[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 8629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-4282]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,695]


P.C.C. Airfoils, Inc., Minerva, OH; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application received on September 18, 2002, 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). The 
denial notice applicable to workers of P.C.C. Airfoils, Inc., Minerva, 
Ohio, was signed on August 26, 2002, and published in the Federal 
Register on September 10, 2002 (67 FR 57455).
    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 P.C.C. Airfoils, 
Inc., Minerva, Ohio, engaged in activities related to blades and vanes 
for aerospace and land based turbo engines, was denied because the 
``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of section 
222(3) of the Trade Act was not met. The contributed importantly test 
is generally demonstrated through a survey of customers of the workers' 
firm. Results of the survey revealed that customers did not increase 
their imports of competitive products during the relevant period. The 
subject firm did not import blades and vanes for aerospace and land 
based turbo engines during the relevant period. A domestic shift in 
production was cited as the cause of layoffs.
    In requesting reconsideration, the petitioner(s) alleged that 
production equipment had been moved from the subject facility to an 
offshore facility. The petitioners further allege that company 
officials told them that their production work was shifting to this 
facility.
    Upon contact with a company official, it was confirmed that the 
production equipment that was moved was shipped to the domestic 
facility cited in the original investigation. Further, it was confirmed 
that all production work that was shifted from the subject facility was 
transferred to this same domestic facility.
    The petitioners also appear to claim that the company has purchased 
duplicate tooling for a foreign facility for the purpose of producing 
products like or directly competitive with those produced at the 
subject firm.
    Upon further review, it was revealed that the foreign facility 
mentioned does not produce products like or directly competitive with 
those produced by the subject firm.
    Finally, the petitioners state that employees had been told by 
company officials that the ``finishing department will never return to 
Minerva''.
    Although the petitioners' claim in this instance may be correct, it 
is irrelevant, as it has already been established that production of 
like or directly competitive products shifted to a domestic facility. 
No plant production shifted to a foreign facility.

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 in Washington, DC, this 10th day of February, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-4282 Filed 2-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P