DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,949
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
CENTER LINE, MICHIGAN

TA-W-70,949A
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS

TA-W-70,949B
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
NEW BOSTON, MICHIGAN

TA-W-70,949C
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
BEAVERTON, OREGON

TA-W-70,949D
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
CARROLLTON, TEXAS

TA-W-70,949E
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA

TA-W-70,949F
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
LATHROP, CALIFORNIA

TA-W-70,949G
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO

TA-W-70,949H
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA


TA-W-70,949I
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
HAZELWOOD, MISSOURI

TA-W-70,949J
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MORROW, GEORGIA

TA-W-70,949K
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

TA-W-70,949L
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
TAPPAN, NEW YORK

TA-W-70,949M
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS

TA-W-70,949N
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA

TA-W-70,949O
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
STREETSBORO, OHIO

TA-W-70,949P
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
ORLANDO, FLORIDA

TA-W-70,949Q
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN

TA-W-70,949R
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
WARREN, MICHIGAN

TA-W-70,949S
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MARYSVILLE, MICHIGAN


Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On October 7, 2010, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
for the workers and former workers of the subject facilities. The
workers are engaged in activities related to the supply of
warehousing and distribution services related to automotive parts.
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
The negative determination was based on the findings that
there was no increase in imports of services like or directly
competitive with those supplied by the subject workers and no shift
to/acquisition from a foreign country by the workers’ firm in the
supply of services like or directly competitive with those supplied
by the subject workers.
The request for reconsideration asserts that the workers are
eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as
adversely-affected secondary workers because they “provide
replacement and accessory parts for new vehicles” and identified
firms that employed worker groups eligible to apply for TAA.
Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
term “Supplier” as “a firm that produces and supplies directly to
another firm component parts for articles, or services used in the
production of articles or in the supply of services, as the case
may be, that were the basis for a certification of eligibility
under subsection (a) [of Section 222 of the Act] of a group of
workers employed by such other firm.”
Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
term “Downstream Producer” as “a firm that performs additional,
value-added production processes or services directly for another
firm for articles or services with respect to which a group of
workers in such other firm has been certified under subsection (a)
[of Section 222 of the Act]” and defines the term “value-added
production processes or services” to “include final assembly,
finishing, testing, packaging, or maintenance or transportation
services.”
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
received information that confirmed that the subject facilities are
not a “supplier” or a “downstream producer” within the meaning of
the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
The subject facilities do not produce and directly supply
component parts (or services) to a firm that both employed a
worker group eligible to apply for TAA and directly used the
component parts (or services) in the production of the article or
in the supply of the service that was the basis for the TAA
certification, and do not perform downstream producer services for
a firm that both employed a worker group eligible to apply for
TAA and directly used the service in the production of the
article or in the supply of the service that was the basis for
the TAA certification.
Rather, the subject facilities separate, consolidate and
package finished parts that are produced by others, and ship the
packages to Chrysler points of contacts, who then forward the
packages to car dealerships who ordered the parts on behalf of
the dealership’s customers.










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 Chrysler
LLC, Mopar Parts Distribution Center in Center Line, Michigan
(TA-W-70,949); Naperville, Illinois ((TA-W-70,949A); New Boston,
Michigan (TA-W-70,949B); Beaverton, Oregon (TA-W-70,949C0;
Carrollton, Texas (TA-W-70,949D); Fontana, California ((TA-W-
70,949E); Lathrop, California (TA-W-70,949F); Denver, Colorado
(TA-W-70,949G); Ontario, California ((TA-W-70,949H); Hazelwood,
Missouri (TA-W-70,949I); Morrow, Georgia (TA-W-70,949J); Memphis,
Tennessee (TA-W-70,949K); Tappan, New York (TA-W-70,949L);
Mansfield, Massachusetts (TA-W-70,949M); Plymouth, Minnesota (TA-
W-70,949N); Streetsboro, Ohio (TA-W-70,949O); Orlando, Florida
(TA-W-70,949P); Milwaukee, Wisconsin (TA-W-70,949Q); Warren,
Michigan (TA-W-70,949R); and Marysville, Michigan (TA-W-70,949S).
Signed in Washington, D.C, on this 2nd day of May, 2011

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,949
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
CENTER LINE, MICHIGAN

TA-W-70,949A
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS

TA-W-70,949B
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
NEW BOSTON, MICHIGAN

TA-W-70,949C
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
BEAVERTON, OREGON

