Oshkosh Defense, a Division of Oshkosh Corporation, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Acountemps, Advantage Federal Resourcing, Aerotek, Cadre, Dyncorp International, EDCi IT Services, LLC, Landmark Staffing Resources, Inc., Larsen and Toubro Limited, MRI Network/Manta Resources, Inc., Omni Resources, Premier Temporary Staffing, Retzlaff Parts and Repair, Roman Engineering, Straight Shot Express, Inc., Teksystems, and Labor Ready, Oshkosh, Wisconsin; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 49290-49291 [2013-19544]

Download as PDF 49290 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Notices Library, U.S. DOJ—ENRD, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044–7611. Please enclose a check or money order for $6.25 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the United States Treasury. Susan M. Akers, Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division. [FR Doc. 2013–19507 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–15–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Parole Commission Sunshine Act Meeting Record of Vote of Meeting Closure (Pub. L. 94–409) (5 U.S.C. 552b) I, Isaac Fulwood, of the United States Parole Commission, was present at a meeting of said Commission, which started at approximately 11:00 a.m., on Thursday, August 8, 2013, at the U.S. Parole Commission, 90 K Street NE., Third Floor, Washington, DC 20530. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss original jurisdiction cases pursuant to 28 CFR 2.27. Five Commissioners were present, constituting a quorum when the vote to close the meeting was submitted. Public announcement further describing the subject matter of the meeting and certifications of the General Counsel that this meeting may be closed by votes of the Commissioners present were submitted to the Commissioners prior to the conduct of any other business. Upon motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the following Commissioners voted that the meeting be closed: Isaac Fulwood, Jr., Cranston J. Mitchell, Patricia K. Cushwa, J. Patricia Wilson Smoot and Charles T. Massarone. In witness whereof, I make this official record of the vote taken to close this meeting and authorize this record to be made available to the public. ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Dated: August 9, 2013. Isaac Fulwood, Jr., Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission. [FR Doc. 2013–19718 Filed 8–9–13; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4410–31–P VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–82,286] Oshkosh Defense, a Division of Oshkosh Corporation, Including OnSite Leased Workers From Acountemps, Advantage Federal Resourcing, Aerotek, Cadre, Dyncorp International, EDCi IT Services, LLC, Landmark Staffing Resources, Inc., Larsen and Toubro Limited, MRI Network/Manta Resources, Inc., Omni Resources, Premier Temporary Staffing, Retzlaff Parts and Repair, Roman Engineering, Straight Shot Express, Inc., Teksystems, and Labor Ready, Oshkosh, Wisconsin; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration On April 29, 2013, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Oshkosh Defense, a division of Oshkosh Corporation, Oshkosh, Wisconsin (hereafter referred to as ‘‘Oshkosh Defense’’ or ‘‘the subject firm’’). Workers at the subject firm were engaged in activities related to the production of, and administrative functions in support of, military, logistical, and tactical vehicles, and diverse products for airport products and commercial group (i.e., H-Broom, H-Blower, H-Tractor, P-Series Snow Removal Vehicle, S-Series Front Discharge Cement Mixers and AARF axles), including component parts. The workers are not separately identifiable by article produced. The subject worker group includes workers at various facilities in Oshkosh, Wisconsin who are engaged in production of, and administrative functions in support of, the articles produced by the subject firm. The subject worker group also includes on-site leased workers from Acountemps, Advantage Federal Resourcing, Aerotek, Cadre, Dyncorp International, EDCi IT Services, LLC, Landmark Staffing Resources, Inc., Larsen and Toubro Limited, MRI Network/Manta Resources, Inc., Omni Resources, Premier Temporary Staffing, Retzlaff Parts and Repair, Roman Engineering, Straight Shot Express, Inc., Teksystems, and Labor Ready. The petitioner alleges that workers were impacted by increased imports of component parts like or directly competitive with those produced at the Oshkosh, Wisconsin facility. The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Department’s findings that the subject firm did not import like or directly competitive articles, and did not import finished articles using like or directly competitive foreign-produced component parts. With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the investigation revealed that Oshkosh Defense did not shift the production of military, logistical, and tactical vehicles, or like or directly competitive articles, to a foreign country or acquire the production of such articles from a foreign country. With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation revealed that Oshkosh Defense is not 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). Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied because 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. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that the Department has issued a determination for a worker group other than the one identified by the United Auto Workers, Local 578 (UAW–578) in its petition. Specifically, UAW–578 asserts that the subject firm is Oshkosh Corporation and that it has a collective bargaining agreement with Oshkosh Corporation. UAW–578 also alleges that the Department has misunderstood the articles produced at the subject facility. Specifically, UAW– 578 asserts that the subject facility produces articles for both military and commercial use. UAW–578 further alleges that an article or a component part for military use is like or directly competitive with the same one for commercial use. During the reconsideration investigation, the subject firm company official confirmed that, in addition to the production of, and administrative functions in support of military, logistical, and tactical vehicles, the workers of the subject firm also produced diverse products for airport products and commercial group (i.e., HBroom, H-Blower, H-Tractor, P-Series Snow Removal Vehicle, S-Series Front Discharge Cement