Alcoa Composition Foils, Pevely, MO; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
[08/07/2003]
Volume 68, Number 152, Page 47090-47091
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-50,823]
Alcoa Composition Foils, Pevely, MO; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of May 23, 2003, petitioners requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of
the subject firm to apply for
[[Page 47091]]
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The denial notice was signed on
April 28, 2003 and published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2003 (68
FR 25060).
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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Alcoa Composition
Foils, Pevely, Missouri, engaged in the production of lead and tin foil
for the medical, dental and x-ray industries, was denied because the
``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of section
222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The ``contributed
importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the
workers' firm's customers. The Department conducted a survey of the
subject firm's major customers regarding their purchases of competitive
products in 2001, 2002, and January through March 2003. The respondents
reported no increased imports. The subject firm did not increase its
reliance on imports of lead and tin foil during the relevant period,
nor did they shift production to a foreign source.
The petitioner alleges that the subject firm was sold to a foreign
company which is currently supplying the subject firm customers with
products like or directly competitive with those produced at the
subject firm.
As established in the initial investigation, neither the company
nor its customers reported importing like or directly competitive
products during the relevant period of the investigation. Should the
petitioners wish the Department to investigate a more recent period,
they would be advised to file a new petition.
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 25th day of July, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-20114 Filed 8-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
|
