UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-96,803

WABTEC CORPORATION
A DIVISION OF WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
INCLUDING WORKERS WHOSE WAGES WERE REPORTED UNDER
WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
WILMERDING, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration

By application dated June 8, 2021, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America
(UE) requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers'
eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers
of Wabtec Corporation, a division of Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation, including
workers whose wages were reported under Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation,
Wilmerding, Pennsylvania (hereafter referred to as "Wabtec Corporation"). The workers' firm
is engaged in activities related to the production of engineered equipment, including braking
components, for the rail industry. The Department of Labor (Department) issued the negative
determination on May 10, 2021. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register on June 24, 2021.
The request for reconsideration stated that there may be a basis for secondary TAA certification
for the group of workers due to the number of primary TAA certifications that had been issued in
the workers' firm's industry in recent years.
During the reconsideration investigation, new information not previously considered revealed that
the workers' firm is a Supplier to a firm that employed a group of workers that had been under an
active TAA certification at the time of the original petition filing.
Section 222(b)(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(b)(2) has been met because Wabtec Corporation is 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), and such supply is related to the finished article that was the basis for such
certification.
Section 222(b)(3)(B) has been met because the loss of business by Wabtec Corporation with the
firm that employed a certified worker group contributed importantly to worker separations at
Wabtec Corporation.
Conclusion
After careful review of information obtained during the reconsideration investigation, I determine
that workers of Wabtec Corporation, a division of Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corporation, including workers whose wages were reported under Westinghouse Air Brake
Technologies Corporation, Wilmerding, Pennsylvania, who were engaged in activities related to
the production of engineered equipment, including braking components, for the rail industry, meet
the worker group certification criteria under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b). In
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273, I make the following certification:
"All workers of Wabtec Corporation, a division of Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies
Corporation, including workers whose wages were reported under Westinghouse Air Brake
Technologies Corporation, Wilmerding, Pennsylvania, who became totally or partially separated
from employment on or after March 22, 2020, 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 30th day of June, 2022

/s/ Jessica R. Webster
_______________________
JESSICA R. WEBSTER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-96,803

WABTEC CORPORATION
DIVISION OF WESTINGHOUSE AIRBRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
INCLUDING WORKERS WHOSE WAGES WERE REPORTED UNDER
WESTINGHOUSE AIRBRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
WILMERDING, PENNSYLVANIA

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended ("Act"), 19 U.S.C.
§ 2273, the Department of Labor ("Department") herein presents the results of an investigation
regarding certification of eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance ("TAA") for
workers.

The investigation was initiated in response to a TAA petition dated March 22, 2021
and filed on March 23, 2021 by a Union Official, on behalf of workers and former workers of
Wabtec Corporation, Division of Westinghouse Airbrake Technologies Corporation, Wilmerding,
Pennsylvania (hereafter referred to as a "group of workers"). The group of workers also consists
of workers whose wages were reported under Westinghouse Airbrake Technologies Corporation.
In accordance with 20 C.F.R. 618 a group of workers is defined as, ""¦inclusive of teleworkers
and staffed workers."

The group of workers is engaged in activities related to the production of engineered
equipment for rail and other industries and are not separately identifiable by product.

The petition alleged that worker separations, or threats thereof, were due to foreign trade
because, "The impact of foreign trade that positioned major Wabtec customers as a TAA certified
firm. The ongoing outsourcing of critical bargaining unit work to foreign countries , a process
intensified by the drive within the domestic manufacturing industry to compete with foreign
operators with lower cost production." The petition includes an attachment which identified worker
groups eligible to apply for TAA.

During the course of the investigation, the Department collected information from the
petitioner(s), the workers' firm, and other relevant sources.

Workers of a firm may be eligible for TAA if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (b)
or (e) of Section 222 of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and (e).

For the Department to issue a certification for workers under Section 222(a) of the Trade
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following criteria must be met:

Employment Criterion

(1) 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.
The Department determines that the employment criterion has been met.

Decreased Sales or Production Criterion

(2)(A)(i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely.

The Department determines that the decreased sales or production criterion has been met.

Increased Imports Criterion

(2)(A)(ii)(I) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles
produced or services supplied by such firm have increased;

(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles into which one
or more component parts produced by such firm are directly incorporated have
increased;

(bb) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced
directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; AND

(III) imports of articles directly incorporating one or more component parts produced
outside the United States that are like or directly competitive with imports of articles
incorporating one or more component parts produced by such firm have increased.
20 C.F.R. 618.110 defines increased imports to mean "that imports have increased either
absolutely or relative to domestic production compared to a representative base period. The
representative base period will be 1 year consisting of the 4 quarters immediately preceding the
date that is 12 months prior to the date of the petition."

The Department determines that the increased imports criterion has not been met. The
investigation revealed that the workers' firm did not increase imports of engineered equipment
during the relevant period.

Sec. 222(c) of the Trade Act and 20 C.F.R. 618.110 defines contributed importantly as "a
cause that is important but not necessarily more important than any other cause." In determining
contributed importantly, according to 20 C.F.R. 618.225(a)(2)(iv) "(A) Analysis of the impact of
increased imports on worker separations and declines in sales or production at the workers' firm
must generally consist of determining: (1) Whether there are one or more events, or factors, that
lessen or sever the causal nexus between the increase in imports and worker separations or threat
of separation, and the decline in sales and production at the workers' firm; (2) What percentage
of the workers' firm sales or production declines was attributable to the firm's increased imports;

(3) What percentage of the workers' firm customer(s) sales or production declines was attributable
to the firm's increased imports; and (4) Whether there are other events or factors that mitigate or
amplify the impact of increased imports on the workers' firm. (B) The impact may be determined
using a quantitative or qualitative analysis."
The Department did not make a determination on whether the contributed importantly
criterion was met because the increased imports criterion was not met.

