DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-72,231

LONZA, INC.
RIVERSIDE PLANT
LONZA EXCLUSIVE SYNTHESIS SECTION
CUSTOM MANUFACTURING DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM LAB SUPPORT, AEROTEK,
JOB EXCHANGE, AND SYNERFAC
CONSHOHOCKEN, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration


On December 23, 2009, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm.
The notice of affirmative determination was published in the
Federal Register on January 6, 2010 (75 FR 878).
The initial investigation, initiated on September 8, 2009,
resulted in a negative determination, issued on November 5, 2009,
that was based on the finding that imports did not contribute
importantly to worker separations at the subject firm and no
shift in production to a foreign country occurred. The notice of
negative determination was published in the Federal Register on
January 25, 2010 (75 FR 3935).
To support the request for reconsideration, the petitioner
supplied additional information to supplement that which was
gathered during the initial investigation.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
carefully reviewed new information provided by the petitioner and
contacted the company official for additional information and
clarification of previously-submitted information.
The reconsideration investigation revealed that the subject
firm is shifting production of articles like or directly
competitive with cGMP intermediates and Active Pharmaceutical
Ingredients from the subject facility to a foreign country and that
this shift on production contributed importantly to worker
separations during the relevant period.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on
reconsideration, I determine that workers of Lonza, Inc.,
Riverside Plant, Lonza Exclusive Synthesis Section, Custom
Manufacturing Division, including on-site leased workers of Lab
Support, Aerotek, Job Exchange, and Synerfac, Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, who are engaged in employment related to the
production of cGMP intermediates and Active Pharmaceutical
Ingredients, meet the worker group certification criteria under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a). In accordance
with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273, I make the
following certification:


"All workers of Lonza, Inc., Riverside Plant, Lonza
Exclusive Synthesis Section, Custom Manufacturing Division,
including on-site leased workers of Lab Support, Aerotek,
Job Exchange, and Synerfac, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, who
are engaged in employment related to the production of cGMP
intermediates and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, who
became totally or partially separated from employment on or
after September 2, 2008, through two years from the date of
this certification, and all workers in the group threatened
with total or partial separation from employment on date of
certification through two years from the date of
certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended.”

Signed in Washington, D.C., this 2nd 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-72,231

LONZA INC.
RIVERSIDE PLANT
LONZA EXCLUSIVE SYNTHESIS SECTION
CUSTOM MANUFACTURING DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS OF LAB SUPPORT, AEROTEK, JOB
EXCHANGE, AND SYNERFAC
CONSHOHOCKEN, PENNSYLVANIA


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 September 8, 2009 by a union official of United Steel
Workers, Local 6816-18 on behalf of workers of Lonza Inc.
Riverside Plant, Lonza Exclusive Synthesis Section, Custom
Manufacturing Division, including on-site leased workers of Lab
Support, Aerotek, Job Exchange, and Synerfac, Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania. The workers produced Trityl Losartan, used by a
major customer as a component in the manufacture of pharmaceutical
products.
The petitioner alleges that worker separations at the
subject firm resulted from a decision by a major customer of the
subject firm to purchase from firms in India chemicals that the
customer had previously purchased from the subject firm. The
subject firm stated that the worker separations were a result of
the customer’s decision to discontinue its purchases of Trityl
Losartan made at the subject firm facility. The investigation
included contacting the petitioner, the company representative, and
requested information from the company and its major customer.
In response to the allegation made by the petitioner, the
company official indicated that the subject firm is not importing
Trityl Losartan, nor is the subject firm shifting production of
Trityl Losartan to a foreign country.
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 of Trityl Losartan by the subject firm or
customer, and there was no shift in production of Trityl Losartan
by the subject firm. Furthermore, imports of pharmaceutical
products containing Trityl Losartan or articles like or directly
competitive with Trityl Losartan produced by the workers’ firm did
not increase during the relevant period. The investigation further
revealed that the customer purchased Trityl Losartan from another
domestic source after ceasing purchases from Lonza, Inc.

Criterion III has not been met because the workers’ separation
or threat of separation was not related to an increase in imports
or shift in production.
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 Lonza Inc., Riverside
Plant, Lonza Exclusive Synthesis Section, Custom Manufacturing
Division, including on-site leased workers of Lab Support, Aerotek,
Job Exchange, and Synerfac, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, who were


engaged in activities relating to the production of Trityl
Losartan, 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 5th day of November, 2009.

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




- 9 -