TDK Texas Corporation, A Subsidiary of TDK USA Corporation, El Paso, Texas; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of January 5, 2004, 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 was signed on November 24, 2003 and published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2003 (68 FR 74978).

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, filed on behalf of workers at TDK Texas Corporation, a subsidiary of TDK USA Corporation, El Paso, Texas, engaged in distribution of electronic components was denied because the workers did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The workers appear to be alleging that layoffs at TDK Texas Corporation, a subsidiary of TDK USA Corporation, El Paso, Texas, was attributed to free trade and attempt to depict this in their request for reconsideration.

The worker allegations of trade impact would only be relevant if all other eligibility requirements for trade adjustment assistance were met in this case. However, distribution services do not meet the definition of production of an article as established in Section 222 of the Trade Act, thus the workers in this case do not meet the eligibility requirements of TAA.

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.