TA-W-70,949D
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
CARROLLTON, TEXAS

TA-W-70,949E
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA

TA-W-70,949F
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
LATHROP, CALIFORNIA

TA-W-70,949G
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO

TA-W-70,949H
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA

TA-W-70,949I
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
HAZELWOOD, MISSOURI

TA-W-70,949J
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MORROW, GEORGIA

TA-W-70,949K
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

TA-W-70,949L
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
TAPPAN, NEW YORK

TA-W-70,949M
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS

TA-W-70,949N
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA

TA-W-70,949O
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
STREETSBORO, OHIO

TA-W-70,949P
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
ORLANDO, FLORIDA

TA-W-70,949Q
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN


TA-W-70,949R
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
WARREN, MICHIGAN

TA-W-70,949S
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MARYSVILLE, MICHIGAN

Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated June 15, 2010, the State of Michigan
requested administrative reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former
workers of the subject facilities. The determination was issued on
April 13, 2010, and the Notice of Determination was published in
the Federal Register on May 20, 2010 (75 FR 28301). The workers
provide warehousing services.
The negative determination was based on the findings that
there was no increase in imports of like or directly competitive
services and no shift to/acquisition from a foreign country of like
or directly competitive services by the workers’ firm.
The request for reconsideration asserts that the workers are
eligible to apply for TAA as adversely-affected secondary workers
because they staff facilities that supply “accessory parts for new
vehicles” and identified firms that the subject facilities supply
which employed worker groups that are eligible to apply for TAA as
primary workers.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that
the Department will conduct further investigation to determine if
the workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended.
Conclusion
After careful review of the application, I conclude that the
claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the
U.S. Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is,
therefore, granted.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 7th day of October, 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-70,949
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
CENTER LINE, MICHIGAN

TA-W-70,949A
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS

TA-W-70,949B
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
NEW BOSTON, MICHIGAN

TA-W-70,949C
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
BEAVERTON, OREGON

TA-W-70,949D
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
CARROLLTON, TEXAS

TA-W-70,949E
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
FONTANA, CALIFORNIA

TA-W-70,949F
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
LATHROP, CALIFORNIA

TA-W-70,949G
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO

TA-W-70,949H
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA

TA-W-70,949I
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
HAZELWOOD, MISSOURI

TA-W-70,949J
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MORROW, GEORGIA

TA-W-70,949K
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE

TA-W-70,949L
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
TAPPAN, NEW YORK

TA-W-70,949M
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS

TA-W-70,949N
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA

TA-W-70,949O
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
STREETSBORO, OHIO

TA-W-70,949P
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
ORLANDO, FLORIDA

TA-W-70,949Q
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN


TA-W-70,949R
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
WARREN, MICHIGAN

TA-W-70,949S
CHRYSLER LLC
MOPAR PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER
MARYSVILLE, 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 June 9, 2009 by an official of the United Auto Workers
(UAW) on behalf of workers of Chrysler LLC, Mopar Parts
Distribution Center, at the following locations: Center Line,
Michigan; Naperville, Illinois; New Boston, Michigan; Beaverton,
Oregon; Corrollton, Texas; Fontana, California; Lathrop,
California; Denver, Colorado; Ontario, California; Hazelwood,
Missouri; Morrow, Georgia; Memphis, Tennessee; Tappan, New York;
Mansfield, Massachusetts; Plymouth, Minnesota; Streetsboro, Ohio;
Orlando, Florida; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Warren, Michigan; and
Marysville, Michigan. The workers provide warehousing services.

The investigation included obtaining data from a company
official.
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 by the workers’ firm or a customer or a
shift/acquisition by the workers’ firm.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion (3) has not been met because the loss of
business by the workers’ firm did not contribute importantly to
the workers’ separation or threat of separation.
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 Chrysler LLC, Mopar
Parts Distribution Center: Center Line, Michigan; Naperville,
Illinois; New Boston, Michigan; Beaverton, Oregon; Carrollton,
Texas; Fontana, California; Lathrop, California; Denver,
Colorado; Ontario, California; Hazelwood, Missouri; Morrow,
Georgia; Memphis, Tennessee; Tappan, New York; Mansfield,
Massachusetts; Plymouth, Minnesota; Streetsboro, Ohio; Orlando,
Florida; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Warren, Michigan; and Marysville,
Michigan 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 13th day of April, 2010


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




- 6 -