DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,197

EMH AMHERST HOSPITAL
AMHERST, OHIO

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

The initial investigation, initiated May 25, 2011, resulted in
a negative determination, issued on June 30, 2011, that was based
on no production of an article. It was determined that the workers’
firm supplied of healthcare services. The determination was
applicable to workers and former workers of EMH Amherst Hospital,
Amherst, Ohio. The notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register on July 20, 2011 (76 FR 43351). EMH Amherst
Hospital, Amherst, Ohio provides healthcare services to the
general public.
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 the worker
group at EMH Amherst Hospital, Amherst, Ohio, does not meet the
criteria for certification.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that EMH Amherst Hospital, Amherst, Ohio
did not produce an article and that there were no increased
imports of healthcare services provided to the general public (or
like or directly competitive services).
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that EMH Amherst Hospital did not shift the
supply of healthcare services (or like or directly competitive
services) to a foreign county or acquire such services from a
foreign county.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that EMH Amherst Hospital, Amherst, Ohio
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 EMH Amherst Hospital, Amherst, Ohio
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 EMH Amherst Hospital
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 EMH Amherst
Hospital, Amherst, Ohio, to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 1st day of December, 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-80,197

EMH AMHERST HOSPITAL
AMHERST, OHIO

Negative Determination 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 May 25, 2011 by a company official on behalf of workers
of EMH Amherst Hospital, Amherst, Ohio, herein known as EMH
Amherst. The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the
supply of healthcare services.
The petitioners alleged that job losses are occurring based
on healthcare reform occurring within the United States.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm.
The investigation revealed that EMH Amherst, does not produce
an article within the meaning of Section 222(a) or Section 222(b)
of the Act. In order to be considered eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
the worker group seeking certification (or on whose behalf
certification is being sought) must work for a “firm” or
appropriate subdivision that produces an article. The definition
of a firm includes an individual proprietorship, partnership, joint
venture, association, corporation (including a development
corporation), business trust, cooperative, trustee in bankruptcy,
and receiver under decree of any court.
During the investigation, the Department of Labor (the
Department) obtained information that revealed that the workers’
firm did not produce an article; rather, the workers’ firm supplied
healthcare services.
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 (TAA). 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 EMH Amherst
Hospital, Amherst, Ohio engaged in activities related to the
supply of healthcare services are denied eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
and are also denied eligibility to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 30th day of June, 2011



/s/Del Min Amy Chen__________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance








- 7 -