[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 56329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-24697]



[[Page 56329]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-52,039]


Heraeus Electro-Nite Company, Philadelphia, PA; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of July 31, 2003, a company official 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 July 14, 2003, and 
published in the Federal Register on August 5, 2003 (68 FR 46230).
    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 petition for the workers of Heraeus Electro-Nite Company, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was denied because the ``contributed 
importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the 
Trade Act of 1974, was not met, nor was there a shift in production to 
a foreign source. 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 imported molten metal sensors. The company did not import molten 
metal sensors, nor did they shift production abroad during the relevant 
period.
    In the request for reconsideration, the company official contests 
the negative decision on the basis that ``the increasing amount of 
foreign steel being sent to this country has caused a number of major 
steel companies to declare bankruptcy, which has shrunk our business.'' 
The official appears to be claiming that, because the subject firm 
business depends completely on U.S. steel production, the subject firm 
workers are import impacted through this association.
    When addressing the issue of import impact, the Department is 
directed by the Trade Act to consider imports of products ``like or 
directly competitive'' in the case of primary impacted firms, or 
whether the subject firm supplied a component in a product produced by 
a trade certified firm in the case of secondary impact. As neither the 
subject firm nor its major declining customers reported imports like or 
directly competitive with the molten metal sensors produced at the 
subject firm, primary import impact did not occur. As the subject firm 
did not produce a component used in the products of their customers, 
the possibility of secondary import impact is equally invalid.

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 22nd day of August 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-24697 Filed 9-29-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P