[Federal Register: October 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 193)]
[Notices]               
[Page 57684-57685]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03oc08-102]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,502]

 
Onsite International Inc., El Paso, TX; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of July 28, 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 July 7, 2008, and 
published in the Federal Register on July 28, 2008 (73 FR 43790).
    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 petition for the workers of Onsite International, Inc., El 
Paso, Texas engaged in administrative functions was denied because the 
petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning of 
Section 222 of the Act.
    The workers of Onsite International Inc., El Paso, Texas were 
previously certified eligible to apply for TAA under petition number 
TA-W-55,702, which expired on October 13, 2006. The investigation 
revealed that production at the subject firm ceased in 2006.
    The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its 
interpretation of work performed at the subject facility and further 
conveys that workers of the subject company ``handled all aspects of 
shipping, receiving, repairing, repacking of the garments''. The 
petitioner further states that the subject firm produced articles in 
the last three years and workers of the subject firm were previously 
certified eligible for TAA based on a shift in production to Mexico. 
The petitioner seems to allege that because the petitioning workers 
were part of the initial certified worker group and remained employed 
by the subject firm after all the production stopped and beyond October 
13, 2006, the current worker group, who are engaged in distribution of 
articles, should be also eligible for TAA.
    A company official of the subject firm verified that production of 
articles was shifted from the subject firm to Mexico in 2004 and that 
no production took place at the subject firm since 2006. The official 
further clarified that workers of the subject firm remained to end 
programs and dispose of the assets after all production ceased.
    The investigation revealed that the subject facility did not 
manufacture articles since January 2006, when production shifted to 
Mexico. Although a small amount of cutting continued until early 2007, 
workers of the subject firm were not engaged in production of an 
article or supporting production of the article during the relevant 
time period.
    Under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, certification of group 
eligibility to apply for TAA will be issued where a shift of production 
is the alleged basis for certification provided that (1) a significant 
number or proportion of the workers of such workers' firm, or an 
appropriate subdivision, have been totally or partially separated or 
are threatened to become totally or partially separated; and (2) there 
has been a shift in production from the workers' firm or subdivision to 
an eligible foreign country of articles like or directly competitive 
with those produced by the subject firm or subdivision under section 
222(a)(2)(B)(i); and, either the foreign country is a party to a free 
trade agreement with the United States under section 
222(a)(2)(B)(ii)(I), is a beneficiary country under section 
222(a)(2)(B)(ii)(II), or there has been or is likely to be an increase 
in imports of like or directly competitive articles. The Department 
interprets the standard for certification as requiring that the shift 
of production of an article to a foreign country must be a cause of the 
separations of workers of the firm that were engaged in or supported 
the production of that article.
    That the subject workers were not separated, or threatened with 
separation, until January 31, 2008 (two

[[Page 57685]]

years after the subject firm's shift of production of garments to 
Mexico) supports the Department's findings that the subject workers' 
employment with the subject firm was not dependent upon domestic 
production and that the subject firm's shift of garment production to 
Mexico was not a factor in the subject workers' separations. Therefore, 
the Department determines that the group eligibility to apply for 
benefits under the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, has not been met.
    Further, the Department found that no new information was provided 
to contradict the original negative findings.

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 19th day of September 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-23301 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P