DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,057

HYOSUNG USA, INC
UTICA PLANT
A SUBSIDIARY OF HYOSUNG HOLDINGS USA, INC.
UTICA, NEW YORK

Notice of Negative Determination
After Statutory Reconsideration

As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization
Act of 2015 (TAARA 2015), which was enacted as Title IV of the Trade
Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-27, section
405(a)(1)(A), 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 TAARA 2015, to the facts of this petition
(statutory reconsideration).
The initial investigation, initiated February 7, 2014, resulted
in a negative determination, issued on February 26, 2014, that was
based on the fact that Criterion (1) has not been met. The sole
worker was engaged in activities related to the maintenance and
security of a vacant building.
A negative determination on the application of regulatory
reconsideration was issued on April 24, 2014. The petitioner did not
supply facts not previously considered and did not provide additional
documentation indicating that there was either a mistake in the
determination of facts not previously considered or a
misinterpretation of facts, or of the law justifying reconsideration
of the initial determination. As such, the Department determined that
29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that with respect
to Section 222(a) and Section 222(b) of the Act, Criterion (1) has
not been met because the firm did not employ a worker group during
the relevant period. A worker group means that the firm employed at
least three full-time workers during the year preceding the petition
date. The subject firm did not meet this threshold level.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(e)
of the Act, have not been satisfied either because 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 Hyosung USA,
Inc., Utica Plant, a subsidiary of Hyosung Holdings USA, Inc., Utica,
New York, to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with
Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 17th day of March, 2016

/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adj





DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,057

HYOSUNG USA, INC
UTICA PLANT
A SUBSIDIARY OF HYOSUNG HOLDINGS USA, INC.
UTICA, NEW YORK

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated March 26, 2014, a State of New York workforce
official requested administrative reconsideration of the Department
of Labor's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former
workers of Hyosung USA, Inc., Utica Plant, a subsidiary of Hyosung
Holdings USA, Inc., Utica, New York (subject firm). The negative
determination was signed on February 26, 2014.
The petition stated: “Richard Guzda . . . will be laid off on 3/31/2014.
He has been the maintenance man and watchman for the vacant building.
Hyosung has an Agreement . . . to keep someone on site until the end
of the lease on 3/31/14.”
The determination was based on the Department’s finding that there was
not a worker group as defined by 29 CFR 90 at the subject firm during
the one-year period prior to the date of the petition (February 6, 2014).
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.
In the request for reconsideration, the state workforce official
stated that “Mr. Guzda has been fully connected with 81 other
workers certified under petition 80085. I believe that TAA petition
80085 should be re-opened and the expiration date should be changed
from May 5th, 2013 to at least April 1st, 2014 to ensure that Mr. Guzda
is eligible for TAA benefits.”
19 U.S.C. 2291 establishes that the certification period ends at “the
2-year period beginning on the date on which the determination under
section 223 was made.”
29 CFR 90.11(b) states “Every petition filed with the Department shall
clearly state the group of workers on whose behalf the petition is filed.”
29 CFR 90.2 states “Group means three or more workers in a firm or
appropriate subdivision therof.”
29 CFR 90.16(e) states “A certification of eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance shall not apply to any worker: (1) whose last
total or partial separation from the firm or appropriate subdivision
occurred more than one (1) year before the date of the petition.”
Because there was one worker at the subject firm on/after February 6, 2013,
the worker group criteria have not been met.
Because the petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered and
did not provide additional documentation indicating that there was either
a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or a
misinterpretation of facts, or of the law justifying reconsideration of
the initial determination, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c)
has not been met.
Conclusion
After careful review of the application and investigative findings, I
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

Signed in Washington, D.C., this 24th day of April, 2014

/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-85,057

HYOSUNG USA, INC
UTICA PLANT
A SUBSIDIARY OF HYOSUNG HOLDINGS USA, INC.
UTICA, NEW YORK


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
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 February 7, 2014 by a state workforce official on behalf
of a worker of Hyosung USA, Inc., Utica Plant, a subsidiary of
Hyosung Holding USA, Inc., Utica, New York, who is
engaged in activities related to the supply of maintenance and
security services for the vacant building.
Workers of the subject firm are eligible to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) under petitions TA-W-70,136
(certification expired on June 29, 2011 and TA-W-80,085
(certification expired on May 12, 2013).
The petitioner alleges that the worker on whose behalf the
petition is filed "works for Hyosung . . . He will be laid off on
3/3/14. He has been the maintenance man and watchman for the
vacant building. Hyosung has an Agreement with the owners of the
building to keep someone on site until the end of the lease on
3/31/14."
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm.
With respect to Section 222(a) and Section 222(b) of the Act,
the investigation revealed that Criterion (1) has not been met
because the firm did not employ a worker group during the relevant
time period. A worker group means that the firm must have at least
three full-time workers during the year preceding the Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) petition date. The subject firm did
not meet this threshold level.
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 Hyosung USA, Inc,
Utica Plant, a subsidiary of Hyosung Holding USA, Inc., Utica, New
York, 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 at Washington, D.C. this 26th day of February 2014.

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