[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 11, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48892-48893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-18343]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-54, 506]


Sanford Pattern Works, Inc. Taylor, MI; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of June 28, 2004, a petitioner 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 applicable to workers of Sanford Pattern Works, Inc., 
Taylor, Michigan was signed on April 21, 2004, and published in the 
Federal Register on June 2, 2004 (69 FR 31134).
    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 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at Sanford Pattern 
Works, Inc., Taylor, Michigan engaged in production of polystyrene 
patterns for the tool & die industry. The petition was denied because 
the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of 
Section 222 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 the 
major declining customer did not import polystyrene patterns during the 
relevant time period.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner requests to 
extend the investigation and includes Blue Print products which are 
allegedly being imported from China.
    A company official was contacted to confirm whether blue prints are 
produced by the subject firm. The company official stated that Sanford 
Pattern Works, Inc., does not produce blue prints for sales to 
customers. Any blue prints produced by the workers of the subject firm 
are used internally for the production of polystyrene patterns. The 
official further stated that the subject firm did not shift any 
production nor did it import any products during the relevant period.
    The petitioner further states that even though polystyrene patters 
manufactured by the subject firm are not being imported by its 
customers, customers use these patterns in the production of dies, 
which are now being built and imported by customers from China. The 
petitioner concludes that, because the production of dies occurs 
abroad, the subject firm workers producing polystyrene patterns are 
import impacted.
    In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider 
imports that are like or directly competitive with those produced at 
the subject firm. The Department conducted a survey of the subject 
firm's major declining customer. The survey revealed that the customer 
did not import polystyrene patterns during the relevant period.

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.


[[Page 48893]]


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of July, 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, 
Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-18343 Filed 8-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P