Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc., Engineering and Technology Division, Hillsdale, MI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 22172 [E8-8983]

Agencies

• Employment and Training Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 80 (Thursday, April 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 22172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-8983]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,698]


Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc., Engineering and Technology 
Division, Hillsdale, MI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated March 6, 2008, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the 
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on February 8, 2008 and 
published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2008 (73 FR 9836).
    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 negative TAA determination issued by the Department for workers 
of Bodycote Materials Testing, Inc., Engineering and Technology 
Division, Hillsdale, Michigan was based on the finding that the worker 
group does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of 
the Trade Act of 1974.
    The petitioner states that services provided by workers at the 
subject firm ``are integral to the production of an automobile''. The 
petitioner further states that the workers of the subject firm 
``produce data (written certification) that is used to determine if the 
product does meet the requirements.''
    The petitioner alleges that because all manufacturers of automotive 
products are required to test their products independently using the 
services provided by such companies as Bodycote Materials Testing, 
Inc., workers of the subject firm who provide the testing services 
should be certified eligible for TAA.
    The investigation revealed that the workers of Bodycote Materials 
Testing, Inc., Engineering and Technology Division, Hillsdale, Michigan 
are engaged in testing services to the automotive, appliance, and 
general industrial markets. These functions, as described above, are 
not considered production of an article within the meaning of Section 
222 of the Trade Act.
    Any incidental documents, such as written certifications, generated 
as a result of testing of the equipment are incidental to the services 
provided by the subject firm. The fact that a written record is 
generated in the process does not make the service firm a production 
firm and these documents do not constitute production of an article for 
purposes of the Trade Act.
    The petitioner also states that Bodycote intends to move jobs to 
Mexico and Canada.
    The allegation of a shift to another country might be relevant if 
it was determined that workers of the subject firm produced an article. 
However, the investigation determined that workers of Bodycote 
Materials Testing, Inc., Engineering and Technology Division, 
Hillsdale, Michigan do not produce an article within the meaning of 
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
    The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor 
provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a 
mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or (2) 
a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration 
of the initial determination.
    After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the 
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

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 26th day of March 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E8-8983 Filed 4-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P