Petitioner Type: Company
Impact Date: 05/18/2008
Filed Date: 05/20/2009
Most Recent Update: 09/09/2009
Determination Date: 09/09/2009
Expiration Date: 12/10/2011
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-70,295
ULTIMIZERS, INC.
BORING, OREGON
Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration
By application dated September 21, 2009, a company official
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's
negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and
former workers of Ultimizers, Inc., Boring, Oregon (subject firm)
to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The Department’s
Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration was signed on October 15, 2009, and published in
the Federal Register on October 27, 2009 (74 FR 55261).
The initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination issued on September 9, 2009, was based on the
finding that imports of optimizing lumber cut-off saws, feeders,
sorters and scanners did not contribute importantly to worker
separations at the subject firm and no shift in production to a
foreign source occurred.
To support the request for reconsideration, the petitioner
supplied additional information regarding lost bids by the
subject firm during the relevant period. The Department of Labor
conducted a bid survey of the domestic firms to which the subject
facility was the lowest domestic bidder. The results of the
survey revealed that the bids were awarded to foreign producers.
The loss of these contracts contributed importantly to the
declines in sales and employment at the subject firm. The
investigation further revealed that sales, production and
employment at the subject firm declined during the relevant
period.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on
reconsideration, I determine that workers of Ultimizers, Inc.,
Boring, Oregon, who are engaged in activities related to the
production of parts feeding and assembly equipment meet the
worker group certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the
Act, 19. U.S.C. § 2273, I make the following certification:
"All workers of Ultimizers, Inc., Boring, Oregon, who became
totally or partially separated from employment on or after
May 18, 2008, through two years from the date of this
certification, and all workers in the group threatened with
total or partial separation from employment on date of
certification through two years from the date of
certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended.”
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 10th day of December 2009.
/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-70,295
ULTIMIZERS, INC.
BORING, OREGON
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 20, 2009 by a company official on behalf of workers
of Ultimizers, Inc., Boring, Oregon. The workers produce
optimizing lumber cut-off (docking and crosscut) saws, feeders,
sorters, and scanners.
The petition alleges that increased imports by customers and
potential customers of optimizing lumber cut-off (docking and
crosscut) saws, feeders, sorters, and scanners resulted in worker
separations at the Boring, Oregon facility.
The investigation included collection of data from the subject
firm, a sample survey of the subject firm’s declining customers, a
survey of lost bids, and aggregate data regarding United States
imports of like products.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that workers of Ultimizers, Inc., Boring, Oregon, did not
meet the criterion for certification.
The second criterion of this section has not been met because
there was no increase in imports or shift/acquisition by the
subject firm of articles like or directly competitive with the
optimizing lumber cut-off (docking and crosscut) saws, feeders,
sorters, and scanners produced in Boring, Oregon.
A sample survey of the declining customers of the subject firm
revealed that these customers did not increase imports of articles
like or directly competitive with optimizing lumber cut-off
(docking and crosscut) saws, feeders, sorters, and scanners
during the relevant period. In addition, the United States
Department of Labor conducted a survey of entities to which the
subject firm submitted bids for optimizing lumber cut-off saw,
feeder, sorter, and scanner projects. The survey revealed that no
project awarded to a foreign firm contributed importantly to worker
separations.
United States aggregate imports for consumption of sawmill
products decreased substantially in 2008 compared with 2007 and
continued to decline in the first half of 2009.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that the workers of Ultimizers, Inc., Boring, Oregon, did
not meet the criteria for certification as secondarily affected
workers.
Criterion (2) of this section 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.
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 Ultimizers, Inc.,
Boring, Oregon, 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 9th day of September, 2009
/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 2 -
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-70,295
ULTIMIZERS, INC.
BORING, OREGON
Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration
By application dated September 21, 2009, a company official
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's
negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and
former workers of Ultimizers, Inc., Boring, Oregon (subject firm)
to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The Department’s
Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration was signed on October 15, 2009, and published in
the Federal Register on October 27, 2009 (74 FR 55261).
The initial investigation resulted in a negative
determination issued on September 9, 2009, was based on the
finding that imports of optimizing lumber cut-off saws, feeders,
sorters and scanners did not contribute importantly to worker
separations at the subject firm and no shift in production to a
foreign source occurred.
To support the request for reconsideration, the petitioner
supplied additional information regarding lost bids by the
subject firm during the relevant period. The Department of Labor
conducted a bid survey of the domestic firms to which the subject
facility was the lowest domestic bidder. The results of the
survey revealed that the bids were awarded to foreign producers.
The loss of these contracts contributed importantly to the
declines in sales and employment at the subject firm. The
investigation further revealed that sales, production and
employment at the subject firm declined during the relevant
period.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on
reconsideration, I determine that workers of Ultimizers, Inc.,
Boring, Oregon, who are engaged in activities related to the
production of parts feeding and assembly equipment meet the
worker group certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the
Act, 19. U.S.C. § 2273, I make the following certification:
"All workers of Ultimizers, Inc., Boring, Oregon, who became
totally or partially separated from employment on or after
May 18, 2008, through two years from the date of this
certification, and all workers in the group threatened with
total or partial separation from employment on date of
certification through two years from the date of
certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended.”
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 10th day of December 2009.
/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-70,295
ULTIMIZERS, INC.
BORING, OREGON
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 20, 2009 by a company official on behalf of workers
of Ultimizers, Inc., Boring, Oregon. The workers produce
optimizing lumber cut-off (docking and crosscut) saws, feeders,
sorters, and scanners.
The petition alleges that increased imports by customers and
potential customers of optimizing lumber cut-off (docking and
crosscut) saws, feeders, sorters, and scanners resulted in worker
separations at the Boring, Oregon facility.
The investigation included collection of data from the subject
firm, a sample survey of the subject firm’s declining customers, a
survey of lost bids, and aggregate data regarding United States
imports of like products.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that workers of Ultimizers, Inc., Boring, Oregon, did not
meet the criterion for certification.
The second criterion of this section has not been met because
there was no increase in imports or shift/acquisition by the
subject firm of articles like or directly competitive with the
optimizing lumber cut-off (docking and crosscut) saws, feeders,
sorters, and scanners produced in Boring, Oregon.
A sample survey of the declining customers of the subject firm
revealed that these customers did not increase imports of articles
like or directly competitive with optimizing lumber cut-off
(docking and crosscut) saws, feeders, sorters, and scanners
during the relevant period. In addition, the United States
Department of Labor conducted a survey of entities to which the
subject firm submitted bids for optimizing lumber cut-off saw,
feeder, sorter, and scanner projects. The survey revealed that no
project awarded to a foreign firm contributed importantly to worker
separations.
United States aggregate imports for consumption of sawmill
products decreased substantially in 2008 compared with 2007 and
continued to decline in the first half of 2009.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that the workers of Ultimizers, Inc., Boring, Oregon, did
not meet the criteria for certification as secondarily affected
workers.
Criterion (2) of this section 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.
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 Ultimizers, Inc.,
Boring, Oregon, 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 9th day of September, 2009
/s/ Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 2 -