[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12933-12934]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6404]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,368]


Komtek, Worcester, MA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application of December 1, 2002, the United Steelworkers of 
America, District 4, Local Union No. 2936, 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 November 1, 2002 and published in the 
Federal Register on November 22, 2002 (67 FR 70460).
    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 Komtek, Worcester, 
Massachusetts engaged in the production of forged aerospace products 
(such as fuel combustion swirlers, fuel nozzles, blades, vanes, and 
fittings) and medical devices, 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 Department conducted a survey of the 
subject firm's major customers regarding their purchases of forged 
aerospace products and medical devices in 2000, 2001 and January 
through August 2002.

[[Page 12934]]

None of the respondents reported increasing imports while decreasing 
purchases from the subject firm during the relevant period. Imports did 
not contribute importantly to layoffs at the subject firm.
    The petitioner alleges that the company has a plant in Tunisia that 
supplies production to one of their major customers, and that this 
foreign production replaced subject plant production, leading to 
production declines and layoffs at the subject firm.
    Further review revealed that Komtek did engage in a partnership 
with a Tunisian plant for the purposes of supplementing their domestic 
production of fuel combustion swirlers specifically to service a major 
customer. A review of this customer's purchasing trends revealed that 
the customer did begin importing competitive fuel combustion swirlers 
in the January through August 2002 time period. However, this customer 
also increased their purchases from Komtek's domestic facility in 
January through August of 2002 period compared to the same period in 
2001. As there were no declines in purchases from the domestic subject 
plant in the period when imports began, there is no evidence of import 
impact. Further, contact with the company confirmed that the sales 
numbers provided by the customer in the relevant time frames of the 
investigation were correct. The company further stated that the subject 
plant continues to supply fuel combustion swirlers to this customer.
    The union further appears to claim that the plant manager of the 
subject plant was the most knowledgeable source in regard to import 
impact on subject firm production, but was on vacation at the time that 
the company data was provided in the initial investigation. They 
asserted that the company official who did provide the information did 
not ``understand the amount of work we have lost due to the work being 
done in other countries.''
    The plant manager was contacted in regard to this matter. In 
response to these allegations, he stated that the domestic plant had 
not been impacted by any foreign production. He asserted that the fall 
out of 9/11 on the aerospace industry attributed for any subsequent 
declines that the company had experienced. (This coincides with the 
period in the beginning of 2002 when layoffs actually occurred.)
    In regard to the major customer supplied with fuel combustion 
swirlers by the Tunisian facility, the plant manager stated that, in 
2002, the domestic plant actually signed an agreement to produce a 
larger percentage of the customer's total production needs of 
competitive products.

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 26th day of February, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-6404 Filed 3-17-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P