DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-91,525

TEKNETIX, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM NOLANS SERVICES, LLC
PARKERSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA

Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration

On May 25, 2017, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of Teknetix, Inc., including on-site
leased workers from Nolans Services, LLC, Parkersburg, West
Virginia (herein referred to as “Teknetix, Inc.). The workers
were engaged in activities related to the production of electronic
circuit boards.
To support the request for reconsideration, the petitioner
supplied additional information regarding Teknetix, Inc. customers
and industry impact to supplement that which was gathered during
the initial investigation.
Based on information provided during the reconsideration
investigation from the firm’s major declining customers and the
applicants, the Department of Labor determines that:
Section 222(a)(1) has been met because a significant number
or proportion of the workers in such workers’ firm have become
totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally
or partially separated.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) has been met because the sales
and/or production of electronic circuit boards by Teknetix, Inc.
have decreased absolutely.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(aa) has been met because
customer imports of load control switches like or directly
competitive with load control switches incorporating electronic
circuit boards produced by Teknetix, Inc. which are directly
incorporated have increased.
Finally, Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) has been met because the
increased customer imports of load control switches contributed
importantly to the worker group separations and sales/production
declines at Teknetix, Inc.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on
reconsideration, I determine that workers of Teknetix, Inc.,
including on-site leased workers from Nolans Services, LLC,
Parkersburg, West Virginia, who were engaged in employment related
to the production of printed circuit boards, meet the worker group
certification criteria under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273, I make the following certification:


"All workers of Teknetix, Inc., including on-site leased
workers from Nolans Services, LLC, Parkersburg, West
Virginia who became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after February 26, 2015, through two years
from the date of this certification, and all workers in the
group threatened with total or partial separation from
employment on date of certification through two years from the
date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended.”
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 7th day of November, 2017


/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-91,525

TEKNETIX, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM NOLANS SERVICES, LLC
PARKERSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA

Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated October 18, 2016, workers requested
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination
regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance applicable to workers and former workers of Teknetix,
Inc., including on-site leased workers from Nolans Services, LLC,
Parkersburg, West Virginia. The determination was issued on August
11, 2016 and the Notice of Determination was published in the
Federal Register on November 9, 2016 (78 FR 78858).
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 no increased imports, during the twelve
month period prior to the petition date, of articles like or
directly competitive with the electronic circuit boards produced
by Teknetix by either the subject firm or the customers surveyed
by the Department of Labor. In addition, the investigation did
not reveal increased imports of finished articles containing
foreign-produced component parts like or directly competitive
with those produced by the subject firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift the
production of electronic circuit boards, or a like or directly
competitive article, to a foreign country or acquire electronic
circuit boards, 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 Teknetix 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 Teknetix 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 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.
The request for reconsideration asserts that imports have
increased and there certain facts were not considered.
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 25 day of May, 2017
/s/ Hope D. Kinglock
_______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-91,525

TEKNETIX, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM NOLANS SERVICES, LLC
PARKERSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA


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 29, 2016, on behalf of workers of Teknetix,
Inc., including on-site leased workers from Nolans Services,
LLC, Parkersburg, West Virginia ("Teknetix"). The workers'
firm is engaged in activities related to the production of
electronic circuit boards. Workers at the subject firm are not
separately identifiable by article produced.
The petitioner alleges that "imports of products like and
competitive with those produced by the worker groups . . . as
well as customer's reliance on imported products," contributed
to the decline in sales and closure of Teknetix.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm, the petitioners, and the
subject firms' major declining customer(s).
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed no increased imports, during the twelve
month period prior to the petition date, of articles like or
directly competitive with the electronic circuit boards
produced by Teknetix by either the subject firm or the
customers surveyed by the Department of Labor. In addition,
the investigation did not reveal increased imports of finished
articles containing foreign-produced component parts like or
directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift the
production of electronic circuit boards, or a like or directly
competitive article, to a foreign country or acquire electronic
circuit boards, 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 Teknetix 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 Teknetix 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 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 Teknetix, Inc.,
including on-site leased workers from Nolans Services, LLC,
Parkersburg, West Virginia, to apply for adjustment assistance,
in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 11th day of August 2016.
/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance