[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 12938]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6414]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA--6385]


Ameriphone, Inc., a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Plantronics, Inc., 
Garden Grove, CA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated October 17, 2002, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for North American Free 
Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA), 
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The 
denial notice was signed on September 11, 2002, and was published in 
the Federal Register on September 27, 2002 (67 FR 61160).
    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 NAFTA-TAA petition filed on behalf of workers at Ameriphone, 
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Plantronics, Inc., Garden Grove, 
California engaged in activities related to administrative, technical, 
sales and distribution services in support of products for the hearing 
impaired and deaf communities was denied because the petitioning 
workers did not produce an article within the meaning of section 250 of 
the Trade Act, as amended.
    The petitioner alleges that the subject firm workers were engaged 
in the final production phase. Specifically, the petitioner mentions 
inspection, testing and modification of products as the functions 
performed at the subject firm. These functions were performed on 
articles produced and sent from overseas to the subject firm.
    With the exception of product modifications, none of the above 
functions constitute production in terms of eligibility for NAFTA-
Transitional Adjustment Assistance, as they do not meet the eligibility 
of the Trade Act. Product modification accounted for a negligible 
portion of the work performed at the subject firm.
    The petitioner also asserts that subject firm workers performed 
engineering functions, including prototype design and production.
    Contact with the company revealed that prototype production was a 
rare and intermittent function that constituted a negligible percentage 
of work performed at the subject facility.
    The petitioner alleges that the subject firm workers performed 
``article upgrades'' on products that required new components.
    Investigation into this matter, including contact with the company, 
revealed that any ``upgrades'' performed represented a negligible 
percentage of work performed at the subject facility.
    Finally, the petitioner appears to allege that the subject firm 
workers are eligible because they served as a source of packaging, 
updated literature, fault reports and components added to the product 
that was shipped to their facility.
    Investigation into this matter revealed that subject firm workers 
do not produce packaging or updated literature. Fault reports are not 
considered production in context with worker eligibility for NAFTA-TAA. 
Further, components were added either as part of repair work, or were 
intermittent and not significant enough to qualify subject firm worker 
functions as production.
    Only in very limited instances are service workers certified for 
TAA, namely the worker separations must be caused by a reduced demand 
for their services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision 
whose workers produce an article and who are currently under 
certification for NAFTA-TAA. In this case, no such certification 
exists.
    In conclusion, the workers at the subject firm did not produce an 
article within the meaning of section 250(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, 
as amended.

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 10th day of March 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-6414 Filed 3-17-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P