[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16843-16844]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8352]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-50,074]


Summit Manufacturing, LLC, West Hazelton, PA; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of February 25, 2003, a petitioner 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 February 3, 2003 and published in the 
Federal Register on February 24, 2003 (68 FR 8619).
    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 Summit 
Manufacturing, LLC, West Hazelton, Pennsylvania engaged in the 
production of steel telecommunications poles, steel pole modifications, 
cellular poles, sign and lighting poles, and flag poles 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 steel telecommunications poles, steel pole modifications, cellular 
poles, sign and lighting poles, and flag poles in 2000, 2001 and 2002. 
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 imports of steel, especially from 
Canada increased from 2001 to 2002.
    Imports of steel are not ``like or directly competitive'' with the 
products produced (steel telecommunications poles, steel pole 
modifications, cellular poles, sign and lighting poles, and flag poles) 
by the subject plant, thus this allegation is not relevant to the 
investigation.
    The petitioner's request for reconsideration further states that 
the investigation took longer than the 40 days required to complete the 
investigation and, because of this, the workers of the subject plant 
should be certified.
    The Department makes every effort to conduct a TAA investigation 
within the prescribed 40 day period. A review of the initial 
investigation shows that the responses by the company and customers 
took longer than normal. The Department bases its findings on facts 
after it receives all requested data necessary in order to make an 
accurate decision, regardless of timeframes.

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.

[[Page 16844]]


    Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of March 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-8352 Filed 4-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P