[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 45547]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-17143]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-40,320]


Elk Rapids Engineering, a Division of Star Cutter Company, Elk 
Rapids, MI; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application dated May 16, 2002, a petitioner 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 May 7, 2002, and 
published in the Federal Register on May 17, 2002 (67 FR 35140).
    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 Elk Rapids Engineering, Elk Rapids, 
Michigan 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 customers of the workers' firm. The 
survey revealed that none of the respondents increased their purchases 
of imported CNC controlled machine tools while decreasing their 
purchases from the subject firm. The subject firm did not import CNC 
controlled machine tools.
    The petitioner believes that their company as well as the entire 
machine tool industry in the United States has been significantly 
affected by increased imports of machine tools. The petitioner attempts 
to support this claim by providing a transcript of testimony given by 
the Association for Manufacturing Technology before the Committee on 
Small Business, U.S. House of Representatives on April 24, 2002. The 
petitioner also indicates that customers are spending less and 
importing more machine tools during the relevant period. The petitioner 
further attached a summary of U.S. Machine-Tool Orders depicting 
significant declines in orders during the last few years.
    A review of the data supplied by the petitioner depicts industry 
wide data that is not specific to the products produced at the subject 
plant. The Department of Labor examines the direct impact of imports 
that are ``like or directly competitive'' with what the subject plant 
produced and if imports ``contributed importantly'' to the layoffs at 
the subject plant. The investigation revealed that imports of the 
product produced at the subject plant did not ``contribute 
importantly'' to the layoffs at the subject plant. The U.S. Machine-
Tool Order data supplied by the petitioner depicts declines in U.S. 
machine-tool orders during the last few years. U.S. machine tool orders 
include those for the export market, as well as the domestic market. 
Thus a reduced demand for U.S. machine tools (depicted by orders) does 
not reflect a definitive increase in imports. Examination of industry 
data in which the subject firm's products are categorized shows that 
U.S. imports of products like or directly competitive with what the 
subject firm produced declined in 2001 over 2000.

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 20th day of June, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-17143 Filed 7-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P