United Auto Workers Local 1999, Oklahoma City, OK; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

Topics:  United Auto Workers, General Motors

Del Min Amy Chen
October 25, 2010

[Federal Register: October 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 205)]
[Notices]               
[Page 65524-65525]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25oc10-117]                         

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

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

[[Page 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