[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 11150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-5415]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,799]


General Electric Industrial Systems, Salem, VA; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application received on September 30, 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 General Electric Industrial 
Systems, Salem, Virginia was signed on September 3, 2002, and published 
in the Federal Register on September 23, 2002 (67 FR 59551).
    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 General Electric 
Industrial Systems, Salem, Virginia, engaged in activities related to 
production of drives and control systems, 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 drives and control systems during the 
relevant period.
    In requesting reconsideration, the petitioner(s) stated that their 
function as engineers merited separate consideration from the negative 
determination issued to production workers. This separate consideration 
appears to be based on the belief that their jobs had been shifted 
overseas and the understanding that ``the moving of business functions 
overseas is the equivalent of importing products when U.S. jobs are 
eliminated.''
    The work conducted by the engineering group is considered a 
service. Since the engineering worker group was engaged in design and 
development and not the actual production of drive and control systems 
produced at the subject plant they do not meet the eligibility 
requirements under section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. 
Only in very limited instances are service workers certified for TAA, 
namely the worker separations must be caused by a reduced demand for 
their services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision under 
certification for TAA. If import impact had been established for the 
production workers of General Electric Industrial Systems, only then, 
could the engineers be included in a certification for TAA.

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 5th day of February 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-5415 Filed 3-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P