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
<![CDATA[
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
