Celestica, Repair Subdivision, Little Rock, AR; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 3732 [E5-271]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
3732
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 26, 2005 / Notices
makes its determinations based on the
requirements as outlined in section 222
of the Trade Act. In particular, the
Department considers the relevant
employment data for the facility where
the petitioning worker group was
employed. As employment levels at the
subject facility did not decline
significantly in the relevant period,
criteria (I.A.) of Section (a)(2)(A) has not
been met.
Additionally, the petitioner included
information indicating that Boeing had
lost a significant portion of its market
share to the European Airbus
Consortium. Although the Department
would normally consider such
information, since the subject division
did not experience a significant decline
in employment, it does not affect the
outcome of this investigation.
Conclusion
After review of the application and
investigative findings, I conclude that
there has been no error or
misinterpretation of the law or of the
facts which would justify
reconsideration of the Department of
Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of
December 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–260 Filed 1–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
this case would serve no purpose, and
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC this 27th day of
December 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–263 Filed 1–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,125]
Caledonia Two, Formerly South
Carolina Tees, Andrews, South
Carolina; Notice of Termination of
Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on December
3, 2004 in response to a petition filed on
behalf of workers of Caledonia Two,
formerly South Carolina Tees, Andrews,
South Carolina.
The petition was filed more than one
year after the subject firm was closed.
Consequently, further investigation in
this case would serve no purpose, and
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of
December, 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–264 Filed 1–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
Employment and Training
Administration
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA–W–56,114]
Bourns Microelectronics Modules, Inc.
Formerly Known as Microelectronics
Modules Corporation a Susidiary of
Bourns Inc., New Berlin, Wisconsin;
Notice of Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on December
1, 2004 in response to a petition filed on
behalf of workers at Bourns
Microelectronic Modules Inc., formerly
known as Microelectronics Modules
Corporation, a subsidiary of Bourns Inc.,
New Berlin, Wisconsin.
The petitioning group of workers is
covered by an earlier petition (TA–W–
42,217) which expired on December 6,
2004. Since the firm has ceased
production and all workers were
covered under that certification, there is
no basis for issuing a new certification.
Consequently, further investigation in
VerDate jul<14>2003
19:33 Jan 25, 2005
Jkt 205001
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–55,578]
Celestica, Repair Subdivision, Little
Rock, AR; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application of October 29, 2004,
the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 2022,
requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination regarding
eligibility for workers and former
workers of the subject firm to apply for
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA). The negative
determination applicable to workers of
Celestica, Repair Subdivision, Little
Rock, Arkansas was signed on October
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15, 2004. The notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register
on November 12, 2004 (69 FR 65462).
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 misinterpretation of facts or of
the law justified reconsideration of the
decision.
The petition was filed on behalf of
workers at Celestica, Repair
Subdivision, Little Rock, Arkansas
engaged in activities related to the
repair of defective wireless phones,
wired office phone handlers, phone
switches, and other related equipment.
The petition was denied because the
workers did not produce an article
within the meaning of section 222 of the
Act.
In the request for reconsideration, the
Union alleged that repair work should
be considered remanufacturing work.
A company official was contacted to
clarify the work performed at the Repair
Subdivision and ascertain whether the
repaired items were sold as
remanufactured items. The official
stated that the work done was repair
and not remanufacturing, that defective
items were sent to the repair facility by
the end user pursuant to a warranty,
that repaired items were returned
directly to the end user, and that
repaired items were not sold as
remanufactured items.
Repair of products already purchased
does not constitute production within
the context of eligibility requirements
for trade adjustment assistance.
Conclusion
After review of the application and
investigative findings, I conclude that
there has been no error or
misinterpretation of the law or of the
facts which would justify
reconsideration of the Department of
Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the
application is denied.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 12th day of
January, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–271 Filed 1–25–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 3732]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-271]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-55,578]
Celestica, Repair Subdivision, Little Rock, AR; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of October 29, 2004, the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local 2022, requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding
eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply
for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA). The negative determination applicable to workers of
Celestica, Repair Subdivision, Little Rock, Arkansas was signed on
October 15, 2004. The notice of determination was published in the
Federal Register on November 12, 2004 (69 FR 65462).
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
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of
the decision.
The petition was filed on behalf of workers at Celestica, Repair
Subdivision, Little Rock, Arkansas engaged in activities related to the
repair of defective wireless phones, wired office phone handlers, phone
switches, and other related equipment. The petition was denied because
the workers did not produce an article within the meaning of section
222 of the Act.
In the request for reconsideration, the Union alleged that repair
work should be considered remanufacturing work.
A company official was contacted to clarify the work performed at
the Repair Subdivision and ascertain whether the repaired items were
sold as remanufactured items. The official stated that the work done
was repair and not remanufacturing, that defective items were sent to
the repair facility by the end user pursuant to a warranty, that
repaired items were returned directly to the end user, and that
repaired items were not sold as remanufactured items.
Repair of products already purchased does not constitute production
within the context of eligibility requirements for trade adjustment
assistance.
Conclusion
After review of the application and investigative findings, I
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law
or of the facts which would justify reconsideration of the Department
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 12th day of January, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-271 Filed 1-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
