DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-80,525

LONG ELEVATOR & MACHINE COMPANY, INC.
INCLUDING WORKERS WHOSE WAGES WERE REPORTED THROUGH KONE, INC.
RIVERTON, ILLINOIS


Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On May 21, 2012, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for workers
and former workers of Long Elevator & Machine Company, Inc.,
including workers whose wages were reported through Kone, Inc.,
Riverton, Illinois (hereafter referred to as Long Elevator & Machine
Company or the subject firm). The Department’s Notice was published
in the Federal Register on June 6, 2012 (77 FR 33490). The workers’
firm was engaged in activities related to the supply of elevator
production and repair services. The subject worker group was engaged
in activities related to the supply of elevator repair services,
which included production of repair parts (elevator component parts).
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 no shift in production of elevator component parts to a
foreign country and no increased imports of elevator component parts
(or like or directly competitive articles). Rather, the supply of
elevator repair services and production of elevator components at the
subject firm was consolidated to another facility within the United
States by the parent company, Kone, Inc.
In the request for reconsideration, a worker alleged that the
subject firm’s parent company had shifted abroad the production of
articles like or directly competitive with those produced at the
subject firm facility of Long Elevator & Machine Company.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
clarified information provided by workers, sought confirmation of
previously-submitted information from the subject firm, and obtained
new information from the subject firm.
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that neither the subject firm nor its parent company
shifted to (or acquired from) a foreign country the production of
articles like or directly competitive with the elevator component
parts produced by the subject workers and that neither the subject
firm nor its parent company shifted to (or acquired from) a foreign
country the supply of services like or directly competitive with
the repair services supplied by the subject workers.
Because each component part is specific to an elevator and the
replacement parts produced at the Riverton, Illinois facility are
for existing elevators, the component parts used in new elevators
are not directly competitive with those for repaired elevators.
Although Kone, Inc. has facilities abroad which produce new
elevators for installation, elevators are not like or directly
competitive with elevator parts because component parts are not
like or directly competitive with finished articles (elevators).
The subject firm confirmed that component parts which are like or
directly competitive with those formerly produced at the Riverton,
Illinois facility are produced at other domestic facilities.
Therefore, after careful review of existing information, the
request for reconsideration, and new information obtained during
the reconsideration investigation, the Department determines that
29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Long
Elevator & Machine Company, Inc., including workers whose wages
were reported through Kone, Inc., Riverton, Illinois.
Signed in Washington, D.C. on this 27th day of September, 2012

/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-80,525

LONG ELEVATOR & MACHINE COMPANY, INC.
INCLUDING WORKERS WHOSE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (UI) WAGES WERE
REPORTED THROUGH KONE INC.
RIVERTON, 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), (b) or (e)
of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and (e). 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
criteria must be met:
(1) 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.

(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) (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.
(iii) the increase in imports 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.

(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
(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; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition of
articles or services described in clause (i)(II)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation.

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 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
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(e) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), 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 October 17, 2011 on behalf of workers of Long Elevator & Machine
Company, Inc., including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI)
wages were reported through KONE Inc., Riverton, Illinois (Long
Elevator). The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the
production of elevator components and supplies elevator repair
services; all related to the modernization and repair of elevators.

The petitioners alleged that manufacturing is being done abroad.

During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm and a declining customer.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that increases in imports did not contribute
importantly to workers’ separation or threat of separation or to the
decline in the sales or production of the firm. Worker separations
were revealed to have been the result of the acquisition of Long
Elevator by KONE Inc. and the decision to source elevator components
parts and articles like or directly competitive to what Long Elevator
produced from local U.S. suppliers.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the production of
elevator components or a like or directly competitive article to a
foreign country or acquire elevator components or a like or directly
competitive article from a foreign country. Furthermore, the
services supplied by the worker group (i.e. elevator repair work)
could only be done on the site
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Long Elevator 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 Long Elevator 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 satisfied either because Criterion (1) has
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 of the facts obtained in the investigation,
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 Long Elevator & Machine Company, Inc.,
including workers whose unemployment insurance (UI) wages were
reported through KONE Inc., Riverton, Illinois engaged in activities
related to the production of elevator components and the supply of
elevator repair services to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 22nd day of March, 2012



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







- 7 -