[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38522-38523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-13942]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-40,590]


Alfa Laval Inc.; Formerly Known as Tri-Clover, Kenosha, 
Wisconsin; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application of February 21, 2002, the International Association 
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Lodge 34 requested administrative 
reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding

[[Page 38523]]

eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply 
for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The denial notice was signed on 
January 22, 2002, and published in the Federal Register on February 5, 
2002 (67 FR 5293).
    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 petition, filed on behalf of workers at Alfa Laval Inc., 
formerly known as Tri-Clover, Kenosha, Wisconsin producing fittings, 
valves and pumps 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 investigation revealed that 
increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations 
at the subject firm during the relevant period. The investigation 
further revealed that during 2000, Tri-Clover was acquired by a company 
that also owned Alfa Laval. As both companies produced similar product 
lines, a strategic business decision was made to consolidate production 
among multiple facilities. Thus declines in sales, production and 
employment were attributable to eliminating excess capacity. Plant 
production of valves and pumps were scheduled to be shifted to other 
domestic locations during mid2002. Plant production of fittings was 
transferred to a foreign source, but was not imported back to the 
United States during the relevant period. The petitioner appears to be 
alleging that shifts in subject plant production of fittings to a 
foreign source occurred and that plant production of valves and pumps 
will be shifted to foreign sources in the near future, therefore the 
workers of the subject plant should be considered eligible for TAA.
    An examination of the initial investigation revealed that shifts in 
production (fittings) at the subject firm have occurred. The other 
products (valves and pumps) produced at the subject firm were scheduled 
to be shifted during mid2002. The shifts in production (also 
outsourcing) to foreign sources is not relevant to meeting criterion 
(3) of the Trade Act of 1974. The products produced by the subject firm 
would have to be imported back into the United States and also must 
``contribute importantly'' to the layoffs at the subject firm for the 
worker groups engaged in producing fittings, valves and pumps to be 
certified eligible to apply for TAA. No such evidence was provided to 
show that this occurred 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 at Washington, DC, this 6th day of May, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-13942 Filed 6-3-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P