[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 53398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-22997]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-51,009]


Robert Bosch Tool Corporation (Formerly the Vermont American 
Corporation) Engineering Center, Louisville, KY; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By a letter postmarked July 17, 2003, petitioners 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 May 28, 2003 and published in the Federal 
Register on June 19, 2003 (68 FR 36845).
    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 Robert Bosch Tool 
Corporation, Engineering Center, Louisville, Kentucky, engaged in the 
production of one-of-a-kind machinery utilized at other affiliated 
company facilities, was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' 
or shift in production group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of 
the Trade Act of 1974 were not met. Increased imports did not 
contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject plant and 
the company did not shift production to a foreign source.
    The petitioners produced machinery which is used to manufacture 
power tools. They allege that they should be certified eligible for TAA 
because manufacturing divisions of Robert Bosch have shifted production 
of power tools and/or power tool components to foreign countries.
    Despite their indication that they are ``secondary workers'', it is 
not clear from the wording of the reconsideration request whether the 
petitioners are appealing on the basis of primary or secondary impact.
    Given that the initial investigation revealed that there was no 
import impact or shift of production of the subject firm product 
(machines for producing power tools) to a foreign source, the 
petitioning worker group would have to supply a TAA certified 
affiliated facility in order to be eligible for certification under 
primary impact. The initial investigation revealed that, although there 
are three Robert Bosch Corporation facilities that are under active TAA 
certification, none of these facilities were supplied by the subject 
facility.
    In order to be eligible for TAA certification under secondary 
impact, the petitioning worker group must either supply a component 
part of a product that is the basis of a TAA certification for a 
customer firm (upstream supplier), or assemble or finish a product that 
is the basis of TAA certification for a customer firm (downstream 
producer). As the petitioners produce a machine that produces power 
tool components, they are neither an upstream supplier nor a downstream 
producer of power tool components.

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 decisions. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of August, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-22997 Filed 9-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P