[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49290-49291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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