[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 191 (Monday, October 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51195-51196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23902]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,808]


Invista, S.A.R.L., Nylon Apparel Filament Fibers Group, a 
Subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., Chattanooga, TN; Notice of Revised 
Determination on Remand

    On June 18, 2009, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) 
remanded to the Department of Labor's motion for further investigation 
into the matter of Former Employees of Invista, S.A.R.L. v. U.S 
Secretary of Labor, Court No. 07-00160.
    On December 15, 2006, an official of Invista, S.A.R.L, Nylon 
Apparel Filament Fibers Group, A Subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., 
Chattanooga, Tennessee (Invista) filed a petition for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on 
behalf of workers and former workers at Invista engaged in activity 
related to the production of nylon fiber. AR 1. The petition stated 
that the separations were due to a shift in production to Mexico that 
was the basis for a certification that expired on August 20, 2006 (TA-
W-55,055). AR 2. The company official stated that, as of February 1, 
2007, all workers of Invista would be terminated from employment. AR 7.
    On February 7, 2007, the Department of Labor (Department) issued a 
negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for TAA/
ATAA. AR 30-32. On February 21, 2007, the Department's Notice of 
determination was published in the Federal Register (72 FR 7909). AR 
43.
    In support of a request for administrative reconsideration (dated 
February 18, 2007), a worker stated that the workers' separations are 
``a direct result of the textile industry going to developing 
countries.'' AR 38.
    In a letter dated March 15, 2007, the Department stated that the 
request for reconsideration was being dismissed because insufficient 
evidence was furnished to warrant reconsideration pursuant to 29 CFR 
90.18(c) and that the shift in production that was the basis for the 
certification of TA-W-55,055 occurred outside the relevant period. AR 
45. The Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration was issued on 
March 21, 2007. AR 47. The Department's Notice of dismissal was 
published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2007 (72 FR 15169). AR 
48.
    On May 11, 2007, Plaintiffs sought review by the USCIT. The 
Plaintiffs

[[Page 51196]]

assert that the worker separations are due to Invista's shift in 
production to Mexico.
    On March 27, 2008, the USCIT granted the Department's motion for 
voluntary remand and directed the Department to conduct further 
investigation to determine whether workers of Invista are eligible to 
apply for TAA and ATAA.
    On June 2, 2008, the Department issued a Notice of Negative 
Determination on Remand based on the finding that there was no causal 
nexus between the worker separations and an earlier shift in production 
to Mexico of articles like or directly competitive with nylon fiber 
produced at Invista. SAR 35. The Department's Notice of determination 
was published in the Federal Register on June 10, 2008 (73 FR 32739). 
SAR 42.
    On June 18, 2009, the USCIT ordered the Department to conduct 
further investigation to determine whether workers of Invista are 
eligible to apply for TAA and ATAA.
    The group eligibility requirements for directly-impacted (primary) 
workers under Section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can 
be satisfied in either of two ways:
    I. Section (a)(2)(A)--all of the following must be satisfied:

    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;
    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)--both of the following must be satisfied:

    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;
    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;
    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.

    During the second remand investigation, the Department obtained 
additional information regarding Invista's shift in production of nylon 
fiber to Mexico, Invista's business decisions related to the post-shift 
reorganization, and the subsequent worker separations at Invista. SAR 
67-71.
    Following a careful review of the information obtained during its 
investigations, the Department determined that a significant portion or 
number of workers at Invista was separated and that there was a shift 
in production to Mexico of articles like or directly competitive with 
nylon fiber produced at Invista. Therefore, the Department determines 
that the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(a)(2)(B) the 
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have been met.
    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 generated through the first and 
second remand investigations, I determine that a shift in production by 
Invista to Mexico of articles like or directly competitive to nylon 
fiber produced at Invista contributed to the total or partial 
separation of a significant number or proportion of workers at Invista.
    In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following 
certification:

    All workers of Invista, S.A.R.L, Nylon Apparel Filament Fibers 
Group, A Subsidiary of Koch Industries, Inc., Chattanooga, 
Tennessee, who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after August 21, 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 8th day of September 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-23902 Filed 10-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P