[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 58896]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-20402]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-61,799]


Peres Pattern Company, Erie, PA; Notice of Negative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application postmarked September 26, 2007, 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 August 15, 2007 and 
published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2007 (72 FR 50126).
    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 Peres Pattern Company, Erie, 
Pennsylvania engaged in production of custom molds (i.e. wood, metal 
and plastic patterns, blow molds, foam molds, rim molds, vacuum molds 
and aluminum castings) 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 the workers' firm's 
declining customers. The survey revealed no imports of custom molds by 
declining customers during the relevant period. The subject firm did 
not import custom molds nor shift production to a foreign country 
during the relevant period.
    The petitioner states that the affected workers lost their jobs as 
a direct result of a loss of customers who used items manufactured by 
the subject firm as ``unfinished goods'' and ``tooling'' for further 
production of plastic goods. The petitioner alleges that customers of 
the subject firm which manufacture plastic products decreased purchases 
of custom molds from the subject firm because they choose to shift 
their production abroad. Therefore, the petitioner concludes that 
because sales and production of custom molds at the subject firm have 
been negatively impacted by the customers shifting their production of 
plastic products abroad, workers of the subject firm should be eligible 
for TAA.
    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 custom 
molds during 2005, 2006 and January through June 2007 over the 
corresponding 2006 period. The survey revealed that the declining 
customers did not import custom molds during the relevant period.
    Imports of plastic products cannot be considered like or directly 
competitive with custom molds produced by Peres Pattern Company, Erie, 
Pennsylvania and imports of plastic products are not relevant in this 
investigation.
    The fact that subject firm's customers are shifting their 
production abroad is not relevant to this investigation. The shift in 
production must be administered by the subject firm in order for 
workers of the subject firm to be considered eligible for TAA.
    The petitioner further states that in order to reveal the import 
impact, the Department should investigate the time period prior to 
2005. Furthermore, the petitioner attached a list of declining 
customers from 1988 to present.
    When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively 
considers import impact during the relevant time period (one year prior 
to the date of the petition). The customers of the subject firm were 
surveyed regarding their purchases of custom molds during the relevant 
time period. The survey revealed no imports of custom molds during the 
relevant time 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.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 11th day of October, 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-20402 Filed 10-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P