[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