DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-52,039

HERAEUS ELECTRO-NITE COMPANY
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of July 31, 2003, a company official
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
July 14, 2003, and published in the Federal Register on August 5,
2003 (68 FR 46230).
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 Heraeus Electro-Nite
Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania was denied because the
“contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of
Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, was not met, nor was
there a shift in production to a foreign source. The
“contributed importantly” test is generally demonstrated through
a survey of customers of the workers’ firm. The survey revealed
that none of the respondents increased their purchases of
imported molten metal sensors. The company did not import molten
metal sensors, nor did they shift production abroad during the
relevant period.
In the request for reconsideration, the company official
contests the negative decision on the basis that “the increasing
amount of foreign steel being sent to this country has caused a
number of major steel companies to declare bankruptcy, which has
shrunk our business.” The official appears to be claiming that,
because the subject firm business depends completely on U.S.
steel production, the subject firm workers are import impacted
through this association.
When addressing the issue of import impact, the Department
is directed by the Trade Act to consider imports of products
“like or directly competitive” in the case of primary impacted
firms, or whether the subject firm supplied a component in a
product produced by a trade certified firm in the case of
secondary impact. As neither the subject firm nor its major
declining customers reported imports like or directly competitive
with the molten metal sensors produced at the subject firm,
primary import impact did not occur. As the subject firm did not
produce a component used in the products of their customers, the
possibility of secondary import impact is equally invalid.
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 22nd day of August 2003.

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner


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