[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16838-16839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8356]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-50,386]


Burelbach Industries, Incorporated, Rickreal, OR; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of February 10, 2003, a petitioner 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 13, 2003, and 
published in the Federal Register on February 6, 2003 (68 FR 6211).
    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 petition for the workers of Burelbach Industries, Inc., 
Rickreal, Oregon was denied because the ``upstream supplier'' group 
eligibility requirement of section 222(b) of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended, was not met. The ``upstream supplier'' requirement is 
fulfilled when the workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier to a 
firm that employed a group of workers who received a certification of 
eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such 
supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for 
such certification. The workers of Burelbach Industries, Inc., 
Rickreal, Oregon did not act as an upstream supplier to a trade 
certified firm.
    The petitioner appears to allege that he is applying for trade 
adjustment assistance on behalf of workers that are import impacted on 
primary and secondary grounds.
    When addressing the issue of import impact, the Department 
considers imports of products ``like or directly competitive'' in the 
case of primary impacted firms, or whether the subject firm supplied a 
component in a product produced by a trade certified firm in the case 
of secondary impact. As neither the subject firm nor its major 
declining customers reported imports like or directly competitive with 
the sawmill equipment produced at the subject firm, primary import 
impact did not occur. As the subject firm did not produce a component 
used in the products of their customers, the allegation of secondary 
import impact is equally invalid.
    The petitioner notes that several of the subject firm's customers 
have been certified for trade adjustment assistance due to import 
impact and thus appears to imply that the petitioning workers should be 
eligible for TAA.
    As already noted, the declining customers of the subject firm do 
not import products like or directly competitive with those produced at 
the subject firm. Further, the subject firm produces sawmill equipment 
that is used to process timber, but as the equipment does not form a 
component part of the products produced at the customer firms, subject 
firm workers do not constitute upstream suppliers of trade certified 
firms.
    The petitioner provides a list of other trade certified firms, 
claiming that these firms produced the same type of products as the 
subject firm, and thus appears to allege that the petitioning workers 
in this case should also be certified.
    None of the three firms listed by the petitioner produce products 
like or directly competitive with the sawmill machinery produced by the 
subject firm. Of the trade certified firms listed, two were certified 
on the basis of increased company imports of products like or directly 
competitive with those produced at the subject firms. In the case of 
the other firm, workers were certified on the basis of increased 
customer imports of products like or directly competitive with those 
produced at the subject firm. In contrast to the trade certified firms 
described above, neither Burlebach Industries nor its customers 
reported imports of competitive sawmill machinery.

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 16839]]


    Signed in Washington, DC, this 25th day of March, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-8356 Filed 4-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P