DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,749

FANUC ROBOTICS AMERICA, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
RIGHT ANGLE STAFFING, INC., QUANTA, INC., RELIANCE ONE, INC.,
POPULUS GROUP, LLC, CITISTAFF, GLOBAL AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC, AND PROFLOW SYSTEMS
ROCHESTER HILLS, MICHIGAN

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On June 21, 2010, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The
Department’s Notice of determination was published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 2010 (75 FR 38125).
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
which was based on the finding that, during the relevant period,
Fanuc Robotics America neither imported articles like or directly
competitive with the robotic systems produced at the subject firm,
shifted to a foreign country the production of articles like or
directly competitive with the robotic systems produced at the
subject firm, nor acquired from a foreign country the production of
articles like or directly competitive with the robotic systems
produced at the subject firm. The Department’s survey of the
subject firm’s major declining customers regarding their purchases
of robotic systems in 2007, 2008, and during January through April
2009 revealed negligible imports of robotic systems.
The investigation also revealed that the subject firm was not
eligible as a Supplier or a Downstream Producer because they did
not supply a component used by a firm that employed a worker group
covered by an active Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
certification.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided a
list of the subject firm’s customers which employed a worker group
covered by a TAA certification. In subsequent communications, the
petitioner emphasized that she and fellow employees had
participated in the actual production process in their customers’
plants during the initial installation, testing, and worker
training phases following the delivery of the subject firm’s
robotic devices to the customers.
In response to the request for reconsideration, the Department
contacted the subject firm about which of the TAA-certified
customers had required employees of the subject firm to be present
in the customer’s plants during production. The reconsideration
investigation revealed that contracts requiring on-site presence of
subject firm workers in the customers’ plants were infrequent; the
sales associated with contracts requiring such presence amounted to
a small percentage of the subject firm’s total sales (ranging from
1.3 and 5.4 percent during 2007, 2008, and January to April 2009);
and the on-site presence of the subject firm’s workers was not
related to production but related to post-sale customer support.
Because the services supplied by the subject firm to the
alleged customers which employed a worker group covered by a TAA
certification were not directly used in the production of the
article that was the basis of the TAA certification, the workers of
the subject firm did not meet the criteria of Section 222(c) and
are, therefore, not eligible to apply for TAA as adversely affected
secondary workers.
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 Fanuc
Robotics America, Inc., Rochester Hills, Michigan.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 13th day of July, 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-70,749

FANUC ROBOTICS AMERICA, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
RIGHT ANGLE STAFFING, INC., QUANTA, INC., RELIANCE ONE, INC.,
POPULUS GROUP, LLC, CITISTAFF, GLOBAL AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC, AND PROFLOW SYSTEMS
ROCHESTER HILLS, MICHIGAN


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 29, 2009, on behalf of workers of Fanuc Robotics
America, Inc., Rochester Hills, Michigan (Fanuc Robotics America).
Workers at Fanuc Robotics America are engaged in activities related
to the production of robotic systems. The workers are not
separately identifiable by article produced.
The investigation revealed that the worker group at Fanuc
Robotics America includes on-site leased workers from Right Angle
Staffing, Inc., Quanta, Inc., Reliance One, Inc., Populus Group,
LLC, Citistaff, Global Automation Technologies, LLC, and Proflow
Systems.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion II has not been met. During the relevant
period, Fanuc Robotics America neither imported articles like or
directly competitive with the robotic systems produced at the
subject firm nor shifted production of robotic systems to a
foreign country. Furthermore, the Department surveyed Fanuc
Robotics America’s major declining customers regarding purchases
of robotic systems in 2007, 2008, and during January through
April 2009. The survey revealed negligible imports of robotic
systems during the relevant period.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion 2 has not been met. The workers did not
supply a product that was used by a firm that employed a worker
group covered by an active Trade Adjustment Assistance (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 Fanuc Robotics America has not been identified by name in
an affirmative finding of injury by the International Trade
Commission.

Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Fanuc Robotics America,
Inc., including on-site leased workers from Right Angle Staffing,
Inc., Quanta, Inc., Reliance One, Inc., Populus Group, LLC,
Citistaff, Global Automation Technologies, LLC, and Proflow
Systems, Rochester Hills, Michigan, who are engaged in activities
related to the production of robotic systems 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 18th day of December, 2009
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance



- 8 -