMACO, LLC, Marianna 
Division, Marianna, Arkansas, thereby creating a relevant period of 
investigation that would include changing conditions.
    The petitioner further refers to the TAA certifications issued to 
various businesses and industries located in Marianna, Arkansas. The 
petitioner alleges that because the subject firm has been the largest 
employer in Marianna, Arkansas and hence other companies in the area 
were certified eligible for TAA, workers of the subject firm should 
also be eligible.
    A review of other businesses is not relevant to an investigation 
concerning import impact on workers applying for trade adjustment 
assistance. As noted above, ``contributed importantly'' test is 
generally demonstrated through a survey of customers of the workers' 
firm to examine the direct impact on a specific firm. No increased 
imports were evidenced during the survey of subject firm's customers 
and the subject firm did not shift production to a foreign country.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of April, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-7726 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P