Sun Microsystems, Inc., Louisville, CO; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 67968-67970 [E7-23372]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
67968
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 231 / Monday, December 3, 2007 / Notices
APPENDIX—Continued
[TAA petitions instituted between 11/13/07 and 11/16/07]
Subject firm
(Petitioners)
Location
Springfield Wire, Inc. (Comp) .........................................
Only In USA (State) .......................................................
Hutchens Industries, Inc. (State) ....................................
Thermo Pressed Laminates (Comp) ..............................
Amweld Building Products (Comp) ................................
Universal Tire Mold (Wkrs) ............................................
Enhance America of Missouri, Inc. (Wkrs) ....................
Franklin Pump Systems, Inc. (State) .............................
Engineered Plastic Components (Wkrs) ........................
Hyper Knits Sales, Inc. (Comp) .....................................
B and C Research, Inc. (State) ......................................
US Aprons, Inc. (Wkrs) ..................................................
VWR International (Wkrs) ..............................................
Springs Global, US, Inc. (Comp) ...................................
BMI Electronics, Inc. (State) ..........................................
AGY (UNITE) ..................................................................
Corsair Memory (Comp) .................................................
Pfizer Global Manufacturing (State) ...............................
Siemens (State) ..............................................................
Nutra Max (Comp) ..........................................................
Springfield, MA .........................................
Los Angeles, CA ......................................
Mansfield, MO ..........................................
Klamath Falls, OR ....................................
Garrettsville, OH .......................................
Corinth, MS ..............................................
Washington, MO ......................................
Little Rock, AR .........................................
Rantoul, IL ................................................
New York, NY ..........................................
Barberton, OH ..........................................
Sidney, NE ...............................................
Bridgeport, NJ ..........................................
Lancaster, SC ..........................................
Hardaway, AL ..........................................
Huntingdon, PA ........................................
Fremont, CA .............................................
Croton, CT ...............................................
Huntsville, AL ...........................................
Houston, TX .............................................
TA–W
62456
62457
62458
62459
62460
62461
62462
62463
62464
62465
62466
62467
62468
62469
62470
62471
62472
62473
62474
62475
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
[FR Doc. E7–23371 Filed 11–30–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA–W–62,211]
Employment and Training
Administration
Strick Corporation Monroe, IN; Notice
of Termination of Investigation
[TA–W–62,413]
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on
September 27, 2007 in response to a
petition filed by a company official on
behalf of workers at Strick Corporation,
Monroe, Indiana.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Simclar (North America), Inc.;
Winterville, NC; Notice of Termination
of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on November
6, 2007, in response to a worker petition
filed by a company official on behalf of
workers of Simclar (North America),
Inc., Winterville, North Carolina.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of
November 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–23379 Filed 11–30–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–60,827]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of
November 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–23374 Filed 11–30–07; 8:45 am]
Sun Microsystems, Inc., Louisville, CO;
Notice of Negative Determination on
Reconsideration
By application dated April 15, 2007,
a worker requested administrative
reconsideration. The request for
reconsideration alleged that the subject
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:17 Nov 30, 2007
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Date of
institution
11/14/07
11/14/07
11/14/07
11/14/07
11/14/07
11/14/07
11/14/07
11/14/07
11/14/07
11/14/07
11/15/07
11/15/07
11/15/07
11/15/07
11/16/07
11/16/07
11/16/07
11/16/07
11/16/07
11/16/07
Date of
petition
11/09/07
11/06/07
11/08/07
11/08/07
11/02/07
11/13/07
11/08/07
11/13/07
11/02/07
11/13/07
11/14/07
11/14/07
11/14/07
11/13/07
11/15/07
10/29/07
11/09/07
11/15/07
11/14/07
11/14/07
firm shifted production and support
functions abroad. On May 27, 2007, the
Department issued a Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of Sun
Microsystems, Inc., Louisville, Colorado
(the subject firm). The Department’s
Notice of Affirmative Determination was
published in the Federal Register on
June 7, 2007 (72 FR 31614).
The worker-filed petition for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA) identified the
appropriate subdivision employing the
workers group as ‘‘Sun Microsystems,
Louisville, Colorado,’’ the articles
produced at the subject firm as ‘‘high
tech computer storage devices,’’ and the
subject worker group as workers
engaged in ‘‘Production AME + R+D
(Inspection).’’ The petitioners stated that
their work has been ‘‘outsourced to
Mexico and possible Hungary.’’
Because the petition is dated January
19, 2007, the relevant period is January
19, 2006 through January 18, 2007.
