[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58714-58715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-25715]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-51,189]


Nokia, Inc., Broadband Systems Division, Santa Rosa, CA; Notice 
of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of May 27, 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 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 mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the 
decision.
    The TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Nokia, Inc., 
Broadband Systems Division, Santa Rosa, California engaged in the 
employment related to research and development for Digital Subscriber 
Multiplexers (DSLM), was denied because the workers did not produce an 
article within the meaning of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
    The petitioner alleges that workers were engaged in production. In 
a follow up contact, it was clarified that the petitioner wished it 
noted that workers at the facility did perform occasional assembly and 
testing of final DSLM production within the two years prior to the 
plant shut down, as well as production of DSLM prototypes for the 
parent company. He concluded that all

[[Page 58715]]

of this production was shifted to Finland and that the production was 
used to service a United States customer base.
    A company official was contacted in regard to these allegations. As 
a result of this contact, it was revealed that prototype production did 
constitute a portion of work performed at the subject facility and that 
this production did shift to Finland. However, it was stated that these 
prototypes were rarely shipped to the U.S., as they were used for 
production in Finland for internal company use. The official further 
indicated that assembly and testing of other production constituted a 
very small portion of work performed at the subject facility.

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 11th day of September, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-25715 Filed 10-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P