[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9441-9442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4246]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-71,388]


Lucas-Smith Automotive, Inc.: Potosi, MO; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated January 22, 2010, the 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 Lucas-
Smith Automotive, Inc., Potosi, Missouri (subject firm). The Notice of 
negative determination was signed on January 8, 2010. The Department's 
Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on 
February 16, 2010 (75 FR 7039). Workers of the subject firm are engaged 
in employment related to the sales and service of new and used 
automobiles.
    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 initial investigation resulted in a denial based on the 
findings that imports of services like or directly competitive with the 
services provided by workers of the subject firm did not contribute to 
worker separations at the subject firm and that no shift in provision 
of the services to a foreign country occurred during the relevant 
period.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners alleged that 
the subject firm is either a supplier or downstream producer to a TAA-
certified firm and a loss of business with this firm contributed 
importantly to worker separations at the subject firm.
    For the Department to issue a secondary worker certification under 
Section 222(c) to workers of a downstream producer, the subject firm 
must perform additional, value-added production processes or services 
directly for a TAA-certified firm. For the Department to issue a 
secondary worker certification under Section 222(c) to workers of an 
upstream supplier, the subject firm must produce and supply directly to 
a TAA-certified firm component parts for articles, or services, used in 
the production of articles or in the supply of services, that were the 
basis for the customers' certification and the certified firm received 
certification of eligibility for TAA as a primary impacted firm.
    The investigation revealed that the workers of the subject firm 
were engaged in sales and services of new

[[Page 9442]]

and used automobiles to individual owners at an automotive dealership. 
The workers of the subject firm did not perform additional, value-added 
production processes or services directly to any of the certified 
primary firms during the investigation period. Thus, the subject firm 
workers are not eligible for TAA as downstream producers under 
secondary impact. Further, the subject firm is not an upstream supplier 
because it did not provide services to a TAA-certified firm during the 
investigation period.
    The petitioner also alleged that increased imports of foreign-
produced automobiles negatively impacted business of the subject firm 
and, therefore, workers who perform sales and service of domestic 
automobiles should be eligible for TAA.
    When assessing a worker group's eligibility to apply for TAA, the 
Department exclusively considers imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with those manufactured by the subject firm or services 
like or directly competitive with those supplied by the workers of the 
subject firm during the relevant period. It was revealed during the 
initial investigation that the subject firm neither imported services 
like or directly competitive with the services supplied by worker group 
nor shifted to or acquired from foreign country services like or 
directly competitive with the services supplied by worker group.
    The petitioners did not supply facts not previously considered and 
did not provide any documentation indicating that there was either (1) 
a mistake in the determination of facts 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 16th day of February, 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-4246 Filed 3-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P