The initial negative determination
(issued March 14, 2007) stated that the
subject firm ‘‘did not shift work
performed in Louisville, Colorado
abroad, nor did it shift production from
its manufacturing facility in Puerto Rico
to a foreign country;’’ that the parent
entity, Sun Microsystems (Sun), sold the
Puerto Rico facility to another firm,
‘‘thus curtailing the need for support
persons’’ at the subject firm; and that
‘‘separations of workers at the Louisville
location are in great part attributable to
E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM
03DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 231 / Monday, December 3, 2007 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
a worldwide company restructuring and
reduction in workforce.’’
A document attached to a petition
(dated February 6, 2007, and filed on
behalf of the same worker group)
explained that, as a result of Sun’s
acquisition of StorageTek Classic
(StorageTek), certain staff positions in
the Storage Operations organization
were eliminated. For example,
StorageTek’s products and their
associated business processes, tools and
systems would be merged with Sun’s
products and their associated business
processes, tools and systems; the supply
chain management and materials
organizations for Sun and StorageTek
would be consolidated into a single
team; Sun’s manufacturing and support
activities in Puerto Rico would be
outsourced in September 2006 to a
contract manufacturer; and the staff that
supported Sun’s Puerto Rico facility
would be eliminated since the contract
manufacturer would be taking over
those functions.
According to previously-submitted
information, StorageTek was a company
with production facilities in Puerto Rico
and a pre-production facility in
Louisville, Colorado. The information
also revealed that after Sun acquired
StorageTek in August 2005, Sun ceased
to operate the manufacturing facility in
Puerto Rico and that those workers at
the Louisville, Colorado facility who
supported the Puerto Rico facility were
separated.
Because the subject workers inspected
sheetmetal parts, cables, harnesses, tape
rollers, motherboards, personal
computer boards, and disk drives during
the relevant period, and the workers are
not separately identifiable by product
line, the Department determines that the
subject workers are engaged in the
production of inspected component
parts of computer storage devices.
In order for a TAA certification to be
issued, the subject workers must meet
the group eligibility requirements under
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended. The applicable requirements
can be satisfied in one of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A)—
A. 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; and
B. the sales or production, or both, of
such firm or subdivision have decreased
absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with articles
produced by such firm or subdivision
have contributed importantly to such
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:17 Nov 30, 2007
Jkt 214001
workers’ separation or threat of
separation and to the decline in sales or
production of such firm or subdivision;
or
II. Section (a)(2)(B)—
A. 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; and
B. 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
C. One of the following must be
satisfied:
1. 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; or
2. 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
3. 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.
Previously-submitted information
revealed that the subject firm’s
employment level declined more than
five percent from the corresponding
period the previous year, the
Department determines that a
significant number or proportion of the
workers at the subject firm has become
totally or partially separated. Because
the subject firm has ceased to inspect
component parts of computer storage
devices, the Department determines
that, during the relevant period, the
subject firm’s production of inspected
component parts of computer storage
devices have decreased absolutely.
Because the employment decline and
the production decline criteria were
met, the Department focused the
reconsideration investigation on
whether either Section (a)(2)(A)(C) or
Section (a)(2)(B)(B) and Section
(a)(2)(B)(C) were met.
The first issue is whether, during the
relevant period, the subject firm shifted
production of inspected component
parts of computer storage devices to a
country that is a party to a free trade
agreement with the United States or a
beneficiary country under the Andean
Trade Preference Act, African Growth
and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean
Basin Economic Recovery Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67969
Sun officials confirmed that after Sun
acquired StorageTek in August 2005, it
ceased to operate the facility in Puerto
Rico. The official also stated that,
pursuant to a September 2006
agreement between Sun and a domestic
contract manufacturer, the contract
manufacturer is performing production
and inspection work at Sun’s Puerto
Rico facility. As such, the Department
determines that the subject firm did not
shift production to a foreign country;
rather, the inspection work that was
done by the subject workers is being
done by the afore-mentioned contract
manufacturer in Puerto Rico.
Even if the subject firm shifted
inspection work to Puerto Rico, the
subject workers would not be eligible to
apply for TAA benefits because Puerto
Rico is a U.S. Territory and is not a
foreign country.
The second issue is whether, during
the relevant period, increased imports of
articles like or directly competitive with
the inspected component parts
produced at the subject firm contributed
importantly to the subject workers’
separations.
During the reconsideration
investigation, Sun officials confirmed
that Sun’s Louisville, Colorado facility
did not import articles like or directly
competitive with the component parts
produced at the subject firm. Because
the inspected component parts
produced at the subject firm were sent
to Puerto Rico to be assembled, the Sun
officials also confirmed that while it
controlled the Puerto Rico facility
during the relevant period, the Puerto
Rico facility did not import any articles
like or directly competitive with the
component parts produced at the
subject firm. Further, the contract
manufacturer who took over production
at the Puerto Rico facility provided
information that revealed no imports of
articles like or directly competitive with
the component parts produced at the
subject firm.
Because the reconsideration
investigation has not produced any
information that support a finding that
the subject workers’ separations are due
to either a shift of production abroad or
increased imports of articles like or
directly competitive with the inspected
component parts produced at the
subject firm, the Department affirms the
initial negative determination.
In order for the Department to issue
a certification of eligibility to apply for
Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance (ATAA), the subject worker
group must be certified eligible to apply
for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).
Since the subject workers are denied
E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM
03DEN1
67970
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 231 / Monday, December 3, 2007 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
operator may petition and the Secretary
of Labor (Secretary) may modify the
application of a mandatory safety
standard to that mine if the Secretary
determines that: (1) An alternative
method exists that will guarantee no
less protection for the miners affected
than that provided by the standard; or
(2) that the application of the standard
will result in a diminution of safety to
the affected miners.
MSHA bases the final decision on the
petitioner’s statements, any comments
and information submitted by interested
persons, and a field investigation of the
conditions at the mine. In some
instances, MSHA may approve a
petition for modification on the
condition that the mine operator
complies with other requirements noted
in the decision.
Mine Safety and Health Administration
II. Granted Petitions for Modification
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers
cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I affirm
the original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of Sun
Microsystems, Inc., Louisville,
Colorado.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of
November 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–23372 Filed 11–30–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
Affirmative Decisions on Petitions for
Modification
Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA), Labor.
ACTION: Notice of Affirmative Decisions
on Petitions for Modification Granted in
Whole or in Part.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) enforces mine
operator compliance with mandatory
safety and health standards that protect
miners and improve safety and health
conditions in U.S. Mines. This Federal
Register Notice (FR Notice) notifies the
public that it has investigated and
issued a final decision on certain mine
operator petitions to modify a safety
standard.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the final decisions
are posted on MSHA’s Web Site at http:
//www.msha.gov/indexes/petition.htm.
The public may inspect the petitions
and final decisions during normal
business hours in MSHA’s Office of
Standards, Regulations, and Variances,
1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2349,
Arlington, Virginia 22209. All visitors
must first stop at the receptionist desk
on the 21st Floor to sign-in.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edward Sexauer, Chief, Regulatory
Development Division at 202–693–9444
(Voice), sexauer.edward@dol.gov (Email), or 202–693–9441 (Telefax), or
Barbara Barron at 202–693–9447
(Voice), barron.barbara@dol.gov (Email), or 202–693–9441 (Telefax).
[These are not toll-free numbers].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Under section 101 of the Federal Mine
Safety and Health Act of 1977, a mine
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:17 Nov 30, 2007
Jkt 214001
On the basis of the findings of
MSHA’s investigation, and as designee
of the Secretary, MSHA has granted or
partially granted the following petitions
for modification:
• Docket Number: M–2005–056–C:
FR Notice: 70 FR 48984 (August 22,
2005).
Petitioner: Hawthorne Coal Company,
Inc., 2708 Cranberry Square,
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505.
Mine: Hawthorne Preparation Plant,
MSHA I.D. No. 46–05544.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 77.214(a)
(Refuse piles; general).
• Docket Number: M–2005–074–C:
FR Notice: 70 FR 71861 (November
30, 2005).
Petitioner: Brooks Run Mining
Company, LLC, 25 Little Birch Road,
Sutton, West Virginia 25601.
Mine: Saylor Mine, MSHA I.D. No.
46–09126.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75.1002
(Installation of electric equipment and
conductors; permissibility).
• Docket Number: M–2005–079–C:
FR Notice: 70 FR 76892 (December 28,
2005).
Petitioner: R S & W Coal Company,
Inc., 207 Creek Road, Klingerstown,
Pennsylvania 17941.
Mine: R S & W Drift Mine, MSHA I.D.
No. 36–01818 .
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 75–
1312(a), (b), and (e)(1) (Explosives and
detonators in underground magazines).
• Docket Number: M–2005–080–C:
FR Notice: 70 FR 76892 (December 28,
2005).
Petitioner: Canyon Fuel Company,
LLC, 397 South 800 West, Salina, Utah
84654.
Mine: West Elk Mine, MSHA I.D. No.
05–03672; SUFCO Mine, MSHA I.D. No.
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42–00089; Skyline Mine No. 3, MSHA
I.D. No. 42–01566; and Dugout Canyon
Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 42–01890.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR
75.1909(b)(6) (Nonpermissible dieselpowered equipment; design and
performance requirements).
• Docket Number: M–2005–085–C:
FR Notice: 71 FR 3890 (January 24,
2006).
Petitioner: Anthracite Underground
Rescue, Inc., 44 Crescent Street,
Tremont, Pennsylvania 17981, for the
following Anthracite Underground Coal
Mines in District 1: R S & W Coal
Company, R S & W Drift Mine, (MSHA
I.D. No. 36–01818); Orchard Coal
Company, Orchard Slope Mine, (MSHA
I.D. No. 36–08346); S & M Coal
Company, Buck Mountain Slope Mine,
(MSHA I.D. No. 36–02022); R & R Coal
Company, R & R Coal Company Mine,
(MSHA I.D. No. 36–08498); R & D Coal
Company, R & D Coal Co., Inc. Mine,
(MSHA I.D. No. 36–02053); F.K.Z. Coal
Company, No. 1 Slope Mine, (MSHA
I.D. No. 36–08637); Snyder Coal
Company, N & L Slope Mine, (MSHA
I.D. No. 36–02203); Joliett Coal
Company, #3 Vein Slope Mine, (MSHA
I.D. No. 36–08702); Tito Coal Company,
Whites Vein Slope Mine, (MSHA I.D.
No. 36–06815); Alfred Brown Coal
Company, 7 Ft. Slope Mine, (MSHA I.D.
No. 36–08893); Chestnut Coal Company,
No. 10 Slope Mine, (MSHA I.D. No. 36–
07059); Six M Coal Company No. 1
Slope Mine, (MSHA I.D. No. 36–09138);
B & B Coal Company, Rockridge No. 1
Slope Mine, (MSHA I.D. No. 36–07741);
Snyder Coal Company, Rock Slope #1
Mine, (MSHA I.D. No. 36–09256); UAE
Coalcorp Association, Harmony Mine,
(MSHA I.D. No. 36–07838); Little Buck
Coal Company, No. 2 Slope Mine,
(MSHA I.D. No. 36–08299); Bear Gap
Coal Company, Bear Gap #6 Slope Mine,
(MSHA I.D. No. 36–09296); D & D
Anthracite Coal Company, Primrose
Slope Mine, (MSHA I.D. No. 36–08341).
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR 49.6(a)(1)
& (5) (Equipment and maintenance
requirements).
• Docket Number: M–2006–008–C:
FR Notice: 71 FR 17145 (April 5,
2006).
Petitioner: Bridger Coal Company,
P.O. Box 68, Point of Rocks, Wyoming
82942.
Mine: Bridger Underground Coal
Mine, MSHA I.D. No. 48–01646.
Regulation Affected: 30 CFR
75.1909(b)(6) (Non-permissible dieselpowered equipment; design and
performance; requirements).
• Docket Number: M–2006–013–C:
FR Notice: 71 FR 28715 (May 17,
2006).
E:\FR\FM\03DEN1.SGM
03DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 231 (Monday, December 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67968-67970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-23372]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-60,827]
Sun Microsystems, Inc., Louisville, CO; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
By application dated April 15, 2007, a worker requested
administrative reconsideration. The request for reconsideration alleged
that the subject firm shifted production and support functions abroad.
On May 27, 2007, the Department issued a Notice of Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers
and former workers of Sun Microsystems, Inc., Louisville, Colorado (the
subject firm). The Department's Notice of Affirmative Determination was
published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2007 (72 FR 31614).
The worker-filed petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) identified the
appropriate subdivision employing the workers group as ``Sun
Microsystems, Louisville, Colorado,'' the articles produced at the
subject firm as ``high tech computer storage devices,'' and the subject
worker group as workers engaged in ``Production AME + R+D
(Inspection).'' The petitioners stated that their work has been
``outsourced to Mexico and possible Hungary.''
Because the petition is dated January 19, 2007, the relevant period
is January 19, 2006 through January 18, 2007.
The initial negative determination (issued March 14, 2007) stated
that the subject firm ``did not shift work performed in Louisville,
Colorado abroad, nor did it shift production from its manufacturing
facility in Puerto Rico to a foreign country;'' that the parent entity,
Sun Microsystems (Sun), sold the Puerto Rico facility to another firm,
``thus curtailing the need for support persons'' at the subject firm;
and that ``separations of workers at the Louisville location are in
great part attributable to
[[Page 67969]]
a worldwide company restructuring and reduction in workforce.''
A document attached to a petition (dated February 6, 2007, and
filed on behalf of the same worker group) explained that, as a result
of Sun's acquisition of StorageTek Classic (StorageTek), certain staff
positions in the Storage Operations organization were eliminated. For
example, StorageTek's products and their associated business processes,
tools and systems would be merged with Sun's products and their
associated business processes, tools and systems; the supply chain
management and materials organizations for Sun and StorageTek would be
consolidated into a single team; Sun's manufacturing and support
activities in Puerto Rico would be outsourced in September 2006 to a
contract manufacturer; and the staff that supported Sun's Puerto Rico
facility would be eliminated since the contract manufacturer would be
taking over those functions.
According to previously-submitted information, StorageTek was a
company with production facilities in Puerto Rico and a pre-production
facility in Louisville, Colorado. The information also revealed that
after Sun acquired StorageTek in August 2005, Sun ceased to operate the
manufacturing facility in Puerto Rico and that those workers at the
Louisville, Colorado facility who supported the Puerto Rico facility
were separated.
Because the subject workers inspected sheetmetal parts, cables,
harnesses, tape rollers, motherboards, personal computer boards, and
disk drives during the relevant period, and the workers are not
separately identifiable by product line, the Department determines that
the subject workers are engaged in the production of inspected
component parts of computer storage devices.
In order for a TAA certification to be issued, the subject workers
must meet the group eligibility requirements under Section 222 of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended. The applicable requirements can be
satisfied in one of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A)--
A. 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; and
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision
have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed
importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to
the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
II. Section (a)(2)(B)--
A. 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; and
B. 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
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. 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; or
2. 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
3. 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.
Previously-submitted information revealed that the subject firm's
employment level declined more than five percent from the corresponding
period the previous year, the Department determines that a significant
number or proportion of the workers at the subject firm has become
totally or partially separated. Because the subject firm has ceased to
inspect component parts of computer storage devices, the Department
determines that, during the relevant period, the subject firm's
production of inspected component parts of computer storage devices
have decreased absolutely.
Because the employment decline and the production decline criteria
were met, the Department focused the reconsideration investigation on
whether either Section (a)(2)(A)(C) or Section (a)(2)(B)(B) and Section
(a)(2)(B)(C) were met.
The first issue is whether, during the relevant period, the subject
firm shifted production of inspected component parts of computer
storage devices to a country that is a party to a free trade agreement
with the United States or a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade
Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean
Basin Economic Recovery Act.
Sun officials confirmed that after Sun acquired StorageTek in
August 2005, it ceased to operate the facility in Puerto Rico. The
official also stated that, pursuant to a September 2006 agreement
between Sun and a domestic contract manufacturer, the contract
manufacturer is performing production and inspection work at Sun's
Puerto Rico facility. As such, the Department determines that the
subject firm did not shift production to a foreign country; rather, the
inspection work that was done by the subject workers is being done by
the afore-mentioned contract manufacturer in Puerto Rico.
Even if the subject firm shifted inspection work to Puerto Rico,
the subject workers would not be eligible to apply for TAA benefits
because Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory and is not a foreign country.
The second issue is whether, during the relevant period, increased
imports of articles like or directly competitive with the inspected
component parts produced at the subject firm contributed importantly to
the subject workers' separations.
During the reconsideration investigation, Sun officials confirmed
that Sun's Louisville, Colorado facility did not import articles like
or directly competitive with the component parts produced at the
subject firm. Because the inspected component parts produced at the
subject firm were sent to Puerto Rico to be assembled, the Sun
officials also confirmed that while it controlled the Puerto Rico
facility during the relevant period, the Puerto Rico facility did not
import any articles like or directly competitive with the component
parts produced at the subject firm. Further, the contract manufacturer
who took over production at the Puerto Rico facility provided
information that revealed no imports of articles like or directly
competitive with the component parts produced at the subject firm.
Because the reconsideration investigation has not produced any
information that support a finding that the subject workers'
separations are due to either a shift of production abroad or increased
imports of articles like or directly competitive with the inspected
component parts produced at the subject firm, the Department affirms
the initial negative determination.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility
to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), the
subject worker group must be certified eligible to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA). Since the subject workers are denied
[[Page 67970]]
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible
for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance for workers and former workers of Sun Microsystems, Inc.,
Louisville, Colorado.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of November 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-23372 Filed 11-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
