Nikko America, Plano, TX; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 10617-10618 [E9-5178]

Agencies

• Employment and Training Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10617-10618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5178]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,393]


Nikko America, Plano, TX; Notice of Negative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated January 22, 2009, 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) and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The denial notice was 
signed on January 6, 2009 and published in the Federal Register on 
February 2, 2009 (74 FR 5871).
    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 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The TAA petition filed on behalf of workers at Nikko America, 
Plano, Texas 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 in the request for reconsideration contends that the 
Department erred in its interpretation of the work performed by the 
workers of the subject firm. The petitioner stated that workers of the 
subject firm ``were responsible for final assembly of some products'', 
including ``putting batteries in the boxes where the toys were already 
located and placing decal stickers on the toys, taping them back up and 
distributing these products''. The petitioner further stated that Nikko 
decreased production of toys in 2008 and decided to import products 
directly to consumers bypassing the distribution center.
    The investigation revealed that workers of Nikko America, Plano, 
Texas were engaged in warehousing, sales, distribution and service of 
radio controlled toys during the relevant period. No articles were 
produced by Nikko America in the United States. The subject firm 
imported all the products

[[Page 10618]]

from subsidiaries of its parent company abroad. The investigation 
revealed that workers performed some light repair functions of 
products, repackaged and shipped imported products, provided customer 
service and performed warehousing services. The functions, as described 
above, are not considered production of an article within the meaning 
of Section 222 of the Trade Act. While the provision of warehousing and 
distribution services may result in repair and repackaging of the 
products, it is incidental to the provision of these services. No 
production took place at the subject facility nor did the workers 
support production of an article at any domestic affiliated location 
during the relevant period.
    The petitioner alleges that increased imports of toys negatively 
impacted workers at the subject facility.
    The allegation of the increase in imports of toys would have been 
relevant, if it was determined that workers of the subject firm 
manufactured toys. The workers were engaged in warehousing, sales and 
distribution of imported products. Therefore, increase in imports of 
toys is irrelevant to this investigation.
    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 at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of March 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-5178 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P