[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 151 (Friday, August 6, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47644-47645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19390]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-71,174]
General Electric Company, Transportation Division, Including On-
Site Leased Workers From Adecco Technical, Erie, PA; Notice of Revised
Determination on Remand
On April 15, 2010, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT)
granted the U.S. Department of Labor's (Department's) motion for
voluntary remand for further investigation in Former Employees of
General Electric Company, Transportation Division, Erie, Pennsylvania
v. United States, Case No. 10-00076. Further, on June 3, 2010, the
USCIT remanded United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America,
Local 506 v. United States, Case No. 10-00108, to the Department for
further review. The two cases were consolidated on the same date under
Case No. 10-00076.
On June 10, 2009, former workers of General Electric Company,
Transportation Division (hereafter referred to as the subject firm)
filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) on behalf of
workers of General Electric Company, Transportation Division, Erie,
Pennsylvania (hereafter referred to as the subject facility). On July
1, 2009, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local
506 (UE 506), also filed a petition for TAA on behalf of workers at the
subject facility. The UE 506 petition was consolidated with the
petition filed on June 10, 2009, as it covered the same worker group.
The initial investigation revealed that, during the period under
investigation, workers at the subject facility, including on-site
leased workers from Adecco Technical (hereafter referred to as the
subject worker group) were engaged in the production of locomotives,
locomotive kits, and propulsion and specialty parts. The findings of
that investigation revealed that there had been a significant number or
proportion of workers at the subject facility that was totally or
partially separated from employment.
It was determined, however, that imports of articles like or
directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm did not
contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject facility
and that the subject firm did not shift production to a foreign
country. A survey of the subject firm's major declining domestic
customers revealed decreasing imports of articles like or directly
competitive with those produced by the subject worker group, both in
absolute terms and relative to the production at the subject facility.
Consequently, the Department determined that the subject worker
group could not be considered import impacted, and a negative
determination regarding the subject worker group's eligibility to apply
for TAA was issued on October 8, 2009. The Department's Notice of
Determination was published in the Federal Register on December 11,
2009 (74 FR 65800).
By application dated October 28, 2009, the petitioning workers
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination. In the request, the petitioners alleged that production
had shifted out of the subject facility to facilities located outside
of the United States that were operated by the subject firm. The
petitioners also alleged that the subject firm imports articles like or
directly competitive with those produced at the subject facility.
To investigate the petitioners' claims, the Department issued a
Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration, on November 16, 2009. The Department's Notice of
Determination was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2009
(74 FR 64712).
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department obtained
new and additional information from the subject firm regarding the
petitioners' claims. Based on the findings of the reconsideration
investigation, the Department concluded that worker separations at the
subject facility were not caused by either a shift in production abroad
or increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with
those produced by the subject worker group. As such, the Department
issued a Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration on January
22, 2010. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register, on February 1, 2010 (75 FR 5151).
In the complaint filed with the USCIT, dated March 1, 2010, the
Plaintiffs allege that workers at the subject facility were impacted by
import competition and by a shift in production to overseas facilities
by the subject firm.
In the complaint filed with the USCIT on March 29, 2010, the UE 506
alleged that workers at the subject facility were impacted by import
competition, shifts abroad of multiple production lines by the subject
firm, and foreign acquisitions by the subject firm of articles like or
directly competitive with
[[Page 47645]]
those produced by the subject worker group.
The intent of the Department is for a certification to cover all
workers of a subject firm or appropriate subdivision who were adversely
affected by increased imports of an article produced by the firm or a
shift in production of the article, based on the investigation of the
TAA petition. Therefore, the Department requested voluntary remand to
address the allegations made by the two sets of plaintiffs, to
determine whether the subject worker group is eligible to apply for TAA
under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (hereafter referred to as the
Act), and to issue an appropriate remand determination.
To apply for worker adjustment assistance under Section 222(a) of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a), the following criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in section 222(a)(1) of the Act,
19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(1)) requires that a significant number or proportion
of the workers in the workers' firm must have become totally or
partially separated or be threatened with total or partial separation.
II. The second criterion (set forth in section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied if either:
(i)(I) 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;
or
(i)(II) 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.
III. The third criterion requires that the shift/acquisition must
have contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of
separation. See section 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).
As amended by the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act
of 2009, section 222 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2272) covers foreign
contracting scenarios, where a company closes a domestic operation and
contracts with a company in a foreign country for the goods or services
that had been produced in the United States.
During the remand investigation, the Department obtained
information from the subject firm, solicited input from the two sets of
Plaintiffs, and addressed all of the Plaintiffs' allegations.
Based on the information collected during the remand investigation,
the Department determined that the subject worker group was impacted by
a shift in production of articles like or directly competitive with the
locomotives, locomotive kits, and propulsion and specialty parts
produced at the subject facility.
The Department's findings on remand revealed that the subject firm
engages in practices that entail the transfer of work to foreign
countries under ``localization'' agreements in which the subject firm
penetrates into foreign markets under joint ventures with entities in
the foreign country. Further, although the subject firm asserts that
the articles manufactured at the facilities abroad are not identical in
nature to the articles manufactured at the subject facility, upon close
examination of data collected on remand, the Department has determined
that the articles manufactured abroad are like or directly competitive
with those produced by the subject worker group. The regulations
implementing the Act, at 29 CFR 90.2, provide that ``like or directly
competitive articles'' include those which are substantially identical
in inherent or intrinsic characteristics, as well as those which are
substantially equivalent for commercial purposes.
After a painstaking review on remand, the Department has determined
that a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
appropriate subdivision of the subject firm was separated. Further, the
Department has determined that a shift in production abroad of articles
like or directly competitive with the articles produced by the subject
worker group contributed importantly to worker group separations.
Therefore, the Department has determined that the group eligibility
requirements under section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, have been met.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts during the remand investigation,
I determine that the workers' firm has shifted to foreign countries the
production of articles like or directly competitive with those produced
by the subject firm or appropriate subdivision, and such shift of
production contributed importantly to worker group separations at the
subject facility. In accordance with section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2273, I make the following certification:
All workers of General Electric Company, Transportation
Division, including on-site leased workers from Adecco Technical,
Erie, Pennsylvania, who became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after June 10, 2008, through two years from the
date of certification, 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 at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of July 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-19390 Filed 8-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P