Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 82 / Thursday, April 30, 2009 / Notices 19997 

separate or threaten to separate a 

significant number or proportion of 

workers as required by Section 222 of 

the Trade Act of 1974. The denial notice 

was published in the Federal Register 

on February 2, 2009 (74 FR 5871). 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

company official provided additional 

information regarding employment and 

layoffs at the subject firm. The company 

official confirmed that employment at 

the subject facility declined 

significantly in December, 2008 and 

further declined in January, 2009. The 

investigation also revealed that sales 

and production at the subject firm 

declined from January through 

November 2008 over the corresponding 

2007 period. 

Furthermore, the Department 

conducted a survey of the major 

declining customers regarding their 

purchases of upholstered furniture in 

2006, 2007, January through November, 

2007 and January through November, 

2008. The survey of the major declining 

customers revealed that the customers 

increased their reliance on imported 

upholstered furniture during the 

relevant period. 

In accordance with Section 246 the 

Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 

amended, the Department of Labor 

herein presents the results of its 

investigation regarding certification of 

eligibility to apply for alternative trade 

adjustment assistance (ATAA) for older 

workers. 

In order for the Department to issue 

a certification of eligibility to apply for 

ATAA, the group eligibility 

requirements of Section 246 of the 

Trade Act must be met. The Department 

has determined in this case that the 

requirements of Section 246 have been 

met. 

A significant number of workers at the 

firm are age 50 or over and possess 

skills that are not easily transferable. 

Competitive conditions within the 

industry are adverse. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the additional 

facts obtained on reconsideration, I 

conclude that increased imports of 

articles like or directly competitive with 

those produced at Century Furniture, 

LLC, Chair Upholstery Campus and 

Upholstery Division, Hickory, North 

Carolina, contributed importantly to the 

declines in sales or production and to 

the total or partial separation of workers 

at the subject firm. In accordance with 

the provisions of the Act, I make the 

following certification: 

‘‘All workers of Century Furniture, LLC, 

Chair Upholstery Campus and Upholstery 

Division, Hickory, North Carolina, who 

became totally or partially separated from 

employment on or after December 11, 2007, 

through two years from the date of this 

certification, are eligible to apply for 

adjustment assistance under Section 223 of 

the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to 

apply for alternative trade adjustment 

assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act 

of 1974.’’ 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 20th day of 

April 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–9930 Filed 4–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–64,591] 

Gensym Corporation, a Subsidiary of 

Versata Enterprises, Inc., Burlington, 

MA; Notice of Negative Determination 

on Reconsideration 

On March 2, 2009, the Department 

issued an Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration for the workers and 

former workers of the subject firm. The 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register on March 11, 2009 (74 FR 

10616–10617). 

The initial investigation resulted in a 

negative determination based on the 

finding that worker group does not 

produce an article within the meaning 

of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. 

The investigation revealed that workers 

of Gensym Corporation, a subsidiary of 

Versata Enterprises, Inc., Burlington, 

Massachusetts were engaged in IT sales, 

consulting, customer support services, 

finance and human resources services. 

In the request for reconsideration the 

petitioner contends that the Department 

erred in its interpretation of the work 

performed by the workers of the subject 

firm. The petitioner states that workers 

of the subject firm produced several 

software products, such as G2, Rethink 

and Neuron-line. 

On reconsideration, the Department 

contacted a company official and 

requested additional information 

regarding the production of software by 

Gensym Corporation and whether 

workers of the subject firm were 

engaged in production of the above 

mentioned products during the relevant 

period. 

The company official stated that the 

workers of the subject firm did produce 

software. However, the company official 

also stated that all software products, 

including the software mentioned by the 

petitioner in the request for 

reconsideration, were designed and 

developed prior to October 2007. The 

company official further provided 

information to confirm that no 

production of software took place at the 

subject firm during the relevant period. 

When assessing eligibility for TAA, 

the Department exclusively considers 

production during the relevant period 

(one year prior to the date of the 

petition). Events occurring prior to 

October 2007 are outside of the relevant 

time period as established by the 

petition date of December 2, 2008, and 

thus cannot be considered in this 

investigation. 

The investigation revealed that during 

the relevant period, the workers of 

Gensym Corporation, a subsidiary of 

Versata Enterprises, Inc., Burlington, 

Massachusetts, sold licenses to already 

established products, provided 

customer support and enhancement 

services for the licensed software and 

performed finance and human resources 

services. 

These functions, as described above, 

are not considered production of an 

article within the meaning of Section 

222 of the Trade Act. No production 

took place at the subject facility during 

the relevant period, nor did the workers 

support production of an article at any 

domestic location during the relevant 

period. 

The petitioner also alleges that job 

functions have been shifted from the 

subject firm to India, China and Mexico. 

The allegation of a shift to another 

country might be relevant if it was 

determined that workers of the subject 

firm produced an article. However, the 

investigation determined that workers of 

Gensym Corporation, a subsidiary of 

Versata Enterprises, Inc., Burlington, 

Massachusetts, do not produce an 

article within the meaning of Section 

222 of the Trade Act of 1974. 

Conclusion 

After reconsideration, I affirm the 

original notice of negative 

determination of eligibility to apply for 

worker adjustment assistance for 

workers and former workers of Gensym 

Corporation, a subsidiary of Versata 

Enterprises, Inc., Burlington, 

Massachusetts. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of 

April 2009. 

Elliott S. Kushner 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–9938 Filed 4–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P