DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-91,797

TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
PERSONAL COMPUTER DIVISION
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF TOSHIBA AMERICA INC.
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated January 9, 2017 (postmarked January
10, 2017 and received January 23, 2017) a worker requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance, applicable to workers and former workers
of Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Personal
Computer Division, a wholly owned subsidiary of Toshiba
America Inc., Irvine, California (Toshiba-Personal Computer
Division). The determination was issued on December 11, 2016,
and the Department’s Notice of determination was published in
the Federal Register on January 4, 2017 (82 FR 872). The
displaced workers of Toshiba-Personal Computer Division supplied
sales, warranty, and technical support to Toshiba to facilitate
distribution of the finished products within the United States.
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 was based on the findings that
neither increased imports nor a shift in services/acquisition of
services to/from a foreign country contributed importantly to
the subject workers’ separations. In addition, the Department
determined that the subject worker group does not meet the
criteria of a secondarily-affected worker group.
The request for reconsideration stated that “Toshiba
America Information Systems’ Irvine office also employed staff
that were integral to production at the factories that were
closed and that this downsizing action by Toshiba America
Information Systems was largely due to competition from these
foreign imports, and hundreds of employees were laid off as a
result.”
The determination issued under TA-W-91,797 is applicable to
workers within the Personal Computer Division of Toshiba America
Information Systems, Inc., Irvine, California. Consequently,
workers of Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Irvine,
California who are not part of the Personal Computer Division
cannot file for reconsideration under 29 CFR 90.18, but may file
a petition under 29 CFR 90.11 for another worker group.
Conclusion
After careful 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, D.C., this 19th day of May, 2017

/s/ Del-Min Amy Chen
______________________________
DEL-MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P




DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-91,797

TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.
PERSONAL COMPUTER DIVISION
A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF TOSHIBA AMERICA INC.
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended ("Act"), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor
herein presents the results of an investigation regarding
certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (b)
or (e) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (b) and
(e). For the Department of Labor to issue a certification for
workers under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a),
the following criteria must be met:
(1) The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm
must have become totally or partially separated or be
threatened with total or partial separation.

(2) The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers' firm
must have decreased absolutely; AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers' firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the
component part produced by the workers' firm was
directly incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers' firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article
into which the component part produced by the
workers' firm was directly incorporated have
increased; AND
(iii) the increase in imports described in clause (ii)
contributed importantly to such workers' separation
or threat of separation and to the decline in the
sales or production of such firm.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers' firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or
supply of services like or directly competitive with
those produced/supplied by the workers' firm; OR
(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign
country by the workers' firm of articles/services that
are like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers' firm; and
(ii) the shift described in clause (i)(I) or the
acquisition of articles or services described in
clause (i)(II) contributed importantly to such
workers' separation or threat of separation.

For the Department to issue a secondary worker
certification under Section 222(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2272(b), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream Producer, the
following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in
the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the
firm have become totally or partially separated, or
are threatened to become totally or partially
separated;

(2) the workers' firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer
to a firm that employed a group of workers who
received a certification of eligibility under Section
222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such
supply or production is related to the article or
service that was the basis for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers' firm is a supplier and the component
parts it supplied to the firm described in paragraph
(2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the
production or sales of the workers' firm;
or
(B) a loss of business by the workers' firm with the
firm described in paragraph (2) contributed
importantly to the workers' separation or threat of
separation.

Section 222(c) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), defines the
terms "Supplier" and "Downstream Producer."
Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in a category of determination that is
listed in Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm
under Section 222(e) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(e), can be
satisfied if the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers' firm is publicly identified by name by
the International Trade Commission as a member of a
domestic industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section
705(b)(1)(A) or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and
1673d(b)(1)(A));

(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period
beginning on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the
President by the International Trade Commission
under section 202(f)(1) with respect to the
affirmative determination described in paragraph
(1)(A) is published in the Federal Register under
section 202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described
in subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and

(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers' firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on May 12, 2016 by a state workforce office on behalf of
workers of Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Personal
Computer Division, a wholly owned subsidiary of Toshiba
America Inc., Irvine, California. The workers' firm is engaged
in activities related to the supply of sales, warranty and
technical support to facilitate distribution of the finished
products in the United States.
The petitioner/state workforce official alleges that there
were increased imports of articles impacting workers involved in
design, software engineering and sales at the subject firm.
However, the company official confirmed that the only
functions that the subject firm workers provide are the supply
of sales, warranty and technical support to facilitate
distribution of the finished products in the United States, in
which these products are exclusively manufactured overseas.
During the course of the investigation, information was
collected from the workers' firm and the petitioner.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that imports of services like or
directly competitive with the services supplied by Toshiba
America Information Systems, Inc., Personal Computer Division,
a wholly subsidiary of Toshiba America Inc., Irvine,
California have not increased. The firm did not import
services like or directly competitive to the services supplied
by the worker group.
With respect to Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that the firm did not shift the supply of
sales, warranty and technical support to facilitate
distribution of the finished products in the United States or
a like or directly competitive service to a foreign country or
acquire sales, warranty and technical support to facilitate
distribution of the finished products or a like or directly
competitive service from a foreign country.
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Toshiba America Information
Systems, Inc., Personal Computer Division, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Toshiba America Inc., Irvine, California is not
a Supplier to a firm that employed a group of workers who
received a certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of
the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
With respect to Section 222(b)(2) of the Act, the
investigation revealed that Toshiba America Information
Systems, Inc., Personal Computer Division, a wholly owned
subsidiary of Toshiba America Inc., Irvine, California does
not act as a Downstream Producer to a firm that employed a
group of workers who received a certification of eligibility
under Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a).
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(e) of the Act, have not been satisfied either because
Criterion (1) has not been met since the workers' firm has not
been publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an
investigation resulting in an affirmative finding of serious
injury, market disruption, or material injury, or threat
thereof.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that the requirements of Section 222
of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272, have not been met and, therefore,
deny the petition for group eligibility of Toshiba America
Information Systems, Inc., Personal Computer Division, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Toshiba America Inc., Irvine,
California engaged in activities related to the supply of sales,
warranty and technical support to facilitate distribution of
the finished products in the United States to apply for
adjustment assistance, in accordance with Section 223 of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 11th day of December 2016.
/s/Hope D. Kinglock
______________________________
HOPE D. KINGLOCK
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance