DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-73,925

BUNGE MILLING, INC.
A SUBSIDIARY OF BUNGE NORTH AMERICA, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
INITIAL SECURITY AND EUROFIN
DANVILLE, ILLINOIS

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 April 15, 2010 by the United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union, District 7 on behalf of
workers Bunge Milling, Inc., a subsidiary of Bunge North
America, Inc., Danville, Illinois (Bunge Milling). The workers
were engaged in activities related to the production of soybean
meal, crude degummed soybean oil, and soybean hulls (a by-
product of the processing process). Danville is a
crushing/processing facility.
The worker group also comprises of on-site leased workers
from Initial Security and Eurofin.
The petitioner alleged that worker separations were
attributed to increased imports of soybeans and petroleum oil
used in place of soybean oil for bio-diesel. Data collected
revealed that soybean oil and meal imports were negligible
relative to domestic production comparing marketing year
periods from 2008 into 2010. Likewise, crude oil imports
declined, while domestic production increased from 2008 to
2009 and January through August 2010 compared to the
corresponding 2009 period.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that workers of Bung Milling who were
engaged in activities related to the production of soybean
meal, crude degummed soybean oil, and soybean hulls do not meet
the criteria for certification.
Criteria II have not been met.
Bunge Milling did not import soybean meal, crude degummed
soybean oil, and soybean hulls, shift the production of soybean
meal, crude degummed soybean oil, and soybean hulls offshore, or
acquire soybean meal, crude degummed soybean oil, and soybean
hulls from offshore manufacturers in 2008, 2009, or January
through April 2010.
The United States is the leading producer and exporter of
soybean oil and meal, according to the Unites States
Department of Agricultural. The data revealed that imports
represented less than one percent of domestic production from
marketing year 2008 to 2010. Regarding crude oil data,
aggregate United States imports for consumption declined,
while domestic production increased from 2008 to 2009 and
during January through August 2010 compared to the
corresponding 2009 period.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that workers of Bunge milling who were
engaged in activities related to the production of soybean
meal, crude degummed soybean oil, and soybean hulls do not meet
the criteria for secondary worker certification.
Criterion 3 has not been met.
The components parts the workers' firm supplied to their
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) certified workers' firms did
not account for at least twenty percent of the production or
sales of the workers' firm, and the loss of business by the
workers' firm with the TAA-certified workers' firms 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 Bunge Milling has not been publicly identified by name
by the International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in an affirmative
determination.


Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Bunge Milling, Inc.,
a subsidiary of Bunge North America, Inc., Danville, Illinois
including on-site leased workers from Initial Security and
Eurofin, who are engaged in activities related to the production
of soybean meal, crude degummed soybean oil, and soybean hulls
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 November, 2010.


/s/Elliott S. Kushner
__________________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance