[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 142 (Wednesday, July 24, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48483-48484]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-18642]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-40,710]


Alpha Carb Enterprises, Leechburg, PA; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of June 3, 2002, the company, 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 April 29, 2002 and published in the Federal 
Register on May 17, 2002 (67 FR 35143).
    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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Alpha Carb 
Enterprises, Leechburg, Pennsylvania engaged in the production of steel 
and tungsten carbide progressive dies, 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 the workers' firm's customers. The Department conducted a 
survey of the subject firm's major customers regarding their purchases 
of steel and tungsten carbide progressive dies. The survey revealed 
that none of the customers increased their import purchases of steel 
and tungsten carbide progressive dies, while reducing their purchases 
from the subject firm during the relevant period. The subject firm did 
not import steel and tungsten carbide progressive dies during the 
relevant period.
    The petitioner alleges that they believe the TAA decision was based 
on the company being an importer of steel and tungsten carbide 
progressive dies, rather than a manufacturer of steel and tungsten 
carbide progressive dies.
    A review of the initial investigation conducted for the subject 
plant workers treated the worker group as production workers engaged in 
activities related to the production of steel and tungsten carbide 
progressive dies and not importers of steel and tungsten carbide 
progressive dies.
    The petitioner further believes that their customers are importing 
steel and tungsten carbide progressive dies from overseas, resulting in 
lost business at the subject plant.
    A review of the initial investigation shows that none of the 
respondents increased their purchases of steel and tungsten carbide 
progressive dies, while decreasing their purchases from the subject 
firm during the relevant period.
    The petitioner also alleges that a local competitor was granted TAA 
eligibility and strongly believes they should be granted TAA 
eligibility based on that event.
    As already indicated, the ``contributed importantly'' test is 
generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's 
customers. The TAA eligibility of a competitor does not show the direct 
impact of imports contributing to the subject plant layoffs and 
therefore is not relevant.

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

[[Page 48484]]

reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decisions. 
Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of July, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-18642 Filed 7-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P