[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 88 (Wednesday, May 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 24507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-11283]



[[Page 24507]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-50,448]


Universal Instruments Corporation, A Subsidiary of Dover 
Corporation, Surface Mount Division, Conklin, NY; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of March 11, 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 14, 2003 and published in the 
Federal Register on March 10, 2003 (68 FR 11409).
    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 Universal 
Instruments Corporation, a subsidiary of Dover Corporation, Surface 
Mount Division, Conklin, New York, was denied because the ``contributed 
importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the 
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. Imports of electronic 
assembly equipment did not contribute importantly to layoffs at the 
subject firm.
    The request for reconsideration alleges that the company was 
importing competitive products from China. To further support this 
allegation, a page was attached to the reconsideration request titled 
``China Manufacturing Localization Program'', with a series of products 
and part numbers. The form also appears to contain information about 
vendors who are bidding on production for different parts and, in some 
cases vendors who were selected. The petitioner asserted that all of 
these parts involved Chinese production ``now and in future''. She 
further asserted that all of these parts were being imported back to 
the subject facility ``to be installed and tested''. The petitioner 
made particular note of two parts: Flexjet spindle assemblies and dual 
beam cable harnesses. Although not stated directly, it appears that the 
petitioner is implying that these alleged imported products are like or 
directly competitive with products produced at the subject firm and 
therefore the petitioning workers should be eligible for trade 
adjustment assistance.
    When contacted in regard to these allegations, a company official 
confirmed data that was revealed in the original investigation, that 
while the company had shifted production to China, this production was 
used exclusively to serve the Asian market and thus there were no 
imports. He further stated that the company had several localization 
projects, but they all involved production that had always been 
outsourced and therefore not produced by the company. Additionally, the 
China localization project involved finding vendors closed to Asian 
manufacturing facilities that served local customers and therefore do 
not involve U.S. imports.
    In regard to the two parts highlighted by the petitioner, the 
company contact stated that the Flexjet spindle assemblies were 
currently outsourced to a domestic producer, and that dual beam cable 
harnesses had never actually been made by the subject facility.

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 21st day of April 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-11283 Filed 5-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P