DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-95,355

MORGANTOWN MACHINE & HYDRAULICS OF WEST VIRGINIA

A SUBSIDIARY OF SWANSON INDUSTRIES INC.

MORGANTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA

Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration

On June 8, 2020, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of Morgantown Machine & Hydraulics of
West Virginia, Morgantown, West Virginia (Morgantown Machine &
Hydraulics of West Virginia). The notice was published in the
Federal Register on March 24, 2020 (85 FR 16655).

To support the request for reconsideration, the petitioner
supplied additional information, to supplement that which was
gathered during the initial investigation. All information was
analyzed and the following was determined:

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 re-manufactured hydraulic cylinder components and
assemblies by Morgantown Machine & Hydraulics of West Virginia
have decreased absolutely.

Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) has been met because customer
imports of articles like or directly competitive with the article
produced by Morgantown Machine & Hydraulics of West Virginia have
increased.

Finally, Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) has been met because
increased customer imports contributed importantly to the worker
group separations and sales/production declines at Morgantown
Machine & Hydraulics of West Virginia.

Conclusion

After careful review of the additional facts obtained on
reconsideration, I determine that workers of Morgantown Machine &
Hydraulics of West Virginia, a subsidiary of Swanson Industries
Inc., Morgantown, West Virginia, who were engaged in employment
related to the production of re-manufactured hydraulic cylinder
components and assemblies, 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 Morgantown Machine & Hydraulics of West
Virginia, a subsidiary of Swanson Industries Inc., Morgantown,
West Virginia who became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after November 1, 2018, 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 9th day of March, 2021



HOPE D. KINGLOCK

Certifying Officer, Office of

Trade Adjustment Assistance





U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-95,355

MORGANTOWN MACHINE & HYDRAULICS OF WEST VIRGINIA
MORGANTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA

Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated April 14, 2020, jointly filed by the a
state workforce official and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union, commonly known as the United
Steelworkers, Local 1-01 requesting administrative reconsideration
of the negative determination regarding workers’ eligibility to
apply for worker adjustment assistance applicable to workers and
former workers of Morgantown Machine & Hydraulics of West Virginia,
Morgantown, West Virginia. The determination was issued on February
6, 2020 and the Notice of Determination was published in the
Federal Register on March 24, 2020 (85 FR 16658).
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 there was not an increase in imports by
the workers’ firm or its customers of re-manufactured hydraulic
cylinder components and assemblies or articles like or directly
competitive with re-manufactured hydraulic cylinder components
and assemblies with the articles produced by the workers’ firm;
nor was there a there a shift in production to a foreign country or
acquisition by the workers’ firm; nor did the firm qualify as a
secondary impacted workers; or was named by the International Trade
Commission in a relevant finding.
The request for reconsideration asserts that, “The worker
group performed the same duties and supplied product to some of the
same customers as the parent company Swanson Industries who was
certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance as a supplier to a firm
that employed a group of workers who received certification for
Trade Adjustment Assistance on December 28, 2018. The workers
provided services to Caterpillar who have locations certified for
Trade Adjustment Assistance.” The parent company has affiliates in
foreign countries and there could be possible shift activities. “In
addition, recently the company informed employees regarding the
repair of hydraulic baselift cylinders that it would be more cost
effective to purchase new cylinders from China than to repair
them.”
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 8th day of June, 2020

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-95,355

MORGANTOWN MACHINE & HYDRAULICS OF WEST VIRGINIA
MORGANTOWN, 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 November 6, 2019 by the United Steelworkers (USW),
Local 1-01, on behalf of workers and former workers of
Morgantown Machine & Hydraulics of West Virginia, Morgantown,
West Virginia (Morgantown Machine & Hydraulics). The workers'
firm is engaged in activities related to the production of re-
manufactured hydraulic cylinder components and assemblies.
Workers are not separately identifiable by article produced.
The subject worker group does not include on-site leased
workers.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the petition, the workers' firm, and the
workers' firms' major declining customer(s).
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed neither subject firm nor customer
imports of articles like or directly competitive with the re-
manufactured hydraulic cylinder components and assemblies
produced by Morgantown Machine & Hydraulics have increased
during the relevant period.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the workers' firm did not shift the
production of re-manufactured hydraulic cylinder components and
assemblies, or a like or directly competitive article to a
foreign country or acquire the production of re-manufactured
hydraulic cylinder components and assemblies, 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 Morgantown Machine & Hydraulics 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 Morgantown Machine & Hydraulics
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 Morgantown Machine &
Hydraulics of West Virginia, Morgantown, 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 6th day of February 2020.

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