[Federal Register: July 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 40737]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14jy05-75]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[[TA-W-56,782]
FC Meyer Packaging, LLC/Millen Industries, Inc.; Lawrence, MA;
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for
Reconsideration
By application of May 20, 2005, 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 May 6, 2005, and
published in the Federal Register on May 25, 2005 (70 FR 30145).
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 FC Meyer Packaging, LLC/Millen
Industries, Inc., Lawrence, Massachusetts engaged in production of shoe
boxes was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' group
eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, was not met, nor was there a shift in production from that
firm to a foreign country. The ``contributed importantly'' test is
generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's
customers. The survey revealed that imports of shoe boxes were minimal
during the relevant period and imports did not contribute importantly
to separations at the subject firm. The subject firm did not import
shoe boxes nor did it shift production to a foreign country during the
relevant period.
The petitioner alleges that the subject firm lost its business due
to the customers shifting their production of shoes abroad and buying
shoe boxes overseas.
The petitioner concludes that, because the production of shoes
occurs abroad, the subject firm workers producing shoe boxes are import
impacted.
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 shoe
boxes. The survey revealed that the declining customers did not import
shoe boxes during the relevant period.
The petitioner further cites a list of customers which shifted
their production overseas and imported shoe boxes back to the United
States.
Some of these customers were already surveyed by the Department
during the original investigation. A review of the survey responses
confirms import purchases of show boxes were minimal and did not
contribute importantly to the layoffs at the subject plant during the
relevant period.
A company official was contacted to verify the allegations
regarding the customers which were not surveyed during the initial
investigation. The official stated that all of these companies were
customers of the subject firm in the years prior to 2001, which is
outside of 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 at Washington, DC day 22nd of June, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-3739 Filed 7-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P