[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 104 (Thursday, May 30, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 37871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-13544]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-40,368]


SEH-America, Vancouver, WA; Notice of Negative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application received February 26, 2002, the 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 January 2, 2002 and published in the 
Federal Register on January 11, 2002 (67 FR 1511).
    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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at SEH-America, 
Vancouver, Washington engaged in the production of polished silicon 
wafers (6 & 8 inch), 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 subject firm did not import 6-inch 
silicon wafers produced by SEH-America at Vancouver, Washington. The 
subject firm has always imported 8-inch wafers (a different product 
entirely), but company imports of that item have been declining in 
recent years.
    The investigation further revealed that the subject firm intended 
to shift some 6-inch wafer production offshore, and in the future 
import the product back into the U.S. for sale and distribution in this 
country. The move, however, was scheduled for later in 2002.
    The petitioner alleges that another company was certified under 
NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment (NAFTA-TAA) when that company shifted 
their production to Mexico and thus feels that a shift in 6-inch wafer 
production by the subject firm to Malaysia should qualify the workers 
of SEH-America, Vancouver, Washington eligible to apply for TAA.
    Under NAFTA-TAA, a shift in subject plant production to Mexico or 
Canada normally meets the eligibility requirements. However, under TAA 
a shift in plant production to any foreign source is not relevant to 
meeting the eligibility requirement of section 222(3) of the Trade Act 
of 1974. Imports ``like or directly competitive'' with what the subject 
plant produced must ``contribute importantly'' to the layoffs at the 
subject firm. The imports must be entering the Untied States during the 
relevant period.
    A review of the initial decision shows that imports of the 6-inch 
wafers were not scheduled to begin arriving until mid-2002, well beyond 
the relevant period of the investigation. The workers were advised to 
submit a new petition during the relevant period of time the 6-inch 
wafers were scheduled to arrive into the United States from Malaysia.

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 at Washington, DC, this 30th day of April, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-13544 Filed 5-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P