Gensym Corporation, a Subsidiary of Versata Enterprises, Inc., Burlington, MA; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 19997 [E9-9938]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Notices
separate or threaten to separate a
significant number or proportion of
workers as required by Section 222 of
the Trade Act of 1974. The denial notice
was published in the Federal Register
on February 2, 2009 (74 FR 5871).
In the request for reconsideration, the
company official provided additional
information regarding employment and
layoffs at the subject firm. The company
official confirmed that employment at
the subject facility declined
significantly in December, 2008 and
further declined in January, 2009. The
investigation also revealed that sales
and production at the subject firm
declined from January through
November 2008 over the corresponding
2007 period.
Furthermore, the Department
conducted a survey of the major
declining customers regarding their
purchases of upholstered furniture in
2006, 2007, January through November,
2007 and January through November,
2008. The survey of the major declining
customers revealed that the customers
increased their reliance on imported
upholstered furniture during the
relevant period.
In accordance with Section 246 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
those produced at Century Furniture,
LLC, Chair Upholstery Campus and
Upholstery Division, Hickory, North
Carolina, contributed importantly to the
declines in sales or production and to
the total or partial separation of workers
at the subject firm. In accordance with
the provisions of the Act, I make the
following certification:
‘‘All workers of Century Furniture, LLC,
Chair Upholstery Campus and Upholstery
Division, Hickory, North Carolina, who
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:35 Apr 29, 2009
Jkt 217001
became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after December 11, 2007,
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 20th day of
April 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–9930 Filed 4–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–64,591]
Gensym Corporation, a Subsidiary of
Versata Enterprises, Inc., Burlington,
MA; Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration
On March 2, 2009, the Department
issued an Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration for the workers and
former workers of the subject firm. The
notice was published in the Federal
Register on March 11, 2009 (74 FR
10616–10617).
The initial investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
finding that worker group does not
produce an article within the meaning
of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The investigation revealed that workers
of Gensym Corporation, a subsidiary of
Versata Enterprises, Inc., Burlington,
Massachusetts were engaged in IT sales,
consulting, customer support services,
finance and human resources services.
In the request for reconsideration the
petitioner contends that the Department
erred in its interpretation of the work
performed by the workers of the subject
firm. The petitioner states that workers
of the subject firm produced several
software products, such as G2, Rethink
and Neuron-line.
On reconsideration, the Department
contacted a company official and
requested additional information
regarding the production of software by
Gensym Corporation and whether
workers of the subject firm were
engaged in production of the above
mentioned products during the relevant
period.
The company official stated that the
workers of the subject firm did produce
software. However, the company official
also stated that all software products,
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19997
including the software mentioned by the
petitioner in the request for
reconsideration, were designed and
developed prior to October 2007. The
company official further provided
information to confirm that no
production of software took place at the
subject firm during the relevant period.
When assessing eligibility for TAA,
the Department exclusively considers
production during the relevant period
(one year prior to the date of the
petition). Events occurring prior to
October 2007 are outside of the relevant
time period as established by the
petition date of December 2, 2008, and
thus cannot be considered in this
investigation.
The investigation revealed that during
the relevant period, the workers of
Gensym Corporation, a subsidiary of
Versata Enterprises, Inc., Burlington,
Massachusetts, sold licenses to already
established products, provided
customer support and enhancement
services for the licensed software and
performed finance and human resources
services.
These functions, as described above,
are not considered production of an
article within the meaning of Section
222 of the Trade Act. No production
took place at the subject facility during
the relevant period, nor did the workers
support production of an article at any
domestic location during the relevant
period.
The petitioner also alleges that job
functions have been shifted from the
subject firm to India, China and Mexico.
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
Gensym Corporation, a subsidiary of
Versata Enterprises, Inc., Burlington,
Massachusetts, do not produce an
article within the meaning of Section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the
original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for
worker adjustment assistance for
workers and former workers of Gensym
Corporation, a subsidiary of Versata
Enterprises, Inc., Burlington,
Massachusetts.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of
April 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9–9938 Filed 4–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
E:\FR\FM\30APN1.SGM
30APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 82 (Thursday, April 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 19997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9938]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-64,591]
Gensym Corporation, a Subsidiary of Versata Enterprises, Inc.,
Burlington, MA; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration
On March 2, 2009, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers
and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the
Federal Register on March 11, 2009 (74 FR 10616-10617).
The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the finding that worker group does not produce an article
within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. The
investigation revealed that workers of Gensym Corporation, a subsidiary
of Versata Enterprises, Inc., Burlington, Massachusetts were engaged in
IT sales, consulting, customer support services, finance and human
resources services.
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner contends that the
Department erred in its interpretation of the work performed by the
workers of the subject firm. The petitioner states that workers of the
subject firm produced several software products, such as G2, Rethink
and Neuron-line.
On reconsideration, the Department contacted a company official and
requested additional information regarding the production of software
by Gensym Corporation and whether workers of the subject firm were
engaged in production of the above mentioned products during the
relevant period.
The company official stated that the workers of the subject firm
did produce software. However, the company official also stated that
all software products, including the software mentioned by the
petitioner in the request for reconsideration, were designed and
developed prior to October 2007. The company official further provided
information to confirm that no production of software took place at the
subject firm during the relevant period.
When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively
considers production during the relevant period (one year prior to the
date of the petition). Events occurring prior to October 2007 are
outside of the relevant time period as established by the petition date
of December 2, 2008, and thus cannot be considered in this
investigation.
The investigation revealed that during the relevant period, the
workers of Gensym Corporation, a subsidiary of Versata Enterprises,
Inc., Burlington, Massachusetts, sold licenses to already established
products, provided customer support and enhancement services for the
licensed software and performed finance and human resources services.
These functions, as described above, are not considered production
of an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. No
production took place at the subject facility during the relevant
period, nor did the workers support production of an article at any
domestic location during the relevant period.
The petitioner also alleges that job functions have been shifted
from the subject firm to India, China and Mexico.
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 Gensym
Corporation, a subsidiary of Versata Enterprises, Inc., Burlington,
Massachusetts, do not produce an article within the meaning of Section
222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance
for workers and former workers of Gensym Corporation, a subsidiary of
Versata Enterprises, Inc., Burlington, Massachusetts.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of April 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-9938 Filed 4-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
