DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-53,753

CITATION CORPORATION
CAMDEN, TENNESSEE


Notice of Negative Determination
on Remand

On January 23, 2006, the U.S. Court of International Trade
(USCIT) granted the Department of Labor's motion for a second
voluntary remand in Former Employees of Citation Corporation v.
Elaine Chao, U.S Secretary of Labor, Court No. 04-00198.
On December 1, 2003, the Tennessee AFL-CIO (Union) filed a
petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of workers of
Citation Corporation, Camden, Tennessee producing ductile iron
castings (subject worker group). The Department of Labor
(Department) terminated the investigation for TA-W-53,753
because no new information or change in circumstance was evident
which would have resulted in the reversal of a prior negative
determination applicable to the same worker group (TA-W-51,871).
The Notice of Termination was issued on December 11, 2003. The
Notice was published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2004
(69 FR 940).
After the Department dismissed the Union's request for
reconsideration (April 6, 2004; 69 FR 18107), the Union appealed
to the USCIT for review.
During the first remand investigation, the Department
determined that the worker group and the circumstances of the
workers' separations in TA-W-51,871 and TA-W-53,753 were the
same and that termination of the investigation of TA-W-53,753
was proper because a final decision was issued in TA-W-51,871.
The Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration on
Remand was issued on March 9, 2005 and published in the Federal
Register on March 28, 2005 (70 FR 15646).
On January 23, 2006, the USCIT directed the Department to
conduct a second remand investigation to determine whether the
subject worker group is eligible to apply for TAA.
To determine whether the subject worker group is eligible
to apply for TAA, the Department conducted an investigation to
ascertain if the criteria set forth in 29 CFR 90.16(b) was met:
1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in
such workers’ firm (or appropriate subdivision of the firm)
have become, or are threatened to become, totally or
partially separated;

2) Sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and

3) Increases (absolute or relative) of imports of articles
produced by such workers' firm or an appropriate
subdivision thereof contributed importantly to such total
or partial separation, or threat thereof, and to such
decline in sales or production.
Pursuant to 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 preceding the date twelve months prior to
the date of the petition.
Because the date of TA-W-53,753 is December 1, 2003, the
relevant period is December 1, 2002 through November 30, 2003
and the representative base period is December 1, 2001 through
November 30, 2002. Therefore, increased imports is established
if import levels during December 1, 2002 through November 30,
2003 are greater than import levels during December 1, 2001
through November 30, 2002.
During the second remand investigation, the Department
confirmed that Citation Corporation, Camden, Tennessee (subject
facility) produced ductile iron castings until production ceased
on December 9, 2002. SAR 66-68, 72. Due to the domestic shift
of production, there were worker separations as well as sales
and production declines at the subject facility during the
relevant period. SAR 16, 74. Therefore, the Department
determines that 29 CFR 90.16(b)(1) and 29 CFR 90.16(b)(2) have
been met.

To determine whether 29 CFR 90.16(b)(3) has been met, the
Department also requested during the second remand investigation
information from the Union, SAR 22, 27-28, Citation Corporation
(subject firm), SAR 3-21, 42-75, 81-121, 123-126, 129-130, 133,
136, 138, and the individuals identified by the Union as having
relevant information. SAR 26-41, 76-80.
During the second remand investigation , the Department
received information that indicates that the subject facility
did not increase its imports of ductile iron castings. SAR 12-
13, 21, 72, 74, 111. Because the subject firm retained all of
its business, SAR 21, 86-87, 111, 123-125, 140-142, and sales
had increased at the subject facility prior to the plant
closure, SAR 16, 85 the Department did not inquire whether the
subject firm’s customers were purchasing from foreign sources
instead of purchasing from the subject firm.
In response to the Union’s assertion that increased foreign
competition caused the consolidation of the subject firm’s
operations and the subsequent closure of the subject facility,
SAR 15, the Department sought clarification from the subject
firm, SAR 14, 81-138 and the individuals identified by the Union
(former and current subject firm officials). SAR 29-41, 76-80.
According to the subject firm, any statement about mergers as a
result of foreign competition was a general statement about the
domestic foundry and automotive industries. SAR 21.
Further, one of the three individuals identified by the
Union as having relevant information recalls hearing that the
Chinese government had built furnaces, but could not clearly
identify the source of the information and was unable to
identify the product the furnaces were built to manufacture.
SAR 80.
Another individual identified by the Union did not recall
meeting any Union representative and stated that the workers
were aware of the subject firm's concerns regarding the high
cost of maintaining the facility (the facility was old and in
need of much repair). SAR 80. The third individual did not
recall any comment made to or from the Union about foreign
competition at any meeting, including the December 9, 2002
meeting. SAR 74.
During the second remand investigation, the Department
determined that production had not shifted abroad from the
subject. SAR 16. Rather, the Department concluded that
production had shifted from the subject facility to other
domestic subject firm facilities producing similar products.
SAR 16, 74, 120-121, 124, 141.
If the subject firm as a whole suffered decreased sales or
production prior to the subject facility's closure, the
Department may determine that the subject firm was adversely
impacted by increased imports and that the closure was part of
the subject firm's efforts to stay viable. The Department,
therefore, also requested during second remand investigation
corporate-wide sales and production figures of articles like and
directly competitive with ductile iron castings for 2001, 2002,
and 2003, SAR 113, 118-121, 123-138, and sales figures for the
subject firm’s major customer. SAR 126, 130, 133.
The subject firm provided information for fiscal year 2001
(October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001), fiscal year 2002
(October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002), and fiscal year
2003 (October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003). SAR 115-116,
120-121, 124-125.
For purposes of determining whether the closure of the
subject facility was part of the subject firm's efforts to stay
viable, the Department inquired into the subject firm’s sales
and production levels during time periods other than the time
periods identified in the initial investigation. These
alternative time periods are necessary because the subject
facility ceased production on December 9, 2002. For purposes of
only this portion of the second remand investigation, the
"relevant period" is October 1, 2001 through September 2002, and
the "base period" is October 1, 2000 through September 2001.
The data shows that the subject firm’s fiscal year 2002
sales were stable when compared to fiscal year 2001 sales and
that the subject firm’s fiscal year 2002 production level was
relatively stable when compared to fiscal year 2001 production
level. SAR 122. The data also shows that subject firm sales to
its largest customer remained stable during the relevant period.
SAR 141-142. Given the stable production levels, sales levels
and customer base, the Department determines that the subject
firm was not adversely impacted by increased imports of ductile
iron castings and that increased imports of ductile iron
castings did not contribute importantly to the closing of the
subject facility. Further, as indicated by a former subject
firm official, the subject facility was old and in need of much
repair. SAR 80.
Finally, 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
being denied eligibility to apply for TAA, they cannot be
certified eligible to apply for ATAA.




Conclusion
After careful review of the findings of the second remand
investigation, I affirm the notice of negative determination of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of Citation Corporation, Camden,
Tennessee.
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 26th day of July 2006.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
__________________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance