Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration, 27666-27667 [2011-11638]

Download as PDF 27666 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2011 / Notices a foreign country; and that AT&T managers did not train any call center managers in India. Rather, work previously performed at the subject firm was consolidated into three other AT&T call centers within the United States. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–74,700] wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1 AT&T Services, Inc., Reynoldsburg, OH; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration On January 21, 2011, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of AT&T Services, Inc., Reynoldsburg, Ohio (subject firm). The Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2011 (76 FR 5831). Workers supply customer care call services. 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 was based on the findings that the worker separations are not attributable to increased imports of services by the subject firm or a shift in the supply of services by the subject firm to a foreign country. Rather, the investigation established that the worker separations are attributable to the subject firm shifting customer care call services to other facilities within the United States. The investigation also revealed the 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 petitioners alleged that the subject firm has shifted services to a foreign country. During the reconsideration, the Department received information that shows that AT&T Services, Inc. (and not AT&T) is the appropriate name of the firm, and the heading has been changed to properly reflect the firm’s name. Information obtained during the reconsideration investigation confirmed that all of the workers who worked at the subject firm are referred to as ‘‘Legacy T workers’’ and ‘‘Customer Sales and Service Specialists (CSSS)’’; that none of the services previously supplied by the subject firm (or like or directly competitive services) was outsourced to VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:49 May 11, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 AT&T Services, Inc., Reynoldsburg, Ohio. Signed in Washington, DC, on this 2nd day of May 2011. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2011–11637 Filed 5–11–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration TA–W–70,949 Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Center Line, Michigan TA–W–70,949A Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Naperville, Illinois TA–W–70,949B Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center New Boston, Michigan TA–W–70,949C Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Beaverton, Oregon TA–W–70,949D Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Carrollton, Texas TA–W–70,949E Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Fontana, California TA–W–70,949F Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Lathrop, California TA–W–70,949G Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Denver, Colorado TA–W–70,949H Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Ontario, California TA–W–70,949I Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Hazelwood, Missouri TA–W–70,949J Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Morrow, Georgia TA–W–70,949K Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Memphis, Tennessee TA–W–70,949L Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Tappan, New York TA–W–70,949M Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Mansfield, Massachusetts PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 TA–W–70,949N Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Plymouth, Minnesota TA–W–70,949O Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Streetsboro, Ohio TA–W–70,949P Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Orlando, Florida TA–W–70,949Q Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Milwaukee, Wisconsin TA–W–70,949R Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Warren, Michigan TA–W–70,949S Chrysler LLC Mopar Parts Distribution Center Marysville, Michigan On October 7, 2010, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject facilities. The workers are engaged in activities related to the supply of warehousing and distribution services related to automotive parts. 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 The negative determination was based on the findings that there was no increase in imports of services like or directly competitive with those supplied by the subject workers and no shift to/acquisition from a foreign country by the workers’ firm in the supply of services like or directly competitive with those supplied by the subject workers. The request for reconsideration asserts that the workers are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as adversely-affected secondary workers because they ‘‘provide replacement and accessory parts for new vehicles’’ and identified firms that employed worker groups eligible to apply for TAA. Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(d), defines the term ‘‘Supplier’’ as ‘‘a firm that produces and supplies directly to another firm component parts for articles, or services used in the production of articles or in the supply of services, as the case may be, that were the basis for a certification of eligibility under subsection (a) [of Section 222 of the Act] of a group of workers employed by such other firm.’’ E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM 12MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 92 / Thursday, May 12, 2011 / Notices wwoods2 on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with NOTICES_PART 1 Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(d), defines the term ‘‘Downstream Producer’’ as ‘‘a firm that performs additional, value-added production processes or services directly for another firm for articles or services with respect to which a group of workers in such other firm has been certified under subsection (a) [of Section 222 of the Act]’’ and defines the term ‘‘value-added production processes or services’’ to ‘‘include final assembly, finishing, testing, packaging, or maintenance or transportation services.’’ During the reconsideration investigation, the Department received information that confirmed that the subject facilities are not a ‘‘supplier’’ or a ‘‘downstream producer’’ within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. The subject facilities do not produce and directly supply component parts (or services) to a firm that both employed a worker group eligible to apply for TAA and directly used the component parts (or services) in the production of the article or in the supply of the service that was the basis for the TAA certification, and do not perform downstream producer services for a firm that both employed a worker group eligible to apply for TAA and directly used the service in the production of the article or in the supply of the service that was the basis for the TAA certification. Rather, the subject facilities separate, consolidate and package finished parts that are produced by others, and ship the packages to Chrysler points of contacts, who then forward the packages to car dealerships who ordered the parts on behalf of the dealership’s customers. 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 Chrysler LLC, Mopar Parts Distribution Center in Center Line, Michigan (TA–W–70,949); Naperville, Illinois (TA–W–70,949A); New Boston, Michigan (TA–W– 70,949B); Beaverton, Oregon (TA–W– 70,949C0; Carrollton, Texas (TA–W– 70,949D); Fontana, California (TA–W– 70,949E); Lathrop, California (TA–W– 70,949F); Denver, Colorado (TA–W– 70,949G); Ontario, California ((TA–W– 70,949H); Hazelwood, Missouri (TA–W– 70,949I); Morrow, Georgia (TA–W– 70,949J); Memphis, Tennessee (TA–W– 70,949K); Tappan, New York (TA–W– 70,949L); Mansfield, Massachusetts (TA–W–70,949M); Plymouth, Minnesota (TA–W–70,949N); Streetsboro, Ohio (TA–W–70,949O); Orlando, Florida VerDate Mar<15>2010 14:49 May 11, 2011 Jkt 223001 (TA–W–70,949P); Milwaukee, Wisconsin (TA–W–70,949Q); Warren, Michigan (TA–W–70,949R); and Marysville, Michigan (TA–W–70,949S). Signed in Washington, DC, on this 2nd day of May, 2011. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2011–11638 Filed 5–11–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–73,479A] Enesco, LLC, Itasco, IL; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration On October 18, 2010, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of Enesco, LLC, Gund Division, Distribution Center, Edison, New Jersey (Enesco-Edison). The Department’s Notice was published in the Federal Register on October 29, 2010 (75 FR 66795). The workers supplied packaging and distribution services related to giftware. The initial investigation was initiated in response to a petition filed on February 17, 2010 by a State of Illinois Workforce Office on behalf of workers of Enesco, LLC, Itasca, Illinois. The petition alleges that ‘‘Enesco LLC production of giftware products is currently in China; the company has transferred Quality/Regulatory Compliance Department overseas as well in order to keep production and quality assurance testing in one location.’’ Because the petitioner did not provide additional information regarding the worker group, the Department relied on publicly-available materials and the company official identified on the petition for information. Although the company’s headquarters are in Itasca, Illinois, the company official provided information that revealed that the separated workers worked in the distribution center that was part of the Gund Division in Edison, New Jersey (TA–W–73,479). Based on this information, the Department determined that the subject worker group was not Enesco LLC, Itasca, Illinois but Enesco-Edison. In the request for reconsideration, the State Workforce Office stated that a worker who was in the ‘‘Regulatory Compliance/Quality Assurance PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 27667 Department of Enseco, LLC, located in Itasca, Illinois’’ had ‘‘spent over 6 hours on the conference call with China, training someone to perform her duties.’’ The State Workforce Office further alleges that ‘‘all of the Regulatory Compliance/Quality Assurance Department of Enseco LLC was transferred to Hong Kong.’’ In support of the allegations, the State Workforce Office provided a document titled ‘‘Letter to supplier regarding QA & QC’’ that states ‘‘We have expanded our team both in China as well as in our Hong Kong office’’ (dated March 6, 2009). 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 initial negative determination was based on the findings that EnescoEdison did not shift to/acquire from a foreign country the supply of services like or directly competitive with the services supplied by the workers; that the workers’ separation, or threat of separation, was not related to an increase in imports of like or directly competitive services; and that the workers are not adversely affected secondary workers. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department contacted Enesco, LLC and obtained information regarding Enesco, LLC, Itasca, Illinois (Enesco-Itasca) and the worker on whose behalf the petition and request for reconsideration were filed. New information provided by the subject firm revealed that there is no Regulatory Compliance/Quality Assurance Department; that workers at Enesco-Itasca are separately identifiable by division and separately identifiable within each division by service supplied; and that the worker on whose behalf the petition and the request for reconsideration were filed worked in the logistics division of Enesco-Itasca and supplied quality control services related to the production of toys. Further, Enesco-Itasca does not produce toys; rather, Enesco-Itasca supplies services related to the sales, marketing and development of toys. Additional information obtained during the reconsideration investigation revealed that the group eligibility E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM 12MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27666-27667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11638]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration

