[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 24, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13904-13905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-6550]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-52,128, TA-W-52,128A, and TA-W-52,128B]


Control Engineering Company, Pellston, MI; Control Engineering 
Company, Harbor Springs, MI; Control Engineering Company, Boyne City, 
MI; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration

    On December 8, 2003, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on December 29, 2003 (68 FR 74972).
    The Department initially denied TAA to workers of Control 
Engineering Company, Pellston, Harbor Springs, and Boyne City, Michigan 
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 customers of the workers' firm. The survey revealed that 
none of the respondents increased their purchases of imported automated 
material handling systems/AVG and sheet metal enclosures. The company 
did not import automated material handling systems/AVG and sheet metal 
enclosures in the relevant period, nor did they shift production to a 
foreign source.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners alleged that 
the basis for certification at an affiliated facility (Jervis B. Webb 
Company, New Hudson, Michigan, TA-W-41,440) was also a contributing 
factor in layoffs at the subject firm facilities in this investigation. 
In the case of workers at the New Hudson facility, workers were 
certified on the basis of a shift of

[[Page 13905]]

production to Canada. One of the petitioners directed the Department to 
a specific company official.
    A conversation with this company official revealed that there was 
no production shifted from the Harbor Springs, Pellston or Boyne City 
facilities to Canada.
    The petitioners also alleged that the Department had not followed 
through with specific customer bid information provided in the initial 
investigation. The petitioners also indicated that these potential 
customers had awarded contracts to companies that produced abroad, and 
that the subject firm was excluded from competition due to competitive 
imports.
    The Department conducted a bid survey of customers based on 
specified dates in the relevant period. Results of this survey revealed 
that either the contracts were awarded to domestic firms or, in cases 
where the contracts were awarded to companies that manufactured abroad, 
the subject firm was not the most competitive domestic bidder.

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 8th day of March, 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-6550 Filed 3-23-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P