DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-50,823

ALCOA COMPOSITION FOILS
PEVELY, MISSOURI

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 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 mis-
interpretation 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, D.C., this 25th day of July, 2003.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance