DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,516

LAMB ASSEMBLY AND TEST, LLC
A SUBSIDIARY OF MAG INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION SYSTEMS
MACHESNEY PARK, ILLINOIS

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated December 1, 2009, petitioners requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on October 22, 2009
and was published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2009
(74 FR 65796).
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, based on the finding that imports of automation
equipment and machine tools did not contribute to worker
separations at the subject facility and there was no shift in
production from the subject firm to foreign country during the
period under investigation. The “contributed importantly” test is
generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s
declining customers. The survey revealed no imports of automation
equipment and machine tools by declining customers during the
relevant period. The subject firm did not import automation
equipment and machine tools nor shift production to a foreign
country during the relevant period.
The petitioner stated that workers of the subject firm
supplied transmission assembly automation equipment to companies
which have been recently certified eligible for TAA. The
petitioner provided a list of customers and alleged that the
workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA as
secondary impacted workers under Section 222(c).
For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification
under Section 222(c), to workers of a secondary upstream
supplier, the subject firm must produce for a TAA-certified firm
a component part of the article that was the basis for the
customers’ certification and the certified firm received
certification of eligibility for TAA as a primary impacted firm.
The Department has reviewed the list of companies provided
by the petitioners. The alleged customers manufacture aluminum
transmissions, cases, parts and automobile engines. The subject
firm does not act as an upstream supplier, because automation
equipment and machine tools do not form component parts of
aluminum transmissions, cases, parts and automobile engines.
Furthermore, the customers to which the subject firm allegedly
supplied articles were not certified as primary firms but were
certified for TAA on the basis of a secondary impact. Thus the
subject firm workers are not eligible under secondary impact.
The petitioner also stated that workers of Lamb Technicon, a
division of Unova, Warren, Michigan and Lake Orion, Michigan were
previously certified eligible for TAA. The petitioner appears to
allege that because the sister companies of the subject firm were
certified eligible for TAA, the workers of the subject firm
should be also granted a TAA certification.
The workers of the above mentioned companies were certified
eligible for TAA under petition numbers TA-W-40,267 and TA-W-
40,267A in July 2002.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department
exclusively considers events during the relevant period (from one
year prior to the date of the petition). Therefore, events
occurring in 2002 are outside of the relevant period and are not
considered in this investigation.
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 7th day of January, 2010


/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-70,516

LAMB ASSEMBLY AND TEST, LLC
A SUBSIDIARY OF MAG INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION SYSTEMS
MACHESNEY PARK, ILLINOIS


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 26, 2009, on behalf of workers of Lamb Assembly and
Test, LLC, a subsidiary of MAG Industrial Automation Systems,
Machesney Park, Illinois (Lamb Assembly and Test). The workers
produce automation equipment and machine tools, and are not
separately identifiable by article produced.
The petitioners allege that worker separations occurred due
to a decision by Lamb Assembly and Test to outsource production
and engineering.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion III has not been met because the workers’
separations were not related to either the increase in imports or
shift/acquisition of articles like or directly competitive with
the automation equipment and machine tools produced by the
workers.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that 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 a 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 Lamb Assembly and Test,
LLC, a subsidiary of MAG Industrial Automation Systems, Machesney
Park, Illinois, who produce automation equipment and machine
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 22nd day of October, 2009

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 9 -