[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 78 (Monday, April 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 21246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-1938]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-56,083]


 Apex Pattern Company, Los Angeles, CA; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of February 14, 2005 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) and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The denial notice was 
signed on February 1, 2005 and published in the Federal Register on 
March 9, 2005 (70 FR 11703).
    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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Apex Pattern 
Company, Los Angeles, California engaged in production of wheel molds 
was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility 
requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The 
``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a 
survey of the workers' firm's customers. The survey revealed no 
increase in imports of wheel molds during the relevant period. The 
subject firm did not import wheel molds in the relevant period nor did 
it shift production to a foreign country.
    The petitioner alleges that the subject firm lost its business due 
to its major customers importing products and shifting their production 
abroad.
    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 regarding their purchases of wheel 
molds. The survey revealed that the declining customers did not 
increase their imports of wheel molds during the relevant period.
    The petitioner further alleges that the major customer of the 
subject firm has shifted its production of wheels to Mexico and that 
workers of this firm were certified eligible for TAA.
    The fact that subject firm's customer shifted its production abroad 
and were certified eligible for TAA is relevant to this investigation 
if determining whether workers of the subject firm are eligible for 
trade adjustment assistance (TAA) based on the secondary upstream 
supplier impact. For certification on the basis of the workers' firm 
being a secondary upstream supplier, the subject firm must produce a 
component part of the article that was the basis for the customers' 
certification.
    In this case, however, the subject firm does not act as an upstream 
supplier, because wheel molds do not form a component part of the 
aluminum automotive wheels. Thus the subject firm workers are not 
eligible under secondary impact.

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 31st day of March, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-1938 Filed 4-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P