[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 184 (Thursday, September 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58842-58843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24363]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-73,857]


The Marlin Firearms Company, Inc., a Subsidiary of Remington Arms 
Company Including On-Site Leased Workers From Randstat, Reitman, and 
Hamilton Connections, North Haven, Connecticut; Notice of Revised 
Determination on Remand

    On June 8, 2011, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) 
granted the U.S. Department of Labor's (Department's) motion for 
voluntary remand for further investigation in Former Employees of 
Marlin Firearms Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Remington Arms Company, 
North Haven, Connecticut v. United States, Case No. 11-00060.
    On April 6, 2010, a state workforce official filed a petition for 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on behalf of workers of Marlin 
Firearms Company, Inc. (``Marlin''), a subsidiary of Remington Arms 
Company, North Haven, Connecticut (hereafter referred to as the subject 
firm). The subject worker group includes on-site leased workers from 
Randstat, Reitman, and Hamilton Connections. (AR 394)
    The subject worker group was engaged in activities related to the 
production of lever-action and bolt-action sporting rifles. (AR 376) 
The Department considered the following articles to be like or directly 
competitive with lever-action and bolt-action sporting rifles: ``over 
and under'', ``semi-auto'', ``over and under shotgun/rifle combo'', 
``side by side'', ``semi-auto''. (AR 805)
    During the initial investigation, it was revealed that a 
significant number or proportion of workers at the subject firm were 
totally or partially separated from employment or were threatened to 
become totally or partially separated during the relevant period. (AR 
14-15)
    However, during the initial investigation, it was determined that 
imports of articles like or directly competitive with the articles 
produced by the subject firm have not increased and that there has not 
been a shift in production to a foreign country by the workers' firm, 
of like or directly competitive articles. (AR 10-84, 1322-1348)
    During the initial investigation, the Department also conducted a 
customer survey; however, the survey revealed that during the relevant 
period, customers did not increase reliance on imports of articles like 
or directly competitive with those produced by the subject worker 
group. (AR 270-283, 1322-1348)
    The initial investigation also revealed that the subject worker 
group did not produce component parts or supply a service directly to a 
firm with a TAA-certified worker group. Further, the initial 
investigation revealed that the subject firm has not been identified in 
an affirmative finding of injury by the International Trade Commission. 
(AR 14-15)
    A negative determination regarding the subject worker group's 
eligibility to apply for TAA was issued on December 17, 2010. The 
Department's Notice of Determination was published in the Federal 
Register on January 14, 2011 (76 FR 2716). (AR 293-306, 312)
    Administrative reconsideration of the Departments' negative 
determination was not requested.
    In the Complaint to the USCIT, dated March 15, 2011, the 
Plaintiff's Counsel claimed that the Plaintiff's separation occurred 
because Marlin experienced import competition due to increasing 
importation of sporting rifles. The Plaintiff's Counsel also claimed 
that the Department should take into account information related to the 
application of Marlin for the TAA for Firms program. The Plaintiff's 
Counsel also claimed that the Department should take into consideration 
information related to the certification of Marlin's subsidiary, 
Harrington & Richardson 1871 (TA-W-63,361).
    The USCIT'S order granting voluntary remand, dated June 8, 2011, 
directed the Department to (1) Conduct additional surveys of the 
subject firm's customers; (2) contact Plaintiff to solicit information 
relevant to his petition and review any submitted material; (3) request 
from the subject firm names and contact information for other separated 
workers and solicit from those workers information relevant to 
Plaintiff's complaint; (4) request from the subject firm any 
submissions to the U.S. Department of Commerce in connection with 
Marlin's certification under the TAA for Firms program and consider the 
contents of those submissions; (5) request from the U.S. Department of 
Commerce any documents related to Marlin's certification under the TAA 
for Firms program and consider the contents of those documents; and (6) 
consider the facts related to the certification of Harrington & 
Richardson 1871 (TA-W-63,361).
    During the remand investigation, the Department: (1) Conducted an 
expanded customer survey; (2) contacted the Plaintiff to solicit 
information relevant to his petition and reviewed the submitted 
materials; (3) requested and received from the subject firm names and 
contact information for other separated workers and solicited from 
those workers information relevant to the Plaintiff's complaint; (4) 
requested and received from Marlin any submissions to the U.S. 
Department of Commerce in connection to Marlin's TAA for Firms petition 
and considered the contents of those documents; (5) requested from the 
U.S. Department of Commerce any documents related to Marlin's TAA for 
Firms petition and considered the contents of those documents; and (6) 
considered the facts related to the certification of TA-W-63,361. The 
Department also conducted industry analysis related to the articles 
produced by the subject firm, lever-action and bolt-action sporting 
rifles. (AR 1322-1348)
    The Department fully reviewed all material received during the 
remand investigation, and considered the contents of each document and 
statement as they apply to the TAA for workers program in accordance 
with the statute, regulations, and other authority. (AR 1322-1348)
    The group eligibility requirements for workers of a Firm under 
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), are satisfied if the 
following criteria are met:

    (1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such 
workers' firm have become totally or partially separated, or are 
threatened to become totally or partially separated; and
    (2)(A)(i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have 
decreased absolutely; and

[[Page 58843]]

    (ii)(I) Imports of articles or services like or directly 
competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm 
have increased; and
    (iii) The increase in imports described in clause (ii) 
contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of 
separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such 
firm.

    In the case at hand, the relevant time periods are April 1, 2009 
through April 1, 2010, and the articles at issue are those that are 
like or directly competitive with the lever-action and bolt-action 
sporting rifles.
    Based on the information collected during the remand investigation, 
the Department determined that imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with the lever-action and bolt-action sporting rifles 
produced by the subject firm increased during the relevant period and 
contributed importantly to worker separations or threat of separation, 
and to the decline in production at the subject firm. (AR 14, 15, 389, 
531)
    Criterion I has been met because a significant number or proportion 
of workers at the subject firm were totally or partially separated 
during the relevant period. (AR 14 and 15)
    Criterion II has been met because production of lever-action and 
bolt-action sporting rifles at the subject firm decreased absolutely 
during the relevant period. (AR 531, 1322-1348)
    Criterion III has been met because imports of articles like or 
directly competitive with the lever-action and bolt-action sporting 
rifles produced by the subject firm increased during the relevant 
period and contributed importantly to worker separations, or threat of 
separations, and to the decline in the production at the subject 
facility. (AR 14, 15, 389, 531)

Conclusion

    After careful review of the complete administrative record, 
including the additional facts obtained on remand investigation, I 
determine that workers and former workers of Marlin Firearms Company, 
Inc., a subsidiary of Remington Arms Company, including on-site leased 
workers from Randstat, Reitman, and Hamilton Connections, North Haven, 
Connecticut, who are engaged in employment related to the production of 
lever-action and bolt- action sporting rifles, meet the worker group 
certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 
2272(a).
    In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, I make 
the following certification:

    All workers of Marlin Firearms Company, Inc., a subsidiary of 
Remington Arms Company, including on-site leased workers from 
Randstat, Reitman, and Hamilton Connections, North Haven, 
Connecticut, who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after April 1, 2009, through two years from the 
date of certification, and all workers in the group threatened with 
total or partial separation from employment on the date of 
certification through two years from the date of certification, are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of Title 
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of September, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-24363 Filed 9-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P