TA-W-70,949 Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Center Line, Michigan
TA-W-70,949A Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Naperville, Illinois
TA-W-70,949B Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center New Boston, Michigan
TA-W-70,949C Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Beaverton, Oregon
TA-W-70,949D Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Carrollton, Texas
TA-W-70,949E Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Fontana, California
TA-W-70,949F Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Lathrop, California
TA-W-70,949G Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Denver, Colorado
TA-W-70,949H Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Ontario, California
TA-W-70,949I Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Hazelwood, Missouri
TA-W-70,949J Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Morrow, Georgia
TA-W-70,949K Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Memphis, Tennessee
TA-W-70,949L Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Tappan, New York
TA-W-70,949M Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Mansfield, Massachusetts
TA-W-70,949N Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Plymouth, Minnesota
TA-W-70,949O Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Streetsboro, Ohio
TA-W-70,949P Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Orlando, Florida
TA-W-70,949Q Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Milwaukee, Wisconsin
TA-W-70,949R Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Warren, Michigan
TA-W-70,949S Chrysler LLC
    Mopar Parts Distribution Center Marysville, Michigan

    On October 7, 2010, the Department of Labor issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of the subject facilities. The workers are engaged 
in activities related to the supply of warehousing and distribution 
services related to automotive parts.
    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
    The negative determination was based on the findings that there was 
no increase in imports of services like or directly competitive with 
those supplied by the subject workers and no shift to/acquisition from 
a foreign country by the workers' firm in the supply of services like 
or directly competitive with those supplied by the subject workers.
    The request for reconsideration asserts that the workers are 
eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) as adversely-
affected secondary workers because they ``provide replacement and 
accessory parts for new vehicles'' and identified firms that employed 
worker groups eligible to apply for TAA.
    Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(d), defines the term 
``Supplier'' as ``a firm that produces and supplies directly to another 
firm component parts for articles, or services used in the production 
of articles or in the supply of services, as the case may be, that were 
the basis for a certification of eligibility under subsection (a) [of 
Section 222 of the Act] of a group of workers employed by such other 
firm.''

[[Page 27667]]

    Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2272(d), defines the term 
``Downstream Producer'' as ``a firm that performs additional, value-
added production processes or services directly for another firm for 
articles or services with respect to which a group of workers in such 
other firm has been certified under subsection (a) [of Section 222 of 
the Act]'' and defines the term ``value-added production processes or 
services'' to ``include final assembly, finishing, testing, packaging, 
or maintenance or transportation services.''
    During the reconsideration investigation, the Department received 
information that confirmed that the subject facilities are not a 
``supplier'' or a ``downstream producer'' within the meaning of the 
Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
    The subject facilities do not produce and directly supply component 
parts (or services) to a firm that both employed a worker group 
eligible to apply for TAA and directly used the component parts (or 
services) in the production of the article or in the supply of the 
service that was the basis for the TAA certification, and do not 
perform downstream producer services for a firm that both employed a 
worker group eligible to apply for TAA and directly used the service in 
the production of the article or in the supply of the service that was 
the basis for the TAA certification.
    Rather, the subject facilities separate, consolidate and package 
finished parts that are produced by others, and ship the packages to 
Chrysler points of contacts, who then forward the packages to car 
dealerships who ordered the parts on behalf of the dealership's 
customers.

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 Chrysler LLC, Mopar Parts 
Distribution Center in Center Line, Michigan (TA-W-70,949); Naperville, 
Illinois (TA-W-70,949A); New Boston, Michigan (TA-W-70,949B); 
Beaverton, Oregon (TA-W-70,949C0; Carrollton, Texas (TA-W-70,949D); 
Fontana, California (TA-W-70,949E); Lathrop, California (TA-W-70,949F); 
Denver, Colorado (TA-W-70,949G); Ontario, California ((TA-W-70,949H); 
Hazelwood, Missouri (TA-W-70,949I); Morrow, Georgia (TA-W-70,949J); 
Memphis, Tennessee (TA-W-70,949K); Tappan, New York (TA-W-70,949L); 
Mansfield, Massachusetts (TA-W-70,949M); Plymouth, Minnesota (TA-W-
70,949N); Streetsboro, Ohio (TA-W-70,949O); Orlando, Florida (TA-W-
70,949P); Milwaukee, Wisconsin (TA-W-70,949Q); Warren, Michigan (TA-W-
70,949R); and Marysville, Michigan (TA-W-70,949S).

    Signed in Washington, DC, on this 2nd day of May, 2011.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2011-11638 Filed 5-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.