FANUC Robotics America, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers From Right Angle Staffing, Inc., Quanta, Inc., Reliance One, Inc., Populus Group, LLC, Citistaff, Global Automation Technologies, LLC, and Proflow Systems Rochester Hills, MI; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 43562-43563 [2010-18184]

Download as PDF 43562 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices APPENDIX—TAA PETITIONS INSTITUTED BETWEEN 7/6/10 AND 7/9/10 Subject firm (petitioners) Location Madison County Employment and Training (Union) ............ Sitel Corporation (Company) ................................................ Bert Jensen & Sons, Inc. (Union) ........................................ Charleston Forge (Workers) ................................................. International Paper Company (State/One-Stop) .................. Diversey (Company) ............................................................. Hanes Brands, Inc. (Workers) .............................................. Medtronic Spine, LLC (Company) ........................................ Warner Brothers Entertainment Company, et al. (State/ One-Stop). NCR Corporation (Workers) ................................................. TriZetto Group (State/One-Stop) .......................................... Belding Hausman, Inc. (Company) ...................................... PricewaterhouseCoopers (Workers) .................................... Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc. (Workers) .................... Trim Master, Inc. (State/One-Stop) ...................................... Riverhawk Aviation (Workers) .............................................. HSBC Card Services, Inc. (Workers) ................................... Dish Network Service Corporation (Workers) ...................... Industrial Technologies Corporation (Company) .................. Cinram Manufacturing, LLC (State/One-Stop) ..................... PW Hardwoods (Workers) .................................................... SuperMedia, LLC (Workers) ................................................. CR Compressors, LLC (Company) ...................................... CR Compressors, LLC (Company) ...................................... Harley-Davidson (Company) ................................................ Affiliated Computer Services (Workers) ............................... International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) (State/ One-Stop). Envios El Cid, Inc. (Workers) ............................................... Ryder Truck Rental (Workers) ............................................. Sensata Technologies (Workers) ......................................... Wood River, IL ...................... Memphis, TN ......................... Racine, WI ............................ Boone, NC ............................ Jonesboro, AR ...................... Santa Cruz, CA ..................... Winston Salem, NC .............. Sunnyvale, CA ...................... Burbank, CA .......................... 07/06/10 07/06/10 07/06/10 07/07/10 07/07/10 07/07/10 07/07/10 07/07/10 07/07/10 06/22/10 07/01/10 07/02/10 06/22/10 07/06/10 07/01/10 06/18/10 07/01/10 07/01/10 West Columbia, SC .............. Greenwood Village, CO ........ Emporia, VA .......................... Chicago, IL ............................ Mason, OH ............................ Nicholasville, KY ................... Hickory, NC ........................... Tulsa, OK .............................. McKeesport, PA .................... Missoula, MT ......................... Simi Valley, CA ..................... Brookville, PA ........................ Everett, WA ........................... Decatur, AL ........................... Hartselle, AL ......................... York, PA ................................ London, KY ........................... Armonk, NY ........................... 07/07/10 07/07/10 07/07/10 07/07/10 07/07/10 07/07/10 07/08/10 07/08/10 07/08/10 07/08/10 07/08/10 07/08/10 07/08/10 07/09/10 07/09/10 07/09/10 07/09/10 07/09/10 06/18/10 07/01/10 06/28/10 06/24/10 07/01/10 06/30/10 06/30/10 06/18/10 06/30/10 07/02/10 07/07/10 06/23/10 07/01/10 07/08/10 07/08/10 07/01/10 07/01/10 06/29/10 Glendale, CA ......................... Auburn Hills, MI .................... Attleboro, MA ........................ 07/09/10 07/09/10 07/09/10 06/28/10 06/28/10 06/30/10 TA–W 74338 74339 74340 74341 74342 74343 74344 74345 74346 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 74347 74348 74349 74350 74351 74352 74353 74354 74355 74356 74357 74358 74359 74360 74361 74362 74363 74364 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ 74365 ................ 74366 ................ 74367 ................ [FR Doc. 2010–18182 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–70,749] jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES FANUC Robotics America, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers From Right Angle Staffing, Inc., Quanta, Inc., Reliance One, Inc., Populus Group, LLC, Citistaff, Global Automation Technologies, LLC, and Proflow Systems Rochester Hills, MI; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration On June 21, 2010, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The Department’s Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2010 (75 FR 38125). The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination which was based on the finding that, during the relevant period, Fanuc Robotics VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:04 Jul 23, 2010 Jkt 220001 America neither imported articles like or directly competitive with the robotic systems produced at the subject firm, shifted to a foreign country the production of articles like or directly competitive with the robotic systems produced at the subject firm, nor acquired from a foreign country the production of articles like or directly competitive with the robotic systems produced at the subject firm. The Department’s survey of the subject firm’s major declining customers regarding their purchases of robotic systems in 2007, 2008, and during January through April 2009 revealed negligible imports of robotic systems. The investigation also revealed that the subject firm was not eligible as a Supplier or a Downstream Producer because they did not supply a component used by a firm that employed a worker group covered by an active Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) certification. