[Federal Register: July 7, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 129)]
[Notices]               
[Page 40300]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07jy03-118]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-51,191]

 
GetronicsWang Co. LLC, dba Getronics, Valley View, Ohio; Notice 
of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of June 2, 2003, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of 
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The 
denial notice applicable to workers of GetronicsWang Co. LLC dba 
Getronics, Valley View, Ohio was signed on April 23, 2003, and 
published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2003 (68 FR 24503).
    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 TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at GetronicsWang 
Co. LLC dba Getronics, Valley View, Ohio engaged in activities related 
to data processing and related services for an unaffiliated company: 
LTV Steel at two work sites in Cleveland, Ohio. The petition was denied 
because the petitioning workers did not produce an article within the 
meaning of section 222(3) of the Act.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners state that 
their layoffs are attributable to the import impact that led to the 
bankruptcy, and subsequent TAA certification, of their contracting 
firm. From a review of the petition in the initial investigation, it 
appears that the petitioners are attempting to allege that they are 
applying on a secondary basis, meeting that eligibility criterion on 
the basis that they worked for a primary impacted trade certified firm.
    In order to be eligible for trade adjustment assistance, the 
petitioning worker group would have to produce a product; data 
processing and related services do not constitute production of an 
article as defined in section 222 of the Trade Act. In addition, data 
processing and related services can neither be construed as a component 
part of the steel products produced by the trade certified firm, nor 
does it fit the definition of finishing or assembling the trade 
certified product, thus petitioning workers can not be considered as 
secondarily impacted workers.
    Only in very limited instances are service workers certified for 
TAA, namely the worker separations must be caused by a reduced demand 
for their services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision 
whose workers produce an article and who are currently under 
certification for TAA.

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 at Washington, DC this 13th day of June, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-16893 Filed 7-3-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-P