DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-41,043

CHAMPION PARTS, INC.
BEECH CREEK, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration


By application received on June 26, 2002, the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 1592 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 applicable to workers of the
subject firm was signed on May 23, 2002. The decision was
published in the Federal Register on June 11, 2002 (67 FR 40004).
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 filed on behalf of workers of Champion Parts,
Inc., Beech Creek, Pennsylvania, producing fuel systems and CV
products 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 worker
firm's customers. None of the customers reported importing fuel
systems and CV products during the relevant period. The subject
firm did not import fuel systems or CV products during the
relevant period.
The petitioner indicates that the TAA decision depicts "that
increases of imports of the articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by the firm or appropriate subdivision
have contributed importantly to the separation, or threat
thereof, and to the absolute declines in sales or production."
In the above instance, the petitioner appears to be
referencing criterion (3) of the group eligibility requirement of
Section 222 of the Act. In fact, the decision clearly states
that subject firm workers do not meet the eligibility requirement
of criterion (3) of Section 222 of the Act.
The petitioner also appears to be concerned that the
Department may not have examined the correct products produced by
the subject plant during the initial investigation.
A review of the customer survey conducted by the Department
shows that none of the customers reported importing fuel systems
and CV products (carburetors), during the relevant period. These
products account for all production performed at the subject firm
during the relevant period.
The petitioner also references plant production of
carburetors that was produced during the mid-1990's and also
indicates that this product was replaced by imported fuel
injectors.
Products produced by the subject plant prior to the year
2000 are outside the scope of the relevant period. As indicated
previously, customers reported no like or directly or competitive
imports of products produced by the subject plant during the
relevant period.
Finally, the petitioner contends that CV component
production was not a part of the initial investigation.
A review of plant sales and production data pertaining to CV
products (a relatively small portion of plant production) shows
increases throughout the relevant period. Thus, import impact is
not an issue in regard to this product.


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 25th day of July 2002.

/s/ Edward A. Tomchick

EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance