[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 79 (Thursday, April 24, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 20182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-10133]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,888 and TA-W-41,888A]


Jasper Cabinet Company, Jasper, IN, Jasper Cabinet Company, 
Ferdinand, IN; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application 
for Reconsideration

    By application of January 31, 2003, the United Steelworkers of 
America, Sub District 3, Local Union No. 331-U, 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 December 23, 2002 and published in the 
Federal Register on January 15, 2003 (68 FR 2074).
    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, filed on behalf of workers at Jasper Cabinet 
Company, Jasper, Indiana (TA-W-41,888) and Jasper Cabinet Company, 
Ferdinand, Indiana (TA-W-41,888A) engaged in the production of 
furniture and wood furniture parts, 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 competitive products in 2000 through October 2002. The respondents 
reported no increased imports. The subject firm did not increase its 
reliance on imports of furniture and wood furniture parts during the 
relevant period.
    The union alleges that a major customer imported competitive 
products.
    Two officials from this customer were contacted in regard to this 
allegation. Results from ensuing conversations with these contacts 
revealed that the items previously purchased from the subject firm were 
predominately curio cabinets; as the customer ceased selling curio 
cabinets directly following their cessation of business with the 
subject firm, there are no like or directly competitive imports at 
issue in regard to this customer.
    The petitioner also alleges that the Department did not make 
mention of known company imports in its initial investigation.
    In fact, the initial investigation did include an examination of 
company imports. However, these imports did not represent a significant 
portion of the plants' sales or production declines in the relevant 
period, and therefore do not provide the necessary evidence for import 
impact.

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 15th day of April, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-10133 Filed 4-23-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P