Shift/Acquisition Criterion

(2)(B)(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers' firm to a foreign country in the production
of articles or the supply of services like or directly competitive with articles which
are produced or services which are supplied by such firm; or

(II) such workers' firm has acquired from a foreign country articles or services that
are like or directly competitive with articles which are produced or services which
are supplied by such firm;
According to 20 C.F.R. 618.225(b)(2)(ii)(B), "Analysis of shift activity must generally
consist of a (1) Comparison of shift data on the petition date to shift data on the date that is 1 year
prior to the petition date; (2) Review of shift activity during the 1-year period prior to the petition
date; and (3) Review of evidence provided by the workers' firm regarding shift activity scheduled
to occur after the petition date."

According to 20 C.F.R. 618.225(b)(2)(iii)(A), "Analysis of impact of shift activity on
worker separations must generally consist of determining: (1) Whether there are one or more events
or factors that sever or lessen the causal nexus between the shift activity and worker separations
or threat of separation; (2) What percentage of the workers' firm sales or production declines was
attributable to the firm's shift activity; (3) Whether operations at the workers' firm domestic facility
or facilities decreased at the same or at a greater rate than operations at the foreign facility or
facilities; and (4) Whether there are other events or factors that mitigate or amplify the impact of
shift activity on the workers' firm."

According to 20 C.F.R. 618.225(c)(2)(ii), "Analysis of acquisition data must generally
consist of a (A) Comparison of acquisition data on the petition date to acquisition data on the date
that is 1 year prior to the petition date; (B) Review of acquisition data during the 1-year period
prior to the petition date; and (C) Review of evidence provided by the workers' firm regarding
acquisition activity scheduled to occur after the petition date."

According to 20 C.F.R. 618.225(c)(3)(i), "Analysis of impact of acquisition data on worker
separations must generally consist of determining: (A) Whether there are one or more events or
factors that lessen or sever the causal nexus between the acquisition activity and worker separations
or threat of separation; (B) What percentage of the workers' firm sales or production declines was
attributable to the firm's acquisition activity; (C) Whether operations at the workers' firm domestic
facility or facilities decreased at the same or at a greater rate than contractor or licensee operations
in the foreign country; and (D) Whether there are other events or factors that mitigate or amplify
the impact of acquisition activity on the workers' firm."

The Department determines that the shift/acquisition criterion has not been met. The
investigation revealed that the workers' firm did not shift production of engineered equipment, or
like or directly competitive articles, to a foreign country or acquire such production from a foreign
country.

Contributed Importantly Criterion

(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.
Sec. 222(c) of the Trade Act and 20 C.F.R. 618 defines contributed importantly as "a cause that
is important but not necessarily more important than any other cause."

The Department did not make a determination on whether the contributed importantly criterion
was met because the shift/acquisition criterion was not met.

For the Department to issue a certification for workers under Section 222(b) of the Trade
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), the following criteria must be met:

Employment Criterion

(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.
The Department determines that the employment criterion has been met.

Supplier/Downstream Producer Criterion

(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 subsection (a), and such supply
or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification
(as defined in subsection (c) (3)and (4)); and
Section 222(c)(4) of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the term "Supplier" to
mean "a firm that produces and supplies directly to another firm component parts for articles,
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 subsection (a) of a group of workers
employed by such other firm." Section 222(c)(3) of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
term "Downstream Producer" to mean "a firm that performs additional, value-added production
processes or services directly for another firm for articles or services with respect to which a
group of workers in such other firm has been certified under subsection (a)." For purposes of
this "Downstream Producer" definition, the Trade Act provides that, ""¦value-added production
processes or services include final assembly, finishing, testing, packaging, or maintenance or
transportation services."

The Department determines that the supplier/downstream producer criterion has not been
met. During the investigation, the Department reviewed the cases identified in the petition
attachment. The investigation revealed the workers' firm is not a Supplier to a worker group eligible
to apply for TAA.

20% or Contributed Importantly Criterion

(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 determined
under paragraph (I).

20 C.F.R. 618.225(d)(5) states that "the component part supplied represented at least 20
percent of the supplier's production or sales during the 1-year period prior to the petition date,
or loss of business with the firm, during the 1-year period prior to the petition date, contributed
importantly to separations or threat of separation at the workers' firm." Sec. 222(c) of the Trade

Act and 20 C.F.R. 618.110 defines contributed importantly as, "a cause that is important but not
necessarily more important than any other cause."

The Department did not make a determination on whether the 20% or contributed
importantly criterion was met because the supplier/downstream producer criterion was not met.

For the Department to issue a certification for workers under Section 222(e) of the Act, 19

U.S.C. § 2272(e), the following criteria must be met:
Member of Domestic Industry Criterion

(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));
The Department determines that the member of a domestic industry criterion has not been
met. N/A

Timely Petition Filing Criterion

(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 (B) or (C) of
paragraph (1) is published in the Federal Register; and
The Department did not make a determination on whether the timely petition filing criterion
was met because the member of domestic industry criterion was not met.

Employment Criterion

(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 Department did not make a determination on whether the employment criterion was
met because no finding regarding the timely petition filing criterion was made.
Conclusion

After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I determine that the
requirements of Section 222 of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and, therefore,
deny the petition for group eligibility of Wabtec Corporation, Division of Westinghouse Airbrake
Technologies Corporation, including workers whose wages were reported under Westinghouse
Airbrake Technologies Corporation, Wilmerding, Pennsylvania, who are engaged in activities
related to the production of engineered equipment for rail and other industries to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance for workers, in accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C.
§ 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 10th day of May, 2021

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