DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,201

TIVOLY, INC.
DERBY LINE, VERMONT

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On November 16, 2009, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was
published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2009 (74 FR
64,711).
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the finding that imports of cutting tools did not
contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject firm
and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred.
In the request for reconsideration, the International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 1829,
requested that additional customer surveys be done beyond the two
that had been completed during the earlier investigation.
In response to that request, the Department of Labor conducted
a survey of five more major declining customers of the subject firm
regarding their purchases of cutting tools, taps, and reamers
during 2007, 2008, and during the months of January through May
2008 and January through May 2009.
Those five surveys, added to the two surveys completed during
the investigation, included customers who accounted for 89 percent
of the subject firm’s total sales during 2007 and 2008, and
customers who accounted for 65 percent of the total subject firm’s
total sales during the period January through May 2009.
The customers surveyed also accounted for 89 percent of the
decline in total subject firm sales from 2007 to 2008, and 88
percent of the decline in total subject firm sales during the
period January through May 2009 as compared with the same five
months in 2008.
Those surveys showed customer imports of cutting tools, taps,
and reamers to be insignificant as a percent of total subject firm
sales during 2007 and 2008, and showed that there were no customer
imports of cutting tools during the period January through May
2009.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Tivoly,
Inc., Derby Line, Vermont.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 27th day of May 2010
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,201

TIVOLY, INC.
DERBY LINE, VERMONT

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (c) or
(f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f). For
the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following three
criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm must
have become totally or partially separated or be threatened
with total or partial separation.

II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the component
part produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have increased.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or supply
of services like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country
by the workers’ firm of articles/services that are like
or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by
the workers’ firm.

III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports or
shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation. See Sections
222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer”. For the Department to
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream
Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to
a firm that employed a group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or production
is related to the article or service that was the basis
for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component parts
it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2)
accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or
sales of the workers’ firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation.

Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in a category of determination that is listed in
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), can be satisfied if
the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A)
or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning
on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President
by the International Trade Commission under section
202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative
determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is
published in the Federal Register under section
202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in
subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and
(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on May 19, 2009 by International Association of Machinists
Union Special Representative on behalf of workers of Tivoly, Inc.,
Derby Line, Vermont. The workers are engaged in the production of
cutting tools.
The petitioner alleges that workers at the subject firm were
affected imports from Asia.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion II has not been met because there was no
increase in imports or increased reliance in imports by the
subject firm nor was there a shift in production abroad.
Additionally, the Department of Labor surveyed major
customers of the subject firm regarding their purchases of
cutting tools in 2007, 2008 and January through May of 2008/2009.
The survey revealed that customer imports declined both absolutely
and relative to purchases from the subject firm in the above
periods.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that the workers did not meet the secondary worker
eligibility criteria.
Criterion (2) has not been met because the workers did not
produce an article or supply a service that was used by a firm
with TAA certified workers in the production of an article or
supply of service that was the basis for TAA certification.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because the workers’ firm has not been identified in an
affirmative finding of injury by the ITC.


Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Tivoly, Inc. Derby
Line, Vermont who are engaged in the production cutting tools are
denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under Section
223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 2nd day of October, 2009.

/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 3 -