[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 47403]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-18079]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-5480]


AA Precisioneering, Inc., Meadville, PA; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated May 22, 2002, the company requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for North American Free 
Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA), 
applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The 
denial notice was signed on April 26, 2002, and was published in the 
Federal Register on May 17, 2002 (67 FR 35144).
    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 denial of NAFTA-TAA for workers engaged in activities related 
to the production of tools, dies, specialty tooling and injection molds 
at AA Precisioneering, Inc., Meadville, Pennsylvania was based on the 
finding that criteria (3) and (4) of the group eligibility requirements 
of paragraph (a)(1) of section 250 of the Trade Act, as amended, were 
not met. There were no increased company imports of tools, dies, 
specialty tooling and injection molds from Mexico or Canada, nor did 
the subject firm shift production from AA Precisioneering, Inc, 
Meadville, Pennsylvania to Mexico or Canada. The survey conducted by 
the Department of Labor revealed that customers did not purchase 
products like or directly competitive with those produced at the 
Meadville plant from Canada or Mexico during the relevant period.
    The petitioner alleges that a customer of the subject plant is 
relocating to China and other countries in Southeastern Asia.
    The shift in production to China and other countries by the 
customer is not a relevant factor in meeting the eligibility 
requirement of section 250 of the Trade Act.
    The company further states that several companies (did not identify 
companies) located in the proximity of the subject firm have been 
certified for NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA) that 
sold similar products to the same customer as the subject firm.
    The alleged NAFTA certifications of companies in the proximity of 
the subject firm may have been made for different reasons, such as a 
different product line, other customer(s) increasing their imports from 
Canada or Mexico or a shift in plant production to Canada or Mexico. 
Further review of the customer survey conducted by the Department of 
Labor during the initial investigation shows that the customer at issue 
did not report importing products like or directly competitive with 
what the subject plant produced from Canada or Mexico 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 decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of June 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-18079 Filed 7-17-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P