[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 193 (Thursday, October 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 50690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-24823]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,707]


Philips Consumer Electronics Company, Knoxville Industrial Design 
Group (KID), Knoxville, TN; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated May 8, 2001, 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 April 9, 2001, and 
published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2001 (66 FR 22006).
    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 Department initially denied the TAA to workers of Philips 
Consumer Electronics Company, Knoxville Industrial Design Group (KID), 
Knoxville, Tennessee, based on the finding that the workers did not 
produce an article as required by Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended.
    The petitioner asserts that the subject firm is involved in the 
design and production of one-of-a-kind prototypes that were sent to the 
company headquarters or to third party companies, and thus the workers 
should be considered engaged in employment related to the production of 
a tangible product.
    The Department concurs with the petitioner that the worker group 
could be considered engaged in employment related to the production of 
an article. The prototypes, however, were one-of-a-kind, and as such, 
were never mass produced. Furthermore, since the prototypes were one-
of-a-kind, there could not be any imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with the prototypes constructed by the workers of the 
subject firm.

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 14th day of September 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-24823 Filed 10-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M