DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-92,084

NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL ERECTORS, INC.
GRAND RAPIDS, MINNESOTA

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On November 1, 2016, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
for the workers and former workers of Northern Industrial
Erectors, Inc., Grand Rapids, Minnesota. The notice was published
in the Federal Register on December 2, 2016 (81 FR 87079).
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 shifts in services to a foreign country by the workers’
firm, no imports of steel erection services, no secondary impact,
not named by the International Trade Commission in a
determination of injury.
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner claims that
workers are secondarily-affected as downstream producers.
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that the firm does not act as a secondary supplier or
downstream producer to a firm whose workers were certified eligible
to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance. The workers’ firm was
not providing “…value-added production processes or services
include(ing) final assembly, finishing, testing, packaging, or
maintenance or transportation services” to be deemed a Downstream
Producer according to section 222(c) of the Trade Act.
Furthermore, the workers’ firm cannot be considered a Supplier “…a
firm that produces and supplies directly to another firm component
parts for articles, or services, used in the production of articles
or in the supply of services, as the case may be, that were the
basis for a certification of eligibility under subsection (a) of a
group of workers employed by such other firm.” The services
supplied occurred prior to production and did not support their
customer(s) production.
Upon reconsideration the Department confirmed this information
with both the subject firm and its customers.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I determine that the
requirements of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not
been met and affirm the original notice of negative determination
of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of Northern Industrial Erectors, Inc.,
Grand Rapids, Minnesota, to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. on this 1st day of October, 2019

/s/Hope D. Kinglock
_______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-92,084

NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL ERECTORS, INC.
GRAND RAPIDS, MINNESOTA

Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated October 3, 2016, State Workforce Official
requested administrative reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance applicable to workers and former workers of
Northern Industrial Erectors, Inc., Grand Rapids, Minnesota. The
determination was issued on September 9, 2016.
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
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the findings that there was no increase in imports by the
workers’ firm or its customers, nor was there a foreign shift or
acquisition by the workers’ or its customers. In addition, neither
the workers’ firm nor its customers reported imports of steel
erection services like or directly competitive with steel erection
services provided by the workers’ firm. Furthermore, the workers’
firm was not a Downstream Producer or a Supplier to a firm in which
the workers’ firm’s services supplied was related to the article
the basis of the certification.
The request for reconsideration asserts that the workers’ firm
should be considered a Downstream Producer.
The Department of Labor 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.
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 1st day of November, 2016
/s/ Hope D. Kinglock
_______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-92,084

NORTHERN INDUSTRIAL ERECTORS, INC.
GRAND RAPIDS, MINNESOTA

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. § 2272(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; AND
(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), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on August 4, 2016 by the state workforce office on behalf
of workers of Northern Industrial Erectors, Inc., Grand Rapids,
Minnesota (hereafter referred to as "NIE"). The workers' firm
is engaged in activities related to the supply of steel erection
services. Workers are not separately identifiable by the service
supplied.
The petitioner alleges the reason for the worker
separations were due to the downstream impact of the mining
companies.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm and customers of the workers'
firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm and customer imports of
services like or directly with the services supplied by NIE
have not increased.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the supply of
steel erection services or a like or directly competitive
service to a foreign country or acquire steel erection
services or a like or directly competitive service from a
foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that NIE is 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); however, the supply of steel erection services is not
related to the finished article that was the basis for such
certification.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that NIE does not act as a 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).
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 publicly 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 Northern Industrial
Erectors, Inc., Grand Rapids, Minnesota, engaged in activities
related to the supply of steel erection 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 9th day of September 2016.
/s/Jessica R. Webster
______________________________
JESSICA R. WEBSTER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance