[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4755-4756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-2340]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-39,456]


Huck Fasteners, Altoona, PA; Notice of Negative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of August 12, 2001 the Laborers' International Union 
of North America (L.I.U.N.A.), Local 734 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 
June 29, 2001, and published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2001 
(66 FR 38026).
    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, filed on behalf of workers at Huck Fasteners, 
Altoona, Pennsylvania producing cold headed, threaded fasteners, was 
denied because the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility 
requirement of section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was 
not met. The preponderance in the declines in employment at the subject 
plant is the direct result of all production being transferred to 
another domestic location. The shift in plant production is attributed 
to a decision by the company to gain increased profitability through 
manufacturing efficiency. The investigation further revealed that any 
fluctuations in plant sales are the direct result of the trend in the 
production of automobiles for which the subject plant product is 
produced. The investigation also revealed that the subject company did 
not import cold headed, threaded fasteners during the relevant period.
    The petitioner alleges that the loss of a significant and highly 
profitable segment of the company's business is due to customers 
purchasing certain product lines from foreign sources.
    An examination of the initial investigation revealed that the 
firm's fluctuations in sales are minor in relation to the deep layoffs 
that occurred at the subject plant. Any sales fluctuations are related 
to reduced demand from the subject firm's major customer base, the 
automobile industry, which had declining automobile sales during the 
relevant period. Therefore, imports of products like and directly 
competitive with that which the subject plant produced did not 
contribute importantly to the separations at the subject plant.
    Based on information acquired from the company during the initial 
investigation, the preponderance in the declines in employment is 
related to a decision by the company during the early part of 2001 to 
shift plant production to an affiliated plant located in Medina, Ohio. 
The Medina facility produced the same type of products as the Altoona 
plant. The Altoona plant was a much older facility that lacked 
expansion potential. The Medina plant had a neighboring building that 
had significant unused capacity and was well suited for the subject 
plant's production.
    During the initial investigation, management indicated that the 
shift in production could substantially improve manufacturing 
efficiency by integrating

[[Page 4756]]

the Altoona facility into the Medina, Ohio plant. The company further 
indicated that the products were similar at both locations, the 
requisite skills of employees are the same and that it is more 
efficient to run one larger plant than two smaller plants.

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 decisions. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Dated: Signed at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of January, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-2340 Filed 1-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M