Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 04/08/2009
Most Recent Update: 05/15/2009
Determination Date: 05/15/2009
Expiration Date:
Other Worker Groups on This Petition
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-65,770
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
WESTPORT, WASHINGTON
TA-W-65,770A
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
HOQUIAM, WASHINGTON
TA-W-65,770B
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON
TA-W-65,770C
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
LA CONNER, WASHINGTON
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated June 12, 2009, the petitioners
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA), applicable to workers and former workers of
the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on May 15, 2009
and published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2009 (74 FR
28961).
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 initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination, which was based on the finding that imports of
large motor yachts did not contribute importantly to worker
separations at the subject facility and there was no shift of
production to a foreign country. The subject firm did not import
large motor yachts nor shift production of large motor yachts to
a foreign country during the 2007, 2008 and January through March
2009 period. Furthermore, the investigation revealed that sales
and production of large motor yachts at the subject firm
increased from January through March, 2009 when compared with the
same period in 2008.
The petitioners alleged that the customers of the subject
firm, who are individual buyers and not business entities, can
purchase “similar products” in foreign countries. The
individuals can subsequently ship or sail the yachts back to the
United States as a personal property, thus these products are not
considered imports. To support their allegations, the
petitioners attached information about aggregate imports, which
reflects ports of unlading of “yachts, row boats, canoes and
sailboats, with or without auxiliary motor” for the state of
Washington in 2006, 2007, 2008 and January 2009. This data shows
that aggregate imports into the state of Washington of the above
mentioned products declined from 2006 to 2007, further declined
from 2007 to 2008, and increased in January 2009 when compared
with January 2008. The petitioners seem to allege that these
increasing imports in January 2009 amounted to a significant
amount contributing importantly to the worker separations at all
Westport Shipyard locations.
In order to establish import impact, the Department solicits
relevant information from the subject firm, customers of the
subject firm and analyzes available United States aggregate data
regarding imports of products, including those like or directly
competitive with the products manufactured by the subject firm for
the relevant period (one year prior to the date of the petition).
In the case at hand, the customers were not surveyed, as they are
individuals and one-time buyers. According to the data available
from the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International
Trade Commission, United States imports of motorized vessels and
yachts have declined from 2007 to 2008 and decreased from January
through April 2009, when compared with the corresponding 2008
period.
The petitioner did not supply facts not previously
considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that
there was either 1) a mistake in the determination of facts not
previously considered or 2) a misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
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 in Washington, D.C., this 9th day of July 2009
/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-65,770
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
WESTPORT, WASHINGTON
TA-W-65,770A
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
HOQUIAM, WASHINGTON
TA-W-65,770B
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON
TA-W-65,770C
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
LA CONNER, WASHINGTON
Negative Determinations 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 April 8, 2009, in response
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Westport Shipyard, Inc.
in Westport, Hoquiam, La Conner, and Port Angeles, Washington. The
workers produce large motor yachts sold directly to final
customers.
The investigation revealed that criteria I.C and II.B have not
been met.
The subject firm did not import motor yachts nor did it shift
production abroad during the period of this investigation.
United States aggregate imports of motorized vessels for
pleasure or sport decreased sharply in 2008 compared with 2007, and
also declined in January through February, 2009.
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 assis-
tance (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 Westport Shipyard,
Inc. in Westport, Hoquiam, La Conner and Port Angeles, Washington
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 15th day of May 2009
/s/Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 4 -
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-65,770
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
WESTPORT, WASHINGTON
TA-W-65,770A
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
HOQUIAM, WASHINGTON
TA-W-65,770B
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON
TA-W-65,770C
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
LA CONNER, WASHINGTON
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated June 12, 2009, the petitioners
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA), applicable to workers and former workers of
the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on May 15, 2009
and published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2009 (74 FR
28961).
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 initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination, which was based on the finding that imports of
large motor yachts did not contribute importantly to worker
separations at the subject facility and there was no shift of
production to a foreign country. The subject firm did not import
large motor yachts nor shift production of large motor yachts to
a foreign country during the 2007, 2008 and January through March
2009 period. Furthermore, the investigation revealed that sales
and production of large motor yachts at the subject firm
increased from January through March, 2009 when compared with the
same period in 2008.
The petitioners alleged that the customers of the subject
firm, who are individual buyers and not business entities, can
purchase “similar products” in foreign countries. The
individuals can subsequently ship or sail the yachts back to the
United States as a personal property, thus these products are not
considered imports. To support their allegations, the
petitioners attached information about aggregate imports, which
reflects ports of unlading of “yachts, row boats, canoes and
sailboats, with or without auxiliary motor” for the state of
Washington in 2006, 2007, 2008 and January 2009. This data shows
that aggregate imports into the state of Washington of the above
mentioned products declined from 2006 to 2007, further declined
from 2007 to 2008, and increased in January 2009 when compared
with January 2008. The petitioners seem to allege that these
increasing imports in January 2009 amounted to a significant
amount contributing importantly to the worker separations at all
Westport Shipyard locations.
In order to establish import impact, the Department solicits
relevant information from the subject firm, customers of the
subject firm and analyzes available United States aggregate data
regarding imports of products, including those like or directly
competitive with the products manufactured by the subject firm for
the relevant period (one year prior to the date of the petition).
In the case at hand, the customers were not surveyed, as they are
individuals and one-time buyers. According to the data available
from the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International
Trade Commission, United States imports of motorized vessels and
yachts have declined from 2007 to 2008 and decreased from January
through April 2009, when compared with the corresponding 2008
period.
The petitioner did not supply facts not previously
considered; nor provide additional documentation indicating that
there was either 1) a mistake in the determination of facts not
previously considered or 2) a misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination.
After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
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 in Washington, D.C., this 9th day of July 2009
/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-65,770
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
WESTPORT, WASHINGTON
TA-W-65,770A
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
HOQUIAM, WASHINGTON
TA-W-65,770B
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON
TA-W-65,770C
WESTPORT SHIPYARD, INC.
LA CONNER, WASHINGTON
Negative Determinations 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 April 8, 2009, in response
to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Westport Shipyard, Inc.
in Westport, Hoquiam, La Conner, and Port Angeles, Washington. The
workers produce large motor yachts sold directly to final
customers.
The investigation revealed that criteria I.C and II.B have not
been met.
The subject firm did not import motor yachts nor did it shift
production abroad during the period of this investigation.
United States aggregate imports of motorized vessels for
pleasure or sport decreased sharply in 2008 compared with 2007, and
also declined in January through February, 2009.
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 assis-
tance (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 Westport Shipyard,
Inc. in Westport, Hoquiam, La Conner and Port Angeles, Washington
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 15th day of May 2009
/s/Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 4 -