TE Connectivity, CIS-Appliances Division, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Kelly Services, Jonestown, Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 37586-37587 [2013-14852]

Download as PDF 37586 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 120 / Friday, June 21, 2013 / Notices Signed in Washington, DC, this 7th day of June, 2013. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2013–14849 Filed 6–20–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–82,440] TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Stone Age Interiors, Inc., D/B/A Colorado Springs Marble and Granite, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Express Employment Professionals, Colorado Springs, Colorado; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated May 16, 2013, a company official requested administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding workers’ eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of Stone Age Interiors, Inc., d/ b/a Colorado Springs Marble and Granite, Colorado Springs, Colorado (subject firm). The negative determination was issued on April 15, 2013 and the Notice of Determination was published in the Federal Register on May 15, 2013 (78 FR 28628–28630). Workers at the subject firm were engaged in activities related to the production of finished stone fabrication. The worker group includes on-site leased workers from Express Employment Professionals. The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the Department’s findings that Criterion (2)(A)(ii) has not been met because imports of articles like or directly competitive with finished stone fabrication produced by Stone Age did not increase during the relevant period. With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the investigation revealed that Stone Age did not shift production of finished stone fabrication, or like or directly competitive articles, to a foreign country, or acquire such production from a foreign country. With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation revealed that Stone Age is neither a Supplier nor 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). VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:32 Jun 20, 2013 Jkt 229001 Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(e) of the Act have not been satisfied because Stone Age 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 alleges that increased imports of finished product from China have adversely impacted the business and that the information provided by the subject firm was incomplete and/or misunderstood. The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and the existing record, and 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, DC, this 7th day of June, 2013. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2013–14854 Filed 6–20–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–81,414] TE Connectivity, CIS-Appliances Division, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Kelly Services, Jonestown, Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration On September 28, 2012, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of TE Connectivity, CIS-Appliances Division, Jonestown, Pennsylvania (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the subject firm’’). The workers are engaged in activities related to the production of electronic components and the supply of administrative support services (in support of production). The worker group includes on-site leased workers from Kelly Services. PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 mis-interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the Department’s findings of no increased imports by the subject firm of articles like or directly competitive with the electronic components produced by the subject workers. Further, aggregate imports of articles like or directly competitive with electronic components decreased during the relevant period. The investigation also revealed that the subject firm did not shift the production of electronic components, or a like or directly competitive article, to a foreign country or acquire such production from a foreign country. In addition, the investigation revealed that the subject firm is not a Supplier or Downstream Producer for a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), and that the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(e) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have not been satisfied. In the request for reconsideration, the worker supplied new information regarding a possible shift in the production of like or directly competitive articles to Mexico and/or China. Specifically, the workers alleged that they trained employees from facilities in Mexico and China and that dies were shifted to Mexico and China. During the reconsideration investigation, the subject firm company official confirmed that the workers of the subject firm were engaged in activities related to the production of electronic components, and that some of the workers performed administrative support services in support of production. The reconsideration investigation revealed that, although the subject firm shifted a portion of production to Mexico and China, the shift in production represented a negligible portion of overall production volume and, therefore, did not contribute importantly to worker separations or threat of separations. E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 120 / Friday, June 21, 2013 / Notices The Department also obtained information regarding the allegation of additional production being shifted to a foreign country. Specifically, the subject firm addressed the petitioner allegations in regard to training workers from other countries. The subject firm confirmed that the training was part of an effort to increase the skill level of employees across TE Connectivity. The Department also confirmed that, during 2010 to present, the subject firm did not shift any additional production or services, like or directly competitive with the articles and services produced and performed by the workers of the subject firm to Mexico, China, or any other country, nor is a shift in production or services scheduled to occur. The Department also reviewed the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) certification of affiliated worker groups and confirmed that the subject firm does not produce any articles or perform any services like or directly competitive with those produced or supplied by worker groups eligible to apply for TAA. The reconsideration investigation also revealed no increased imports by the subject firm of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles and services produced or performed by the workers of the subject firm. The subject firm also confirmed that they did not contract to have like or directly competitive articles or services produced or performed in a foreign country. The subject firm confirmed that they do not supply components or services nor do they perform any finishing services for any of TAA certified locations; hence, the subject firm is not a Supplier, nor does it act as a Downstream Producer for, a firm (or 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), and that the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(e) of the Act have not been satisfied. Therefore, after careful review of the request for reconsideration, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met. TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Conclusion After careful review, 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 TE Connectivity, CIS-Appliances Division, Jonestown, Pennsylvania, to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:32 Jun 20, 2013 Jkt 229001 Signed in Washington, DC, on this 5th day of June, 2013. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2013–14852 Filed 6–20–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers by (TA–W) number issued during the period of May 27, 2013 through May 31, 2013. In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Under Section 222(a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied: (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; (2) the sales or production, or both, of such firm have decreased absolutely; and (3) One of the following must be satisfied: (A) Imports of articles or services like or directly competitive with articles produced or services supplied by such firm have increased; (B) 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; (C) 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; (D) imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced directly using services supplied by such firm, have increased; and (4) the increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers’ separation PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 37587 or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm; or II. Section 222(a)(2)(B) all of the following must be satisfied: (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; (2) One of the following must be satisfied: (A) 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; (B) 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 (3) the shift/acquisition contributed importantly to the workers’ separation or threat of separation. In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected workers in public agencies and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met. (1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the public agency have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; (2) the public agency has acquired from a foreign country services like or directly competitive with services which are supplied by such agency; and (3) the acquisition of services contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or threat of separation. In order for an affirmative determination to be made for adversely affected secondary workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(c) of the Act must be met. (1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ 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, and such supply or production is related to the article or service that was the basis for such certification; and E:\FR\FM\21JNN1.SGM 21JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 120 (Friday, June 21, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37586-37587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14852]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-81,414]


