[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 58715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-25709]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-52,161]


Progressive Screen Engraving, Inc., North Carolina Division, 
Wadesboro, North Carolina; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application of August 19, 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 25, 2003, and 
published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2003 (68 FR 48645).
    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 Progressive Screen Engraving, Inc., 
North Carolina Division, Wadesboro, North Carolina was denied because 
the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of 
Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not met, and there was not a 
shift of 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 rotary screens.
    The petitioning company official states that ``we have been 
informed by our customers that they are able to have screens made at a 
much cheaper price overseas.'' When contacted for further customers to 
support this claim, the official clarified that, in fact, the rotary 
screens were not being imported by customers. The official elaborated 
that the screens were used in the production of textiles, and customers 
were shifting their textile production abroad. The official concluded 
that, because these textiles are being imported, the subject firm 
workers producing the rotary screens were import impacted. The 
petitioning official further requested a detailed explanation of what 
would lead to a negative decision for TAA eligibility in regard to 
subject firm workers under both primary and secondary impact.
    In addressing the particular eligibility criteria to assess worker 
eligibility under primary impact, the Department is directed by current 
legislation to conduct an investigation to establish if the company has 
shifted its production to a foreign source or if imports of products 
like or directly competitive with those produced at the subject firm 
contributed importantly to subject firm layoffs. To that end, the 
Department obtains relevant information from the subject firm and 
subject firm customers. In this case, the investigation revealed that 
the company did not shift production and there were no increased 
imports of rotary screens on the part of the subject firm or its 
customers.
    Although not applied for in the petition that instigated this 
investigation, workers can also apply for TAA benefits alleging 
``secondary impact.'' In order to be eligible through this channel, the 
subject firm must have customers that are TAA certified, and these TAA 
certified customers must represent a significant portion of subject 
firm business. In addition, the subject firm would have to produce a 
component part of the product that was the basis for the customers' 
certification (upstream supplier), or assemble or finish a product that 
was the basis for certification (downstream producer). In this case 
however, the subject firm does not act as an upstream supplier (screens 
do not form a component part of textiles), nor do they act as 
downstream producers (screen production does not constitute performing 
assembling or finishing of textiles). Thus, even if the subject firm 
did have TAA certified customers, they would not be eligible under 
secondary 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 29th day of September, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-25709 Filed 10-9-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P