DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-54,506

SANFORD PATTERN WORKS, INC.
TAYLOR, MICHIGAN

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of June 28, 2004, 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). The denial notice applicable to workers of
Sanford Pattern Works, Inc., Taylor, Michigan was signed on April
21, 2004, and published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2004
(69 FR 31134).
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 was filed on behalf of workers at Sanford
Pattern Works, Inc., Taylor, Michigan engaged in production of
polystyrene patterns for the tool & die industry. The petition
was denied because the “contributed importantly” group
eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended, was not met. The “contributed importantly” test is
generally demonstrated through a survey of customers of the
workers’ firm. The survey revealed that the major declining
customer did not import polystyrene patterns during the relevant
time period.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner requests
to extend the investigation and includes Blue Print products
which are allegedly being imported from China.
A company official was contacted to confirm whether blue
prints are produced by the subject firm. The company official
stated that Sanford Pattern Works, Inc. does not produce blue
prints for sales to customers. Any blue prints produced by the
workers of the subject firm are used internally for the
production of polystyrene patterns. The official further stated
that the subject firm did not shift any production nor did it
import any products during the relevant period.
The petitioner further states that even though polystyrene
patters manufactured by the subject firm are not being imported
by its customers, customers use these patterns in the production
of dies, which are now being built and imported by customers from
China. The petitioner concludes that, because the production of
dies occurs abroad, the subject firm workers producing poly-
styrene patterns are import impacted.
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. The survey
revealed that the customer did not import polystyrene patterns
during the relevant period.
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 30th day of July 2004.

/s/ Elliott S. Kushner


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