Mixers and AARF axles). The reconsideration investigation also revealed that ‘‘Oshkosh Defense’’ is the only division within Winnebago county E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1 ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 13, 2013 / Notices that UAW–578 represents and that ‘‘Oshkosh Defense’’ is the only entity related to Oshkosh Corporation that employs members of UAW–578. Further, the reconsideration investigation revealed that the ‘‘access equipment’’ and ‘‘fire and emergency’’ unit have not in the past or present been located in the Oshkosh, Wisconsin area, and that these articles are produced in other parts of the country. The reconsideration investigation further revealed that the subject firm has not imported any articles or services like or directly competitive with the production of, and administrative functions in support of military, logistical, and tactical vehicles, and diverse products for airport products and commercial group (i.e., H-Broom, H-Blower, H-Tractor, P-series Snow Removal Vehicle, S-Series Front Discharge Cement Mixers and AARF axles) produced or performed by the workers of the subject firm. The reconsideration investigation also revealed that the subject firm does not import any finished products that incorporate an article or services like or directly competitive with the articles produced or services supplied by the subject firm. Because almost all of the products manufactured by Oshkosh Defense are supplied to the United States military, no customer survey of imports was conducted. In addition, the reconsideration investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift production or services like or directly competitive with the administrative services and military, logistical, and tactical vehicles, and diverse products for airport products and commercial group (i.e., H-Broom, H-Blower, H-Tractor, P-Series Snow Removal Vehicle, S-Series Front Discharge Cement Mixers and AARF axles) produced or supplied by the workers of the subject firm, and did not acquire articles or services like or directly competitive with the administrative services and military, logistical, and tactical vehicles, and diverse products for airport products and commercial group (i.e., H-Broom, H-Blower, H-Tractor, P-Series Snow Removal Vehicle, S-Series Front Discharge Cement Mixers and AARF axles) from a foreign country. During the reconsideration investigation, the subject firm addressed a newspaper article submitted by the petitioner which stated, in part, that Oshkosh Corporation was ‘‘bringing work back to the factory that was outsourced—a move that saved 165 production jobs.’’ Specifically, the subject firm confirmed that when production needs extended capacity, the VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:31 Aug 12, 2013 Jkt 229001 work was ‘‘outsourced’’ to local (domestic) vendors. The Department notes that the forementioned article started with the statement ‘‘Faced with deep cuts in U.S. military spending, and the end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Oshkosh Corp. is laying off 900 employees in its defense division’’ and stated that the ‘‘Department of Defense is reining in spending.’’ The article also states that the subject firm has facilities in other states that are able to produce similar or directly competitive articles. During the reconsideration investigation, the subject firm also addressed the petitioner’s allegation that Oshkosh Corporation imports specific parts (i.e., ‘‘exhibit f’’). The subject firm confirmed that the parts at issue have never been manufactured by an Oshkosh Defense facility and have always been procured from a foreign country. The subject firm also confirmed that the imported parts are in articles that constitute a negligible percentage of Oshkosh Corporation production. With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the reconsideration investigation confirmed that Oshkosh Defense is not a Supplier or Downstream Producer to 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). 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, affirm the denial of the petition for group eligibility of Oshkosh Defense, a division of Oshkosh Corporation, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273. Signed in Washington, DC on this 26th day of July, 2013. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2013–19544 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P PO 00000 49291 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–81,045] Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Dow Jones Content Services Division, Including a Worker of Factiva, Inc., A Subsidiary of Dow Jones Coporation and On-Site Leased Workers From Aerotek, Inc. and Princeton, New Jersey; Amended Certification 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 issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on January 26, 2012, applicable to workers of Aerotek, Inc., working on-site at Dow Jones Corporation, Princeton, New Jersey. The Department’s notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on July 16, 2012 (FR Volume 77, Pages 41807–41808). At the request of an American Job Center in Michigan, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of digital newsletters. The American Job Center reports that the worker group should include a worker of Factiva, Inc., a subsidiary of Dow Jones Corporation who worked from home in Michigan and reported to the Princeton, New Jersey facility. The amended notice applicable to TA–W–81,045 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Dow Jones Content Services Division, including a worker of Factiva, Inc., a subsidiary of Dow Jones Corporation, and onsite leased workers from Aerotek, Inc., Princeton, New Jersey (TA–W–81,045) and Generate, Inc., a subsidiary of Dow Jones & Company, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts (TA– W–81,045A) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after February 13, 2010, through January 26, 2014, and all workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation from employment on the 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, DC, this 31st day of July, 2013. Michael W. Jaffe, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2013–19545 Filed 8–12–13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\13AUN1.SGM 13AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49290-49291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19544]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-82,286]


