DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,139

SYNCREON US INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
MALONE, SENTECH, DRIVE SOURCE, AND MIDWEST
STERLING HEIGHTS, MICHIGAN

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 March 12, 2014, resulted
in a negative determination, issued on May 15, 2014, that was based
on the Department’s determination that imports of articles did not
contribute importantly to worker separations, shifts in production
abroad did not occur, or qualifying as a secondary worker. The
determination was applicable to workers and former workers of
Syncreon US Inc., including on-site leased workers from Malone,
Sentech, Drive Source, and Midwest, Sterlington Heights,
Michigan.
The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to the
receiving, sequencing, and delivery of parts to their customer.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that imports of
articles, shifts in production abroad, or acquisitions of articles
did not contribute importantly to worker separations. Furthermore
the worker group did not qualify as a secondary worker or was
affirmed in a final determination by the United States
International Trade Commission.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or directly
competitive with the receiving, sequencing, and delivery of parts
by Syncreon US Inc., Sterling Heights, Michigan have not
increased.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the receiving,
sequencing, and delivery of parts related to production of a like
or directly competitive article to a foreign country or acquire
the receiving, sequencing, and delivery of parts related to
production of a like or directly competitive article from a
foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(3) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Syncreon US Inc., Sterling Heights,
Michigan 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 Syncreon US Inc., Sterling Heights,
Michigan 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, 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 Syncreon US
Inc., including on-site leased workers from Malone, Sentech,
Drive Source, and Midwest, Sterling Heights, Michigan, who were
engaged in employment related to the receiving, sequencing, and
delivery of parts to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 19th day of January, 2016


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



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,139

SYNCREON US INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
MALONE, SENTECH, DRIVE SOURCE, AND MIDWEST
STERLING HEIGHTS, MICHIGAN

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 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 March 12, 2014 by a state workforce office on behalf
of workers of Syncreon US Inc., Sterlington Heights, Michigan.
The worker group includes on-site leased workers from Malone,
Sentech, Drive Source, and Midwest. The workers' firm is
engaged in activities related to the receiving, sequencing, and
delivery of parts.
The petitioner alleged the following, "The direct relation
of foreign imports have affected the services and production of
logistics management provided to automobile manufacturers by
Syncreon. As a result, the foreign competition has driven the
closure of the Auburn Hills, Michigan location".
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift
sequencing, receiving, and delivery of parts to a foreign
country.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii), the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the articles produced by Syncreon
did not contribute importantly to such workers' separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production
of such firm or subdivision.
The investigation revealed that Syncreon 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).
The investigation revealed that the workers of Syncreon is
not 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), based on an
increase in imports from, or a shift in production to, Canada or
Mexico.
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 Syncreon US Inc.,
including on-site leased workers from Malone, Sentech, Drive
Source, and Midwest, Sterling Heights, Michigan 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 in Washington, D.C. this 15th day of May 2014


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