[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 84 (Friday, April 30, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23818-23819]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-962]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-53,948]


Seagate Technology, LLC, Research and Development Division, 
Oklahoma City, OK; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application of February 18, 2004, 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 Seagate Technology, LLC, 
Research and Development Division, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma was signed 
on February 3, 2004, and published in the Federal Register on March 12, 
2004 (69 FR 11888).
    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 Seagate 
Technology, LLC, Research and Development Division, Oklahoma City, 
Oklahoma engaged in activities related to design and planning work for 
products further developed or produced elsewhere. The petition was 
denied because the petitioning workers did not produce an article 
within the meaning of section 222 of the Act.
    The petitioner alleges that the workers at the subject facility 
performed replication of the equipment that is used to build the head 
disk assemblies (HDA) stations at a Singapore assembly plant and that 
this replication function was terminated and transferred to Singapore.

[[Page 23819]]

The petitioner further states that ``the last generation HDA assembly 
equipment ended prototype build by my group in Oklahoma City in October 
2002, and Norelco was chartered with replication at that time.''
    A company official was contacted regarding these allegations. It 
was revealed that workers at Seagate Technology, LLC, Research and 
Development Division, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma were engaged in the 
procuring, machining and the assembly of the Mobile Stack Automation 
(MSA) robotics line and were responsible for designing and assembling 
of OKC prototypes which were further used by Seagate's production 
facility Norelco in Singapore to manufacture disc drives. In March 2001 
and October 2002 the subject firm transferred replication 
responsibility for the FOF and Seal Lines from Oklahoma City to Norelco 
in Singapore. However, the petitioning workers were not affected by 
this transfer as they continued working at the subject facility on OKC 
prototype (MSA line) until December of 2003. In fact, according to the 
data provided by the company official, employment at Seagate 
Technology, LLC, Research and Development Division, Oklahoma City, 
Oklahoma increased from 2002 to 2003. The official further reported 
that the Oklahoma City group was terminated in December 2003. At that 
time, the work done by this group (the MSA Line) was transferred to 
Longmont, Colorado and was not sent to Singapore.
    It was established upon the reconsideration that prototype 
functions performed at the subject facility during the relevant time 
period were shifted exclusively to a domestic site. It was also 
revealed that, although prototype function does occur at an affiliate 
in Singapore, there was no evidence of a shift from the subject 
facility to the Singapore affiliate within the relevant time period, or 
any U.S. imports resulting from this or any other foreign production.

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 in Washington, DC, this 15th day of April, 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E4-962 Filed 4-29-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-13-P