Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (CGLIC), Cigna Healthcare Service Operations, Philadelphia, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 64300-64301 [E6-18353]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
64300
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Notices
will be published soon in the Federal
Register.
At the request of the State agency and
the company, the Department reviewed
the certification for workers of the
subject firm. New information shows
that leased workers of Tek Systems and
National Engineering Service Corp. were
employed on-site at the Amesbury,
Massachusetts location of Andrew
Corporation FMA, Andrew Facility
Massachusetts Division.
Based on these findings, the
Department is amending this
certification to include leased workers
of Tek Systems and National
Engineering Service Corp. working onsite at Andrew Corporation AFMA,
Andrew Facility Massachusetts
Division, Amesbury, Massachusetts.
The intent of the Department’s
certification is to include all workers
employed at Andrew Corporation
AFMA, Andrew Facility Massachusetts
Division, who were adversely affected
by a shift in production to Mexico and
China.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–60,167 is hereby issued as
follows:
All workers of Andrew Corporation,
AFMA, Andrew Facility Massachusetts
Division, including on-site leased workers of
Andover Personnel, John Galt Services, MMD
Temps, Footbridge Engineering, Spherion,
Tek Systems and National Engineering
Service Corp. who became totally or partially
separated from employment on or after
September 26, 2005, through October 6, 2008,
are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
and are also eligible to apply for alternative
trade adjustment assistance under Section
246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of
October 2006.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–18359 Filed 10–31–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26
U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the
Department of Labor issued a
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance on October 13, 2006,
applicable to workers of Celestica,
Westminster, Colorado. The notice was
published in the Federal Register on
October 25, 2006 (71 FR 62489).
At the request of a company official,
the Department reviewed the
certification for workers of the subject
firm. The workers were engaged in
warehousing and distribution
operations.
New information shows that workers
of Securitas Security were employed onsite at the Westminster, Colorado
location of Celestica.
Based on these findings, the
Department is amending this
certification to include workers of
Securitas Security working on-site at
Celestica, Westminster, Colorado.
The intent of the Department’s
certification is to include all workers
employed at Celestica, Westminster,
Colorado who were adversely affected
by a shift in production to Mexico,
Canada and Israel.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–60,150 is hereby issued as
follows:
All workers of Celestica Corporation,
including on-site workers of Securitas
Security and on-site leased workers of
Adecco, Westminster, Colorado, who became
totally or partially separated from
employment on or after September 25, 2005,
through October 13, 2008, are eligible to
apply for adjustment assistance under
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are
also eligible to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of
the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of
October 2006.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–18358 Filed 10–31–06; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–60,150]
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
Celestica Corporation, Including OnSite Workers of Securitas Security,
Including On-Site Leased Workers of
Adecco Westminster, Colorado;
Amended Certification Regarding
Eligibility To Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance and Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Oct 31, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–59,500]
Connecticut General Life Insurance
Company (CGLIC), Cigna Healthcare
Service Operations, Philadelphia, PA;
Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application dated August 17, 2006
a petitioner 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).
The denial notice applicable to workers
of Connecticut General Life Insurance
Company (CGLIC), Cigna Healthcare
Service Operations, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania was signed on July 24,
2006 and published in the Federal
Register on August 14, 2006 (71 FR
46519).
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 TAA petition filed on behalf of
workers at Connecticut General Life
Insurance Company (CGLIC), Cigna
Healthcare Service Operations,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania engaged in
computer support for CIGNA’s
Disability Management IT (support,
basic Application development support,
coding and systems testing, and
customer help desk support) was denied
because the petitioning workers did not
produce an article within the meaning
of Section 222 of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the
Department erred in its interpretation of
work performed at the subject facility as
providing a service and further conveys
that workers of the subject firm created
various software for sale or lease to
customers. The petitioner included the
name of a customer who purchased/
leased Disability Management software
from the subject firm, thus concluding
that workers of the subject firm were
supporting this customer.
