DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-91,791

WOODARD & CURRAN, INC.
OPERATIONS & MANAGEMENT DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM @WORK
WORKING ON-SITE AT THE ANSON-MADISON SANITARY DISTRICT
TOWN OF MADISON, MAINE

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On October 28, 2016, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of Woodard & Curran, including on-
site leased workers of @Work, Madison, Maine. The initial
negative determination, issued on August 12, 2016, was based on
the Department’s findings that a significant number or
proportion of worker at the subject firm was totally or
partially separated or threatened with such separation.
The request for reconsideration states that “a possible
third worker being affected” and provided a copy of information
from a company official in support of the assertion.
During the course of the reconsideration, the Department
obtained additional information from the subject firm and
carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration, including
support documentation, and previously-submitted information.
Based on the afore-mentioned information, the Department
determines that the accurate worker group, as reflected in the
heading of the immediate determination, is Woodard & Curran,
Inc., Operations & Management Division, including on-site leased
workers from @Work, working on-site at the Anson-Madison
Sanitary District, Town of Madison, Maine (Woodard & Curran-O&M
Division-Anson-Madison Sanitary District).
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
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 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.” 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.

A Supplier is a firm that produces and supplies directly to
another firm component parts, or services, used in the production
of articles or in the supply of services, as the case may be,
that were the basis for a certification of eligibility under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
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).

During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
obtained additional information that, during the one-year period
prior to the petition date (May 6, 2016), a significant number
or proportion of workers at Woodard & Curran-O&M Division-Anson-
Madison Sanitary District are totally or partially separated or
threatened with such separation.
Section 222(a)(2)(A) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)(A),
has not been met. A careful review of information submitted by
the subject firm reveals that Woodard & Curran-O&M Division-
Anson-Madison Sanitary District sales did not decline during the
one year period prior to the petition date. Specifically,
Woodard & Curran-O&M Division-Anson-Madison Sanitary District
sales increased in 2015 from 2014 levels and increased during
January through May 2016 from January through May 2015 levels.
Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)(B),
has not been met. A careful review of information submitted by
the subject firm reveals that Woodard & Curran, Inc. has not
shifted to a foreign country the supply of services like or
directly competitive with the services supplied by workers at
Woodard & Curran-O&M Division-Anson-Madison Sanitary District,
and that Woodard & Curran, Inc. has not acquired from a foreign
country the supply of such services.
Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), has not
been met because Woodard & Curran-O&M Division-Anson-Madison
Sanitary District is not a Supplier under Section 222(c) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c). Specifically, Woodard & Curran-O&M
Division-Anson-Madison Sanitary District supplies directly to
the Anson-Madison Sanitary District, a public agency. In
addition, Woodard & Curran-O&M Division-Anson-Madison Sanitary
District does not directly supply services to the firm
referenced in the petition. Specifically, Woodard & Curran-O&M
Division-Anson-Madison Sanitary District supplies services to a
public agency which supplies services to the afore-referenced
firm, which employs a worker group eligible to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§ 2272(a).
Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), has not
been met because Woodard & Curran, Inc. has not been by the
publically named by the International Trade Commission as a
member of a domestic industry in an investigation resulting in
either an affirmative determination of serious injury or threat
thereof under section 202(b)(1), an affirmative determination of
market disruption or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1), or
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)).
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice
of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers Woodard &
Curran, Inc., Operations & Management Division, including on-
site leased workers from @Work, working on-site at the Anson-
Madison Sanitary District, Town of Madison, Maine.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 29th day of July, 2017


/s/ Del-Min Amy Chen
___________________________________
DEL-MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance







U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-91,791

WOODARD & CURRAN
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM @WORK
MADISON, MAINE


Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated September 8, 2016, a state workforce
official requested administrative reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance applicable to workers and former workers of
Woodard & Curran, including on-site leased workers from @Work,
Madison, Maine (Woodard & Curran). The determination was issued on
August 12, 2016.
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 with respect to Section 222(a) and
Section 222(b) of the Act, Criterion (1) has not been met because a
significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers’
firm, have not become totally or partially separated, nor are they
threatened to become totally or partially separated. The initial
investigation also revealed that the group eligibility requirements
under Section 222(e) of the Act, have not been met.
The request for reconsideration includes new information in
support of allegations that Criterion (1) has been met.
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 28th day of October, 2016
/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-91,791

WOODARD & CURRAN
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM @WORK
MADISON, MAINE

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 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 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms "Supplier" and "Downstream Producer." 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.

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 May 9, 2016, by the state workforce office on behalf of
workers of Woodard & Curran, including on-site leased workers
from @Work, Madison, Maine (Woodard & Curran). The workers'
firm is engaged in activities related to the supply of
engineering services and operations of wastewater treatment
facilities for various customers. Workers are separately
identifiable by the services supplied.
The petitioner alleges, "Woodard & Curran ran the waste water
treatment plant for Madison Paper covered by trade certification
#91,590. The paper company attributed to 90% of the business at
the waste water treatment plant."
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm and the petitioner.
With respect to Section 222(a) and Section 222(b) of the Act,
the investigation revealed that Criterion (1) has not been met
because a significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, have not become totally or partially separated, nor
are they threatened to become totally or partially separated. A
significant number means five percent of the work force or least
three workers in a work force of fewer than fifty workers. 29 CFR
90.2 Information obtained during the investigation revealed that
the worker separation threshold was not met.
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 Woodard & Curran, including
on-site leased workers from @Work, Madison, Maine, to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act,
19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 12th day of August 2016.
/s/Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance