[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39045-39046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-15338]



[[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