DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-51,541

LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.
WINDSOR, VERMONT

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of July 7, 2003, a company official 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 May 23, 2003
and published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2003 (68 FR
36845).
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 Luzenac
America, Inc., Windsor, Vermont engaged in the production of talc
products, was denied because criteria (a)(2)(A)(IB) and (IIB)
were not met. Production of talc products at the subject plant
increased from 2001 to 2002 and from January through March of
2002 to the corresponding period of 2003, and the company did not
shift production to a foreign source in this period.
In the request for reconsideration, the company official
states that sales and production declines will occur in the near
future in conjunction with a scheduled shift in production to
Canada and a subsequent production shut down at the subject firm.
Regardless of imminent and certain sales and production
declines, criterion (a)(2)(A)(I.B) requires an “existing” sales
and/or production decline at the subject firm. Alternatively,
workers might be eligible for TAA if the company had begun
shifting production of like or directly competitive talc products
to Canada. However, that event has not yet occurred and thus no
shift of production is indicated in the relevant period of this
investigation. Thus criterion (II.B) has not been met.
Should conditions change in the future, the company is
encouraged to file a new petition on behalf of the worker group
which will encompass an investigative period that will include
these changing conditions.




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 1st day of August, 2003
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
__________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance