[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 51297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-19968]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,043]


Champion Parts, Inc., Beech Creek, Pennsylvania; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application received on June 26, 2002, the International 
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 1592 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 applicable to workers of the subject 
firm was signed on May 23, 2002. The decision was published in the 
Federal Register on June 11, 2002 (67 FR 40004).
    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 petition filed on behalf of workers of Champion Parts, Inc., 
Beech Creek, Pennsylvania, producing fuel systems and CV products 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 worker firm's customers. None of the customers 
reported importing fuel systems and CV products during the relevant 
period. The subject firm did not import fuel systems or CV products 
during the relevant period.
    The petitioner indicates that the TAA decision depicts ``that 
increases of imports of the articles like or directly competitive with 
articles produced by the firm or appropriate subdivision have 
contributed importantly to the separation, or threat thereof, and to 
the absolute declines in sales or production.''
    In the above instance, the petitioner appears to be referencing 
criterion (3) of the group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of 
the Act. In fact, the decision clearly states that subject firm workers 
do not meet the eligibility requirement of criterion (3) of Section 222 
of the Act.
    The petitioner also appears to be concerned that the Department may 
not have examined the correct products produced by the subject plant 
during the initial investigation.
    A review of the customer survey conducted by the Department shows 
that none of the customers reported importing fuel systems and CV 
products (carburetors), during the relevant period. These products 
account for all production performed at the subject firm during the 
relevant period.
    The petitioner also references plant production of carburetors that 
was produced during the mid-1990's and also indicates that this product 
was replaced by imported fuel injectors.
    Products produced by the subject plant prior to the year 2000 are 
outside the scope of the relevant period. As indicated previously, 
customers reported no like or directly or competitive imports of 
products produced by the subject plant during the relevant period.
    Finally, the petitioner contends that CV component production was 
not a part of the initial investigation.
    A review of plant sales and production data pertaining to CV 
products (a relatively small portion of plant production) shows 
increases throughout the relevant period. Thus, import impact is not an 
issue in regard to this product.

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 25th day of July 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-19968 Filed 8-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P