[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40017-40018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14594]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-40,405 and TA-W-40,405A]


Xerox Corporation (SOHO) Small Office/Home Office Division 
Canandaigua, NY and Farmington, NY; Notice of Negative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application April 8, 2002, the Union of Needletrades, Industrial 
& Textile Employees, Local 2541 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 March 8, 2002, and published in the Federal Register on 
March 29, 2002 (67 FR 15226).
    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.

[[Page 40018]]

    The petition for the workers of Xerox Corporation, (SOHO) Small 
Office/Home Office Division, Canandaigua, New York (TA-W-40,405) and 
Xerox Corporation, (SOHO) Small Office/Home Office Division, 
Farmington, New York (TA-W-40,405A) was denied because the 
``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 
222(3) 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 none 
of the respondents increased their purchases of imported print heads or 
ink tanks.
    The petitioner states that the ink tanks and print heads made in 
the United States are shipped overseas and boxed with ink jet printers 
that were manufactured in foreign countries. The boxed jet printer, 
which includes the ink tank and print head were then imported to the 
United States.
    The petitioner also states that the Department should examine 
competitor's imports of ink jet printers.
    The importing of a boxed ink jet printer with the ink tanks and 
print head included is not ``like or directly competitive'' with the 
product produced (print heads or ink tanks) by the subject firm.

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, DC this 14th day of May 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-14594 Filed 6-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P