DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,352

PIONEER HI-BRED, INTERNATIONAL – MT. PLEASANT
A SUBSIDIARY OF E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
INTEGRATED OPERATIONS DIVISION INCLUDING ON-SITE LEASED WORKERS
FROM TEMP ASSOCIATES AND MANPOWER
MOUNT PLEASANT, IOWA

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 June 2, 2014, resulted in
a negative determination, issued on July 2, 2014, that was based on
worker separations that were unrelated to increased imports or a
shift in production to a foreign country. The determination was
applicable to workers and former workers of Pioneer Hi-Bred,
International - Mt. Pleasant, a subsidiary of E.I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company, Integrated Operations Division, including
on-site leased workers from Temp Associates and Manpower, Mt.
Pleasant, Iowa. The workers’ firm is engaged in activities related
to the production of seed corn.
Based on information reviewed during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department of Labor determines that there were
no shifts in production to a foreign country, no acquisitions of
articles from a foreign country, no company or customer imports, no
final affirmative determination of the firm by the International
Trade Commission, and no firm qualification as Supplier or
Downstream Producer.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Pioneer Hi-Bred, International - Mt.
Pleasant, a subsidiary of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
Integrated Operations Division, Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, did not
import articles like or directly competitive with seed corn.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the production
of seed corn or a like or directly competitive article to a
foreign country or acquire components for seed corn 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 Pioneer Hi-Bred, International - Mt.
Pleasant, a subsidiary of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
Integrated Operations Division, Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, 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 Pioneer Hi-Bred, International - Mt.
Pleasant, a subsidiary of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
Integrated Operations Division, Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, 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 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 Pioneer Hi-
Bred, International - Mt. Pleasant, a subsidiary of E.I. du Pont
de Nemours and Company, Integrated Operations Division, including
on-site leased workers from Temp Associates and Manpower, Mt.
Pleasant, Iowa, who were engaged in employment related to the
production of seed corn to apply for adjustment assistance, in
accordance with Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 10th day of February, 2016.

/s/Jacquelyn R. Mendelsohn
______________________________
JACQUELYN R. MENDELSOHN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance



DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-85,352

PIONEER HI-BRED, INTERNATIONAL - MT. PLEASANT
A SUBSIDIARY OF E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
INTEGRATED OPERATIONS DIVISION
MOUNT PLEASANT, IOWA

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 Andean Trade Preference Act, 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 June 2, 2014 by the state workforce office on behalf
of workers of Pioneer Hi-Bred, International - Mt. Pleasant, a
subsidiary of E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Integrated
Operations Division, Mt. Pleasant, Iowa. The workers' firm is
engaged in activities related to the production of seed corn.
The petitioner alleged that increased worldwide
production of corn resulted in lower sales to customers that,
in turn, resulted in worker separations.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from 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 seed corn during the relevant period of 2012 and
2013 or during January through May 2014.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of articles like or
directly competitive with seed corn have not increased during
the relevant period.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Pioneer Hi-Bred, International -
Mt. Pleasant 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).
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. 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 Pioneer Hi-Bred,
International - Mt. Pleasant, a subsidiary of E.I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company, Integrated Operations Division, Mt.
Pleasant, Iowa engaged in activities related to production of
seed corn 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 2nd day of July, 2014


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