[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 51872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-20198]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,274]


Azon Corporation, Johnson City, NY; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application postmarked July 2, 2002, 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 Azon Corporation, Johnson City, 
New York was issued on May 31, 2002, and was published in the Federal 
Register on June 21, 2002 (67 FR 42285).
    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 investigation revealed that criterion (3) of the group 
eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 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 imported coated and converted paper and 
film during the relevant period. The investigation further revealed 
that the company did not import products like or directly competitive 
with coated and converted paper and film during the relevant period.
    The request for reconsideration claims a major customer switched 
from buying from the subject firm in favor of purchasing products like 
or directly competitive with what the subject plant produced from a 
competitor that was headquartered in the Netherlands.
    A review of data supplied during the initial investigation shows 
that the specified competitor was in fact headquartered in the 
Netherlands. However, the products sold by the competitor were produced 
in the United States. Therefore, the fact that the company was 
headquartered in the Netherlands is not relevant, since the competitor 
did not import the products back to the United States 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, DC, this 26th day of July 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-20198 Filed 8-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P