DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-72,971

ASC MACHINE TOOLS, INC.
SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON

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 ASC Machine Tools, Inc.,
Spokane Valley, Washington (the subject firm). The Department’s
Notice was published in the Federal Register on October 25, 2010
(75 FR 65516). The workers produce custom-order metal cutting
machinery used to form and cut metal, including assembled
equipment, component parts of equipment, and spare parts. Workers
are not separately identifiable by article produced.
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 negative determination
based on the finding that the subject firm sales decline was due
to loss of export sales of foreign customers’ bids to competitors
outside the United States. The initial investigation also
revealed decreased aggregate imports of metal cutting equipment
during the relevant period, and that the subject firm is not a
supplier or downstream producer for any firm that employed a worker
group eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, District Lodge 751, in the request for reconsideration,
alleges increased imports from Sen Fung Rollform Machinery
Corporation in Taiwan and Metform International in Canada. The
request for reconsideration also articulates the concern that “the
affected workers are being penalized due to the inconsistent
customer base of the company” and requests that aggregate import
data during 2007 and 2008 be considered.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
received information that confirmed that Sen Fung Rollform
Machinery Corporation in Taiwan and Metform International in Canada
are competitors of the subject firm and not customers, as inferred
in the request for reconsideration. As such, the Department did not
conduct a bid survey in regard to the aforementioned companies.
In regard to the request that aggregate import data be
considered for 2007 and 2008, the Department can not consider data
for this period because it is outside of the relevant period under
investigation.
29 CFR 90.2 states that increased imports means that imports
have increased either absolutely or relative to domestic production
compared to a representative base period. The representative base
period shall be one year consisting of the four quarters
immediately preceding the date which is twelve months prior to the
date of the petition.
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 ASC Machine
Tools, Inc., Spokane Valley, Washington.
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


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-72,971

ASC MACHINE TOOLS, INC.
SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON

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 November 27, 2009 by the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 751, on behalf of
workers of ASC Machine Tools, Inc., Spokane Valley, Washington
(subject firm). The workers produce custom-order metal cutting
machinery used to form and cut metal, including assembled
equipment, component parts of equipment, and spare parts.
Workers are not separately identifiable by product line.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criteria II(A) and II(B) have not been met. Subject
firm sales declines were lost export sales due to the loss of
foreign customer bids to competitors located outside the United
States. Because the subject firm is a “made-to-order” equipment
manufacturer, there are no repeat customers to survey.
Furthermore, U.S. aggregate imports of metal cutting equipment
decreased by more than 60% in 2009 from 2008 levels. ASC Machine
Tools, Inc., Spokane Valley, Washington did not shift production of
metal cutting equipment to a foreign country and did not import any
like or directly competitive articles.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criterion (2) has not been met. The subject firm is
not a supplier or downstream producer for any firm that employed a
worker group that is eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been met 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 ASC Machine Tools, Inc.,
Spokane Valley, Washington 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 11th day of August, 2010

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen

______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-72,971

ASC MACHINE TOOLS, INC.
SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON

Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated September 21, 2010, a representative of
the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
(IAM&AW), District Lodge 751, requested administrative
reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers’
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
applicable to workers and former workers of ASC Machine Tools,
Inc., Spokane Valley, Washington (the subject firm). The Notice of
negative determination was issued on August 11, 2010 and published
in the Federal Register on August 30, 2010 (75 FR 52986). The
workers produce custom-order metal cutting machinery used to form
and cut metal, including assembled equipment, component parts of
equipment, and spare parts.
The negative determination was based on the findings that the
subject firm sales decline was due to loss of export sales of
foreign customers’ bids to competitors outside the Unite States.
The initial investigation also revealed decreased aggregate
imports of metal cutting equipment during the relevant period and
that the subject firm is not a supplier or downstream producer for
any firm that employed a worker group eligible to apply for TAA.
The union official, in the request for reconsideration,
alleges increased imports from Sen Fung Rollform Machinery
Corporation in Taiwan and Metform International in Canada. The
union official also articulates the concern that “the affected
workers are being penalized due to the inconsistent customer base
of the company” and requests that aggregate import data during 2007
and 2008 be considered.
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







- 2 -