DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-60,882

CAMACO, LLC
MARIANA DIVISION
MARIANNA, ARKANSAS

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated April 4, 2007, a company official
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's
negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and
former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA). The denial notice was signed on March 16, 2007 and
published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2007 (72 FR
15168).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted
under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously
considered that the determination complained of
was erroneous;
(2) if it appears that the determination complained of
was based on a mistake in the determination of facts
not previously considered; or
(3) if in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.


The TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Camaco, LLC,
Marianna Division, Marianna, Arkansas engaged in production of
automotive parts, such as metal seat frames, brackets and
reinforcement was denied because the "contributed importantly"
group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of
1974 was not met. The “contributed importantly” test is generally
demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s customers.
The survey revealed no imports of automotive parts, such as metal
seat frames, brackets and reinforcement in 2005, 2006 and January
of 2007 when compared with January of 2006. The subject firm did
not import automotive parts, such as metal seat frames, brackets
and reinforcement in the relevant period nor did it shift
production to a foreign country.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner stated
that the subject firm made parts for a company which shifted
production to Mexico. As a result of this shift, the subject
firm experienced declines in sales. Therefore, workers of the
subject firm should be eligible for TAA and ATAA.
A company official was contacted to verify the business
relationship between the subject firm and the alleged company.
The company official stated that the company mentioned in the
request for reconsideration was not the subject firm’s customer
and that the subject firm did not sell parts directly to this
firm during the relevant time period. Because the alleged
company was not the subject firm’s customer during the relevant
time period, any information regarding business activities of
this company is not relevant to this investigation.
The request for reconsideration also states that “some of
the equipment that was utilized here at CAMACO-Marianna is being
sent to India to be used at a manufacturing facility there for
production of automotive parts.”
Further contact with the company official confirmed that
CAMACO, LLC, Marianna Division, Marianna, Arkansas is planning to
shift a portion of its manufacturing equipment from Marianna,
Arkansas to India. The company official further indicated that
no production has been moved from the Marianna facility to India
as of April 12, 2007, and no time line was established to when
this may occur.
Should the shift to India occur, the petitioner is
encouraged to file a new petition on behalf of workers at the
CAMACO, LLC, Marianna Division, Marianna, Arkansas, thereby
creating a relevant period of investigation that would include
changing conditions.
The petitioner further refers to the TAA certifications
issued to various businesses and industries located in Marianna,
Arkansas. The petitioner alleges that because the subject firm
has been the largest employer in Marianna, Arkansas and hence
other companies in the area were certified eligible for TAA,
workers of the subject firm should also be eligible.
A review of other businesses is not relevant to an
investigation concerning import impact on workers applying for
trade adjustment assistance. As noted above, “contributed
importantly” test is generally demonstrated through a survey of
customers of the workers’ firm to examine the direct impact on a
specific firm. No increased imports were evidenced during the
survey of subject firm’s customers and the subject firm did not
shift production to a foreign country.
Conclusion
After review of the application and investigative findings,
I conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of
the law or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of
the Department of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 13th day of April, 2007


/s/ Elliott S. Kushner

_________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance



44510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-60,882

CAMACO, LLC
MARIANA DIVISION
MARIANNA, ARKANSAS

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply For Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance. 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 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.

The investigation was initiated on February 1, 2007 in
response to a petition filed by a state agency representative on
behalf of workers of Camaco, Marlanna, Arkansas. Workers at the
subject firm manufacture automotive parts, specifically metal seat
frames, brackets, and reinforcements. Workers are not separately
identifiable by product.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.B) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that employment, sales, and
production at the subject firm declined in January 2007 when
compared to January 2006.
The subject firm did not shift production of automotive parts,
specifically metal seat frames, brackets, and reinforcements) to a
foreign country in 2005, 2006, January 2006 or January 2007, nor
did it import automotive parts, specifically metal seat frames,
brackets, and reinforcements.
The United States Department of Labor surveyed subject firm’s
major declining customers regarding purchases of automotive parts,
(metal seat frames, wire frames, brackets, and reinforcements) in
2005 and 2006. The surveys revealed no import purchases during the
relevant period.
In addition, in accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of
1974 (26 USC 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of its investigation regarding certification
of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA) for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be certified
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the
workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot
be certified eligible for ATAA.











Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that all workers of Camaco, Marlanna,
Arkansas, are denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also denied
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 16th day of March 2007.



/s/Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 3 -