[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16840-16841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8353]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-50,170]


Erasteel, Inc., McKeesport, PA; Notice of Negative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of February 6, 2003, petitioners 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 January 24, 2003, and 
published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2003 (67 FR 8622).
    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 petition for the workers of Erasteel, Inc., McKeesport, 
Pennsylvania 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 cold drawn steel.
    The petitioners state that their major customer imports high speed 
drill bits and blanks, and that these items are ``like or directly 
competitive with articles produced by'' subject firm workers. In a 
clarifying conversation with one of the petitioners, he stated that the 
steel produced at the subject firm was processed in such a way that its 
only possible end use was to form it into the drill bits and blanks 
produced by the customer.
    The term ``like or directly competitive'' is drawn from a paragraph 
in section 222 of the Trade Act. In this paragraph, a ``like'' 
competitive product is described as an article which is ``substantially 
identical in inherent or intrinsic characteristics.'' A ``competitive 
product'' is described as an article which ``is substantially 
equivalent for commercial purposes.'' As the subject firm produces 
drawn steel and not drills bits or blanks, the subject firm products 
are not ``like'' or ``identical'' to potential customer imports of 
drill bits and blanks. Further, the drawn steel cannot be used for the 
same commercial purposes as the finished drill bits and blanks. Thus 
subject firm products are not ``like or directly'' competitive with 
alleged customer imports as stated in section 222(3) of the Trade Act.
    The petitioners also allege that the subject firm imported 
competitive products in the relevant period. In an attempt to clarify 
this allegation, a petitioner was contacted. In response to a request 
for clarification, the petitioner stated that the subject firm briefly 
imported semi-finished steel coils for further processing at the 
subject firm; specifically, coils were imported that were sized to 
thinner dimensions at the subject firm. However, the subject firm 
stopped importing this semi-finished product prior to petitioner 
layoffs, according to the petitioner.
    As described by the petitioner, the steel imported is not ``like or 
directly'' competitive with the steel produced by the subject firm. 
Further, a company official was contacted in regard to this allegation. 
The official clearly stated that the company did not import competitive 
drawn and ground bars. In response to the issue of imported coils, the 
official stated that the company only imported for a very brief period 
and that these imports did not prompt layoffs.
    Finally, the petitioners acknowledge that a domestic shift in 
production caused the closure of the McKeesport facility.
    However, they also assert that the need for Erasteel to consolidate 
their production was a direct result of business lost from their major 
customer, and that this customer was importing competitive products.
    As has already been established, the major declining customer did 
not import ``like or directly'' competitive products.

[[Page 16841]]

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 18th day of March, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-8353 Filed 4-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P