DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-91,444

JOHNSON MATTHEY PROCESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
KELLY SERVICES AND AEROTEK
SAVANNAH, GEORGIA

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 February 8, 2016 on behalf of workers of Johnson
Matthey Process Technologies, Inc., Savannah, Georgia
("Johnson Matthey Process Technologies, Inc."). The workers'
firm is engaged in activities related to the production of fluid
catalytic cracking additives. The subject worker group
includes on-site leased workers from Kelly Services and Aerotek.
The petitioners alleged that, "A drastic drop in oil
prices, slowdown in the Chinese economy, and delays in
projects in China and other parts of the world had an adverse
effect on our manufacturing."
The investigation has found that the workers are not
engaged in activities related to the production of oil. The
FCC additives are not used as a component in the production of
oil by Johnson Matthey Process Technologies, Inc. or its
customers.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm, the petitioners, and surveys
were sent to the firm's major declining customer(s).
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that neither the firm nor the major
declining customers have increased imports of FCC additives
like or directly competitive to those produced by the workers
of the firm from 2014 to 2015 and comparing the first month of
2015 with the same month in 2016. Imports were not revealed.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the
production of FCC additives or a like or directly competitive
article to a foreign country or acquire FCC additives or a
like or directly competitive article from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Johnson Matthey Process
Technologies, Inc. is not a Supplier or acts 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.
As for the petitioners' allegations, a path to
certification was not apparent. Pricing, slowdowns in China's
economy, or delays in manufacturing did not reveal a path to
certification per the criteria for certification.


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 Johnson Matthey
Process Technologies, Inc., including on-site leased workers
from Kelly Services and Aerotek, Savannah, Georgia engaged in
activities related to the production of FCC Additives to apply
for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 26th day of October 2017.

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