Petitioner Type: State
Impact Date:
Filed Date: 04/12/2011
Most Recent Update: 06/14/2011
Determination Date: 06/14/2011
Expiration Date:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-80,103
HIREL SYSTEMS, LLC
DULUTH, MINNESOTA
Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
The initial investigation, initiated April 12, 2011, resulted
in a negative determination, issued on June 14, 2011, that was
based on the finding that the subject firm did not shift
production to a foreign country or increase imports. The
determination was applicable to workers and former workers of HiRel
Systems, LLC, Duluth, Minnesota (subject firm). The notice of
negative determination was published in the Federal Register on
July 8, 2011 (76 FR 40401). The workers’ firm is engaged in
activities related to the production of custom power modules for
use in military applications.
As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Extension
Act of 2011 (the TAAEA), the investigation into this petition was
reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the
requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the TAAEA, to the facts
of this petition.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that there was no
shift in production of custom power modules to a foreign country
by the subject firm and no increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the customer power modules produced at
HiRel Systems, LLC, Duluth, Minnesota.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed no increased imports by the subject firm
or its major customer of articles like or directly competitive
with the customer power modules produced at HiRel Systems, LLC,
Duluth, Minnesota.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift the
production of custom power modules or a like or directly
competitive article to a foreign county or acquire such articles
from a foreign county.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that HiRel Systems, LLC, Duluth,
Minnesota, is not a Supplier 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).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that HiRel Systems, LLC, Duluth,
Minnesota, does not act as a Downstream Producer to a firm (or
subdivision, whichever is applicable) 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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been met since the workers’ firm has
not been publically identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in an affirmative finding of serious injury, market
disruption, or material injury, or threat thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that the requirements of
Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and,
therefore, deny the petition for group eligibility of HiRel
Systems, LLC, Duluth, Minnesota, to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 25th day of November, 2011
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-80,103
HIREL SYSTEMS, LLC
DULUTH, MINNESOTA
Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade 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) and (b)
of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). 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:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in such 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 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) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase described in clause (ii) contributed
importantly to such workers’ separation or threat of
separation and to the decline in the sales or
production of such firm or subdivision.
(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) there has been a shift in production by such workers’
firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like
or directly competitive with articles which are produced
by such firm or subdivision; and
(ii)(I) the country to which the workers’ firm has
shifted production of the articles is a party to a free
trade agreement with the United States;
(II)the country to which the workers’ firm has
shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary
country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African
Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act; or
(III)there has been or is likely to be an increase in
imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced by
such firm or subdivision.
For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification
under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), 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 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.
Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on April 12, 2011, by a State Workforce Office on behalf of
workers of HiRel Systems, LLC, Duluth, Minnesota. The workers’
firm is engaged activities related to the production of custom
power modules for use in military applications.
The petitioner alleges that the worker separations at the
subject facility are due to increased imports by customers.
During the course of the investigation, information was collected
from the workers’ firm and major declining customer.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift
production of custom power modules to a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm, customers, and aggregate
U.S. imports of articles like or directly competitive with the
articles produced by HiRel Systems have not increased.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that HiRel Systems is not 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).
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA), the worker group must be certified eligible to apply for
trade adjustment assistance. Since the workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified
eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that all workers of HiRel Systems, LLC,
Duluth, Minnesota engaged in activities related to the production
of custom power modules are denied eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended, and are also denied eligibility to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the
Trade Act of 1974, amended.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 14th day of June, 2011
/s/Michael W. Jaffe___________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 7 -
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-80,103
HIREL SYSTEMS, LLC
DULUTH, MINNESOTA
Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
The initial investigation, initiated April 12, 2011, resulted
in a negative determination, issued on June 14, 2011, that was
based on the finding that the subject firm did not shift
production to a foreign country or increase imports. The
determination was applicable to workers and former workers of HiRel
Systems, LLC, Duluth, Minnesota (subject firm). The notice of
negative determination was published in the Federal Register on
July 8, 2011 (76 FR 40401). The workers’ firm is engaged in
activities related to the production of custom power modules for
use in military applications.
As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) Extension
Act of 2011 (the TAAEA), the investigation into this petition was
reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the
requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the TAAEA, to the facts
of this petition.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that there was no
shift in production of custom power modules to a foreign country
by the subject firm and no increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the customer power modules produced at
HiRel Systems, LLC, Duluth, Minnesota.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed no increased imports by the subject firm
or its major customer of articles like or directly competitive
with the customer power modules produced at HiRel Systems, LLC,
Duluth, Minnesota.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift the
production of custom power modules or a like or directly
competitive article to a foreign county or acquire such articles
from a foreign county.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that HiRel Systems, LLC, Duluth,
Minnesota, is not a Supplier 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).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that HiRel Systems, LLC, Duluth,
Minnesota, does not act as a Downstream Producer to a firm (or
subdivision, whichever is applicable) 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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been met since the workers’ firm has
not been publically identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in an affirmative finding of serious injury, market
disruption, or material injury, or threat thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that the requirements of
Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and,
therefore, deny the petition for group eligibility of HiRel
Systems, LLC, Duluth, Minnesota, to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 25th day of November, 2011
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
TA-W-80,103
HIREL SYSTEMS, LLC
DULUTH, MINNESOTA
Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade 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) and (b)
of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). 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:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in such 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 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) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase described in clause (ii) contributed
importantly to such workers’ separation or threat of
separation and to the decline in the sales or
production of such firm or subdivision.
(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) there has been a shift in production by such workers’
firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like
or directly competitive with articles which are produced
by such firm or subdivision; and
(ii)(I) the country to which the workers’ firm has
shifted production of the articles is a party to a free
trade agreement with the United States;
(II)the country to which the workers’ firm has
shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary
country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African
Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act; or
(III)there has been or is likely to be an increase in
imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced by
such firm or subdivision.
For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification
under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), 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 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.
Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on April 12, 2011, by a State Workforce Office on behalf of
workers of HiRel Systems, LLC, Duluth, Minnesota. The workers’
firm is engaged activities related to the production of custom
power modules for use in military applications.
The petitioner alleges that the worker separations at the
subject facility are due to increased imports by customers.
During the course of the investigation, information was collected
from the workers’ firm and major declining customer.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift
production of custom power modules to a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm, customers, and aggregate
U.S. imports of articles like or directly competitive with the
articles produced by HiRel Systems have not increased.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that HiRel Systems is not 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).
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA), the worker group must be certified eligible to apply for
trade adjustment assistance. Since the workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified
eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that all workers of HiRel Systems, LLC,
Duluth, Minnesota engaged in activities related to the production
of custom power modules are denied eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended, and are also denied eligibility to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the
Trade Act of 1974, amended.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 14th day of June, 2011
/s/Michael W. Jaffe___________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
- 7 -