[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 5653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-2545]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,183 and NAFTA-05987]


Alcoa Lebanon Works, A Division of Alcoa, Inc.; Lebanon, PA; 
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application of August 9, 2002 and August 10, 2002 (postmark 
dates), the petitioners 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) under petition TA-W-41,183 and North American Free 
Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) under 
petition NAFTA-5987. The TAA and NAFTA-TAA denial notices applicable to 
workers of Alcoa Lebanon Works, A Division of Alcoa, Inc., Lebanon, 
Pennsylvania were signed on July 5, 2002 and published in the Federal 
Register on July 22, 2002 (67 FR 47861 and 47682, respectively).
    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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Alcoa Lebanon 
Works, A Division of Alcoa, Inc., Lebanon, Pennsylvania, 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 survey revealed that the 
customers did not increase their imports of light gauge steel products 
and foil products, while decreasing their purchases from the subject 
firm during the relevant period. The workers produced light gauge steel 
products and foil products.
    The NAFTA-TAA petition for the same worker group was denied because 
criteria (3) and (4) of the group eligibility requirements in paragraph 
(a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act, as amended, were not met. There 
was no shift in production from the workers' firm to Mexico or Canada 
during the relevant period. Imports from Canada or Mexico did not 
contribute importantly to worker separations.
    The petitioners believe that the Department of Labor examined the 
incorrect product(s) produced by the subject firm. The petitioner 
states that they did not produce light gauge steel, but produced 
aluminum products.
    A review of the data supplied by the company indicates that the 
firm produced light gauge aluminum sheet and foil products. The 
Department of Labor erred in the initial decision by referring to the 
products produced by the subject plant as light gauge steel and foil 
products. A review of the initial data supplied by the company and 
further analysis of the customer survey show that the Department 
investigated the correct products (light gauge aluminum sheet and foil 
products) produced by the Alcoa Lebanon Works plant.
    The petitioner's also believe that the decisions should be based on 
steel production, exports and imports.
    Imported steel into the United States is not relevant to the TAA 
and NAFTA investigations that were filed on behalf of workers producing 
light gauge aluminum sheet products and foil products. The product 
imported must be ``like or directly'' competitive with what the subject 
firm produced and the imports must ``contribute importantly'' to the 
layoffs at the subject plant to meet the eligibility requirements for 
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no 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 9th day of January, 2003.
Edward a. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-2545 Filed 2-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P