[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 226 (Monday, November 24, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 65956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-29265]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-51,652]


Plastene Supply Co., Plant 1, Division of Siegel Robert, Inc., 
Portageville, MO; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application of June 14, 2003, petitioners 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 June 6, 2003, and 
published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2003 (68 FR 36846).
    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 Plastene Supply Co., Plant 1, 
Division of Siegel Robert, Inc., Portageville, Missouri was denied 
because the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement 
of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met and 
production did not shift to a foreign source. The subject firm shifted 
production to another domestic source.
    In the reconsideration request, the petitioners state that other 
products were produced at the subject facility other than the 
``automotive nameplates'' cited in the negative determination.
    The negative determination was based on data received by the 
company regarding sales totals of all products at the subject facility. 
This data indicates that there was a direct domestic shift from the 
Portageville plant to another company owned plant in Farmington, 
Missouri. Totals of collective sales of competitive products from these 
two plants over the relevant period of this investigation indicate that 
there were no declines in domestic production.
    The petitioners further allege that the subject firm served as a 
``downstream producer'' because ``many parts were shipped to Canada or 
Mexico''.
    The initial negative determination was issued on the basis of a 
primary investigation; no specific trade certified customers were 
indicated either in the initial petition or the reconsideration 
request. Further, in order to be eligible as secondary ``downstream 
producers'', the subject facility would have to assemble or finish 
products from primary firm production that was the basis for a trade 
adjustment assistance certification. There is no indication that 
subject firm production served this purpose.

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 17th day of October, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-29265 Filed 11-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P