[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 140 (Monday, July 21, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42373-42374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-16564]



[[Page 42373]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,243]


Electric Mobility Corporation, Sewell, NJ; Notice of Revised 
Determination on Remand

    On May 21, 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 Electric Mobility 
Corporation v. U.S. Secretary of Labor, Court No. 08-00079.
    The petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) petition, dated October 2, 2007, was 
filed on behalf of workers and former workers of Electric Mobility 
Corporation, Sewell, New Jersey (the subject firm). AR 1. The petition 
indicated that the workers produced ``medical and mobility devices'' 
and that the subject workers are employed by a firm or subdivision that 
has increased imports of like or directly competitive articles and/or 
has shifted production of the article to a foreign country. AR 1-2. The 
petition also noted the reason the petitioner believes the workers are 
eligible for TAA and ATAA is that workers at the subject firm were 
``previously certified under TA-W-56342, expired 2/4/07.'' AR 2.
    To apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements under Section 
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, must be met. The group 
eligibility requirements can be satisfied in either one of two ways:

    I. Section (a)(2)(A)--
    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; 
or
    II. Section (a)(2)(B)--
    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. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or 
subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly 
competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or 
subdivision; and
    C. One of the following must be satisfied:
    1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production 
of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United 
States; or
    2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production 
of the articles is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade 
Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean 
Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
    3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of 
articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which 
are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.

    On November 1, 2007, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a 
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker 
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of the subject 
firm. AR 28.
    The initial investigation revealed that the subject workers are not 
separately identifiable by product line, AR 27, and that since the 
certification applicable to TA-W-56,342 expired on February 4, 2007, 
the subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a significant 
number or proportion of workers as required by Section 222 of the Trade 
Act of 1974. AR 27.
    On November 15, 2007, the Department's Notice of negative 
determination applicable to the subject workers was published in the 
Federal Register (72 FR 64247). AR 35.
    In the request for administrative reconsideration, dated November 
19, 2007, a worker alleged that ``there was a work force reduction of 
over 5% for a company with over 50 employees'' and provided 
documentation in support of the allegation. AR 36-39.
    The Department issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration on November 26, 2007. AR 66. 
In a letter, dated November 28, 2007, the Department informed the 
petitioning worker of the determination. AR 69. The Notice of 
Affirmative Determination was published in the Federal Register on 
December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67965). AR 70.
    On December 19, 2007, the Department issued a Notice of Negative 
Determination on Reconsideration. The determination stated that while 
``workers were laid off from the subject firm during the relevant time 
period * * * overall employment at the subject firm has increased from 
October 2006 to September 2007.'' The Department concluded that since 
employment levels at the subject firm did not decline during the 
relevant period and that there were no threats of separations during 
the relevant period, the subject firm did not separate or threaten to 
separate a significant number or proportion of workers as required by 
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. AR 72-73.
    In a letter, dated December 27, 2007, the Department informed the 
petitioning worker of the negative determination. AR 74. The Notice of 
Negative Determination was published in the Federal Register on January 
10, 2008 (73 FR 1897). AR 75.
    In the complaint to the USCIT, dated February 25, 2008, the 
Plaintiff alleged that, during the relevant period, the subject firm 
did separate or threaten to separate a significant number or proportion 
of workers. Attached to the complaint is a copy of a message from the 
``Lead Auditor'' of ``the ISO Registrar (TUV)'' that stated that 
``during the audit of 10/30/06 the head count was 343. In November of 
2006 there was a reduction of 75 for a total of 268. In May of 2007 
there was a reduction of 18 for a total of 250. The total headcount on 
10/24/2007 was 250.''
    On May 21, 2008, the USCIT granted the Department's request for 
voluntary remand for further investigation.
    On remand, the Department sought additional information from 
Plaintiff's counsel, SAR 1, 5, and requested clarification regarding 
subject firm employment levels during the relevant period. SAR 32-35. 
As a result of these efforts, the Department was able to obtain crucial 
information not previously available.
    During the remand investigation, Plaintiff's counsel stated that 
his client had additional information that was not in the 
administrative record, SAR 1, and submitted new information for the 
Department's consideration. SAR 6-29.
    During the remand investigation, a subject firm official explained 
how previously-submitted employment data was unclear, SAR 32, and 
provided revised employment figures for the relevant period (October 2, 
2006 through October 2, 2007). SAR 37.
    Based on the above information, the Department determines that 
employment levels at the subject firm did decline during the relevant 
period. As such, the Department determines that Section (a)(2)(A)(A) 
has been met.
    Earlier submissions revealed that sales and production at the 
subject firm declined in 2006 from 2005 levels and declined during 
January through September 2007 from the corresponding period the prior 
year. AR 12. As such, the Department determines that Section 
(a)(2)(A)(B) has been met.
    Earlier submissions also revealed that, during the relevant period, 
the subject

[[Page 42374]]

firm increased reliance on imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with medical and mobility devices produced by the subject 
workers. AR 12. As such, the Department determines that Section 
(a)(2)(A)(C) has been met.
    In accordance with Section 246 of 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 for workers of Electric Mobility Corporation, Sewell, New 
Jersey, I determine that there was a total separation of a significant 
number or proportion of workers at the subject firm, that there was a 
decline in sales and production, and that increased imports of articles 
like or directly competitive with medical and mobility devices produced 
by the subject firm contributed importantly to the decline in sales and 
production and the worker separations at that firm.
    In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following 
certification:

    All workers of Electric Mobility Corporation, Sewell, New 
Jersey, who became totally or partially separated from employment on 
or after February 5, 2007, 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 10th day of July 2008.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-16564 Filed 7-18-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P