[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 3 (Friday, January 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31659]



[[Page 775]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-81,846; TA-W-81,846A; TA-W-81,846B; TA-W-81,846C; TA-W-81,846D]


Goodman Networks, Inc. Core Network Engineering (Deployment 
Engineering) Division Alpharetta, GA; Goodman Networks, Inc. Core 
Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division Hunt Valley, MD; 
Goodman Networks, Inc. Core Network Engineering (Deployment 
Engineering) Division Naperville, IL; Goodman Networks, Inc. Core 
Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division St. Louis, MO; 
Goodman Networks, Inc. Core Network Engineering (Deployment 
Engineering) Division Plano, TX; Notice of Affirmative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated October 26, 2012, a worker requested 
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination regarding 
workers' eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
applicable to workers and former workers of Goodman Networks, Inc., 
Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division, Alpharetta, 
Georgia (TA-W-81,846), Goodman Networks, Inc., Core Network Engineering 
(Deployment Engineering) Division, Hunt Valley, Maryland (TA-W-
81,846A), Goodman Networks, Inc., Core Network Engineering (Deployment 
Engineering) Division, Naperville, Illinois (TA-W-81,846B), Goodman 
Networks, Inc., Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) 
Division, St. Louis, Missouri (TA-W-81,846C), and Goodman Networks, 
Inc., Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division, 
Plano, Texas (TA-W-81,846D). The determination was issued on September 
28, 2012.
    Workers at the subject firm are engaged in activities related to 
the supply of services of installation specification writing and 
maintenance customer record drawings for the installation of telecom 
equipment.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
based on the findings that, with respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of 
the Act, the firm and customers did not import services like or 
directly competitive with the services provided by the subject firm.
    With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the investigation 
revealed that the subject firm did not shift the supply of services of 
installation specification writing and maintenance customer record 
drawings for the installation of telecom equipment, or a like or 
directly competitive service, to a foreign country or acquire the 
supply of services of installation specification writing and 
maintenance customer record drawings for the installation of telecom 
equipment, or a like or directly competitive service, from a foreign 
country.
    With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation 
revealed that the subject firm is not a Supplier 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).
    With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the investigation 
revealed that Goodman does not act as a Downstream Producer to a firm 
(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).
    Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section 222(e) of 
the Act, have not been satisfied since 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.
    The request for reconsideration included information regarding a 
possible shift in the supply of services to a foreign country.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record, and will conduct further 
investigation to clarify the subject worker group and to determine if 
workers have met 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 12th day of December 2012.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-31659 Filed 1-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P