[Federal Register: February 24, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8629]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24fe03-82]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-41,695]
P.C.C. Airfoils, Inc., Minerva, OH; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application received on September 18, 2002, petitioners
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 P.C.C. Airfoils, Inc., Minerva,
Ohio, was signed on August 26, 2002, and published in the Federal
Register on September 10, 2002 (67 FR 57455).
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 P.C.C. Airfoils,
Inc., Minerva, Ohio, engaged in activities related to blades and vanes
for aerospace and land based turbo engines, was denied because the
``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of section
222(3) of the Trade Act was not met. The contributed importantly test
is generally demonstrated through a survey of customers of the workers'
firm. Results of the survey revealed that customers did not increase
their imports of competitive products during the relevant period. The
subject firm did not import blades and vanes for aerospace and land
based turbo engines during the relevant period. A domestic shift in
production was cited as the cause of layoffs.
In requesting reconsideration, the petitioner(s) alleged that
production equipment had been moved from the subject facility to an
offshore facility. The petitioners further allege that company
officials told them that their production work was shifting to this
facility.
Upon contact with a company official, it was confirmed that the
production equipment that was moved was shipped to the domestic
facility cited in the original investigation. Further, it was confirmed
that all production work that was shifted from the subject facility was
transferred to this same domestic facility.
The petitioners also appear to claim that the company has purchased
duplicate tooling for a foreign facility for the purpose of producing
products like or directly competitive with those produced at the
subject firm.
Upon further review, it was revealed that the foreign facility
mentioned does not produce products like or directly competitive with
those produced by the subject firm.
Finally, the petitioners state that employees had been told by
company officials that the ``finishing department will never return to
Minerva''.
Although the petitioners' claim in this instance may be correct, it
is irrelevant, as it has already been established that production of
like or directly competitive products shifted to a domestic facility.
No plant production shifted to a foreign facility.
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 10th day of February, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-4282 Filed 2-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P