65524 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 205 / Monday, October 25, 2010 / Notices 

purchases of precision sheet metal 

fabrication for 2007, 2008, and January 

through April 2009 revealed decreased 

imports. The investigation also revealed 

that the subject firm is not a supplier or 

downstream producer to a firm that 

employed a worker group eligible to 

apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance 

(TAA). 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioner alleged that, in November 

2008, the subject firm’s largest customer 

transferred forty percent of its base 

contract for self check-out cabinets to a 

firm in Canada, and that the shift in 

supplier caused a downturn in business 

for the subject firm and the subsequent 

worker separations. 

In response to the request, the 

Department sought further details about 

the circumstances surrounding the 

separations, especially the relationship 

between the separations and the alleged 

decline in sales to a customer which 

allegedly began to outsource like and 

directly competitive articles from a 

Canadian firm. 

The reconsideration investigation 

revealed that the workers are separately 

identifiable by product line and that the 

subject firm sold two types of precision 

sheet metal fabrication to the customer 

named in the request for 

reconsideration: Sheet metal cabinets 

for self check-out units, and sheet metal 

parts to modify those basic cabinets to 

accommodate a variety of peripherals, 

such as computers and cameras. 

The reconsideration investigation 

regarding self check-out units revealed 

that the subject firm’s largest customer 

did transfer a significant proportion of 

its purchases of such cabinets for self 

check-out units to a foreign source; 

however, during the relevant period 

sales of these self check-out cabinets to 

this customer increased significantly. 

Further, an analysis revealed that, 

although the subject firm’s share of 

cabinet purchases by this customer 

declined, that customer so greatly 

increased the amount of its purchases of 

self check-out cabinets overall that its 

purchases of those items from the 

subject firm actually increased 

significantly. 

Additionally, during the 

reconsideration investigation, the 

subject firm provided the Department 

with the names of its four largest 

declining customers. 

During the course of the original 

investigation, customer surveys were 

conducted for two firms which 

accounted for 68% percent of the 

decline in sales of the subject firm 

during the first four months of 2009. 

Those surveys revealed that one 

company did not import any like or 

directly competitive articles during the 

relevant period, while the other 

decreased its imports of like and 

directly competitive articles by 98 

percent during the same period. 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department contacted 

a third company but did not survey the 

customer because of the relatively 

insignificant scale of the customer’s 

decline. The fourth customer was the 

customer identified in the request for 

reconsideration. Because self check-out 

unit sales by the subject firm to this 

customer increased during the relevant 

period (as stated above) and the workers 

of the subject firm are separately 

identifiable by product line, the 

Department did not survey this 

customer. 

Conclusion 

After a careful review of information 

obtained during the reconsideration 

investigation and previously-submitted 

information, I affirm the original notice 

of negative determination of eligibility 

to apply for worker adjustment 

assistance for workers and former 

workers of Dawson Metal Company, 

Inc., Industrial Division, Jamestown, 

New York. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 7th day of 

October 2010. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26769 Filed 10–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–71,863] 

United Auto Workers Local 1999, 

Oklahoma City, OK; Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration 

By application dated January 20, 

2010, workers 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 United Auto 

Workers Local 1999, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma (the subject firm). The 

determination was signed on November 

23, 2009. The Notice of determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on January 25, 2010 (75 FR 3939). 

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 negative determination of the 

petition filed on behalf of workers at 

United Auto Workers Local 1999, 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, was based 

on the findings that the workers at the 

subject firm did not supply services that 

support the production at the General 

Motors sport utility vehicle (SUV), 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma plant, as 

alleged in the petition, and are not 

adversely-affected secondary workers. 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

workers rely solely on the subject firm’s 

relationship with the General Motors 

SUV plant in Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma. Workers at that facility had 

been certified eligible to apply for TAA 

under TA–W–63,965 (issued on October 

8, 2008). The workers in the request for 

reconsideration states that ‘‘our firm is 

still operating and servicing General 

Motors and its workers/retirees’’ even 

though the plant at issue was 

permanently closed in September 2008. 

The workers also stated they are 

seeking TAA certification as 

secondarily-affected workers because 

the subject firm ‘‘was and is a suppler 

or downstream producer to the General 

Motors SUV plant which employed a 

group of workers who received 

certification of eligibility under Section 

222(a) of the Act.’’ 

The initial investigation by the 

Department, however, and the 

documentation of the subject firm’s 

activities which accompanied the 

request for reconsideration, reveal that 

the subject firm is not a Supplier or 

Downstream Producer to the General 

Motors SUV plant at issue. Specifically, 

the headings given to the 

documentation which accompanied the 

request for reconsideration illustrate 

that the subject firm did not supply 

services to the General Motors SUV 

plant in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma that 

were directly used in the production of 

the article that was the basis for 

certification of TA–W–63,965. For 

example, under the overall heading of 

‘‘Advertising, Publicity and Community 

Awareness’’ was ‘‘Annual Oklahoma 

State Fair Booth’’; ‘‘Parades’’; ‘‘Trade 

Shows’’ and under the overall heading 

of ‘‘Employee Classes/Services’’ was 

‘‘Pre- and Post-Retirement Classes’’; ‘‘Job 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 205 / Monday, October 25, 2010 / Notices 65525 

Fair’’; and ‘‘Calendars.’’ Other 

documentation appeared under the 

headings of ‘‘UAW–GM Golf 

Tournaments’’ and ‘‘Community Service 

& Charitable Activities.’’ 

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 

October 2010. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26772 Filed 10–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–74,327] 

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, Claim 

Management Services, Inc. Operations, 

a Division of Wellpoint, Inc., Green 

Bay, WI; Notice of Negative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration 

By application dated August 26, 2010, 

a petitioner requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department of 

Labor’s negative determination 

regarding eligibility to apply for Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (TAA), 

applicable to workers and former 

workers of Anthem Blue Cross Blue 

Shield, Claim Management Services, 

Inc. Operations, a Division of Wellpoint, 

Inc., Green Bay, Wisconsin (the subject 

firm). The Notice of determination was 

signed on August 16, 2010, and was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 3, 2010 (75 FR 54187). The 

workers supply claims processing 

services and customer service functions, 

and are not separately identifiable by 

service. 

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 determination of the 

TAA petition filed on behalf of workers 

at the subject firm was based on the 

findings that there was neither a shift in 

the supply of claims processing and 

customer service functions to a foreign 

country, nor imports of claims 

processing and customer service 

functions during the relevant period, 

and that the subject firm is not a 

supplier or downstream producer to a 

firm that employed a worker group 

eligible to apply for TAA. 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioner stated that the workers of the 

subject firm should be eligible for TAA 

based on a shift to a foreign country. 

The petitioner also noted that workers at 

other locations of Anthem Blue Cross 

Blue Shield are eligible to apply for 

TAA, and urged the Department to ‘‘take 

a look at the entire company and review 

this again and you will find that they 

have outsourced to [a foreign country].’’ 

The Department has confirmed that 

workers at several other locations of 

Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield are 

eligible to apply for TAA on the basis 

of a shift to a foreign country; however, 

the workers at the subject facility supply 

services that are distinctly different and 

separate from those supplied by workers 

at the other Anthem Blue Cross Blue 

Shield locations, and the work that was 

performed by Anthem Blue Cross Blue 

Shield workers who are eligible to apply 

for TAA based on a shift abroad had 

never been performed at the subject 

facility. 

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 

October 2010. 

Michael W. Jaffe, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–26774 Filed 10–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–74,063] 

TRG Insurance Solutions, Beckley, 

WV; Notice of Revised Determination 

on Reconsideration 

By application dated August 12, 2010 

petitioners requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

negative determination regarding the 

eligibility of workers and former 

workers of TRG Insurance Solutions, 

Beckley, West Virginia, to apply for 

Trade Adjustment Assistance. On 

August 30, 2010, the Department issued 

a Notice of Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration. The Department’s 

Notice was published in the Federal 

Register on September 13, 2010 (75 FR 

55612). Workers at the subject firm are 

engaged in employment related to the 

supply of insurance call center services. 

Based on the information obtained 

during the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department 

determines that the subject firm shifted 

to a foreign country a significant 

proportion of the services like or 

directly competitive with the insurance 

call center services supplied by the 

subject workers. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the additional 

facts obtained during the 

reconsideration investigation, I 

determine that workers of TRG 

Insurance Solutions, Beckley, West 

Virginia, who are engaged in 

employment related to the supply of 

insurance call center services, meet the 

worker group certification criteria under 

Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 

2272(a). In accordance with Section 223 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES