[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51873-51874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-20199]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,388]


Fujitsu Network Communications, Inc., Raleigh, NC; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application received on July 8, 2002, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of 
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The 
denial notice applicable to workers of Fujitsu Network Communications 
(FNC), Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina, was signed on June 7, 2002, and 
published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2002 (67 FR 42285).
    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

[[Page 51874]]

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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Fujitsu Network 
Communications (FNC), Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina were engaged in 
activities related to software programming and computer support. The 
petition was denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an 
article within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Act.
    The petitioner attempts to demonstrate that the subject plant 
workers produced a specific article. The petitioner indicates that the 
product is called ``NETSMART'' which is an operating system with a 
graphical user interface. The petitioner further indicates that most of 
the workers were software developers and some were assigned computer 
tasks that involved leasing of the developers computers, upgrading the 
developer's computers with the latest versions of third party software, 
and regularly developing code into a single functioning unit to be 
burned on to a compact disk for distribution.
    The functions of programming, technical support and the other 
administrative functions depicted by the petitioner are not considered 
production activities. A review of the initial investigation shows no 
production of an article was ever performed at the subject facility 
during the relevant period.
    The workers at the subject firm do not produce an article within 
the meaning of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act 1974.

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 at Washington, DC, this 1st day of August, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-20199 Filed 8-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P