DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-62,243

ELECTRIC MOBILITY CORPORATION
SEWELL, NEW JERSEY

Notice of Revised Determination
On Remand

On May 21, 2008, the United States Court of International
Trade (USCIT) granted the Department of Labor’s motion for
voluntary remand for further investigation in Former Employees
of Electric Mobility Corporation v. U.S. Secretary of Labor,
Court No. 08-00079.
The petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) petition, dated
October 2, 2007, was filed on behalf of workers and former
workers of Electric Mobility Corporation, Sewell, New Jersey
(the subject firm). AR 1. The petition indicated that the
workers produced “medical and mobility devices” and that the
subject workers are employed by a firm or subdivision that has
increased imports of like or directly competitive articles
and/or has shifted production of the article to a foreign
country. AR 1-2. The petition also noted the reason the
petitioner believes the workers are eligible for TAA and ATAA is
that workers at the subject firm were “previously certified
under TA-W-56342, expired 2/4/07.” AR 2.
To apply for TAA, the group eligibility requirements under
Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, must be met.
The group eligibility requirements can be satisfied in either
one of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) --
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; and
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) --

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; and
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; 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.


On November 1, 2007, the Department of Labor (Department)
issued a negative determination regarding eligibility to apply
for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers
of the subject firm. AR 28.
The initial investigation revealed that the subject workers
are not separately identifiable by product line, AR 27, and that
since the certification applicable to TA-W-56,342 expired on
February 4, 2007, the subject firm did not separate or threaten
to separate a significant number or proportion of workers as
required by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. AR 27.
On November 15, 2007, the Department’s Notice of negative
determination applicable to the subject workers was published in
the Federal Register (72 FR 64247). AR 35.
In the request for administrative reconsideration, dated
November 19, 2007, a worker alleged that “there was a work force
reduction of over 5% for a company with over 50 employees” and
provided documentation in support of the allegation. AR 36-39.
The Department issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration on November 26, 2007.
AR 66. In a letter, dated November 28, 2007, the Department
informed the petitioning worker of the determination. AR 69. The
Notice of affirmative determination was published in the Federal
Register on December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67965). AR 70.
On December 19, 2007, the Department issued a Notice of
Negative Determination on Reconsideration. The determination
stated that while “workers were laid off from the subject firm
during the relevant time period . . . overall employment at the
subject firm has increased from October 2006 to September 2007.”
The Department concluded that since employment levels at the
subject firm did not decline during the relevant period and that
there were no threats of separations during the relevant period,
the subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a
significant number or proportion of workers as required by
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. AR 72-73.
In a letter, dated December 27, 2007, the Department
informed the petitioning worker of the negative determination.
AR 74. The Notice of negative determination was published in the
Federal Register on January 10, 2008 (73 FR 1897). AR 75.
In the complaint to the USCIT, dated February 25, 2008, the
Plaintiff alleged that, during the relevant period, the subject
firm did separate or threaten to separate a significant number
or proportion of workers. Attached to the complaint is a copy
of a message from the “Lead Auditor” of “the ISO Registrar
(TUV)” that stated that “during the audit of 10/30/06 the head
count was 343. In November of 2006 there was a reduction of 75
for a total of 268. In May of 2007 there was a reduction of 18
for a total of 250. The total headcount on 10/24/2007 was 250.”
On May 21, 2008, the USCIT granted the Department’s request
for voluntary remand for further investigation.
On remand, the Department sought additional information
from Plaintiff’s counsel, SAR 1, 5, and requested clarification
regarding subject firm employment levels during the relevant
period. SAR 32-35. As a result of these efforts, the Department
was able to obtain crucial information not previously available.
During the remand investigation, Plaintiff’s counsel stated
that his client had additional information that was not in the
administrative record, SAR 1, and submitted new information for
the Department’s consideration. SAR 6-29.
During the remand investigation, a subject firm official
explained how previously-submitted employment data was unclear,
SAR 32, and provided revised employment figures for the relevant
period (October 2, 2006 through October 2, 2007). SAR 37.
Based on the above information, the Department determines
that employment levels at the subject firm did decline during
the relevant period. As such, the Department determines that
Section (a)(2)(A)(A) has been met.
Earlier submissions revealed that sales and production at
the subject firm declined in 2006 from 2005 levels and declined
during January through September 2007 from the corresponding
period the prior year. AR 12. As such, the Department determines
that Section (a)(2)(A)(B) has been met.
Earlier submissions also revealed that, during the relevant
period, the subject firm increased reliance on imports of
articles like or directly competitive with medical and mobility
devices produced by the subject workers. AR 12. As such, the
Department determines that Section (a)(2)(A)(C) has been met.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26
USC 2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the
results of its investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA. The Department has determined in
this case that the group eligibility requirements of Section 246
have been met.
A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or
over and possess skills that are not easily transferable.
Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts developed in the
remand investigation for workers of Electric Mobility
Corporation, Sewell, New Jersey, I determine that there was a
total separation of a significant number or proportion of
workers at the subject firm, that there was a decline in sales
and production, and that increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with medical and mobility devices produced
by the subject firm contributed importantly to the decline in
sales and production and the worker separations at that firm.
In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the
following certification:
"All workers of Electric Mobility Corporation, Sewell, New
Jersey, who became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after February 5, 2007, through two years
from the issuance of this revised determination, are
eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance under
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to
apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974."
Signed at Washington, D.C. this 10th day of July 2008.

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



4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-62,243

ELECTRIC MOBILITY CORPORATION
SEWELL, NEW JERSEY

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:
B. 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:
3. 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;
4. 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
5. 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 October 3, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a
company official on behalf of workers at Electric Mobility Corporation,
Sewell, New Jersey. The workers manufacture mobility chairs (rascal
scooters). Workers are not separately identifiable by product.
The investigation revealed that criterion (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) have not
been met.
This worker group was previously certified eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance, under petition TA-W-56,342, that expired
on February 4, 2007.
Since the expiration of above certification, the subject
firm did not separate or threaten to separate a significant
number or proportion of workers as required by Section 222 of
the Trade Act of 1974. Significant number or proportion of the
workers in a firm or appropriate subdivision means at least
three workers in a workforce of fewer than 50 workers, five
percent of the workers in a workforce of over 50 workers, or at
least 50 workers.
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 Electric Mobility Corporation, Sewell, New Jersey 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 1st day of November 2007


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













- 11 -