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided a list of the subject firm’s customers which employed a worker group covered by a TAA certification. In subsequent communications, the petitioner emphasized that she and fellow PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Date of institution Date of petition employees had participated in the actual production process in their customers’ plants during the initial installation, testing, and worker training phases following the delivery of the subject firm’s robotic devices to the customers. In response to the request for reconsideration, the Department contacted the subject firm about which of the TAA-certified customers had required employees of the subject firm to be present in the customer’s plants during production. The reconsideration investigation revealed that contracts requiring on-site presence of subject firm workers in the customers’ plants were infrequent; the sales associated with contracts requiring such presence amounted to a small percentage of the subject firm’s total sales (ranging from 1.3 and 5.4 percent during 2007, 2008, and January to April 2009); and the onsite presence of the subject firm’s workers was not related to production but related to post-sale customer support. Because the services supplied by the subject firm to the alleged customers which employed a worker group covered by a TAA certification were not directly used in the production of the E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM 26JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 142 / Monday, July 26, 2010 / Notices article that was the basis of the TAA certification, the workers of the subject firm did not meet the criteria of Section 222(c) and are, therefore, not eligible to apply for TAA as adversely affected secondary workers. 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 Fanuc Robotics America, Inc., Rochester Hills, Michigan. Signed in Washington, DC, this 13th day of July 2010. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2010–18184 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–72,194] jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Pendleton Woolen Mills, Inc., Washougal, WA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated May 4, 2010, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department’s certification regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The certification was signed on April 1, 2010, and published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2010 (75 FR 24751). 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. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner asserted that she and other workers of the subject firm who were laid off more than a year before the date of the petition (August 24, 2009), and were thus not reached by the impact date of the certification (August 24, 2008), should be included in the certification because of their long-term VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:04 Jul 23, 2010 Jkt 220001 service to the employer, of their long years of working together with other employees who will be covered by the decision, and they should not be penalized for the alleged delay by the petitioner (a union official) who filed the petition in this case. The applicable regulation, 29 CFR 90.16(e), states that: A certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance shall not apply to any worker: (1) Whose last total or partial separation from the firm or appropriate subdivision occurred more than one (1) year before the date of the petition; * * * In this case, the petition that began this investigation was dated August 24, 2009. Therefore, according to the regulation above, no worker who was separated earlier than August 24, 2008 (i.e., one year prior to the August 24, 2009 petition date) can be included in any certification resulting from the investigation resulting from the petition at issue. The petitioner in this case was laid off on August 5, 2008, nineteen days before the earliest possible date for workers to receive benefits under certification TA– W–72,194. Consequently, according to 29 CFR 90.16(e), she cannot be covered by that certification. The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered or 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 14th day of July 2010. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2010–18187 Filed 7–23–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 43563 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–73,199] Dow Jones & Company, Sharon Pennsylvania Print Plant a Subsidiary of News Corporation, West Middlesex, Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated June 21, 2010, 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 determination was signed on May 21, 2010. The Department’s Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on June 7, 2010 (75 FR 32224). The workers are engaged in the production of print publications. 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 determination of the TAA petition filed on behalf of workers at Dow Jones & Company, Sharon Pennsylvania Print Plant, a subsidiary of News Corporation, West Middlesex, Pennsylvania, was based on the finding that the workers’ separations were not related to an increase in imports of print publications or a shift in production of print publications to a foreign country, nor did the workers produce a component part that was used by a firm that employed a worker group currently eligible to apply for TAA. In the request for reconsideration the petitioner stated that the workers of the subject firm should be eligible for TAA because the ‘‘plates and film came from a company currently approved for TRA, Konica’’ and that those plates and film directly impacted the subject firm’s production. Increased imports of component parts, tools, or equipment related to the production of printed publications cannot be a basis for TAA certification under Section 222(a)(2)(A) because the statute requires either increased imports E:\FR\FM\26JYN1.SGM 26JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 142 (Monday, July 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43562-43563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-18184]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,749]