TE Connectivity, CIS-Appliances Division, Including On-Site 
Leased Workers From Kelly Services, Jonestown, Pennsylvania; Notice of 
Negative Determination on Reconsideration

    On September 28, 2012, the Department of Labor issued an 
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for 
the workers and former workers of TE Connectivity, CIS-Appliances 
Division, Jonestown, Pennsylvania (hereafter referred to as ``the 
subject firm''). The workers are engaged in activities related to the 
production of electronic components and the supply of administrative 
support services (in support of production). The worker group includes 
on-site leased workers from Kelly Services.
    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 mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the 
decision.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the Department's findings of no increased imports by the 
subject firm of articles like or directly competitive with the 
electronic components produced by the subject workers. Further, 
aggregate imports of articles like or directly competitive with 
electronic components decreased during the relevant period. The 
investigation also revealed that the subject firm did not shift the 
production of electronic components, or a like or directly competitive 
article, to a foreign country or acquire such production from a foreign 
country. In addition, the investigation revealed that the subject firm 
is not a Supplier or Downstream Producer for a firm (or subdivision) 
that employed a group of workers who received a certification of 
eligibility under Section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, 
19 U.S.C. 2272(a), and that the group eligibility requirements under 
Section 222(e) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have not been 
satisfied.
    In the request for reconsideration, the worker supplied new 
information regarding a possible shift in the production of like or 
directly competitive articles to Mexico and/or China. Specifically, the 
workers alleged that they trained employees from facilities in Mexico 
and China and that dies were shifted to Mexico and China.
    During the reconsideration investigation, the subject firm company 
official confirmed that the workers of the subject firm were engaged in 
activities related to the production of electronic components, and that 
some of the workers performed administrative support services in 
support of production.
    The reconsideration investigation revealed that, although the 
subject firm shifted a portion of production to Mexico and China, the 
shift in production represented a negligible portion of overall 
production volume and, therefore, did not contribute importantly to 
worker separations or threat of separations.

[[Page 37587]]

    The Department also obtained information regarding the allegation 
of additional production being shifted to a foreign country. 
Specifically, the subject firm addressed the petitioner allegations in 
regard to training workers from other countries. The subject firm 
confirmed that the training was part of an effort to increase the skill 
level of employees across TE Connectivity. The Department also 
confirmed that, during 2010 to present, the subject firm did not shift 
any additional production or services, like or directly competitive 
with the articles and services produced and performed by the workers of 
the subject firm to Mexico, China, or any other country, nor is a shift 
in production or services scheduled to occur.
    The Department also reviewed the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
certification of affiliated worker groups and confirmed that the 
subject firm does not produce any articles or perform any services like 
or directly competitive with those produced or supplied by worker 
groups eligible to apply for TAA.
    The reconsideration investigation also revealed no increased 
imports by the subject firm of articles or services like or directly 
competitive with articles and services produced or performed by the 
workers of the subject firm. The subject firm also confirmed that they 
did not contract to have like or directly competitive articles or 
services produced or performed in a foreign country.
    The subject firm confirmed that they do not supply components or 
services nor do they perform any finishing services for any of TAA 
certified locations; hence, the subject firm is not a Supplier, nor 
does it act as a Downstream Producer for, a firm (or 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), and that the group eligibility requirements under 
Section 222(e) of the Act have not been satisfied.
    Therefore, after careful review of the request for reconsideration, 
the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

Conclusion

    After careful review, 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 TE Connectivity, CIS-Appliances 
Division, Jonestown, Pennsylvania, to apply for adjustment assistance, 
in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on this 5th day of June, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013-14852 Filed 6-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P