Oshkosh Defense, a Division of Oshkosh Corporation, Including On-
Site Leased Workers From Acountemps, Advantage Federal Resourcing, 
Aerotek, Cadre, Dyncorp International, EDCi IT Services, LLC, Landmark 
Staffing Resources, Inc., Larsen and Toubro Limited, MRI Network/Manta 
Resources, Inc., Omni Resources, Premier Temporary Staffing, Retzlaff 
Parts and Repair, Roman Engineering, Straight Shot Express, Inc., 
Teksystems, and Labor Ready, Oshkosh, Wisconsin; Notice of Negative 
Determination on Reconsideration

    On April 29, 2013, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of Oshkosh Defense, a division of Oshkosh 
Corporation, Oshkosh, Wisconsin (hereafter referred to as ``Oshkosh 
Defense'' or ``the subject firm''). Workers at the subject firm were 
engaged in activities related to the production of, and administrative 
functions in support of, military, logistical, and tactical vehicles, 
and diverse products for airport products and commercial group (i.e., 
H-Broom, H-Blower, H-Tractor, P-Series Snow Removal Vehicle, S-Series 
Front Discharge Cement Mixers and AARF axles), including component 
parts. The workers are not separately identifiable by article produced. 
The subject worker group includes workers at various facilities in 
Oshkosh, Wisconsin who are engaged in production of, and administrative 
functions in support of, the articles produced by the subject firm.
    The subject worker group also includes on-site leased workers from 
Acountemps, Advantage Federal Resourcing, Aerotek, Cadre, Dyncorp 
International, EDCi IT Services, LLC, Landmark Staffing Resources, 
Inc., Larsen and Toubro Limited, MRI Network/Manta Resources, Inc., 
Omni Resources, Premier Temporary Staffing, Retzlaff Parts and Repair, 
Roman Engineering, Straight Shot Express, Inc., Teksystems, and Labor 
Ready.
    The petitioner alleges that workers were impacted by increased 
imports of component parts like or directly competitive with those 
produced at the Oshkosh, Wisconsin facility.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the Department's findings that the subject firm did not import 
like or directly competitive articles, and did not import finished 
articles using like or directly competitive foreign-produced component 
parts.
    With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the investigation 
revealed that Oshkosh Defense did not shift the production of military, 
logistical, and tactical vehicles, or like or directly competitive 
articles, to a foreign country or acquire the production of such 
articles from a foreign country.
    With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation 
revealed that Oshkosh Defense is not 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).
    Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(e) of 
the Act, have not been satisfied because 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.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that the 
Department has issued a determination for a worker group other than the 
one identified by the United Auto Workers, Local 578 (UAW-578) in its 
petition. Specifically, UAW-578 asserts that the subject firm is 
Oshkosh Corporation and that it has a collective bargaining agreement 
with Oshkosh Corporation. UAW-578 also alleges that the Department has 
misunderstood the articles produced at the subject facility. 
Specifically, UAW-578 asserts that the subject facility produces 
articles for both military and commercial use. UAW-578 further alleges 
that an article or a component part for military use is like or 
directly competitive with the same one for commercial use.
    During the reconsideration investigation, the subject firm company 
official confirmed that, in addition to the production of, and 
administrative functions in support of military, logistical, and 
tactical vehicles, the workers of the subject firm also produced 
diverse products for airport products and commercial group (i.e., H-
Broom, H-Blower, H-Tractor, P-Series Snow Removal Vehicle, S-Series 
Front Discharge Cement Mixers and AARF axles).
    The reconsideration investigation also revealed that ``Oshkosh 
Defense'' is the only division within Winnebago county

[[Page 49291]]

that UAW-578 represents and that ``Oshkosh Defense'' is the only entity 
related to Oshkosh Corporation that employs members of UAW-578. 
Further, the reconsideration investigation revealed that the ``access 
equipment'' and ``fire and emergency'' unit have not in the past or 
present been located in the Oshkosh, Wisconsin area, and that these 
articles are produced in other parts of the country.
    The reconsideration investigation further revealed that the subject 
firm has not imported any articles or services like or directly 
competitive with the production of, and administrative functions in 
support of military, logistical, and tactical vehicles, and diverse 
products for airport products and commercial group (i.e., H-Broom, H-
Blower, H-Tractor, P-series Snow Removal Vehicle, S-Series Front 
Discharge Cement Mixers and AARF axles) produced or performed by the 
workers of the subject firm.
    The reconsideration investigation also revealed that the subject 
firm does not import any finished products that incorporate an article 
or services like or directly competitive with the articles produced or 
services supplied by the subject firm. Because almost all of the 
products manufactured by Oshkosh Defense are supplied to the United 
States military, no customer survey of imports was conducted.
    In addition, the reconsideration investigation revealed that the 
subject firm did not shift production or services like or directly 
competitive with the administrative services and military, logistical, 
and tactical vehicles, and diverse products for airport products and 
commercial group (i.e., H-Broom, H-Blower, H-Tractor, P-Series Snow 
Removal Vehicle, S-Series Front Discharge Cement Mixers and AARF axles) 
produced or supplied by the workers of the subject firm, and did not 
acquire articles or services like or directly competitive with the 
administrative services and military, logistical, and tactical 
vehicles, and diverse products for airport products and commercial 
group (i.e., H-Broom, H-Blower, H-Tractor, P-Series Snow Removal 
Vehicle, S-Series Front Discharge Cement Mixers and AARF axles) from a 
foreign country.
    During the reconsideration investigation, the subject firm 
addressed a newspaper article submitted by the petitioner which stated, 
in part, that Oshkosh Corporation was ``bringing work back to the 
factory that was outsourced--a move that saved 165 production jobs.'' 
Specifically, the subject firm confirmed that when production needs 
extended capacity, the work was ``outsourced'' to local (domestic) 
vendors.
    The Department notes that the fore-mentioned article started with 
the statement ``Faced with deep cuts in U.S. military spending, and the 
end of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Oshkosh Corp. is laying off 
900 employees in its defense division'' and stated that the 
``Department of Defense is reining in spending.'' The article also 
states that the subject firm has facilities in other states that are 
able to produce similar or directly competitive articles.
    During the reconsideration investigation, the subject firm also 
addressed the petitioner's allegation that Oshkosh Corporation imports 
specific parts (i.e., ``exhibit f''). The subject firm confirmed that 
the parts at issue have never been manufactured by an Oshkosh Defense 
facility and have always been procured from a foreign country. The 
subject firm also confirmed that the imported parts are in articles 
that constitute a negligible percentage of Oshkosh Corporation 
production.
    With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the reconsideration 
investigation confirmed that Oshkosh Defense is not a Supplier or 
Downstream Producer to 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).

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, 
affirm the denial of the petition for group eligibility of Oshkosh 
Defense, a division of Oshkosh Corporation, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, to 
apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the 
Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273.

    Signed in Washington, DC on this 26th day of July, 2013.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2013-19544 Filed 8-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P