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
<![CDATA[
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
