United Auto Workers Local 1999, Oklahoma City, OK; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 65524-65525 [2010-26772]
Download as PDF
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
65524
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 205 / Monday, October 25, 2010 / Notices
purchases of precision sheet metal
fabrication for 2007, 2008, and January
through April 2009 revealed decreased
imports. The investigation also revealed
that the subject firm is not a supplier or
downstream producer to a firm that
employed a worker group eligible to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA).
In the request for reconsideration, the
petitioner alleged that, in November
2008, the subject firm’s largest customer
transferred forty percent of its base
contract for self check-out cabinets to a
firm in Canada, and that the shift in
supplier caused a downturn in business
for the subject firm and the subsequent
worker separations.
In response to the request, the
Department sought further details about
the circumstances surrounding the
separations, especially the relationship
between the separations and the alleged
decline in sales to a customer which
allegedly began to outsource like and
directly competitive articles from a
Canadian firm.
The reconsideration investigation
revealed that the workers are separately
identifiable by product line and that the
subject firm sold two types of precision
sheet metal fabrication to the customer
named in the request for
reconsideration: Sheet metal cabinets
for self check-out units, and sheet metal
parts to modify those basic cabinets to
accommodate a variety of peripherals,
such as computers and cameras.
The reconsideration investigation
regarding self check-out units revealed
that the subject firm’s largest customer
did transfer a significant proportion of
its purchases of such cabinets for self
check-out units to a foreign source;
however, during the relevant period
sales of these self check-out cabinets to
this customer increased significantly.
Further, an analysis revealed that,
although the subject firm’s share of
cabinet purchases by this customer
declined, that customer so greatly
increased the amount of its purchases of
self check-out cabinets overall that its
purchases of those items from the
subject firm actually increased
significantly.
Additionally, during the
reconsideration investigation, the
subject firm provided the Department
with the names of its four largest
declining customers.
During the course of the original
investigation, customer surveys were
conducted for two firms which
accounted for 68% percent of the
decline in sales of the subject firm
during the first four months of 2009.
Those surveys revealed that one
company did not import any like or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Oct 22, 2010
Jkt 223001
directly competitive articles during the
relevant period, while the other
decreased its imports of like and
directly competitive articles by 98
percent during the same period.
During the reconsideration
investigation, the Department contacted
a third company but did not survey the
customer because of the relatively
insignificant scale of the customer’s
decline. The fourth customer was the
customer identified in the request for
reconsideration. Because self check-out
unit sales by the subject firm to this
customer increased during the relevant
period (as stated above) and the workers
of the subject firm are separately
identifiable by product line, the
Department did not survey this
customer.
Conclusion
After a careful review of information
obtained during the reconsideration
investigation and previously-submitted
information, I affirm the original notice
of negative determination of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment
assistance for workers and former
workers of Dawson Metal Company,
Inc., Industrial Division, Jamestown,
New York.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 7th day of
October 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–26769 Filed 10–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–71,863]
United Auto Workers Local 1999,
Oklahoma City, OK; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated January 20,
2010, workers 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 United Auto
Workers Local 1999, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma (the subject firm). The
determination was signed on November
23, 2009. The Notice of determination
was published in the Federal Register
on January 25, 2010 (75 FR 3939).
Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c)
reconsideration may be granted under
the following circumstances:
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(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 negative determination of the
petition filed on behalf of workers at
United Auto Workers Local 1999,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was based
on the findings that the workers at the
subject firm did not supply services that
support the production at the General
Motors sport utility vehicle (SUV),
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma plant, as
alleged in the petition, and are not
adversely-affected secondary workers.
In the request for reconsideration, the
workers rely solely on the subject firm’s
relationship with the General Motors
SUV plant in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma. Workers at that facility had
been certified eligible to apply for TAA
under TA–W–63,965 (issued on October
8, 2008). The workers in the request for
reconsideration states that ‘‘our firm is
still operating and servicing General
Motors and its workers/retirees’’ even
though the plant at issue was
permanently closed in September 2008.
The workers also stated they are
seeking TAA certification as
secondarily-affected workers because
the subject firm ‘‘was and is a suppler
or downstream producer to the General
Motors SUV plant which employed a
group of workers who received
certification of eligibility under Section
222(a) of the Act.’’
The initial investigation by the
Department, however, and the
documentation of the subject firm’s
activities which accompanied the
request for reconsideration, reveal that
the subject firm is not a Supplier or
Downstream Producer to the General
Motors SUV plant at issue. Specifically,
the headings given to the
documentation which accompanied the
request for reconsideration illustrate
that the subject firm did not supply
services to the General Motors SUV
plant in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma that
were directly used in the production of
the article that was the basis for
certification of TA–W–63,965. For
example, under the overall heading of
‘‘Advertising, Publicity and Community
Awareness’’ was ‘‘Annual Oklahoma
State Fair Booth’’; ‘‘Parades’’; ‘‘Trade
Shows’’ and under the overall heading
of ‘‘Employee Classes/Services’’ was
‘‘Pre- and Post-Retirement Classes’’; ‘‘Job
E:\FR\FM\25OCN1.SGM
25OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 205 / Monday, October 25, 2010 / Notices
Fair’’; and ‘‘Calendars.’’ Other
documentation appeared under the
headings of ‘‘UAW–GM Golf
Tournaments’’ and ‘‘Community Service
& Charitable Activities.’’
