[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 15, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18264-18265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-9151]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-50,588]


Murray Engineering, Inc., Complete Design Service, Flint, MI; 
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application received on February 19, 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 applicable to workers of Murray Engineering, Inc., 
Complete Design Service, Flint, Michigan was signed on February 5, 
2003, and published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2003 (68 FR 
8620).
    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

[[Page 18265]]

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 Murray 
Engineering, Inc., Complete Design Service, Flint, Michigan engaged in 
activities related to industrial design and engineering services. 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 their services should be considered 
production because it involves a ``tangible drawing essential and 
integral to the making or building of a product.''
    The engineering drawings and schematics prepared by subject firm 
workers services are not considered production within the meaning of 
section 222(3) of the Act.
    The petitioner also asserts that the Department may be misled by 
the subject firm's name into thinking that there is not a tangible 
product involved, but states that subject firm workers produce ``design 
product on paper.''
    Electronically generated information does not constitute production 
within the meaning of the Trade Act, and the fact that this information 
is generated on paper is irrelevant to worker group eligibility for 
trade adjustment assistance.
    Finally, the petitioner appears to assert that the companies that 
produced the machines designed by the subject firm were certified and 
questions whether the Department has ``discriminated'' against the 
subject firm ``because of a company name.''
    The subject firm does not produce the same product as its 
customers, nor do the subject firm workers produce a component that is 
integrated into further production by its customers. Thus, the issue of 
whether the subject firm's customers are certified or not is irrelevant 
in context with the petitioning worker group's eligibility for TAA. The 
design services produced by the subject firm do not constitute 
production within the meaning of section 222(3) of the Trade Act.
    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 1974.

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 in Washington, DC, this 31st day of March, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-9151 Filed 4-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P