JP Morgan Chase and Company; JP Morgan Investment Banking, Global Corporate Financial Operations, New York, NY; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 3251-3252 [2010-893]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 20, 2010 / Notices
Company, Commercial Aircraft Group.
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 the
certification to include workers leased
from Comforce Corporation, Adecco,
Multax, Inconen, CTS, Hi-Tec, Woods,
Ciber, Kelly Services, Analysts
International Corp, Comsys, Filter LLC,
Excell, Entegee, Chipton-Ross, Ian
Martin, Can-Tech, IT Services, IDEX
Solutions (NW CAD), Media Logic, HL
YOH, Volt, PDS, CDI Corp, Teksystems,
Innovative Systems, Inc., and Murphy &
Associates working on-site at both the
Puget Sound, Washington and Portland,
Oregon locations of The Boeing
Company, Commercial Aircraft Group.
The amended notice applicable to the
TA–W–70,520 and TA–W 70,520A is
hereby issued as follows:
All workers of The Boeing Company,
Commercial Aircraft Group, including on-site
leased workers from Comforce Corporation,
Adecco, Multax, Inconen, CTS, Hi-Tec,
Woods, Ciber, Kelly Services, Analysts
International Corp, Comsys, Filter LLC,
Excell, Entegee, Chipton-Ross, Ian Martin,
Can-Tech, IT Services, IDEX Solutions (NW
CAD), Media Logic, HL YOH, Volt, PDS, CDI
Corp, Teksystems, Innovative Systems, Inc.,
and Murphy & Associates, Puget Sound,
Washington (TA–W–70,520), and Portland,
Oregon (TA–W–70,520A), who became
totally or partially separated from
employment on or after May 22, 2008,
through October 19, 2011, and all workers in
the group threatened with total or partial
separation from employment on date of
certification through two years from the date
of certification, are eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of
Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 8th day of
January 2010.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–899 Filed 1–19–10; 8:45 am]
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
two years from the date of certification, are
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance
under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act
of 1974, as amended.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–71,447]
Applied Materials, Inc., Including OnSite Leased Workers From Adecco
Employment Services, Aerotek, Inc.,
CDI IT Solutions (CDI Corporation),
D&Z Microelectronics, Pentagon
Technology, Proactive Business
Solution, Inc., Technical Resources,
SQA Services and NSTAR, Austin, TX;
Amended Certification Regarding
Eligibility To Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended (‘‘Act’’),
19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor
issued a Certification of Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance on September 30, 2009,
applicable to workers of Applied
Materials, Inc., including on-site leased
workers from Adecco Employment
Services, Aerotek, Inc., CDI IT
Solutions, D&Z Microelectronics,
Pentagon Technology, Proactive
Business Solution, Inc., Technical
Resources, SQA Services and NSTAR,
Austin, Texas. The notice was
published in the Federal Register on
November 17, 2009 (74 FR 59253).
At the request of the State agency, the
Department reviewed the certification
for workers of the subject firm. The
workers are engaged in the production
of semiconductor equipment.
Information shows that on-site leased
workers from CDI IT Solutions had their
wages reported under a separated
unemployment insurance (UI) tax
account for its parent firm, CDI
Corporation.
Accordingly, the Department is
amending this certification to properly
reflect this matter.
The intent of the Department’s
certification is to include all workers of
the subject firm who were adversely
affected by the shift in production of
semiconductor equipment to Singapore.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–71,447 is hereby issued as
follows:
All workers of Applied Materials, Inc.,
including on-site leased workers from
Adecco Employment Services, Aerotek, Inc.,
CDI IT Solutions (CDI Corporation), D&Z
Microelectronics, Pentagon Technology,
Proactive Business Solution, Inc., Technical
Resources, SQA Services, and NSTAR,
Austin, Texas, who became totally or
partially separated from employment on or
after June 25, 2008 through September 30,
2011, and all workers in the group threatened
with total or partial separation from
employment on date of certification through
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Jan 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3251
Signed at Washington, DC this 15th day of
December 2009.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–900 Filed 1–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–71,903]
JP Morgan Chase and Company; JP
Morgan Investment Banking, Global
Corporate Financial Operations, New
York, NY; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
By application dated October 12,
2009, 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 JP Morgan Chase and
Company, JP Morgan Investment
Banking, Global Corporate Financial
Operations, New York, New York. The
Department’s Notice of Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration was signed on
October 27, 2009, and published in the
Federal Register on November 12, 2009
(74 FR 58315).
The investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
finding that workers’ separations or
threat of separations were not related to
an increase in imports or shift/
acquisition of business research and
clerical support operations to/from a
foreign country. The subject firm did
not import services like or directly
competitive with services provided by
workers of the subject firm and did not
shift provision of these services abroad.
In the request for reconsideration the
petitioner alleged that workers worked
for JP Morgan Chase and Company,
Global Corporate Financial Operations
(GCFO), Presentation Production
Services (PPS). The petitioner further
alleged that JP Morgan operates facilities
in Mumbai and Bangalore and that JP
Morgan shifted provision of services
from the subject firm to India.
Specifically, the petitioner alleged that
the bankers of JP Morgan were
instructed to bypass the PPS offices in
the United States and send work
directly to JP Morgan facilities abroad.
E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM
20JAN1
3252
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 20, 2010 / Notices
The Department contacted company
officials of JP Morgan Chase to address
the above allegations. The company
officials confirmed that JP Morgan
Chase has subsidiaries in India and
Argentina which provide additional
support services to bankers of JP Morgan
Chase. The company officials further
stated that bankers were not instructed
to bypass PPS but utilize centers in
Argentina and India as an option if the
local service was not available. The
officials confirmed that JP Morgan
Chase did not shift provision of services
from the subject firm to a foreign
location.
The Department requested
employment information for the foreign
facilities of JP Morgan Chase that
perform services like or directly
competitive with services provided by
workers of the subject firm. The data
revealed that employment at these
facilities declined in 2008 and 2009.
The investigation revealed that the
reduction in business volume caused
the subject firm’s reorganization and
that the layoffs at the subject facility
was not related to increased imports of
business research, clerical support
operations or presentation production
services and there was no shift of these
services abroad during the period under
investigation.
The petitioner further alleged that
workers of the subject firm provided
services to bankers of JP Morgan Chase,
who in turn, provided services to
external clients.
The company official verified that
PPS is an internal service provider only
and that the workers of the subject firm
did not provide services directly to
external clients and vendors.
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.
pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
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 JP
Morgan Chase and Company, JP Morgan
Investment Banking, Global Corporate
Financial Operation, New York, New
York.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:06 Jan 19, 2010
Jkt 220001
Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of
January 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–893 Filed 1–19–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–70,326]
Ford Motor Company, Dearborn Truck
Plant, Dearborn, MI; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
By application dated September 18,
2009, 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 Ford Motor Company,
Dearborn Truck Plant, Dearborn,
Michigan. The Department’s Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding
Application for Reconsideration was
signed on September 29, 2009, and
published in the Federal Register on
October 20, 2009 (74 FR 53766).
The investigation resulted in a
negative determination based on the
finding that workers’ separations or
threat of separations were not related to
an increase in imports of like or directly
competitive products with Ford F Series
pickups and Lincoln Mark LR sportsutility pickups and there was no shift/
acquisition of production of Ford F
Series pickups and Lincoln Mark LR
sports-utility pickups to/from a foreign
country.
The petitioners alleged that
production at the subject facility was
negatively impacted by increased
imports of directly competitive
products. The petition further states that
‘‘any brand of new vehicle available for
purchase’’ should be considered like or
directly competitive with the products
manufactured by the subject firm, thus
imports of all vehicles should be
considered in the investigation.
In order to establish import impact,
the Department solicits relevant
information from the subject firm,
customers of the subject firm and
analyzes available United States
aggregate data regarding imports of
articles, including articles like or
directly competitive with the products
manufactured by the subject firm for the
relevant period (one year prior to the
date of the petition). Like or directly
competitive means that like articles are
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
those which are substantially identical
in inherent or intrinsic characteristics;
and directly competitive articles are
those which, although not substantial
identical, are substantially equivalent
for commercial purposes (i.e., adapted
to the same uses and essentially
interchangeable therefore).
In case at hand, the like articles are
specifically Ford F Series pickups and
Lincoln Mark LT sports-utility pickups,
while directly competitive products
include other equivalent for commercial
purposes vehicles, which are adapted to
the same use and can be classified
under the same category of vehicles.
