Petitioner Type: State
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 08/09/2007
Most Recent Update: 09/18/2007
Determination Date: 09/18/2007
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,960
SOLUTIA, INC.
SAUGET, ILLINOIS
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated October 16, 2007, a worker requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former
workers of Solutia, Inc., Sauget, Illinois (subject firm) to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The negative determination was
issued on September 18, 2007, and the Department’s Notice of
negative determination was published in the Federal Register on
October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56385). The subject workers produce
chemicals (phosphorous pentasulfide, santoflexes, and ACL).
Workers are not separately identifiable by product line.
The TAA/ATAA petition was denied because 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 the request for reconsideration, the worker asserted that
the Department’s determination was erroneous (“My congressman
Jerry Costello (D-IL) received confirmation from the U.S.
Department of Labor for all workers of Solutia, Inc., Sauget,
ILL. who become separated from employment to receive additional
unemployment benefits, job training, and other services”). The
request included news articles about Solutia’s foreign operations
(“Solutia starts building new plant in China,” September 1, 2005;
“Solutia Begins Construction of New Saflex (R) PVB Plant in
China,” September 1, 2005; “Solutia unit expands manufacturing in
China,” September 20, 2005; “Solutia Expands Therminol
Manufacturing in China,” September 20, 2005; “Solutia completes
buyout of Mexican plant, plans expansion,” March 2, 2006;
“Solutia boosts manufacturing capacity,” June 21, 2006; “Solutia
starts Belgian plant expansion,” March 26, 2007; “Solutia Expands
Presence in China by Opening New Saflex Manufacturing Plant in
Suzhou,” September 21, 2007; and “Solutia opens Saflex plant in
China,” September 21, 2007) and a document titled “Krummrich
Products and Applications” that identifies several chemicals and
their applications.
The worker also submitted an article (“Costello Announces
Benefits for Solutia, Inc. Workers,” released June 4, 2004 by
Congressman Jerry F. Costello, 12th District, Illinois) that
explains the assertion in the request for reconsideration.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), administrative 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 certification alluded to in the request for
reconsideration is Solutia, Inc., Sauget, Illinois (TA-W-54,902;
covering subject firm workers separated on or after May 11, 2003
through May 28, 2006). Because the certification for TA-W-54,902
has expired, facts which were the basis for the certification
applicable to workers covered by that petition cannot be a basis
for certification for workers covered by this petition.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the
support documentation, and previously submitted materials, the
Department determines that there is no new information that
supports a finding that Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was
satisfied and that no mistake or misinterpretation of the facts
or of the law with regards to the number or proportion of workers
separated from the subject firm during the relevant period.
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 1st day of November 2007
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
___________________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,960
SOLUTIA, INC.
SAUGET, ILLINOIS
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 in response to a petition
received on August 9, 2007, and filed by the State of Illinois on
behalf of workers at Solutia, Inc., Sauget, Illinois. The workers
produce chemicals (phosphorous pentasulfide, santoflexes, and ACL).
The workers are not separately identifiable by product line.
The investigation revealed that criteria (I.A) and (II.A) have
not been met.
The investigation revealed that 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, I determine that workers of Solutia,
Inc., Sauget, Illinois, are denied eligibility to apply for adjust-
ment 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 18th day of September 2007.
/s/Linda G. Poole
_____________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 7 -
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,960
SOLUTIA, INC.
SAUGET, ILLINOIS
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated October 16, 2007, a worker requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former
workers of Solutia, Inc., Sauget, Illinois (subject firm) to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The negative determination was
issued on September 18, 2007, and the Department’s Notice of
negative determination was published in the Federal Register on
October 3, 2007 (72 FR 56385). The subject workers produce
chemicals (phosphorous pentasulfide, santoflexes, and ACL).
Workers are not separately identifiable by product line.
The TAA/ATAA petition was denied because 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 the request for reconsideration, the worker asserted that
the Department’s determination was erroneous (“My congressman
Jerry Costello (D-IL) received confirmation from the U.S.
Department of Labor for all workers of Solutia, Inc., Sauget,
ILL. who become separated from employment to receive additional
unemployment benefits, job training, and other services”). The
request included news articles about Solutia’s foreign operations
(“Solutia starts building new plant in China,” September 1, 2005;
“Solutia Begins Construction of New Saflex (R) PVB Plant in
China,” September 1, 2005; “Solutia unit expands manufacturing in
China,” September 20, 2005; “Solutia Expands Therminol
Manufacturing in China,” September 20, 2005; “Solutia completes
buyout of Mexican plant, plans expansion,” March 2, 2006;
“Solutia boosts manufacturing capacity,” June 21, 2006; “Solutia
starts Belgian plant expansion,” March 26, 2007; “Solutia Expands
Presence in China by Opening New Saflex Manufacturing Plant in
Suzhou,” September 21, 2007; and “Solutia opens Saflex plant in
China,” September 21, 2007) and a document titled “Krummrich
Products and Applications” that identifies several chemicals and
their applications.
The worker also submitted an article (“Costello Announces
Benefits for Solutia, Inc. Workers,” released June 4, 2004 by
Congressman Jerry F. Costello, 12th District, Illinois) that
explains the assertion in the request for reconsideration.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), administrative 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 certification alluded to in the request for
reconsideration is Solutia, Inc., Sauget, Illinois (TA-W-54,902;
covering subject firm workers separated on or after May 11, 2003
through May 28, 2006). Because the certification for TA-W-54,902
has expired, facts which were the basis for the certification
applicable to workers covered by that petition cannot be a basis
for certification for workers covered by this petition.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the
support documentation, and previously submitted materials, the
Department determines that there is no new information that
supports a finding that Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was
satisfied and that no mistake or misinterpretation of the facts
or of the law with regards to the number or proportion of workers
separated from the subject firm during the relevant period.
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 1st day of November 2007
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
___________________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-61,960
SOLUTIA, INC.
SAUGET, ILLINOIS
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 in response to a petition
received on August 9, 2007, and filed by the State of Illinois on
behalf of workers at Solutia, Inc., Sauget, Illinois. The workers
produce chemicals (phosphorous pentasulfide, santoflexes, and ACL).
The workers are not separately identifiable by product line.
The investigation revealed that criteria (I.A) and (II.A) have
not been met.
The investigation revealed that 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, I determine that workers of Solutia,
Inc., Sauget, Illinois, are denied eligibility to apply for adjust-
ment 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 18th day of September 2007.
/s/Linda G. Poole
_____________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 7 -