[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8624-8625]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-4285]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,872]


Breed Technologies Incorporated, Knoxville, TN; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of October 30, 2002, the Union of Needletrades, 
Industrial & Textile Employees, Tennessee/Kentucky District, 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 was signed on September 24, 2002, and 
published in the Federal Register on October 10, 2002 (67 FR 63159).
    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;

[[Page 8625]]

    (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 for the workers of Breed Technologies Incorporated, 
Knoxville, Tennessee 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 customers of the workers' 
firm. The survey revealed that none of the respondents increased their 
purchases of imported automobile seat belt components.
    The petitioner states that the production of automobile seat belt 
components made at the subject firm was relocated to a foreign 
facility. They further assert that these currently foreign-produced 
components ``will become part of seat belt assemblies that are now 
being imported from Mexico to the United States''. They conclude that 
if the subject firm had not decided to shift component production, 
there would be no job loss.
    Seat belt assemblies are not ``like or directly competitive'' with 
the products produced (automobile seat belt components) by the subject 
firm. Therefore, the imports of seat belt assemblies is not relevant in 
meeting the eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act 
of 1974, as amended.

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 at Washington, DC, this 13th day of February 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-4285 Filed 2-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P