45476 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 151 / Tuesday, August 5, 2008 / Notices 

articles which are produced by such 

firm or subdivision; and 

C. One of the following must be 

satisfied: 

1. The country to which the workers’

firm has shifted production of the 

articles is a party to a free trade 

agreement with the United States; or 

2. The country to which the workers’

firm has shifted production of the 

articles is a beneficiary country under 

the Andean Trade Preference Act, 

African Growth and Opportunity Act, or 

the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 

Act; or 

3. There has been or is likely to be an 

increase in imports of articles that are 

like or directly competitive with articles 

which are or were produced by such 

firm or subdivision. 

The Union appears to assert that 

because the Department identified in 

the negative determination two criteria 

that were not met, the Department 

requires that, in order for a worker 

group to be certified for TAA, both of 

the aforementioned sections must be 

met. 

In determining whether a worker 

group has met the criteria set forth in 

the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the 

Department investigates whether the 

worker group has met the criteria of 

either Section (a)(2)(A) or Section 

(a)(2)(B), not both. If the criteria of 

either Section are met, the Department 

will certify the worker group as eligible 

to apply for TAA. 

The Union asserts that it is unfair that 

the Department considers only ‘‘United 

Stated aggregate imports’’ because to do 

so would discount the disproportionate 

impact that imports have on a specific 

region, such as the Eastern Seaboard. 

Section (a)(2)(A)(C) requires that there 

be a finding of increased imports. 29 

CFR section 90.2 states that ‘‘increased 

imports means that imports have 

increased either absolutely or relatively 

to domestic production compared to a 

representative bade period.’’ As asserted 

by the Union, imports did not increase 

in 2007 compared to 2006. Absent a 

finding of increased imports, the 

Department cannot determine whether 

or not increased imports contributed 

importantly to subject firm sales and/or 

production declines and worker 

separations. 

Section (a)(2)(B)(B) requires that there 

‘‘has been’’ a shift of production. That 

the requirement is in the past tense 

means that the shift is an event in the 

past and not in the future. Therefore, the 

subject firm’s ‘‘possible shift or planned 

shift’’ (if any) would not have been a 

basis for TAA certification. 

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 28th day of 

July 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–17884 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–63,287] 

Paulstra CRC Sales Office, Novi, MI; 

Notice of Negative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration 

By application postmarked July 1, 

2008, a petitioner 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 May 19, 2008 and 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 3, 2008 (73 FR 31716). 

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 negative TAA determination 

issued by the Department for workers of 

Paulstra CRC, Sales Office, Novi, 

Michigan was based on the finding that 

the worker group does not produce an 

article within the meaning of Section 

222 of the Trade Act of 1974. 

The petitioner stated that the workers 

of the subject firm were Customer 

Service Representatives and that their 

job duties directly supported production 

at Paulstra CRC. The petitioner further 

stated that the duties of a Customer 

Service Representative were to input 

orders, schedule delivery, customer 

negotiations, price negotiations, etc. and 

that ‘‘without these functions there 

would not have been any production.’’

The petitioner alleged that because 

other facilities of Paulstra CRC had been 

certified eligible for TAA, workers of the 

Sales Office who are engaged in sales 

and customer support services should 

be certified eligible for TAA. 

A review of the initial investigation 

confirmed that the workers of the 

subject facility support production at 

Paulstra CRC, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 

(TA–W–61,908) during the relevant 

period. The above mentioned 

production facility was certified eligible 

for adjustment assistance on September 

24, 2007. 

However, the investigation also 

revealed that only one worker was 

separated from the Sales Office since 

April 2007 and there was no threat of 

future separations. 

The subject company did not separate 

or threaten to separate a significant 

number or proportion of workers, as 

required by Section 222 of the Trade Act 

of 1974. Significant number or 

proportion of the workers in a firm or 

appropriate subdivision means at least 

three workers in a workforce of fewer 

than 50 workers, five percent of the 

workers in a workforce of over 50 

workers, or at least 50 workers. 

Therefore, the subject facility did not 

meet the threshold of employment 

declines and there was no threat of 

separations during the relevant period. 

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 28th day of 

July 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–17886 Filed 8–4–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with NOTICES