FANUC Robotics America, Inc., Including On-Site Leased Workers 
From Right Angle Staffing, Inc., Quanta, Inc., Reliance One, Inc., 
Populus Group, LLC, Citistaff, Global Automation Technologies, LLC, and 
Proflow Systems Rochester Hills, MI; Notice of Negative Determination 
on Reconsideration

    On June 21, 2010, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of 
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration 
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The 
Department's Notice of determination was published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 2010 (75 FR 38125).
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
which was based on the finding that, during the relevant period, Fanuc 
Robotics America neither imported articles like or directly competitive 
with the robotic systems produced at the subject firm, shifted to a 
foreign country the production of articles like or directly competitive 
with the robotic systems produced at the subject firm, nor acquired 
from a foreign country the production of articles like or directly 
competitive with the robotic systems produced at the subject firm. The 
Department's survey of the subject firm's major declining customers 
regarding their purchases of robotic systems in 2007, 2008, and during 
January through April 2009 revealed negligible imports of robotic 
systems.
    The investigation also revealed that the subject firm was not 
eligible as a Supplier or a Downstream Producer because they did not 
supply a component used by a firm that employed a worker group covered 
by an active Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) certification.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided a list 
of the subject firm's customers which employed a worker group covered 
by a TAA certification. In subsequent communications, the petitioner 
emphasized that she and fellow employees had participated in the actual 
production process in their customers' plants during the initial 
installation, testing, and worker training phases following the 
delivery of the subject firm's robotic devices to the customers.
    In response to the request for reconsideration, the Department 
contacted the subject firm about which of the TAA-certified customers 
had required employees of the subject firm to be present in the 
customer's plants during production. The reconsideration investigation 
revealed that contracts requiring on-site presence of subject firm 
workers in the customers' plants were infrequent; the sales associated 
with contracts requiring such presence amounted to a small percentage 
of the subject firm's total sales (ranging from 1.3 and 5.4 percent 
during 2007, 2008, and January to April 2009); and the on-site presence 
of the subject firm's workers was not related to production but related 
to post-sale customer support.
    Because the services supplied by the subject firm to the alleged 
customers which employed a worker group covered by a TAA certification 
were not directly used in the production of the

[[Page 43563]]

article that was the basis of the TAA certification, the workers of the 
subject firm did not meet the criteria of Section 222(c) and are, 
therefore, not eligible to apply for TAA as adversely affected 
secondary workers.

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 Fanuc Robotics America, Inc., 
Rochester Hills, Michigan.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 13th day of July 2010.
 Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-18184 Filed 7-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.