DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-82,288

GAMESA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
A & A WIND PROS INC., ABB INC., AIRWAY SERVICES INC., AMERISAFE
CONSULTIN 7 SAFETY SERVICES, APEX ALTERNATIVE ACCESS, AVANTI
WIND SYSTEMS, INC., BROADWIND SERVICES LLC, ELECTRIC POWER
SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, EVOLUTION ENERGY GROUP LLC, GLOBAL ENERGY
SERVICES USA INC., INGETEAM INC., KELLY SERVICES, INC., LM WIND
POWER BLADES (ND) INC., MATRIX SERVICE INDUSTRIAL CONTRACT,
MISTRAS GROUP, ONION ICS LLC, POWER CLIMBER WIND, ROPE PARTNER,
INC., RUN ENERGY LP, SERENA USA, INC., SPHERION “THE MERGIS
GROUP,” SYSTEM ONE UPWIND SOLUTIONS INC., AND WIND SOLUTIONS LLC
TREVOSE, PENNSYLVANIA

TA-W-82,288A

GAMESA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
FAIRLESS HILLS, PENNSYLVANIA

TA-W-82,288B

GAMESA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM WORK LINK
EBENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

TA-W-82,288C

GAMESA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
BRISTOL, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On March 8, 2013, the Department of Labor issued a negative
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former workers of Gamesa
Technology Corporation, Trevose, Pennsylvania, Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, and Bristol, Pennsylvania
(hereafter collectively referred to as “Gamesa” or “the subject
firm”).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), reconsideration may be granted
under the following circumstances:
(1) If it appears on the basis of facts not previously
considered that the determination complained of
was erroneous;
(2) If it appears that the determination complained of
was based on a mistake in the determination of facts
not previously considered; or
(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying Officer, a mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the Department’s finding of no shift in production of like
or directly competitive articles to a foreign country, no acquisition
of production of like or directly competitive articles from a foreign
country, and no increased imports of like or directly competitive
articles during the relevant period, as defined in 29 CFR 90.
In the request for reconsideration, the state workforce official
alleged that the subject firm has shifted abroad the production or
articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the
subject firm and urged the Department to consider information in the
201302015 business plan on the Gamesa website, which reflected
increased reliance on a facility on Spain and “increased blade
outsourcing of 65%.” The attachment to the request included a letter
which alleged imports from China and Spain and the effect of lost
bids due to the uncertainty of the Production Tax Credit extension.
Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation
confirmed that the subject firm did not shift, and does not plan
to shift, production of like or directly competitive articles to a
foreign country or acquire such production from a foreign country,
and that the subject firm did not import, and has no plans to
import, articles like or directly competitive with those produced
by the subject firm.
Should the subject firm shift, or decide to shift, production
of like or directly competitive articles to a foreign country,
acquire the production of like or directly competitive articles
from a foreign country, or begin to import like or directly
competitive articles, those facts would be relevant to the
investigation of a new petition, not the immediate investigation.
For the reasons stated above, the Department determines that
29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.
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, deny the petition for group eligibility of Gamesa
Technology Corporation, including on-site leased workers from A & A
Wind Pros Inc., ABB Inc., Airway Services Inc., Amerisafe
Consulting & Safety Services, Apex Alternative Access, Avanti Wind
Systems, Inc., Broadwind Services LLC, Electric Power Systems
International, Evolution Energy Group LLC, Global Energy Services
USA Inc., Ingeteam Inc., Kelly Services, Inc., LM Wind Power Blades
(ND Inc., Matrix Service Industrial Contract, Mistras Group Inc.,
Orion ICS LLC, Power Climber Wind, Rope Partner, Inc., Run Energy
LP, SERENA USA, Inc., Spherion “The Mergis Group,” System One,
UpWind Solutions Inc., Wind Solutions LLC, and Wind Turbine
Solutions LLC, Trevose, Pennsylvania (TA-W-82,288), Gamesa
Technology Corporation, Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania (TA-W-
82,288A), Gamesa Technology Corporation, including on-site leased
workers from Work Link, Ebensburg, Pennsylvania (TA-W-82,288B), and
Gamesa Technology Corporation, Bristol, Pennsylvania (TA-W-
82,288C), to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance with
Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. on this 8th day of August, 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-82,288

