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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.