DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-81,846

GOODMAN NETWORKS, INC.
CORE NETWORK ENGINEERING (DEPLOYMENT ENGINEERING) DIVISION
INCLUDING WORKERS IN THE CORE NETWORK ENGINEERING (DEPLOYMENT
ENGINEERING) DIVISION IN ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA,
HUNT VALLEY, MARYLAND, NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS, AND ST. LOUIS,
MISSOURI, WHO REPORT TO
PLANO, TEXAS


Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration

On December 12, 2012, the Department of Labor issued a Notice
of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of Goodman
Networks, Inc., Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering)
Division, including workers in the Core Network Engineering
(Deployment Engineering) Division in Alpharetta, Georgia, Hunt
Valley, Maryland, Naperville, Illinois, and St. Louis, Missouri,
who report to Plano, Texas (subject firm). The suffixes used in the
initial determination to identify the workers have been removed;
however, the subject worker group remains the same.
The workers are engaged in activities related to the supply of
services of installation specification writing and maintenance
customer record drawings for the installation of telecommunication
equipment. The workers are not separately identifiable function or
service supplied. The worker group does not include any leased
workers.
Section 222(a)(1) has been met because a significant number or
proportion of the workers in the subject firm have become totally
or partially separated, or are threatened with such separation.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(i) has been met because subject firm
sales of installation specification writing and maintenance
customer record drawings services have decreased absolutely.
Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) has been met because customer imports
of services like or directly competitive with installation
specification writing and maintenance customer record drawings
services supplied by the subject firm have increased during the
relevant period.
Finally, Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii) has been met because
increased customer imports contributed importantly to the worker
group separations and sales declines at the subject firm.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional facts obtained during
the reconsideration investigation, I determine that workers of
Goodman Networks, Inc., Core Network Engineering (Deployment
Engineering) Division, including workers in the Core Network
Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division in Alpharetta,
Georgia, Hunt Valley, Maryland, Naperville, Illinois, and St.
Louis, Missouri, who report to Plano, Texas, who were engaged in
employment related to the supply of services for installation
specification writing and maintenance customer record drawings for
the installation of telecommunication equipment, 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 Goodman Networks, Inc., Core Network Engineering
(Deployment Engineering) Division, including workers in the
Core Network Engineering (Deployment Engineering) Division in
Alpharetta, Georgia, Hunt Valley, Maryland, Naperville,
Illinois, and St. Louis, Missouri, who report to Plano, Texas
who became totally or partially separated from employment on
or after July 31, 2011, 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, D.C., this 8th day of February, 2013
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-81,846

GOODMAN NETWORKS, INC.
CORE NETWORK ENGINEERING (DEPLOYMENT ENGINEERING) DIVISION
ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA

TA-W-81,846A

GOODMAN NETWORKS, INC.
CORE NETWORK ENGINEERING (DEPLOYMENT ENGINEERING) DIVISION
HUNT VALLEY, MARYLAND

TA-W-81,846B

GOODMAN NETWORKS, INC.
CORE NETWORK ENGINEERING (DEPLOYMENT ENGINEERING) DIVISION
NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS

TA-W-81,846C

GOODMAN NETWORKS, INC.
CORE NETWORK ENGINEERING (DEPLOYMENT ENGINEERING) DIVISION
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI

TA-W-81,846D

GOODMAN NETWORKS, INC.
CORE NETWORK ENGINEERING (DEPLOYMENT ENGINEERING) DIVISION
PLANO, TEXAS

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), (b) or
(e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and (e).
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
criteria must be met:
(1) 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.

(2) 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.
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or
production of such firm.

(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
(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; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the acquisition
of articles or services described in clause (i)(II)
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification
under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(b), 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.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.”
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(e) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), 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 August 2, 2012 on behalf of 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)
(herein known as Goodman). The worker group locations include
teleworkers. The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to
the supply of installation specification writing and maintenance
customer record drawings for the installation of telecom equipment.

The petitioners alleged that the work was moved abroad.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm and the firm’s customer.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm and customers did not import
services like or directly competitive with the services provided by
Goodman.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the supply 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
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 Goodman 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 (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).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied either because Criterion
(1) has not been met 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.


Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that the requirements of Section 222 of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and, therefore, deny
the petition for group eligibility 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)
engaged in activities related to the supply of installation
specification writing and maintenance customer record drawings for
the installation of telecom equipment to apply for adjustment
assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 28th day of September, 2012


/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance






- 11 -