DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-40,405
XEROX CORPORATION
(SOHO) SMALL OFFICE/HOME OFFICE DIVISION
CANANDAIGUA, NEW YORK

and

TA-W-40,405A
XEROX CORPORATION
(SOHO) SMALL OFFICE/HOME OFFICE DIVISION
FARMINGTON, NEW YORK

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.


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, D.C. this 14th day of May 2002.

/s/ Edward A. Tomchick



EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance