DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-56,083

APEX PATTERN COMPANY
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of February 14, 2005 a petitioner 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) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA). The denial notice was signed on February 1, 2005 and
published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2005 (70 FR 11703).
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 Apex Pattern
Company, Los Angeles, California engaged in production of wheel
molds was denied because the "contributed importantly" group
eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974
was not met. The “contributed importantly” test is generally
demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s customers.
The survey revealed no increase in imports of wheel molds during
the relevant period. The subject firm did not import wheel molds
in the relevant period nor did it shift production to a foreign
country.
The petitioner alleges that the subject firm lost its
business due to its major customers importing products and
shifting their production abroad.
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 wheel molds. The survey revealed that the declining
customers did not increase their imports of wheel molds during
the relevant period.
The petitioner further alleges that the major customer of
the subject firm has shifted its production of wheels to Mexico
and that workers of this firm were certified eligible for TAA.
The fact that subject firm’s customer shifted its production
abroad and were certified eligible for TAA is relevant to this
investigation if determining whether workers of the subject firm
are eligible for trade adjustment assistance (TAA) based on the
secondary upstream supplier impact. For certification on the
basis of the workers’ firm being a secondary upstream supplier,
the subject firm must produce a component part of the article
that was the basis for the customers’ certification.
In this case, however, the subject firm does not act as an
upstream supplier, because wheel molds do not form a component
part of the aluminum automotive wheels. Thus the subject firm
workers are not eligible under secondary impact.
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 31st day of March, 2005

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner


ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance