[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4753-4754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-2337]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-39,365]


Eagle Affiliates Harrison, NJ; Notice of Negative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of August 23, 2001, 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 Eagle Affiliates, Harrison, New 
Jersey was issued on July 23, 2001, and was published in the Federal 
Register on August 15, 2001 (66 FR 42879).
    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 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The investigation findings revealed that criterion (3) of the group 
eligibility requirements of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was 
not met. Increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker 
separations at the subject firm. Company imports are of products that 
are not and can not be made by the subject firm. Imports by the company 
are for the primary purpose to expand the subject firm's product line 
and not displace or replace the existing product line.
    The request for reconsideration claims that the company imported 
products like and directly competitive with what the subject plant 
produced.The petitioner provided examples of products that are like and 
directly competitive with products produced at the subject firm.
    The review of data supplied during the initial investigation shows 
that a meaningful portion of the company's sales consists of imported 
products. However, most of these products are hobby/craft related and 
stand alone items. They are new and unique and do not replace the 
overwhelming majority of products the company produces and do not 
provide an alternative to any products the company sells. In summary, 
company imports of hobby/craft items like and directly competitive with 
what the subject plant produces are negligible.
    The company further indicated that a small portion of houseware 
sales consists of imports, but are negligible in relation to the 
products produced by the subject firm.
    The preponderance in the declines in employment at the subject 
plant is related to plant products being outsourced to another domestic 
firm.
    The survey results conducted during the initial investigation 
revealed that none of the customers increased their imports of products 
like and directly competitive with what the subject plant produced 
during the relevant period.

[[Page 4754]]

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative finding, 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 applicant is denied.

    Dated: Signed at Washington, DC, this 3rd day of January 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-2337 Filed 1-30-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M