[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 225 (Thursday, November 21, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 70252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-29635]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,186]


Swanson Erie Corporation, Assembly Systems, Erie, PA; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of July 22, 2002, the Automobile, Aerospace & 
Agricultural Implementation Workers of America, International Union, 
United (UAW), Local 618 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 June 25, 2002, and 
published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45550).
    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 Swanson Erie 
Corporation, Assembly Systems, Erie, Pennsylvania engaged in the 
production of assembly of machines, was denied because the 
``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of section 
222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. Increased 
imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the 
subject plant. The workers assembled various assembly machines (i.e. 
35mm disposable cameras, bare skin cutting machines, AA-rebuilding 
machines and acuvan catheter machines).
    The petitioner alleges that the company increased their imports of 
articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by the 
subject firm thus contributing importantly to the separations at the 
subject firm. The petitioner in order to depict increased imports, 
attached a parts list of the imported parts (by part number), including 
the total value of each of the parts imported during 2000, 2001, and 
January through February 12, 2002.
    The company was contacted to verify the import data provided by the 
petitioner. The company responded by indicating the products imported 
were cams, a component part of the machinery assembled by the subject 
firm. The company further indicated that they produced this product in-
house (in combination of purchasing cams from other domestic sources) 
to mid-1997. In mid-1997, the company ceased their production of cams 
and began relying solely on imported cams from a foreign source through 
the current period. The imports of cams by the company are not like or 
directly competitive with articles currently being produced by the 
subject firm 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 decisions. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of October, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-29635 Filed 11-20-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P