[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 93 (Monday, May 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 25850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2428]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-56,560]


Interstate Tool and Die Company Madison Heights, MI; Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By letter dated April 18, 2005, the company official 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 
Department's determination was signed on March 23, 2005 and the Notice 
of determination was published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2005 
(70 FR 22710).
    The negative determination was based on the findings that during 
the investigatory period of 2003 through January 2005, the subject 
company neither imported prototype automotive parts nor shifted such 
production abroad, and the subject company's major declining customers 
did not import prototype automotive parts.
    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 company official, in the request for reconsideration, infers 
that the scope of the initial investigation was in error because the 
term prototype parts is a misleading description of the work done by 
the firm. The company official now states that the firm supported the 
advance engineering groups of domestic automobile manufacturers.
    During a February 14, 2005 telephone conversation, a company 
official stated that workers at the subject company are engaged in the 
prototype and production for the aerospace and automotive industries. 
Further, the Business Confidential Data Request form completed by 
another company official submitted, in part, on February 16, 2005, 
identified ``prototype auto parts'' as the product manufactured at the 
subject facility. Therefore, the Department determines that the scope 
of the investigation was not in error.

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 5th day of May 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-2428 Filed 5-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P