[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 129 (Monday, July 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 40299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-16892]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-51,085]


Fluor Daniel, Facility and Plant Services, Rochester, MN; Notice 
of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of June 3, 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 Fluor Daniel, Rochester, 
Minnesota was signed on April 29, 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 Fluor Daniel, 
Rochester, Minnesota engaged in activities related to facility 
management services for an unaffiliated firm. The petition was denied 
because the petitioning workers did not produce an article within the 
meaning of section 222(3) of the Act.
    Having reviewed the initial investigation, it was established that 
the correct subsidiary of the affected worker group is Fluor Daniel, 
Facilities & Plant Services, Rochester, Minnesota.
    The petitioner quotes a section of the petition instructions 
concerning ``Secondary Worker Impact'' that defines secondary workers 
as ``employed by firms that either supply components (emphasis provided 
by petitioner) to a trade affected firm, or assemble of finish products 
for a trade-affected firm.'' The petitioner also cites the 
certification of IBM Storage Technology Division, Rochester, Minnesota, 
for whom the subject firm workers performed facility management 
services on a contract basis. The petitioner appears to be implying 
that the petitioning worker group is eligible for TAA as a secondary 
supplier to a primary trade-certified firm.
    In fact, eligibility on the basis of secondary supplier impact 
concerns production workers exclusively. However, as has already been 
noted, the petitioning worker group was not found to have produced a 
product. In addition, facility management services cannot be construed 
as a component part of the final product produced by the trade 
certified firm.
    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. 03-16892 Filed 7-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P