[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12936-12937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6410]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-42,175]


Hilti Inc., New Castle, PA; Notice of Negative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application received on December 9, 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 Hilti Inc., New Castle, 
Pennsylvania was signed on November 13, 2002, and published in the 
Federal Register on November 27, 2002 (67 FR 70970).
    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 was filed on behalf of workers at Hilti Inc., New 
Castle, Pennsylvania engaged in activities related to repair of 
machinery and fabrications. The petition was denied because the 
petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning of 
section 222(3) of the Act.
    The petitioner alleges that the workers do not perform bookkeeping 
services as addressed in the ``Negative Determination Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Workers Adjustment Assistance''.
    A review of the initial investigation indicates that the workers 
were engaged in activities related to repair of machinery and 
fabrications. The TAA decision was based on the correct service 
functions performed by the subject firm. The Department inadvertently 
referenced ``bookkeeping'' rather than ``repair of machinery and 
fabrication'' in the decision.
    The petitioner also alleges that the petitioning worker group was 
engaged in production as ``it relates to material movement, welding 
repair, and other functions related to ingot production and the 
production of SBQ steel bar''.

[[Page 12937]]

    Contact with the company revealed that petitioning workers were 
engaged in fabrication (welding) and repair service of machinery at 
unaffiliated steel facilities on a contract basis. These functions do 
not constitute production.
    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 
whose workers produce an article and who are currently under 
certification for TAA.
    In conclusion, the workers at the subject firm did not produce an 
article within the meaning 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 27th day of February, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-6410 Filed 3-17-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P