[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 3253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-898]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,516]


Lamb Assembly and Test, LLC, Subsidiary of Mag Industrial 
Automation Systems, Machesney Park, IL; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated December 1, 2009, petitioners requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the 
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on October 22, 2009 and was 
published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2009 (74 FR 65796).
    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 initial investigation resulted in a negative determination, 
based on the finding that imports of automation equipment and machine 
tools did not contribute to worker separations at the subject facility 
and there was no shift in production from the subject firm to foreign 
country during the period under investigation. The ``contributed 
importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the 
workers' firm's declining customers. The survey revealed no imports of 
automation equipment and machine tools by declining customers during 
the relevant period. The subject firm did not import automation 
equipment and machine tools nor shift production to a foreign country 
during the relevant period.
    The petitioner stated that workers of the subject firm supplied 
transmission assembly automation equipment to companies which have been 
recently certified eligible for TAA. The petitioner provided a list of 
customers and alleged that the workers of the subject firm should be 
eligible for TAA as secondary impacted workers under Section 222(c).
    For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification under 
Section 222(c), to workers of a secondary upstream supplier, the 
subject firm must produce for a TAA-certified firm a component part of 
the article that was the basis for the customers' certification and the 
certified firm received certification of eligibility for TAA as a 
primary impacted firm.
    The Department has reviewed the list of companies provided by the 
petitioners. The alleged customers manufacture aluminum transmissions, 
cases, parts and automobile engines. The subject firm does not act as 
an upstream supplier, because automation equipment and machine tools do 
not form component parts of aluminum transmissions, cases, parts and 
automobile engines. Furthermore, the customers to which the subject 
firm allegedly supplied articles were not certified as primary firms 
but were certified for TAA on the basis of a secondary impact. Thus the 
subject firm workers are not eligible under secondary impact.
    The petitioner also stated that workers of Lamb Technicon, a 
division of Unova, Warren, Michigan and Lake Orion, Michigan were 
previously certified eligible for TAA. The petitioner appears to allege 
that because the sister companies of the subject firm were certified 
eligible for TAA, the workers of the subject firm should be also 
granted a TAA certification.
    The workers of the above mentioned companies were certified 
eligible for TAA under petition numbers TA-W-40,267 and TA-W-40,267A in 
July 2002.
    When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively 
considers events during the relevant period (from one year prior to the 
date of the petition). Therefore, events occurring in 2002 are outside 
of the relevant period and are not considered in this investigation.
    The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor 
provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a 
mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or (2) 
a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration 
of the initial determination.
    After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the 
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

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 7th day of January 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-898 Filed 1-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P