[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 31 (Tuesday, February 17, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 7514]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-3311]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-53,211]


Rogers Corporation Elastomer Components Division South Windham, 
Connecticut; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application of December 9, 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 November 10, 2003, and 
published in the Federal Register on December 29, 2003 (68 FR 74977).
    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 Rogers Corporation, South Windham, 
Connecticut engaged in the production of rubber floats, elastomeric 
foam components and rubber fusers, was denied because the ``contributed 
importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the 
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The ``contributed 
importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the 
workers' firm's customers. The Department conducted a survey of the 
subject firm's major customers regarding their purchases of competitive 
products from 2001 through September 2003. The respondents reported no 
increased imports. The subject firm did not increase its reliance on 
imports of rubber floats, elastomeric foam components and rubber fusers 
during the relevant period.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges that 
employment declines at the subject facility are attributed to Rogers 
Corporation establishing a manufacturing facility in China. However, 
careful review of the facts and documents received during original 
investigation determined that no products manufactured by the subject 
firm in China are shipped directly to the United States, but are rather 
sold to customers in China for further assembly.
    The petitioning company official states that the key customers of 
the subject firm are sourcing materials in Asia because of favorable 
pricing. When contacted for further customers to support this claim, 
the official clarified that, in fact, rubber floats, elastomeric foam 
components and rubber fusers were not being imported by customers. The 
official elaborated that the above mentioned products are components 
used in the production of paper moving machinery, such as printers, 
copy machines, check and mail sorters, and customers were shifting the 
production of these machines to Asia. The official concluded that, 
because this machinery is being imported back into the U.S., the 
subject firm workers producing the rubber floats, elastomeric foam 
components and rubber fusers were import impacted.
    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. Printers, check sorters, copy machines that are allegedly 
imported by the subject firm's customers are paper moving machinery and 
are not considered ``like or directly'' competitive with rubber floats, 
elastomeric foam components and rubber fusers 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 22nd day of January, 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-3311 Filed 2-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P