DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,599

INNOVION CORPORATION
GRESHAM, OREGON

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On March 31, 2010, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
for the workers and former workers of Innovion Corporation,
Gresham, Oregon (subject firm). The notice was published in the
Federal Register on April 19, 2010 (75 FR 20382). The workers
supply ion implantation services for firms in the semiconductor
industry.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the finding that there was no shift to/acquisition from a
foreign country by the workers’ firm of services like or directly
competitive with the ion implantation services supplied by the
subject firm and no increased import by either the subject firm or
its major declining customers of services like or directly
competitive with the ion implantation services supplied by the
subject firm [Section 222(a)]. Further, the workers are not
eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as
adversely affected secondary workers [Section 222(c)] or workers of
a firm identified by the International Trade Commission as a member
of a domestic industry injured under a provision of the Tariff Act
of 1930 [Section 222(f)].
The initial investigation concluded that worker separations
were attributable to a customer’s decision to perform ion
implantation services in-house instead of using the subject firm.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
sought clarification from the subject firm’s headquarters and
conducted an expanded customer survey of the subject firm’s major
declining customers, including those identified in the request for
reconsideration.
Information provided during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed no shift to/acquisition from another country by the
subject firm in the supply of ion implantation services, and no
increased imports of ion implantation services, or like or directly
competitive services, by the subject firm during the relevant
period.
The customer survey conducted during the reconsideration
investigation showed that, during the relevant time period, the
three largest declining customers of the subject firm did not
import services like or directly competitive with the ion
implantation services provided by the subject workers.
Together, the surveyed customers accounted for 92 percent of
subject firm sales in 2007, 89 percent of subject firm sales in
2008, and 84 percent of subject firm sales during the first four
months of 2009. Those customers also accounted for 109 percent of
the sales decline of the subject firm from 2007 to 2008 and 97
percent of the subject firm’s sales decline during the first four
months of 2009 as compared with the same period of 2009.
The assertion that the subject firm should be certified as a
result of the certification of customer LSI Logic (TA-W-55,958;
certified on November 3, 2003) was not investigated on
reconsideration because a shift to a foreign country by a customer
cannot be a basis of certification absent under Section 222(a),
which requires that there has been a shift to a foreign country by
the subject firm. Further, the certification of the Chandler,
Arizona facility (TA-W-71,648) cannot be the basis of certification
of workers of the Gresham, Oregon facility as adversely affected
secondary workers because the certification of the Chandler,
Arizona facility was based on the satisfaction of Section 222(c)
and Section 222(c) requires that the primary firm be certified
under Section 222(a).
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 Innovion
Corporation, Gresham, Oregon.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 15th day of November, 2010
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,599

INNOVION CORPORATION
GRESHAM, 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 26, 2009, on behalf of workers of Innovion
Corporation, Gresham, Oregon. The workers provide ion
implantation services for the semiconductor industry.
The petitioners allege that worker separations at the firm
are due to increased customer imports. The investigation included
collecting and analyzing information from the firm and its
customers.
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 shift/acquisition by the workers’ firm or
customers. Criterion III has not been met because the workers’
separation or threat of separation was not related to an increase
in imports or shift/acquisition. Rather, the investigation
revealed that worker separations are attributable to a major
customer cancelling a contract with Innovion Corporation in order
to perform ion implantation services in-house.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion (2) has not been met because the workers
did not 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 Innovion Corporation,
Gresham, Oregon, who provide ion implantation services 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 15th day of December, 2009

/s/Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 8 -