[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 119 (Friday, June 20, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 37025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-15622]



[[Page 37025]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-51,207]


General Electric Co., Industrial Systems, Mebane, North Carolina; 
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application of April 30, 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 March 26, 2003, and 
published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2003 (68 FR 16834).
    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 General Electric Company, 
Industrial Systems, Mebane, North Carolina 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 motor control centers, 
limit amps, switchboards and power panels. The company did not import 
motor control centers, limit amps, switchboards and power panels in the 
relevant period, nor did it shift production to a foreign source in the 
relevant period.
    The petitioner asserts that the company official who filled out the 
data request for the initial investigation provided incorrect answers 
to the Department of Labor. Specifically, it was alleged that the 
company was moving ``half a production line'' to another company and 
that the company is importing products like or directly competitive 
with those produced at the subject facility.
    Two company officials were contacted in regard to these 
allegations. Further investigation revealed that the company will be 
shifting a part of its motor control centers in the summer of 2003; 
however, no shift occurred in the relevant period. In addition, it was 
confirmed that the company does not import any products that are like 
or directly competitive with those produced at the subject firm.

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 6th day of June, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-15622 Filed 6-19-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M