Therefore, any vehicles that can be
categorized under the full-sized pickups
and sport-utility pickups are considered
to be directly competitive with the
vehicles manufactured by the subject
firm. The analysis of the data revealed
that U.S. aggregate imports of full-sized
pickups and sport utility pickups
declined absolutely and relatively in
comparison with sales of U.S.manufactured full-sized pickups and
sport utility pickups from 2007 to 2008
and from January through July 2009
over the corresponding 2008 period.
To support the allegation, the
petitioner attached several newspaper
articles, alleging that Ford manufactures
pickups in Australia, South Africa and
Thailand and is increasing its
production capacity of Fiesta in Mexico
and Canada.
The Department contacted company
officials of Ford Motor Company to
address the above allegations. The
company officials stated that Ford does
not produce like or directly competitive
products with Ford F Series pickups
and Lincoln Mark LT sports-utility
pickups in Australia, South Africa and
Thailand. The official also stated that
vehicles manufactured in Canada are
also not like or directly competitive
with Ford F Series and Lincoln Mark LT
pickups. Moreover, the official stated
that Ford Motor Company does not
manufacture pickups in Mexico and
Canada. The company official
confirmed that Ford Motor Company
did not shift production of Ford F Series
and Lincoln Mark LT pickups from
Dearborn, Michigan abroad during the
relevant period.
The investigation revealed that the
reduction in market share resulted in
over-capacity at Ford facilities, and that
the layoffs at the subject facility were
not related to increased imports of like
or directly competitive vehicles with
Ford F Series and Lincoln Mark LT
pickups and there was no shift of
production of these vehicles abroad
during the period under investigation.
E:\FR\FM\20JAN1.SGM
20JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3251-3252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-893]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-71,903]
JP Morgan Chase and Company; JP Morgan Investment Banking, Global
Corporate Financial Operations, New York, NY; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
By application dated October 12, 2009, 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 JP Morgan
Chase and Company, JP Morgan Investment Banking, Global Corporate
Financial Operations, New York, New York. The Department's Notice of
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration was
signed on October 27, 2009, and published in the Federal Register on
November 12, 2009 (74 FR 58315).
The investigation resulted in a negative determination based on the
finding that workers' separations or threat of separations were not
related to an increase in imports or shift/acquisition of business
research and clerical support operations to/from a foreign country. The
subject firm did not import services like or directly competitive with
services provided by workers of the subject firm and did not shift
provision of these services abroad.
In the request for reconsideration the petitioner alleged that
workers worked for JP Morgan Chase and Company, Global Corporate
Financial Operations (GCFO), Presentation Production Services (PPS).
The petitioner further alleged that JP Morgan operates facilities in
Mumbai and Bangalore and that JP Morgan shifted provision of services
from the subject firm to India. Specifically, the petitioner alleged
that the bankers of JP Morgan were instructed to bypass the PPS offices
in the United States and send work directly to JP Morgan facilities
abroad.
[[Page 3252]]
The Department contacted company officials of JP Morgan Chase to
address the above allegations. The company officials confirmed that JP
Morgan Chase has subsidiaries in India and Argentina which provide
additional support services to bankers of JP Morgan Chase. The company
officials further stated that bankers were not instructed to bypass PPS
but utilize centers in Argentina and India as an option if the local
service was not available. The officials confirmed that JP Morgan Chase
did not shift provision of services from the subject firm to a foreign
location.
The Department requested employment information for the foreign
facilities of JP Morgan Chase that perform services like or directly
competitive with services provided by workers of the subject firm. The
data revealed that employment at these facilities declined in 2008 and
2009.
The investigation revealed that the reduction in business volume
caused the subject firm's reorganization and that the layoffs at the
subject facility was not related to increased imports of business
research, clerical support operations or presentation production
services and there was no shift of these services abroad during the
period under investigation.
The petitioner further alleged that workers of the subject firm
provided services to bankers of JP Morgan Chase, who in turn, provided
services to external clients.
The company official verified that PPS is an internal service
provider only and that the workers of the subject firm did not provide
services directly to external clients and vendors.
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 reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative
determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance
for workers and former workers of JP Morgan Chase and Company, JP
Morgan Investment Banking, Global Corporate Financial Operation, New
York, New York.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 7th day of January 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-893 Filed 1-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
