Petitioner Type: Workers
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 06/24/2009
Most Recent Update: 01/08/2010
Determination Date: 01/08/2010
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-71,388
LUCAS-SMITH AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
POTOSI, MISSOURI
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated January 22, 2010, the 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 Lucas-Smith Automotive, Inc., Potosi, Missouri
(subject firm). The Notice of negative determination was signed
on January 8, 2010. The Department’s Notice of determination was
published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2010 (75 FR
7039). Workers of the subject firm are engaged in employment
related to the sales and service of new and used automobiles.
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 denial based on the
findings that imports of services like or directly competitive
with the services provided by workers of the subject firm did not
contribute to worker separations at the subject firm and that no
shift in provision of the services to a foreign country occurred
during the relevant period.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners alleged
that the subject firm is either a supplier or downstream producer
to a TAA-certified firm and a loss of business with this firm
contributed importantly to worker separations at the subject
firm.
For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification
under Section 222(c) to workers of a downstream producer, the
subject firm must perform additional, value-added production
processes or services directly for a TAA-certified firm. For the
Department to issue a secondary worker certification under
Section 222(c) to workers of a upstream supplier, the subject
firm must produce and supply directly to a TAA-certified firm
component parts for articles, or services, used in the production
of articles or in the supply of services, that were the basis for
the customers’ certification and the certified firm received
certification of eligibility for TAA as a primary impacted firm.
The investigation revealed that the workers of the subject
firm were engaged in sales and services of new and used
automobiles to individual owners at an automotive dealership.
The workers of the subject firm did not perform additional,
value-added production processes or services directly to any of
the certified primary firms during the investigation period.
Thus, the subject firm workers are not eligible for TAA as
downstream producers under secondary impact. Further, the
subject firm is not an upstream supplier because it did not
provide services to a TAA-certified firm during the investigation
period.
The petitioner also alleged that increased imports of
foreign-produced automobiles negatively impacted business of the
subject firm and, therefore, workers who perform sales and
service of domestic automobiles should be eligible for TAA.
When assessing a worker group’s eligibility to apply for
TAA, the Department exclusively considers imports of articles
like or directly competitive with those manufactured by the
subject firm or services like or directly competitive with those
supplied by the workers of the subject firm during the relevant
period. It was revealed during the initial investigation that
the subject firm neither imported services like or directly
competitive with the services supplied by worker group nor
shifted to or acquired from a foreign country services like or
directly competitive with the services supplied by worker group.
The petitioners did not supply facts not previously
considered and did not provide any documentation indicating that
there was either 1) a mistake in the determination of facts
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 16th day of February, 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-71,388
LUCAS-SMITH AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
POTOSI, MISSOURI
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 24, 2009 on behalf of workers of Lucas-Smith
Automotive, Inc., Potosi, Missouri. The workers are engaged in
employment related to the sales and service of new and used
automobiles.
The petitioners allege that increased production of cars by
foreign automakers contributed to the worker separations at the
subject facility.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criteria (2)(A) and (2)(B) have not been met.
The subject firm did not shift abroad the supply of automotive
sales or service or increase imports of automotive sales or service
during the relevant period.
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 subject firm has not been identified 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 Lucas-Smith Automotive,
Inc., Potosi, Missouri, who are engaged in employment related to
the supply of automotive sale and service 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 8th day of January, 2010
/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 9 -
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-71,388
LUCAS-SMITH AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
POTOSI, MISSOURI
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated January 22, 2010, the 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 Lucas-Smith Automotive, Inc., Potosi, Missouri
(subject firm). The Notice of negative determination was signed
on January 8, 2010. The Department’s Notice of determination was
published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2010 (75 FR
7039). Workers of the subject firm are engaged in employment
related to the sales and service of new and used automobiles.
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 denial based on the
findings that imports of services like or directly competitive
with the services provided by workers of the subject firm did not
contribute to worker separations at the subject firm and that no
shift in provision of the services to a foreign country occurred
during the relevant period.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners alleged
that the subject firm is either a supplier or downstream producer
to a TAA-certified firm and a loss of business with this firm
contributed importantly to worker separations at the subject
firm.
For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification
under Section 222(c) to workers of a downstream producer, the
subject firm must perform additional, value-added production
processes or services directly for a TAA-certified firm. For the
Department to issue a secondary worker certification under
Section 222(c) to workers of a upstream supplier, the subject
firm must produce and supply directly to a TAA-certified firm
component parts for articles, or services, used in the production
of articles or in the supply of services, that were the basis for
the customers’ certification and the certified firm received
certification of eligibility for TAA as a primary impacted firm.
The investigation revealed that the workers of the subject
firm were engaged in sales and services of new and used
automobiles to individual owners at an automotive dealership.
The workers of the subject firm did not perform additional,
value-added production processes or services directly to any of
the certified primary firms during the investigation period.
Thus, the subject firm workers are not eligible for TAA as
downstream producers under secondary impact. Further, the
subject firm is not an upstream supplier because it did not
provide services to a TAA-certified firm during the investigation
period.
The petitioner also alleged that increased imports of
foreign-produced automobiles negatively impacted business of the
subject firm and, therefore, workers who perform sales and
service of domestic automobiles should be eligible for TAA.
When assessing a worker group’s eligibility to apply for
TAA, the Department exclusively considers imports of articles
like or directly competitive with those manufactured by the
subject firm or services like or directly competitive with those
supplied by the workers of the subject firm during the relevant
period. It was revealed during the initial investigation that
the subject firm neither imported services like or directly
competitive with the services supplied by worker group nor
shifted to or acquired from a foreign country services like or
directly competitive with the services supplied by worker group.
The petitioners did not supply facts not previously
considered and did not provide any documentation indicating that
there was either 1) a mistake in the determination of facts
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 16th day of February, 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-71,388
LUCAS-SMITH AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
POTOSI, MISSOURI
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 24, 2009 on behalf of workers of Lucas-Smith
Automotive, Inc., Potosi, Missouri. The workers are engaged in
employment related to the sales and service of new and used
automobiles.
The petitioners allege that increased production of cars by
foreign automakers contributed to the worker separations at the
subject facility.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criteria (2)(A) and (2)(B) have not been met.
The subject firm did not shift abroad the supply of automotive
sales or service or increase imports of automotive sales or service
during the relevant period.
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 subject firm has not been identified 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 Lucas-Smith Automotive,
Inc., Potosi, Missouri, who are engaged in employment related to
the supply of automotive sale and service 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 8th day of January, 2010
/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 9 -