DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-40,695

NOLATO SHIELDMATE, INC.
ITASCA, ILLINOIS

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application dated March 14, 2002, the company 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 February 25, 2002,
and published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2002 (67 FR
13010).
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 Nolato Shieldmate, Inc.,
Itasca, Illinois 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 denial was based on
evidence indicating that customers of the subject firm do not
import plastic housings for cellular phones. The relocation by a
customer of their cell phone production to a foreign site
necessitated a reliance on local sources for the phone housings.
Complete cellular phones are not like or directly competitive
with the phone housings made by the subject firm and cannot be
used as a basis for certification.
The petitioner feels that the eligibility criteria have been
met based on the fact that the manufacture of cellular phone
housing sub-assemblies (plastic housings) has moved to China,
even though the cellular telephone housing sub-assemblies are not
imported back to the United States. The petitioner further
states that product is a component of a cellular phone that is
imported back to the United States.
The imports of any other product by the company or customer
is not relevant to this petition that was filed on behalf of
worker(s) producing plastic housing for cell phones. The
products imported must be "like or directly competitive" with
what the subject plant produces to meet the eligibility
requirements of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended.
The petitioner further states that a major customer of the
subject firm for whom the subject firm produced plastic housing
was certified eligible for TAA and therefore believes the subject
plant workers should be certified for TAA.
The certification of a customer is not a basis for TAA
certification. The customer would have to demonstrate that a
meaningful portion of their imports of products "like or directly
competitive" with plastic housing increased significantly during
the relevant period, contributing importantly to the layoffs at
the subject plant. The customer in this case shifted their
production of cell phones to China and relied solely on local
sources for their plastic housing requirements. The customer
imported the complete cell phones back to the United States.
Complete cell phones are not "like or directly competitive" with
the phone housing produced by the subject firm and cannot be used
as a basis in meeting the group eligibility requirement of
Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.








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, D.C. this 9th day of May 2002.

/s/ Edward A. Tomchick

EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance