DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-71,494

JOHNS MANVILLE
ENGINEERED PRODUCTS DIVISION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM VOLT WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS
SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA

Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration

By application dated May 2, 2010, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the negative determination
applicable to the subject firm. The determination was based on the
Department’s finding that neither increased imports nor a shift in
production to a foreign country contributed importantly to worker
separations at the subject firm. The workers are engaged in
employment related to the production of polyester non-woven fabric.
The negative determination was issued on April 16, 2010. The
Department’s Notice of negative determination was published in the
Federal Register on May 20, 2010 (75 FR 28301).
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged
that increased production at an affiliated facility in China caused
the loss of business at the Spartanburg, South Carolina facility.
Based on additional information provided by the subject firm
during the reconsideration investigation, the Department determines
that the subject firm has shifted to a foreign country the
production of articles like or directly competitive with the
polyester non-woven fabric produced at the subject facility and
that the shift of production to China contributed importantly to
worker separations at the Spartanburg, South Carolina facility.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional facts obtained on
reconsideration, I determine that workers of Johns Manville,
Engineered Products Division, Spartanburg, South Carolina, who are
engaged in employment related to the production of polyester non-
woven fabric, meet the worker group certification criteria under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a). In accordance with
Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273, I make the following
certification:
“All workers of Johns Manville, Engineered Products Division,
including on-site leased workers from Volt Workforce
Solutions, Spartanburg, South Carolina, who became totally or
partially separated from employment on or after June 23, 2008,
through two years from the date of this certification, and all
workers in the group threatened with total or partial
separation from employment on 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, D.C., this 9th day of July, 2010

/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-71,494

JOHNS MANVILLE
ENGINEERED PRODUCTS DIVISION
SPARTANBURG, SOUTH CAROLINA

Negative Determination 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 herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (c) or
(f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f). For
the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following three
criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(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 in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the component
part produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have increased.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(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 increase in imports or
shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation. See Sections
222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer”. For the Department to
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream
Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is 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), and such supply or production
is related to the article or service that was the basis
for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component parts
it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2)
accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or
sales of the workers’ firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation.

Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in a category of determination that is listed in
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), can be satisfied if
the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A)
or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning
on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President
by the International Trade Commission under section
202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative
determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is
published in the Federal Register under section
202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in
subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and
(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on July 1, 2009 by three workers on behalf of workers of
Johns Manville, Engineered Products Division, Spartanburg, South
Carolina. The workers produce polyester non-woven fabric used
primarily in roofing products. A substantial portion is exported.

The petitioning workers allege the subject firm has shifted
production to a facility in China.
The investigation included the collection of data from Johns
Manville, Engineered Products Division, and a survey of its major
declining customers.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that workers of Johns Manville, Engineered Products
Division, Spartanburg, South Carolina, did not meet the criteria
for certification.
Criterion II of this section has not been met because Johns
Manville, Engineered Products Division is neither shifting to a
foreign country production of articles like or directly competitive
with polyester non-woven fabrics, nor importing such products from
abroad.
The Department of Labor surveyed the subject firm’s major
declining customers regarding their purchases of polyester non-
woven fabrics and like products in 2007, 2008 and January through
June 2008 and 2009. Results of the survey revealed no imports in
the subject firm’s customer base surveyed.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that the workers of Johns Manville, Engineered Products
Division, Spartanburg, South Carolina did not meet the criteria for
certification as secondarily affected workers.
Criterion (2) of this Section has not been met because the
workers did not produce an article or supply a service that was
used by a firm that employed a worker group eligible to apply for
TAA in the production of an article.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been met because
Johns Manville, Engineered Products Division, Spartanburg, South
Carolina has not been identified in an affirmative finding of
injury by the International Trade Commission.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Johns Manville,
Engineered Products Division, Spartanburg, South Carolina are
denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under Section
223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 16th day of April, 2010


/s/Richard Church
______________________________
RICHARD CHURCH
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance


- 7 -