DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-40,710

ALPHA CARB ENTERPRISES
LEECHBURG, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of June 3, 2002, the company, 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 was signed on April 29, 2002
and published in the Federal Register on May 17, 2002 (67 FR
35143).
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 Alpha Carb
Enterprises, Leechburg, Pennsylvania engaged in the production of
steel and tungsten carbide progressive dies, 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 the workers' firm's customers. The
Department conducted a survey of the subject firm's major
customers regarding their purchases of steel and tungsten carbide
progressive dies. The survey revealed that none of the customers
increased their import purchases of steel and tungsten carbide
progressive dies, while reducing their purchases from the subject
firm during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import
steel and tungsten carbide progressive dies during the relevant
period.
The petitioner alleges that they believe the TAA decision
was based on the company being an importer of steel and tungsten
carbide progressive dies, rather than a manufacturer of steel and
tungsten carbide progressive dies.
A review of the initial investigation conducted for the
subject plant workers treated the worker group as production
workers engaged in activities related to the production of steel
and tungsten carbide progressive dies and not importers of steel
and tungsten carbide progressive dies.



The petitioner further believes that their customers are
importing steel and tungsten carbide progressive dies from
overseas, resulting in lost business at the subject plant.
A review of the initial investigation shows that none of the
respondents increased their purchases of steel and tungsten
carbide progressive dies, while decreasing their purchases from
the subject firm during the relevant period.
The petitioner also alleges that a local competitor was
granted TAA eligibility and strongly believes they should be
granted TAA eligibility based on that event.
As already indicated, the "contributed importantly" test is
generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's
customers. The TAA eligibility of a competitor does not show the
direct impact of imports contributing to the subject plant
layoffs and therefore is not relevant.
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 decisions. Accordingly, the
application is denied.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 12th day of July, 2002.
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick
_______________________
EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance