[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 61 (Friday, March 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15163-15164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5843]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-58,958]


Alcan Global Pharmaceutical Packaging, Inc.; Plastics American 
Division; Centralia, IL; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand

    On December 18, 2006, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) 
granted the Department of Labor's motion for a voluntary remand in 
Former Employees of Alcan Global Pharmaceuticals Packaging, Inc. v. U.S 
Secretary of Labor, Court No. 06-00180. SAR 47.

Case History

    On March 2, 2006, the Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied 
Workers International Union, Local 267, (Union) filed a petition for 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (ATAA) with the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) on 
behalf of workers and former workers of Alcan Global Pharmaceutical 
Packaging, Inc., Plastics Americas Division, Centralia, Illinois 
(subject firm). AR 2-18.
    Alcan, Inc. (Alcan) is a Canadian company and the subject firm is 
part of Alcan's North American pharmaceutical packaging network 
(``Plastics Americas Division''). The closure of the subject firm was 
announced on November 30, 2005. AR 72.
    The initial investigation revealed that the subject firm produced 
plastic bottles; sales and production increased in 2005 from 2004 
levels; the subject firm shut down on June 30, 2006; the subject firm 
did not import plastic bottles in 2004, 2005, or during January through 
February 2006; and subject firm production shifted to other domestic 
Alcan facilities. AR 21, 26, 37-40, 43, 69-71.
    Because subject firm sales and production did not decline in 2005 
from 2004 levels, the Department did not consider it to be a declining 
company. However, because the subject firm closed, the Department 
conducted a survey of the subject firm's major declining customers. The 
survey revealed no increased import purchases of plastic bottles during 
the relevant period. AR 65, 67, 68.
    The negative determination, issued April 11, 2006, stated that the 
subject firm did not shift production abroad and that neither the 
subject firm nor its major declining customers imported plastic bottles 
during the relevant period. AR 77-80. The Department's notice of 
determination was published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2006 
(71 FR 21044-5). AR 85-87.
    In its request for administrative reconsideration, the Union 
alleging that ``the company is sending their mold equipment to Puerto 
Rico * * * has reported losses * * * likely as a result of competing 
manufacturers from overseas.'' AR 88.
    The Department's May 12, 2006 letter informed the Union that the 
request for reconsideration was being dismissed because no evidence was 
presented that the Department erred in its interpretation of facts or 
of the law. The dismissal letter also stated that because Puerto Rico 
is a U.S. Territory, a shift of production to Puerto Rico is not 
considered to be a shift of production abroad, for purposes of the 
Trade Act of 1974. AR 90-91.
    The Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration applicable to the 
subject firm was issued on May 15, 2006, AR 92, and published in the 
Federal Register on May 24, 2006 (71 FR 29981). AR 94. Subsequent to 
the dismissal of the request for reconsideration, SAR 46, the 
Department received additional information from the Union. SAR 2-45.
    In a letter dated May 30, 2006, the Union appealed the Department's 
action to the USCIT. Plaintiff alleged that ``[t]here is word that the 
company is sending their mold equipment to Puerto Rico * * * Also, the 
company has reported losses for years from the Centralia facility, 
likely as a result of competing manufacturers from overseas.'' SAR 1.
    In order to consider the additional information and make a 
redetermination regarding Plaintiff's eligibility to apply for worker 
adjustment assistance, the Department sought, and was granted, a 
voluntary remand. SAR 47.

[[Page 15164]]

Remand Investigation

    The group eligibility requirements for directly-impacted (primary) 
workers under Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be 
satisfied in either one of two ways:
    (A)(1) 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 (2) the sales or production, or both, of such 
firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and (3) 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

    (B)(1) 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 (2) 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.
    Further, 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.
    Because the subject firm shut down, AR 21, the Department 
determines that a significant number or proportion of workers at the 
subject firm have become totally separated and that the sales or 
production of the subject firm decreased absolutely.
    In order for criterion (A)(3) to be satisfied, it must be shown 
that increased imports of plastic bottles during the relevant period 
``contributed importantly'' to the workers'' separations and subject 
firm sales and/or production declines.
    Per 29 CFR 90.2, ``increased imports'' means that imports have 
increased, absolutely or relative to domestic production, compared to a 
representative base period. The regulation also establishes the 
representative base period as the one-year period proceeding the 
relevant period (the twelve-month period prior to the date of the 
petition).
    Because subject firm sales and production increased in 2005 from 
2004 levels, there were no apparent sales and/or production declines 
during the relevant period. Rather, subject firm's sales and production 
declines occurred after the relevant period. Therefore, there were no 
sales or production declines at the subject firm to which increased 
imports could have contributed importantly.
    Assuming, however, that there were subject firm sales and/or 
production declines during the relevant period, the Department 
conducted a survey of the subject firm's major declining customers 
regarding their import purchases of plastic bottles. SAR 50-51, 189-
199, 207-221, 226-227. None of the respondents reported increased 
imports, either direct or indirect, of plastic bottles or articles like 
or directly competitive with plastic bottles during the relevant 
period. SAR 49-50, 207, 215-216, 219-220, 226-227, 233.
    Further, the subject firm did not have any imports of plastic 
bottles during the relevant period. AR 43.
    During the remand investigation, Alcan explained that the subject 
firm's sudden closure (sales and production increased in 2005 from 2004 
levels and the plant closure was announced in November 2005, AR 72) was 
the result of the loss of two major contracts. SAR 49, 71-72, 74-75. 
When the Department contacted the two ``lost'' customers, the 
Department was informed by both customers that the contracts were not 
``lost'' because of any import factors and that the contracts were 
awarded to other domestic vendors. SAR 52, 216, 226-227.
    Given the above-stated reasons, the Department determines that TAA 
criterion (A)(3) has not been met.
    The Department affirms that a shift of production to Puerto Rico is 
not considered a shift of production abroad, for purposes of the Trade 
Act, because it is a U.S. Territory. Therefore, a shift of production 
to Puerto Rico cannot be a basis for satisfaction of TAA criterion 
(B)(2).
    In response to Plaintiff's allegation that subject firm production 
shifted abroad, the Department requested that Alcan identify those 
domestic facilities to which subject firm production shifted and 
explain the documents which indicate that machines were shipped to 
Brazil and Australia. SAR 49, 52-71.
    Alcan stated that subject firm production was either discontinued 
or shifted to Alcan production facilities in Des Plaines, Illinois or 
Youngsville, North Carolina, SAR 73, 228. Alcan also stated that the 
machines identified by Plaintiff were surplus equipment, SAR 49, 71; 
that the surplus equipment sent to Alcan's Brazilian facility was used 
to produce articles for the Brazilian market, SAR 49, 71; and that the 
surplus equipment sent to Australia was sold to third-party vendors 
only. SAR 71.
    Given the above-stated reasons, the Department determines that TAA 
criterion (B)(2) has not been met.
    In addition, in accordance with Section 246 of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its 
investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA.
    In order to apply the Department to issue a certification of 
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the subject worker group must be 
certified eligible to apply for TAA. Since the workers are denied 
eligibility to apply for TAA, they cannot be certified eligible to 
apply for ATAA.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the findings of the remand investigation, I 
affirm the notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for 
worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Alcan 
Global Pharmaceutical Packaging, Inc., Plastics Americas Division, 
Centralia, Illinois.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 19th day of March 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E7-5843 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P