[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 112 (Tuesday, June 11, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 40011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14597]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-40,721]


Englehard Corporation, McIntyre, GA; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of March 21, 2002, the company 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 was signed on February 26, 2002 and published in the 
Federal Register on March 20, 2002 (67 FR 13010).
    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, filed on behalf of workers at Englehard 
Corporation, McIntyre, Georgia engaged in the production of paper 
coating and filling--kaolin, was denied because the ``contributed 
importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the 
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. Increased imports did not 
contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject plant.
    The petitioner alleges that the customers they supplied during the 
initial investigation are located outside the United States. The 
petitioner further states that these customers switched their purchases 
from the subject firm in favor of purchasing from sources located in 
Brazil. In addition the subject firm now has domestic customers that 
are now purchasing from Brazil and other countries.
    A review of the initial investigation shows that the major 
declining customers were all foreign companies located in Europe. Based 
on information provided during the initial investigation and recent 
clarification from the company, the preponderance in the declines in 
sales and production at the subject plant are related to the declines 
in purchases from the subject firm's foreign customers located in 
Europe. Those customers switched their purchases from the subject firm 
in favor of purchasing Brazilian imports of products ``like or directly 
competitive'' with what the subject plant produced. The loss of foreign 
customers, switching their purchasing from subject firm in favor of 
purchasing from foreign sources does not meet the eligibility 
requirements under criterion (3) of the Trade Act of 1974.

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 decisions. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of May, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-14597 Filed 6-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P