[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7510-7511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-3310]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-53,094]


Eastman Machine Company Buffalo, New York; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of December 4, 2003, the United Automobile, 
Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 936 
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 November 6, 2003 and published in the 
Federal Register on November 28, 2003 (68 FR 66877).
    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;

[[Page 7511]]

    (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 Eastman Machine 
Company, Buffalo, New York engaged in the production of manual and 
automatic cutting machines were denied because the ``contributed 
importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the 
Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The subject firm did not import manual 
and automatic cutting machines and production was not shifted abroad.
    The union alleges that the subject firm failed to report imports of 
machines called D2's from China.
    A company official was contacted in regard to these allegations. 
The official stated that D2 machines are indeed being imported by the 
subject firm, however, it is a very insignificant part of business 
which represents less than one percent of subject firm's total sales 
and production. Plant production and employment were not affected by 
these negligible imports during the relevant period.
    The petitioner further alleges that the subject firm experienced 
``a drop in sales of another line of machines called the straight knife 
line due to cheaper clones being made in China and other countries.'' A 
production chart for years from 1988 to 2002 is attached in support of 
this allegation. The chart shows a decline in production of 629X 
machines from 2000 to 2001 and an increase from 2001 to 2002.
    In its investigation, the Department considers production that 
occurred a year prior to the date of the petition. Thus the period 
ending in 2001 is outside the relevant period as established by the 
petition date of September 19, 2003. Thus a drop in production of 629X 
machines prior to 2001 is irrelevant in this investigation.
    The union also alleges that Eastman is importing finished 
components for the machinery produced by the subject firm.
    In fact, the original investigation revealed imports of components 
by the subject firm. However, in assessing the eligibility of a 
petitioning worker group for trade adjustment assistance, the 
Department considers imports that are ``like or directly'' competitive 
to those produced by the petitioning worker group. Imported components 
are used for further manufacturing by the subject firm and are not 
considered ``like or directly'' competitive with manual and automatic 
cutting machines produced by the subject firm, and thus do not meet the 
eligibility requirements of the Trade Act of 1974.

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 23rd day of January, 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-3310 Filed 2-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P