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 in Washington, DC, this 7th day of
October 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–26772 Filed 10–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–74,327]
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, Claim
Management Services, Inc. Operations,
a Division of Wellpoint, Inc., Green
Bay, WI; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application
for Reconsideration
By application dated August 26, 2010,
a petitioner requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department of
Labor’s negative determination
regarding eligibility to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA),
applicable to workers and former
workers of Anthem Blue Cross Blue
Shield, Claim Management Services,
Inc. Operations, a Division of Wellpoint,
Inc., Green Bay, Wisconsin (the subject
firm). The Notice of determination was
signed on August 16, 2010, and was
published in the Federal Register on
September 3, 2010 (75 FR 54187). The
workers supply claims processing
services and customer service functions,
and are not separately identifiable by
service.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Oct 22, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 the subject firm was based on the
findings that there was neither a shift in
the supply of claims processing and
customer service functions to a foreign
country, nor imports of claims
processing and customer service
functions during the relevant period,
and that the subject firm is not a
supplier or downstream producer to a
firm that employed a worker group
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
based on a shift to a foreign country.
The petitioner also noted that workers at
other locations of Anthem Blue Cross
Blue Shield are eligible to apply for
TAA, and urged the Department to ‘‘take
a look at the entire company and review
this again and you will find that they
have outsourced to [a foreign country].’’
The Department has confirmed that
workers at several other locations of
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield are
eligible to apply for TAA on the basis
of a shift to a foreign country; however,
the workers at the subject facility supply
services that are distinctly different and
separate from those supplied by workers
at the other Anthem Blue Cross Blue
Shield locations, and the work that was
performed by Anthem Blue Cross Blue
Shield workers who are eligible to apply
for TAA based on a shift abroad had
never been performed at the subject
facility.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
65525
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 7th day of
October 2010.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010–26774 Filed 10–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–74,063]
TRG Insurance Solutions, Beckley,
WV; Notice of Revised Determination
on Reconsideration
By application dated August 12, 2010
petitioners requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department’s
negative determination regarding the
eligibility of workers and former
workers of TRG Insurance Solutions,
Beckley, West Virginia, to apply for
Trade Adjustment Assistance. On
August 30, 2010, the Department issued
a Notice of Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application for
Reconsideration. The Department’s
Notice was published in the Federal
Register on September 13, 2010 (75 FR
55612). Workers at the subject firm are
engaged in employment related to the
supply of insurance call center services.
Based on the information obtained
during the reconsideration
investigation, the Department
determines that the subject firm shifted
to a foreign country a significant
proportion of the services like or
directly competitive with the insurance
call center services supplied by the
subject workers.
Conclusion
After careful review of the additional
facts obtained during the
reconsideration investigation, I
determine that workers of TRG
Insurance Solutions, Beckley, West
Virginia, who are engaged in
employment related to the supply of
insurance call center services, meet the
worker group certification criteria under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
2272(a). In accordance with Section 223
E:\FR\FM\25OCN1.SGM
25OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 205 (Monday, October 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65524-65525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26772]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-71,863]
United Auto Workers Local 1999, Oklahoma City, OK; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated January 20, 2010, workers 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 United
Auto Workers Local 1999, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (the subject firm).
The determination was signed on November 23, 2009. The Notice of
determination was published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2010
(75 FR 3939).
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 negative determination of the petition filed on behalf of
workers at United Auto Workers Local 1999, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was
based on the findings that the workers at the subject firm did not
supply services that support the production at the General Motors sport
utility vehicle (SUV), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma plant, as alleged in the
petition, and are not adversely-affected secondary workers.
In the request for reconsideration, the workers rely solely on the
subject firm's relationship with the General Motors SUV plant in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Workers at that facility had been certified
eligible to apply for TAA under TA-W-63,965 (issued on October 8,
2008). The workers in the request for reconsideration states that ``our
firm is still operating and servicing General Motors and its workers/
retirees'' even though the plant at issue was permanently closed in
September 2008.
The workers also stated they are seeking TAA certification as
secondarily-affected workers because the subject firm ``was and is a
suppler or downstream producer to the General Motors SUV plant which
employed a group of workers who received certification of eligibility
under Section 222(a) of the Act.''
The initial investigation by the Department, however, and the
documentation of the subject firm's activities which accompanied the
request for reconsideration, reveal that the subject firm is not a
Supplier or Downstream Producer to the General Motors SUV plant at
issue. Specifically, the headings given to the documentation which
accompanied the request for reconsideration illustrate that the subject
firm did not supply services to the General Motors SUV plant in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma that were directly used in the production of
the article that was the basis for certification of TA-W-63,965. For
example, under the overall heading of ``Advertising, Publicity and
Community Awareness'' was ``Annual Oklahoma State Fair Booth'';
``Parades''; ``Trade Shows'' and under the overall heading of
``Employee Classes/Services'' was ``Pre- and Post-Retirement Classes'';
``Job
[[Page 65525]]
Fair''; and ``Calendars.'' Other documentation appeared under the
headings of ``UAW-GM Golf Tournaments'' and ``Community Service &
Charitable Activities.''
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 in Washington, DC, this 7th day of October 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-26772 Filed 10-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P