[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 128 (Thursday, July 3, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39978-39979]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-16895]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-51,335]


General Electric Industrial Systems, Drives & Controls, Inc., 
Salem, VA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application of June 9, 2003, 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 General Electric Industrial 
Systems, Drives and Controls, Inc., Salem, Virginia was signed on April 
24, 2003, and published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2003 (68 FR 
25060).
    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 TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at General Electric 
Industrial Systems, Drives and Controls, Inc., Salem, Virginia engaged 
in activities related to ``editing and formatting'' of customer 
instruction manuals. 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 alleges that the Department did not correctly assess 
the worker group functions, that in addition to editing and formatting, 
workers also ``create, develop and publish'' customer instruction 
manuals. The petitioner emphasizes that the operating instructions 
contained in these manuals are essential to the operation of the 
products they accompany in the retail

[[Page 39979]]

market and is unclear as to why ``publications'' should not be 
considered ``articles'' as described in section 222 of the Trade Act.
    Review of the initial investigation reveals that a company official 
stated that content writing and editing was performed at the subject 
facility, and that this work function was shifted to a foreign GE 
affiliate. However, the writing performed is sent back to the Salem, 
Virginia facility via electronic copy in order to be printed and 
published. Informational material that is electronically transmitted is 
not considered production within the context of TAA eligibility 
requirements, so there are no imports of products in this instance. 
Further, as the manual does not become a product until it is printed, 
petitioning workers did not produce an ``article'' within the meaning 
of the Trade Act of 1974.
    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 TAA.

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 13th day of June, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-16895 Filed 7-2-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P