E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM
01NON1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Notices
A company official was contacted for
clarification in regard to the nature of
the work performed at the subject
facility. The official stated that workers
of the subject firm were employed by
Connecticut General Life Insurance
Company (CGLIC) that supports
CIGNA’s Disability Management
Business at Intracorp, CIGNA disability
management company. The official
clarified that Intracorp is not in the
business of manufacturing Disability
Management software for sale to third
parties. Workers of the subject firm
provided system support for Intracorp,
which sells case management services to
workers’ compensation insurers,
employers who self fund workers’
compensation and disability benefits,
and third party administrator. All
software developed by workers of the
subject firm is used to support this
service business. In addition to case
management, Intracorp developed its
own automated medical bill review
service and this software program is also
used externally by the subject firm for
its business. The official further
clarified that there is only one instance
when a customer temporarily leases
software developed by Intracorp to
perform its own bill review services.
This customer did not purchase this
software. When the software was leased
to this customer, some modifications
were done to existing Audit Plus
software, however these enhancements
are not a new ‘‘product’’ but rather are
enhancements to an existing system.
The sophistication of the work
involved is not an issue in ascertaining
whether the petitioning workers are
eligible for trade adjustment assistance,
but whether they produce an article
within the meaning of section 222 of the
Trade Act of 1974.
Research, development and technical
support of the existing software is not
considered production of an article
within the meaning of Section 222 of
the Trade Act. Further, while the
provision of services may result in
creation of software, as outlined by the
petitioner, it is incidental to the
provision of services. The Department
has consistently determined that those
items which are created incidental to
the provision of services are not
considered articles for purposes of the
Trade Act.
The investigation on reconsideration
supported the findings of the primary
investigation that the petitioning group
of workers does not produce an article.
Service workers can be certified only
if worker separations are caused by a
reduced demand for their services from
a parent or controlling firm or
subdivision whose workers produce an
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:36 Oct 31, 2006
Jkt 211001
article domestically who meet the
eligibility requirements, or if the group
of workers are leased workers who
perform their duties at a facility that
meet the eligibility requirements.
The petitioner’s alleges that the work
performed by the workers of the subject
firm has been shifted to India.
The company official stated that
developments for the Audit Plus bill
review system enhancements or fixes
are currently performed on-site and
have not been moved abroad. The
official also stated that there are
currently no firm target dates to move
this work offshore.
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 25th day of
October, 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–18353 Filed 10–31–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–59,520]
LeeMAH Electronics, Inc., San
Francisco, CA; Notice of Revised
Determination on Reconsideration
By letter dated August 23, 2006, a
petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration regarding the
Department’s Negative Determination
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance,
applicable to the workers of the subject
firm.
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination signed on July
20, 2006 was based on the finding that
there were no increased imports of
printed circuit boards and cable
assemblies and there was no shift of
production to a foreign source during
the relevant period. The workers were
separately identifiable by product. The
denial notice was published in the
Federal Register on August 4, 2006 (71
FR 44320).
To support the request for
reconsideration, the petitioner supplied
additional information regarding
company imports of like or directly
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
64301
competitive products with those
produced at the subject firm.
The review of the case revealed that
workers of the subject firm produce
printed circuit boards at a plant on
Folsom Street and cable assemblies at a
plant on Pacific Avenue and that
workers are separately identifiable by
product line and location.
Upon further contact with the subject
firm’s company official, it was revealed
that the subject firm decreased domestic
production of printed circuit boards,
while increasing its reliance on imports
of printed circuit boards from 2004 to
2005 and from January through May of
2006 when compared with the same
period in 2005.
The investigation also revealed that
workers of LeeMAH Electronics, Inc.,
San Francisco, California, may be
eligible for TAA on the basis of a
secondary upstream supplier impact.
The Department conducted an
investigation of subject firm workers on
the basis of secondary impact. It was
revealed that LeeMAH Electronics, Inc.,
San Francisco, California supplied cable
assemblies for production of test,
measurement and radio equipment, and
at least 20 percent of its production or
sales is supplied to a manufacturer
whose workers were certified eligible to
apply for adjustment assistance.
In accordance with Section 246 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as
amended, the Department of Labor
herein presents the results of its
investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance (ATAA) for older
workers.
In order for the Department to issue
a certification of eligibility to apply for
ATAA, the group eligibility
requirements of Section 246 of the
Trade Act must be met. The Department
has determined in this case that the
requirements of Section 246 have been
met.
A significant number of workers at the
firm are age 50 or over and possess
skills that are not easily transferable.
Competitive conditions within the
industry are adverse.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional
facts obtained on reconsideration, I
conclude that increased imports of
articles like or directly competitive with
circuit boards produced at LeeMAH
Electronics, Inc., San Francisco,
California, contributed importantly to
the declines in sales or production and
to the total or partial separation of
workers at the subject firm. Also, after
careful review of the facts obtained in
the investigation, I determine that
E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM
01NON1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64300-64301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18353]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-59,500]
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (CGLIC), Cigna
Healthcare Service Operations, Philadelphia, PA; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated August 17, 2006 a petitioner 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). The
denial notice applicable to workers of Connecticut General Life
Insurance Company (CGLIC), Cigna Healthcare Service Operations,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was signed on July 24, 2006 and published in
the Federal Register on August 14, 2006 (71 FR 46519).
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 TAA petition filed on behalf of workers at Connecticut General
Life Insurance Company (CGLIC), Cigna Healthcare Service Operations,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania engaged in computer support for CIGNA's
Disability Management IT (support, basic Application development
support, coding and systems testing, and customer help desk support)
was denied because the STpetitioning workers did not produce an article
within the meaning of Section 222 of the Act.
The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its
interpretation of work performed at the subject facility as providing a
service and further conveys that workers of the subject firm created
various software for sale or lease to customers. The petitioner
included the name of a customer who purchased/leased Disability
Management software from the subject firm, thus concluding that workers
of the subject firm were supporting this customer.
[[Page 64301]]
A company official was contacted for clarification in regard to the
nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The official
stated that workers of the subject firm were employed by Connecticut
General Life Insurance Company (CGLIC) that supports CIGNA's Disability
Management Business at Intracorp, CIGNA disability management company.
The official clarified that Intracorp is not in the business of
manufacturing Disability Management software for sale to third parties.
Workers of the subject firm provided system support for Intracorp,
which sells case management services to workers' compensation insurers,
employers who self fund workers' compensation and disability benefits,
and third party administrator. All software developed by workers of the
subject firm is used to support this service business. In addition to
case management, Intracorp developed its own automated medical bill
review service and this software program is also used externally by the
subject firm for its business. The official further clarified that
there is only one instance when a customer temporarily leases software
developed by Intracorp to perform its own bill review services. This
customer did not purchase this software. When the software was leased
to this customer, some modifications were done to existing Audit Plus
software, however these enhancements are not a new ``product'' but
rather are enhancements to an existing system.
The sophistication of the work involved is not an issue in
ascertaining whether the petitioning workers are eligible for trade
adjustment assistance, but whether they produce an article within the
meaning of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Research, development and technical support of the existing
software is not considered production of an article within the meaning
of Section 222 of the Trade Act. Further, while the provision of
services may result in creation of software, as outlined by the
petitioner, it is incidental to the provision of services. The
Department has consistently determined that those items which are
created incidental to the provision of services are not considered
articles for purposes of the Trade Act.
The investigation on reconsideration supported the findings of the
primary investigation that the petitioning group of workers does not
produce an article.
Service workers can be certified only if worker separations are
caused by a reduced demand for their services from a parent or
controlling firm or subdivision whose workers produce an article
domestically who meet the eligibility requirements, or if the group of
workers are leased workers who perform their duties at a facility that
meet the eligibility requirements.
The petitioner's alleges that the work performed by the workers of
the subject firm has been shifted to India.
The company official stated that developments for the Audit Plus
bill review system enhancements or fixes are currently performed on-
site and have not been moved abroad. The official also stated that
there are currently no firm target dates to move this work offshore.
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 25th day of October, 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6-18353 Filed 10-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
