Murray Engineering, Inc. Complete Design Service, Flint, MI; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand

Document Headings Document headings vary by document type but may contain the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document the number of the CFR title and the number of each part the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly related to the agency docket number / agency internal file number the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-50,588] The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) remanded to the Department of Labor for further investigation Former Employees of Murray Engineering v. U.S. Secretary of Labor , USCIT 03-00219. The Department concludes that the subject worker group does not qualify for eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) benefits. There was neither a shift of production, nor increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with those produced at the subject facility, as required under section 222(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act). The workers also do not qualify as adversely affected secondary workers under section 222(b) of the Trade Act. On January 15, 2003, a petition was filed on behalf of workers of Murray Engineering, Inc., Complete Design Service, Flint, Michigan (“Murray Engineering”) for TAA. The petition stated that workers design automotive gauges, tools, fixtures, and dies. The Department's initial negative determination for the former workers of Murray Engineering was issued on February 5, 2003. The Notice of Determination was published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2003 ( 68 FR 8620 ). The Department's determination was based on the finding that workers provided industrial design and engineering services and did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. In a letter dated February 19, 2003, the pe…