Goodman Networks, Inc. Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division Alpharetta, GA; Goodman Networks, Inc. Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division Hunt Valley, MD; Goodman Networks, Inc. Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division Naperville, IL; Goodman Networks, Inc. Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division St. Louis, MO; Goodman Networks, Inc. Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division Plano, TX; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 775 [2012-31659]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2013 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–81,846; TA–W–81,846A; TA–W–
81,846B; TA–W–81,846C; TA–W–81,846D]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with
Goodman Networks, Inc. Core Network
Engineering (Deployment Engineering)
Division Alpharetta, GA; Goodman
Networks, Inc. Core Network
Engineering (Deployment Engineering)
Division Hunt Valley, MD; Goodman
Networks, Inc. Core Network
Engineering (Deployment Engineering)
Division Naperville, IL; Goodman
Networks, Inc. Core Network
Engineering (Deployment Engineering)
Division St. Louis, MO; Goodman
Networks, Inc. Core Network
Engineering (Deployment Engineering)
Division Plano, TX; Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration
By application dated October 26,
2012, a worker requested administrative
reconsideration of the negative
determination regarding workers’
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers
and former workers of Goodman
Networks, Inc., Core Network
Engineering (Deployment Engineering)
Division, Alpharetta, Georgia (TA–W–
81,846), Goodman Networks, Inc., Core
Network Engineering (Deployment
Engineering) Division, Hunt Valley,
Maryland (TA–W–81,846A), Goodman
Networks, Inc., Core Network
Engineering (Deployment Engineering)
Division, Naperville, Illinois (TA–W–
81,846B), Goodman Networks, Inc., Core
Network Engineering (Deployment
Engineering) Division, St. Louis,
Missouri (TA–W–81,846C), and
Goodman Networks, Inc., Core Network
Engineering (Deployment Engineering)
Division, Plano, Texas (TA–W–
81,846D). The determination was issued
on September 28, 2012.
Workers at the subject firm are
engaged in activities related to the
supply of services of installation
specification writing and maintenance
customer record drawings for the
installation of telecom equipment.
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
findings that, with respect to Section
222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the firm and
customers did not import services like
or directly competitive with the services
provided 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 supply
of services of installation specification
writing and maintenance customer
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:34 Jan 03, 2013
Jkt 229001
record drawings for the installation of
telecom equipment, or a like or directly
competitive service, to a foreign country
or acquire the supply of services of
installation specification writing and
maintenance customer record drawings
for the installation of telecom
equipment, or a like or directly
competitive service, from a foreign
country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of
the Act, the investigation revealed that
the subject firm 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
Goodman does not act as a Downstream
Producer to a firm (subdivision,
whichever is applicable) 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 since
the workers’ firm has not been
publically 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
included information regarding a
possible shift in the supply of services
to a foreign country.
The Department has carefully
reviewed the request for reconsideration
and the existing record, and will
conduct further investigation to clarify
the subject worker group and to
determine if workers have met 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, DC, this 12th day of
December 2012.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012–31659 Filed 1–3–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
775
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–72,673]
Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc.,
Corporate Office, Medford, WI; Notice
of Negative Determination on Third
Remand
On May 31, 2012, the United States
Court of International Trade (USCIT)
ordered the United States Department of
Labor (Department) to conduct further
investigation in Former Employees of
Weather Shield Manufacturing, Inc. v.
United States Secretary of Labor (Court
No. 10–00299).
The group eligibility requirements for
workers of a firm under Section 222(a)
of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended
(the Act), 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(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; and
(2)(A)(i) The sales or production, or both,
of such firm have decreased absolutely;
(ii)(I) Imports of articles or services like or
directly competitive with articles produced
or services supplied by such firm have
increased;
(II) Imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles—
(aa) Into which one or more component
parts produced by such firm are directly
incorporated, or
(bb) Which are produced directly using
services supplied by such firm, have
increased; or
(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; 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; or
(B)(i)(I) There has been a shift by such
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; 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.
E:\FR\FM\04JAN1.SGM
04JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 3 (Friday, January 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31659]
[[Page 775]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-81,846; TA-W-81,846A; TA-W-81,846B; TA-W-81,846C; TA-W-81,846D]
Goodman Networks, Inc. Core Network Engineering (Deployment
Engineering) Division Alpharetta, GA; Goodman Networks, Inc. Core
Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division Hunt Valley, MD;
Goodman Networks, Inc. Core Network Engineering (Deployment
Engineering) Division Naperville, IL; Goodman Networks, Inc. Core
Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division St. Louis, MO;
Goodman Networks, Inc. Core Network Engineering (Deployment
Engineering) Division Plano, TX; Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated October 26, 2012, a worker requested
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding
workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
applicable to workers and former workers of Goodman Networks, Inc.,
Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division, Alpharetta,
Georgia (TA-W-81,846), Goodman Networks, Inc., Core Network Engineering
(Deployment Engineering) Division, Hunt Valley, Maryland (TA-W-
81,846A), Goodman Networks, Inc., Core Network Engineering (Deployment
Engineering) Division, Naperville, Illinois (TA-W-81,846B), Goodman
Networks, Inc., Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering)
Division, St. Louis, Missouri (TA-W-81,846C), and Goodman Networks,
Inc., Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division,
Plano, Texas (TA-W-81,846D). The determination was issued on September
28, 2012.
Workers at the subject firm are engaged in activities related to
the supply of services of installation specification writing and
maintenance customer record drawings for the installation of telecom
equipment.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the findings that, with respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of
the Act, the firm and customers did not import services like or
directly competitive with the services provided 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 supply of services of
installation specification writing and maintenance customer record
drawings for the installation of telecom equipment, or a like or
directly competitive service, to a foreign country or acquire the
supply of services of installation specification writing and
maintenance customer record drawings for the installation of telecom
equipment, or a like or directly competitive service, from a foreign
country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that the subject firm 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 Goodman does not act as a Downstream Producer to a firm
(subdivision, whichever is applicable) 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 since the workers' firm has not been
publically 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 included information regarding a
possible shift in the supply of services to a foreign country.
The Department has carefully reviewed the request for
reconsideration and the existing record, and will conduct further
investigation to clarify the subject worker group and to determine if
workers have met 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, DC, this 12th day of December 2012.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-31659 Filed 1-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
