U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-70,910

SYPRIS TECHNOLOGIES
SYPRIS SOLUTIONS DIVISION
KENTON, OHIO

Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application sent to this office on March 19, 2010, the
United Steel Workers, Local 1-109, requested administrative
reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers’
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The
Notice of determination was issued on February 18, 2010, and was
published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2010 (75 FR 11925).
The workers produce trailer axels.
The negative determination was based on the findings that,
during the relevant period, there was no increase in imports of
articles like or directly competitive with the trailer axles
produced by the subject firm, and no shift to/acquisition from a
foreign country by the subject firm of articles like or directly
competitive with trailer axles. The investigation also revealed
that the subject firm did not supply a component part to a firm
that employed a worker group eligible to apply for TAA and directly
incorporated the component part into the finished article that was
the basis for the TAA certification.
The request for reconsideration alleges that the subject firm
used to manufacture “drive axels housings, steering arms, brake
shoes and many other components in the heavy truck industry” in
addition to trailer axels.
The Department 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, as amended.
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 7th day of October, 2010
/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-70,910

SYPRIS TECHNOLOGIES
SYPRIS SOLUTIONS DIVISION
KENTON, OHIO

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 June 3, 2009 by a union official of United Steel Workers,
Local 1-109, on behalf of workers of Sypris Technologies, Sypris
Solutions Division, Kenton, Ohio. The workers produced trailer
axles.
The petitioner alleges the worker separations at Sypris
Technologies resulted from: (1) shifts in production to a foreign
country; and (2) the sole customer of the subject firm purchasing
from foreign suppliers.
The investigation involved obtaining information from the
subject firm and its customer, and aggregate data regarding
imports.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that workers of Sypris Technologies, Sypris Solutions
Division, Kenton, Ohio did not meet the criteria for
certification.
Criterion II of this section has not been met because there
was no increase in imports or shift/acquisition by the subject firm
of articles like or directly competitive with the trailer axles
produced by the Kenton, Ohio facility.
The Department of Labor also conducted a survey of the subject
firm’s largest declining customer which revealed very minor import
impact during the relevant period.
United States aggregate imports of axels and parts for
trailers and other vehicles not mechanically propelled declined
slightly in 2008 compared with 2007 and declined sharply in 2009
compared with 2008.
The predominant cause of separations at the subject firm is
related to an anticipated shift of production from Kenton to
another domestic facility.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that the workers of Sypris Technologies, Sypris Solutions
Division, Kenton, Ohio did not meet the criteria for certification
as secondarily affected workers.
Criterion (2) of this Section has not been met because the
workers did not produce an article or supply a service that was
used by a firm with TAA-certified workers in the production of an
article.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because the workers’ firm has not been identified in an affirmative
finding of injury by the International Trade Commission.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Sypris Technologies,


Sypris Solutions Division, Kenton, Ohio 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 18th day of February, 2010


/s/Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 8 -