[Federal Register: April 7, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 66)]
[Notices]               
[Page 16844]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07ap03-111]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,889]

 
United Container Machinery, Glen Arm, MD; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application January 1, 2003, a petitioner 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 November 29, 2002, and 
published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2002 (67 FR 78257).
    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 United Container Machinery, Glen 
Arm, Maryland was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' group 
eligibility requirement of section 222(3) 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 none of the respondents increased their purchases 
of imported machinery for corrugated boxes.
    The petitioner states that the subject firm workers were previously 
certified for trade adjustment assistance in 1998, and thus appears to 
allege that they should be considered eligible currently.
    The Department considers import impact in terms of the relevant 
period of the current investigation; therefore import impact as 
established in a previous investigation that is outside the relevant 
period is irrelevant.
    The petitioner also states that the company did not file a new 
petition on behalf of subject firm workers when the previous 
certification expired.
    This fact has no bearing on eligibility of subject firm workers for 
trade adjustment assistance.
    The petitioner asserts that an affiliate of the subject firm 
imports competitive products from Hungary.
    In response to this allegation, a company official clarified that 
United Container Machinery did merge with another company in the late 
summer of 2002, and that the merger did include the acquisition of a 
Hungarian facility. He also verified that the foreign firm has imported 
a small percentage of their production to the United States for some 
time; however, imports of products produced from this facility have not 
increased since the merger, and so have not contributed to layoffs at 
the subject firm.
    The petitioner asserts that a foreign competitor sells competitive 
products to at least two customers of the subject firm.
    When contacted about this allegation, the company official stated 
that the two companies mentioned comprised a very small percentage of 
the subject firm's sales declines. In fact, according to the company 
official, the layoffs were not brought about by sales and production 
declines, but rather by a shift in production to two affiliated 
domestic facilities.
    The petitioner also stated that United Container Machinery acted as 
a selling agent of competitive machinery and that this role ``in the 
long run affected some of our prospective sales.''
    The company official that commented on this stated that the subject 
firm had taken part in a partnership with several foreign firms to sell 
competitive corrugated box machinery, receiving a commission for their 
services. However, the imports resulting from the partnership between 
the subject firm and the foreign firms constituted a very small amount 
relative to production at the Glen Arm facility. The company official 
further clarified that imports declined for the twelve months ending 
August of 2002, when the partnership ceased.

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 25th day of March 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-8349 Filed 4-4-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-P