DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-41,274

AZON CORPORATION
JOHNSON CITY, NEW YORK

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, D.C., this 26th day of July 2002
/s/ Edward A. Tomchick

__________________________
EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance