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

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The determination was issued on February 4, 2009 and will soon be published in the Federal Register. The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the finding that the worker group engaged in IT sales, consulting and support services, does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(a)(2) of the Act. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information regarding activities of the workers at the subject facility. The petitioners stated that workers of the subject firm produced software which was sold to customers. The Department has carefully reviewed the request for reconsideration and determined that the Department will conduct further investigation to determine whether the workers of the subject firm were engaged in production of articles and whether they meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974. Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. Department of Labor’s prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of March 2009. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–5181 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES [TA–W–63,344] General Motors Corporation, Moraine Assembly Plant, Vehicle Manufacturing Division, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Allied Systems, Ltd and Securitas, Moraine, OH; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:01 Mar 10, 2009 Jkt 217001 Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on June 5, 2008, applicable to workers of General Motors Corporation, Moraine Assembly Plant, Vehicle Manufacturing Division, Moraine, Ohio. The notice was published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2008 (73 FR 35164). The certification was amended on December 4, 2008 to include on-site leased workers from Allied Systems, Ltd. The notice was published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2008 (73 FR 76057–76058). At the request of a petitioner, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers assemble Buick Rainiers, Chevrolet TrailBlazers, GMC Envoys, Isuzu Ascenders and Saab 9–7Xs. New information shows that workers leased from Securitas were employed on-site at the Moraine, Ohio location of General Motors Corporation, Moraine Assembly Plant, Vehicle Manufacturing Division. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include leased workers from Securitas working on-site at the Moraine Assembly Plant, Vehicle Manufacturing Division, Moraine, Ohio location of the subject firm. The amended notice applicable to TA–W–63,344 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of General Motors Corporation, Moraine Assembly Plant, Vehicle Manufacturing Division, including on-site leased workers from Allied Systems, LTD, and Securitas, Moraine, Ohio, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 17, 2008, through June 5, 2010, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of February 2008. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–5173 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10617 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 E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM 11MRN1 10618 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices 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 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES 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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:01 Mar 10, 2009 separated from employment on or after June 18, 2007, through July 16, 2010, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.’’ DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–63,575] Philips Consumer Lifestyle, Including On-Site Leased Workers From Ryder Integrated Logistics, Ledgewood, NJ; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on July 16, 2008, applicable to workers of Philips Consumer Lifestyle, Ledgewood, New Jersey. The notice was published in the Federal Register on July 30, 2008 (73 FR 44284). The certification was amended on September 12, 2008 to include employees of the subject firm working at various locations in multiple States (TA–W–63,575A—TA–W–63,575H). The notice was published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2008 (73 FR 54859–54860). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of antennas and packaged electronic accessories. New information shows that workers leased from Ryder Integrated Logistics were employed on-site at the Ledgewood, New Jersey location of Philips Consumer Lifestyle. The Department has determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject firm to be considered leased workers. Based on these findings, the Department is amending this certification to include workers leased from Ryder Integrated Logistics working on-site at the Ledgewood, New Jersey location of the subject firm. The intent of the Department’s certification is to include all workers of Philips Consumer Lifestyle who were adversely affected by a shift in production of antennas and packaged electronic accessories to China. The amended notice applicable to TA–W–63,575 is hereby issued as follows: ‘‘All workers of Philips Consumer Lifestyle, including on-site leased workers from Ryder Integrated Logistics, Ledgewood, New Jersey, who became totally or partially Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of March 2009. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E9–5174 Filed 3–10–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–64,442] Technology Associates, Inc., D/B/A Ranal Measurement Point Division, Auburn, MI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated January 22, 2009, workers requested administrative reconsideration of the Department’s negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of Technologies Associates Inc., d/b/a Ranal, Measurement Point division, Auburn, Michigan (subject firm) to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The negative determination was issued on December 24, 2008. The Department’s Notice of negative determination was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2009 (74 FR 2139). The workers perform engineering service related to measurement points on component parts for the automotive industry. The denial was based on the finding that the subject firm does not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(a)(2) of the Act. The workers’ request for reconsideration stated that ‘‘the petitioners were support personnel to General Motors * * * General Motors has trained workers in India to perform functions that we use[d] to perform and shipped work there. * * * If work was not being disbursed to India that work would be available to domestic workers.’’ Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c), administrative 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; E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM 11MRN1

Agencies

[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