[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 18928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-9339]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-40,246]


Incoe Corporation, North Plant, Frankfort, MI; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of January 31, 2002, the petitioners 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 December 17, 2001 and published in the 
Federal Register on January 11, 2002 (67 FR 66428).
    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 Incoe Corporation, 
North plant, Frankfort, Michigan engaged in the production of plastic 
injection molds, 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 ``contributed importantly'' test is 
generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's 
customers. However, a survey was not conducted since the products 
produced by the subject plant were shipped to another affiliated 
domestic facility. The company did not import products like or directly 
competitive with what the subject plant produced during the relevant 
period. The investigation further revealed that the dominant factor 
leading to the closure of the plant was related to a shift in plant 
production to another domestic affiliated facility.
    The petitioner alleges that the workers do not produce plastic 
injection molds as addressed in the ``Negative Determination Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Workers Adjustment Assistance''.
    A review of the initial investigation indicates that the workers 
were engaged in activities related to the production of plastic 
injection molding machine tooling for injection molding systems 
(injection molding components). The TAA decision was based on the 
correct products produced by the subject firm. The Department 
inadvertently referenced the wrong product in the decision.
    The petitioner further alleges that a representative from the 
corporate office was sent to a foreign source to compare the 
manufacturing processes and prices of the foreign sources products 
which were like or directly competitive with the subject firm's 
products. The petitioners indicated that the subject firm exported the 
product to the foreign source, which in turn sold the product back to 
the subject firm's only customer (affiliated with the subject firm) in 
the United States.
    The comparison of manufacturing processes and price from a foreign 
source is not relevant to the TAA investigation that was filed on 
behalf of workers producing plastic injection molding machine tooling 
for injection molding systems (injection molding components). In 
reference to the foreign source shipping products like or directly 
competitive with what the subject firm produced, the company reported 
no imports of products like or directly competitive with what the 
subject plant produced (including the affiliated customer) during the 
relevant period.

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.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 28th day of March, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-9339 Filed 4-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M