Alcan Global Pharmaceutical Packaging, Inc.; Plastics American Division; Centralia, IL; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand, 15163-15164 [E7-5843]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15163
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices
Dollar amount
to be adjusted
11 U.S.C.
(4)—in
(5)—in
(6)—in
(7)—in
(8)—in
paragraph
paragraph
paragraph
paragraph
paragraph
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[TA–W–58,958]
Francis F. Szczebak, Chief, Bankruptcy
Judges Division, Administrative Office
of the United States Courts, Washington,
DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1900.
Dated: March 26, 2007.
Francis F. Szczebak,
Chief, Bankruptcy Judges Division.
[FR Doc. E7–5922 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am]
Alcan Global Pharmaceutical
Packaging, Inc.; Plastics American
Division; Centralia, IL; Notice of
Negative Determination on Remand
Case History
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–61,123]
A.O. Smith Electrical Products
Company, Mcminnville, TN; Notice of
Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on March 16,
2007 in response to a petition filed by
a company official on behalf of workers
of A.O. Smith Electrical Products
Company, McMinnville, Tennessee.
This petition is a duplicate of an
earlier petition (TA–W–61,080) filed on
March 8, 2007, that is the subject of an
ongoing investigation for which a
determination has not yet been issued.
Further investigation in this case would
serve no purpose. Therefore, the
investigation under this petition has
been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of
March, 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–5851 Filed 3–29–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
15:49 Mar 29, 2007
Employment and Training
Administration
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.
BILLING CODE 2210–55–P
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
6,000
10,000
1,000
525
525
6,575
10,950
1,100
575
575
(2)(B)(iv)(I) ...........................................................................................................................
(2)(B)(iv)(II) ..........................................................................................................................
(5)(B) ...................................................................................................................................
6(C) .....................................................................................................................................
7(A)(iii) .................................................................................................................................
Official Bankruptcy Forms 1, 6C, 6E,
7, 10, 22A, and 22C also will be
amended to reflect these adjusted dollar
amounts.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
New
(adjusted) dollar amount
Jkt 211001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
15164
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 61 / Friday, March 30, 2007 / Notices
cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:49 Mar 29, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 oneyear 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
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
Investigations Regarding Certifications
of Eligibility To Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance and Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance
Petitions have been filed with the
Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a)
of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and
are identified in the Appendix to this
notice. Upon receipt of these petitions,
the Director of the Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance, Employment
and Training Administration, has
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 61 (Friday, March 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15163-15164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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
