[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40012-40013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14596]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-40,695]


Nolato Shieldmate, Inc., Itasca, IL; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated March 14, 2002, the company 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 February 25, 2002, and 
published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2002 (67 FR 13010).
    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 for the workers of Nolato Shieldmate, Inc., Itasca, 
Illinois 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 denial was based on evidence indicating that 
customers of the subject firm do not import plastic housings for 
cellular phones. The relocation by a customer of their cell phone 
production to a foreign site necessitated a reliance on local sources 
for the phone housings. Complete cellular phones are not like or 
directly competitive with the phone housings made by the subject firm 
and cannot be used as a basis for certification.
    The petitioner feels that the eligibility criteria have been met 
based on the fact that the manufacture of cellular phone housing sub-
assemblies (plastic housings) has moved to China, even though the 
cellular telephone housing sub-assemblies are not imported back to the 
United States. The petitioner further states that product is a 
component of a cellular phone that is imported back to the United 
States.
    The imports of any other product by the company or customer is not 
relevant to this petition that was filed on behalf

[[Page 40013]]

of worker(s) producing plastic housing for cell phones. The products 
imported must be ``like or directly competitive'' with what the subject 
plant produces to meet the eligibility requirements of section 222(3) 
of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
    The petitioner further states that a major customer of the subject 
firm for whom the subject firm produced plastic housing was certified 
eligible for TAA and therefore believes the subject plant workers 
should be certified for TAA.
    The certification of a customer is not a basis for TAA 
certification. The customer would have to demonstrate that a meaningful 
portion of their imports of products ``like or directly competitive'' 
with plastic housing increased significantly during the relevant 
period, contributing importantly to the layoffs at the subject plant. 
The customer in this case shifted their production of cell phones to 
China and relied solely on local sources for their plastic housing 
requirements. The customer imported the complete cell phones back to 
the United States. Complete cell phones are not ``like or directly 
competitive'' with the phone housing produced by the subject firm and 
cannot be used as a basis in meeting the group eligibility requirement 
of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

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 9th day of May, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-14596 Filed 6-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P