DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,067

FLSMIDTH USA, INC.
MATERIAL HANDLING BUSINESS UNIT
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
INCLUDING WORKERS WHOSE WAGES WERE REPORTED THROUGH
FLSMIDTH SPOKANE, INC.
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM
HUMANIX, VOLT, AND ACCOUNTEMPS
MERIDIAN, IDAHO

Notice of Negative Determination
After Statutory Reconsideration

As required by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reauthorization
Act of 2015 (TAARA 2015), which was enacted as Title IV of the
Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law No. 114-27,
section 405(a)(1)(A), the investigation into this petition was
reopened for a reconsideration investigation to apply the
requirements for worker group eligibility under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the TAARA 2015, to the
facts of this petition (statutory reconsideration).
The initial investigation, initiated February 12, 2014,
resulted in a negative determination, issued on April 8, 2014, that
was based on no import increase and/or shift in production to a
foreign country. The determination was applicable to workers and
former workers of FLSmidth USA, Inc., Material Handling Business
Unit, Engineering Department, Meridian, Idaho. The workers were
engaged in activities related to engineering and design services
for mobile stackers and conveyors. The worker group is clarified to
be: FLSmidth USA, Inc., Material Handling Business Unit,
Engineering Department, including workers whose wages were reported
through FLSmidth Spokane, Inc., including on-site leased workers
from Humanix, Volt, and Accountemps, Meridian, Idaho.
Based on information reviewed during the statutory
reconsideration investigation, the Department of Labor determines
that imports of articles, shifts in production abroad, and
acquisitions of articles did not contribute importantly to worker
separations. Furthermore the worker group did not qualify as a
secondary worker or was affirmed in a final determination by the
United States International Trade Commission.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or directly
competitive with the articles produced FLSmidth USA, Inc.,
Material Handling Business Unit, Engineering Department, including
workers whose wages were reported through FLSmidth Spokane, Inc.,
including on-site leased workers from Humanix, Volt, and
Accountemps, Meridian, Idaho have not increased. The firm did not
import engineering and design services for mobile stackers and
conveyors.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift engineering and
design services for mobile stackers and conveyors or a like or
directly competitive article to a foreign country or acquire
engineering and design services for mobile stackers and conveyors
or a like or directly competitive article from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that FLSmidth USA, Inc., Material Handling
Business Unit, Engineering Department, including workers whose
wages were reported through FLSmidth Spokane, Inc., including on-
site leased workers from Humanix, Volt, and Accountemps, Meridian,
Idaho 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 FLSmidth USA, Inc., Material Handling
Business Unit, Engineering Department, including workers whose
wages were reported through FLSmidth Spokane, Inc., including on-
site leased workers from Humanix, Volt, and Accountemps, Meridian,
Idaho 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 publicly
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, 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 FLSmidth USA,
Inc., Material Handling Business Unit, Engineering Department,
including workers whose wages were reported through FLSmidth
Spokane, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Humanix, Volt,
and Accountemps, Meridian, Idaho, who were engaged in employment
related to the engineering and design services for mobile stackers
and conveyors to apply for adjustment assistance, in accordance
with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 15th day of March, 2016

/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,067

FLSMIDTH USA, INC.
MATERIAL HANDLING BUSINESS UNIT
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS FROM HUMANIX, VOLT AND
ACCOUNTEMPS
MERIDIAN, IDAHO

Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade 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) and
(b) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a) and (b). 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:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in such 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 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) imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
increased; and
(iii) the increase 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 or subdivision.

(B) Shift in Production Path:
(i) there has been a shift in production by such workers'
firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles
like or directly competitive with articles which are
produced by such firm or subdivision; and
(ii)(I) the country to which the workers' firm has
shifted production of the articles is a party to a
free trade agreement with the United States;
(II)the country to which the workers' firm has
shifted production of the articles is a beneficiary
country under the African Growth and Opportunity Act,
or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
(III)there has been or is likely to be an increase
in imports of articles that are like or directly
competitive with articles which are or were produced
by such firm or subdivision.

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 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."
The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on February 12, 2014 on behalf of workers of FLSmidth USA,
Inc., Material Handling Business Unit, Engineering Department,
Meridian, Idaho. The workers' firm is engaged in activities
related to the engineering of single machines and complete
processing plants as well as maintenance, support services and
the operation of processing facilities for the global minerals
and cement industries. The workers are engaged in activities
related to the supply of engineering and design services for
mobile stackers and conveyors. The worker group includes on-site
leased workers from Humanix, Volt, and Accountemps.
The petitioners alleged that work from the subject firm
has been transferred to the FLS Chennai office, resulting in
the closure of the subject firm.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the petitioners and the workers' firm.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm did not shift the
production of articles like or directly competitive with mobile
stackers and conveyors to a foreign country which is a party
to free trade agreement with the United States or a
beneficiary country under the African Growth and Opportunity
Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. Rather,
the investigation confirmed that the work of the Meridian,
Idaho facility was shifted to another location within the
United States.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(iii), the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the articles produced by FLSmidth
USA did not contribute importantly to the workers' separation
or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or
production of the subject firm.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the subject firm is neither a
Supplier nor 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).
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
(ATAA), the worker group must be certified eligible to apply for
trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified
eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that all workers of FLSmidth USA,
Inc., Material Handling Business Unit, Engineering Department,
including on-site leased workers from Humanix, Volt, and
Accountemps, Meridian, Idaho, are denied eligibility to apply
for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, and are also denied eligibility to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the
Trade Act of 1974, amended.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 8th day of April, 2014.

/s/Michael W. Jaffe
______________________________
MICHAEL W. JAFFE
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance