LeeMAH Electronics, Inc., San Francisco, CA; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration, 64301-64302 [E6-18354]
Download as PDF
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
64302
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 211 / Wednesday, November 1, 2006 / Notices
workers of Electronics, Inc., San
Francisco, California engaged the
production of cable assemblies qualify
as adversely affected secondary workers
under Section 222 of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended. In accordance with
the provisions of the Act, I make the
following certification:
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
All workers of LeeMAH Electronics, Inc.,
San Francisco, California, who became
totally or partially separated from
employment on or after June 2, 2005 through
two years from the date of this certification,
are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974,
and are eligible to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of
the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 25th day of
October 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6–18354 Filed 10–31–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
Investigations Regarding Certifications
of Eligibility To Apply For Worker
Adjustment Assistance And
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance
Petitions have been filed with the
Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a)
of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and
are identified in the Appendix to this
notice. Upon receipt of these petitions,
the Director of the Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance, Employment
and Training Administration, has
instituted investigations pursuant to
Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the
investigations is to determine whether
the workers are eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Title II,
Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations
will further relate, as appropriate, to the
determination of the date on which total
or partial separations began or
threatened to begin and the subdivision
of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons
showing a substantial interest in the
subject matter of the investigations may
request a public hearing, provided such
request is filed in writing with the
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment
Assistance, at the address shown below,
not later than November 13, 2006.
Interested persons are invited to submit
written comments regarding the subject
matter of the investigations to the
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment
Assistance, at the address shown below,
not later than November 13, 2006.
The petitions filed in this case are
available for inspection at the Office of
the Director, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance, Employment
and Training Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, Room C–5311, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of
October 2006.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
APPENDIX—30 TAA
[Petitions Instituted Between 10/16/06 and 10/20/06]
Subject firm
(petitioners)
Location
R.L. Stowe Mills, Inc. (Comp). ........................................................................
Weyerhaeuser Cosmopolis Pulp Mill (Union). ................................................
Advanced Technology Services (Wkrs). .........................................................
Werner Co. (Comp). ........................................................................................
ADVO (Comp). ................................................................................................
Senco Products (Wkrs). ..................................................................................
Canvas Products (Union). ...............................................................................
Shogren Hosiery Mfg. Co., Inc. (Comp). .........................................................
Metaldyne (Comp). ..........................................................................................
Consolidated Metco, Inc. (IAM). ......................................................................
Textron Fastening Systems (Wkrs). ................................................................
Eaton Corporation (Wkrs). ...............................................................................
Benchmark Electronics (Wkrs). .......................................................................
Woodbridge Corporation (Wkrs). .....................................................................
Burris Manufacturing, Inc. (Comp). .................................................................
Georgia Pacific Corp. (State). .........................................................................
Clout Financial Services, Inc. (Wkrs). .............................................................
Paramount Cards, Inc. (State). .......................................................................
Freedom Industries (Comp). ...........................................................................
Ibase (Comp). ..................................................................................................
Physical Rehab Works (State). .......................................................................
Hanesbrands, Inc. (Comp). .............................................................................
Guide Corp. (State). ........................................................................................
Harte Hanks Marketing Intelligence (Wkrs). ...................................................
AAR Cargo Systems (Comp). .........................................................................
Beard Hosiery Co., Inc. (Comp). .....................................................................
Town of Hartland (Comp). ...............................................................................
Elder Manufacturing, Inc. (Wkrs). ....................................................................
Micro Motion, Inc. (State). ...............................................................................
Southern Glove Manufacturing Co., Inc. (Comp). ...........................................
Belmont, NC ................
Cosmopolis, WA ..........
Vinita, OK ....................
Franklin Park, IL ..........
Pittsburgh, PA .............
Cincinnati, OH .............
Detroit, MI ...................
Concord, NC ...............
St. Marys, PA ..............
Clackamas, OR ...........
Wytheville, VA .............
Auburn, IN ...................
Hudson, NH ................
Lithonia, GA ................
Albemarle, NC .............
Crossett, AR ................
Bloomington, IN ..........
Pawtucket, RI ..............
Liberty, MS ..................
Austin, TX ...................
Herrin, IL .....................
Winston-Salem, NC .....
Monroe, LA .................
Troy, MI .......................
Livonia, MI ...................
Lenoir, NC ...................
Hartland, ME ...............
St. Louis, MO ..............
Boulder, CO ................
Conover, NC ...............
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
TA–W
60245
60246
60247
60248
60249
60250
60251
60252
60253
60254
60255
60256
60257
60258
60259
60260
60261
60262
60263
60264
60265
60266
60267
60268
60269
60270
60271
60272
60273
60274
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
VerDate Aug<31>2005
20:45 Oct 31, 2006
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\01NON1.SGM
01NON1
Date of
institution
10/16/06
10/16/06
10/16/06
10/16/06
10/16/06
10/17/06
10/17/06
10/17/06
10/18/06
10/18/06
10/18/06
10/18/06
10/18/06
10/18/06
10/18/06
10/18/06
10/18/06
10/19/06
10/19/06
10/19/06
10/19/06
10/19/06
10/20/06
10/20/06
10/20/06
10/20/06
10/20/06
10/20/06
10/20/06
10/20/06
Date of
petition
10/12/06
10/12/06
10/13/06
10/13/06
10/16/06
09/21/06
10/16/06
10/17/06
10/12/06
10/17/06
10/16/06
10/16/06
10/16/06
10/18/06
10/18/06
10/17/06
10/18/06
10/18/06
10/18/06
10/10/06
10/18/06
10/13/06
10/19/06
09/22/06
10/17/06
10/19/06
10/18/06
10/19/06
10/19/06
10/20/06
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 211 (Wednesday, November 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64301-64302]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-18354]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
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
[[Page 64302]]
workers of Electronics, Inc., San Francisco, California engaged the
production of cable assemblies qualify as adversely affected secondary
workers under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. In
accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following
certification:
All workers of LeeMAH Electronics, Inc., San Francisco,
California, who became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after June 2, 2005 through two years from the date
of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are
eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 25th day of October 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6-18354 Filed 10-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P