GAMESA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM A & A WIND PROS INC., ABB
INC., AIRWAY SERVICES INC., AMERISAFE CONSULTIN 7 SAFETY
SERVICES, APEX ALTERNATIVE ACCESS, AVANTI WIND SYSTEMS, INC.,
BROADWIND SERVICES LLC, ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL,
EVOLUTION ENERGY GROUP LLC, GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES USA INC.,
INGETEAM INC., KELLY SERVICES, INC., LM WIND POWER BLADES (ND)
INC., MATRIX SERVICE INDUSTRIAL CONTRACT, MISTRAS GROUP, ONION
ICS LLC, POWER CLIMBER WIND, ROPE PARTNER, INC., RUN ENERGY LP,
SERENA USA, INC., SPHERION “THE MERGIS GROUP,” SYSTEM ONE UPWIND
SOLUTIONS INC., AND WIND SOLUTIONS LLC
TREVOSE, PENNSYLVANIA

TA-W-82,288A

GAMESA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
FAIRLESS HILLS, PENNSYLVANIA

TA-W-82,288B

GAMESA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM WORK LINK
EBENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

TA-W-82,288C

GAMESA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
BRISTOL, PENNSYLVANIA

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 December 21, 2012 by the United Steelworkers, Local 4889 on
behalf of workers of Gamesa Technology Corporation, including on-
site leased workers from A & A Wind Pros Inc., ABB Inc., Airway
Services Inc., Amerisafe Consulting & Safety Services, Apex
Alternative Access, Avanti Wind Systems, Inc., Broadwind Services
LLC, Electric Power Systems International, Evolution Energy Group
LLC, Global Energy Services USA Inc., Ingeteam Inc., Kelly
Services, Inc., LM Wind Power Blades (ND Inc., Matrix Service
Industrial Contract, Mistras Group Inc., Orion ICS LLC, Power
Climber Wind, Rope Partner, Inc., Run Energy LP, SERENA USA, Inc.,
Spherion “The Mergis Group,” System One, UpWind Solutions Inc.,
Wind Solutions LLC, and Wind Turbine Solutions LLC, Trevose,
Pennsylvania (TA-W-82,288), Gamesa Technology Corporation, Fairless
Hills, Pennsylvania (TA-W-82,288A), Gamesa Technology Corporation,
including on-site leased workers from Work Link, Ebensburg,
Pennsylvania (TA-W-82,288B), and Gamesa Technology Corporation,
Bristol, Pennsylvania (TA-W-82,288C) (Gamesa Technology
Corporation). The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related to
the production of nascelles, hubs, and rotors for wind turbine
generators. The worker group at the Trevose facility (TA-W-82,288)
provides corporate support services. The worker group at the Bristol
facility (TA-W-82,288C) provides warehousing services.
The petitioner alleged that some production is being shifted
overseas.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers’ firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that firm imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the articles produced by Gamesa
Technology Corporation did not contribute importantly to the worker
separations at the subject firm. Company sales at the firm
increased from 2010 to 2011, one of the best years ever, in which
employment increased. A survey of lost bids was not conducted for
the 2012 into the 2013 period since projects were not awarded due
to the uncertainty of the Production Tax Credit (PTC) extension.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the production of
nascelles, hubs, and rotors or like or directly competitive article
to a foreign country or acquire nascelles, hubs, and rotors or like
or directly competitive article from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Gamesa Technology Corporation 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 Gamesa Technology Corporation does not
act as a 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 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 Gamesa Technology Corporation, including
on-site leased workers from A & A Wind Pros Inc., ABB Inc., Airway
Services Inc., Amerisafe Consulting & Safety Services, Apex
Alternative Access, Avanti Wind Systems, Inc., Broadwind Services
LLC, Electric Power Systems International, Evolution Energy Group
LLC, Global Energy Services USA Inc., Ingeteam Inc., Kelly
Services, Inc., LM Wind Power Blades (ND Inc., Matrix Service
Industrial Contract, Mistras Group Inc., Orion ICS LLC, Power
Climber Wind, Rope Partner, Inc., Run Energy LP, SERENA USA, Inc.,
Spherion “The Mergis Group,” System One, UpWind Solutions Inc.,
Wind Solutions LLC, and Wind Turbine Solutions LLC, Trevose,
Pennsylvania (TA-W-82,288), Gamesa Technology Corporation, Fairless
Hills, Pennsylvania (TA-W-82,288A), Gamesa Technology Corporation,
including on-site leased workers from Work Link, Ebensburg,
Pennsylvania (TA-W-82,288B), and Gamesa Technology Corporation,
Bristol, Pennsylvania (TA-W-82,288C) engaged in activities related
to the production of nascelles, hubs, and rotors of wind turbine
generators and the supply of corporate support services and
warehousing services to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 8th day of March, 2013

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





- 5 -