DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-72,151

UPF, INC
FLINT, MICHIGAN

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated April 7, 2010, the United Auto
Workers, Local 599 (“Union”), 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 March 10, 2010, and will
soon be published in the Federal Register.
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 negative determination of the TAA petition filed on
behalf of workers at UPF, Inc., Flint, Michigan, was based on
the following findings: there was no increase in imports by the
workers’ firm or the customer of the subject firm of articles
like or directly competitive with the truck chassis produced by
the laid-off workers; there was no shift or acquisition by the
workers’ firm of articles like or directly competitive with the
truck chassis produced by the laid-off workers; neither the
workers’ firm nor the customer of the subject firm imported
articles like or directly competitive with articles into which
the commercial truck chassis produced by the workers’ firm was
directly incorporated; and the workers did not produce an
article that was used by a firm with TAA-certified workers in
the production of an article that was the basis for the TAA-
certification.
In the request for reconsideration, the Union
representative stated that the workers of the subject firm
should be eligible for TAA because
“General Motors, in 2008-2009, discontinued their
commercial truck program . . . UPF was a supplier of
truck chassis for the Chevrolet and GM commercial
truck program. During General Motors bankruptcy, they
decided to bring another truck to the Flint Truck
Assembly Plant, the Chevrolet/GMC 900 half-ton
extended cab pick-up. GM by-passed UPF for
consideration for the truck frame for the 900 half-ton
extended cab pick-up. GM went right Magna Cosma
International in St. Thomas, Ontario, Canada.”
The initial investigation had, in fact, already revealed
that the General Motors Flint Truck Plant had discontinued the
560 line of commercial trucks for which the subject firm had
been producing truck chassis, and that the Flint Truck Plant is
now importing chassis for the 900 series residential trucks from
an offshore producer. However, the chassis for the 900 line of
residential trucks that are being imported are neither like nor
directly competitive with the chassis formerly manufactured by
the subject firm for the 560 line of commercial trucks.
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 23rd day of April, 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-72,151

UPF INC.
FLINT, 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 August 28, 2009 by a company official and the United
Automotive Workers – Local 599 on behalf of workers of UPF,
Inc., Flint, Michigan. The workers are engaged in employment
related to the production of commercial truck chassis,
specifically Chevrolet, GMC, and Isuzu chassis’ for General
Motors.
The petitioner alleged that imports and other economic
factors lead to the separations at the subject firm. The
investigation included surveying both the subject firm and
their only customer, as well as obtaining other industry data.
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 customer of the subject firm, nor was there a shift or
acquisition by the workers’ firm or customer of the subject
firm. In addition, neither the workers’ firm nor customer of
the subject firm reported imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the commercial truck
chassis produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated into.
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 that was used by
a firm with TAA-Certified workers in the production of an
article 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 International Trade
Commission.


Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of UPF, Inc., Flint,
Michigan who are engaged in employment related to the
production of commercial truck chassis 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 10th day of March, 2010

/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance






- 5 -