DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-73,351

SANDY ALEXANDER
CLIFTON, NEW JERSEY


Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On January 21, 2011, the Department of Labor issued an
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
for the workers and former workers of Sandy Alexander, Clifton,
New Jersey (subject firm). The Department’s Notice was published in
the Federal Register on February 2, 2011 (76 FR 5832). The workers
are engaged in activities related to the production of printed
materials.
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 initial investigation resulted in a negative determination
based on the findings that the petitioning worker group did not
meet the eligibility criteria set forth in the Trade Act of 1974,
as amended.
In request for reconsideration, the petitioner supplied new
information regarding an alleged shift in production to China.
A careful review of the administrative record and additional
information obtained by the Department during the reconsideration
investigation confirmed that the subject firm did not shift to,
nor acquire from, a foreign country articles that are like or
directly competitive with articles produced by the subject firm.
Further, during the reconsideration investigation, the
Department reviewed previously-submitted information and
determined that there was no mistake in fact and no
misinterpretation of the facts or the law.
Conclusion
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of
negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker
adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Sandy
Alexander, Clifton, New Jersey.
Signed in Washington, D.C, on this 11th day of August, 2011
/s/ Del Min Amy Chen
_______________________________
DEL MIN AMY CHEN
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance
4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-73,351

SANDY ALEXANDER
CLIFTON, NEW JERSEY

Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (“Act”), 19 U.S.C. § 2273, the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
Workers of a firm may be eligible for worker adjustment
assistance if they satisfy the criteria of subsection (a), (c) or
(f) of Section 222 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), (c), (f). For
the Department of Labor to issue a certification for workers under
Section 222(a) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), the following three
criteria must be met:
I. The first criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(1) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2282(a)(1)) requires that a significant
number or proportion of the workers in the workers’ firm must
have become totally or partially separated or be threatened
with total or partial separation.

II. The second criterion (set forth in Section 222(a)(2) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a)(2)) may be satisfied in one of two
ways:
(A) Increased Imports Path:
(i) sales or production, or both, at the workers’ firm must
have decreased absolutely, AND
(ii) (I) imports of articles or services like or directly
competitive with articles or services produced or
supplied by the workers’ firm have increased, OR
(II)(aa) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles into which the component
part produced by the workers’ firm was directly
incorporated have increased; OR
(II)(bb) imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced
directly using the services supplied by the
workers’ firm have increased; OR
(III) imports of articles directly incorporating
component parts not produced in the U.S. that are
like or directly competitive with the article into
which the component part produced by the workers’
firm was directly incorporated have increased.

(B) Shift in Production or Supply Path:
(i)(I) there has been a shift by the workers’ firm to a
foreign country in the production of articles or supply
of services like or directly competitive with those
produced/supplied by the workers’ firm; OR
(i)(II) there has been an acquisition from a foreign country
by the workers’ firm of articles/services that are like
or directly competitive with those produced/supplied by
the workers’ firm.

III. The third criterion requires that the increase in imports or
shift/acquisition must have contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation. See Sections
222(a)(2)(A)(iii) and 222(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act, 19 U.S.C.
§§ 2272(a)(2)(A)(iii), 2272(a)(2)(B)(ii).

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(d), defines the
terms “Supplier” and “Downstream Producer.” For the Department to
issue a secondary worker certification under Section 222(c) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(c), to workers of a Supplier or a Downstream
Producer, the following criteria must be met:
(1) a significant number or proportion of the workers in the
workers’ firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm
have become totally or partially separated, or are
threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) the workers’ firm is a Supplier or Downstream Producer to
a firm that employed a group of workers who received a
certification of eligibility under Section 222(a) of the
Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(a), and such supply or production
is related to the article or service that was the basis
for such certification; and

(3) either
(A) the workers’ firm is a supplier and the component parts
it supplied to the firm described in paragraph (2)
accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or
sales of the workers’ firm; or
(B) a loss of business by the workers’ firm with the firm
described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the
workers’ separation or threat of separation.

Workers of a firm may also be considered eligible if they
are publicly identified by name by the International Trade
Commission as a member of a domestic industry in an investigation
resulting in a category of determination that is listed in
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f).
The group eligibility requirements for workers of a firm under
Section 222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), can be satisfied if
the following criteria are met:
(1) the workers’ firm is publicly identified by name by the
International Trade Commission as a member of a domestic
industry in an investigation resulting in--
(A) an affirmative determination of serious injury or
threat thereof under section 202(b)(1);
(B) an affirmative determination of market disruption
or threat thereof under section 421(b)(1); or
(C) an affirmative final determination of material
injury or threat thereof under section 705(b)(1)(A)
or 735(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19
U.S.C. 1671d(b)(1)(A) and 1673d(b)(1)(A));
(2) the petition is filed during the 1-year period beginning
on the date on which--
(A) a summary of the report submitted to the President
by the International Trade Commission under section
202(f)(1) with respect to the affirmative
determination described in paragraph (1)(A) is
published in the Federal Register under section
202(f)(3); or
(B) notice of an affirmative determination described in
subparagraph (1) is published in the Federal
Register; and
(3) the workers have become totally or partially
separated from the workers’ firm within--
(A) the 1-year period described in paragraph (2); or
(B) notwithstanding section 223(b)(1), the 1-year
period preceding the 1-year period described in
paragraph (2).

The investigation was initiated in response to a petition
filed on January 26, 2010 on behalf of workers of Sandy Alexander,
Clifton, New Jersey (Sandy Alexander). The workers are engaged
in activities related to the production of printed materials.
The workers alleged that, “due to the outsourcing of printed
material to China and other countries, Sandy Alexander has lost
millions of dollars of revenue over the pass few years. One of the
major products produced was high-end printed showroom books for the
automobile industry. This was a large portion of Sandy Alexander’s
work for many years, as well as many other print products such as
brochures, posters and inserts for the cosmetic and fashion
industries.” The investigation included contact and request for
data with the company officials of Sandy Alexander and their
customers.
With respect to Section 222(a) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that criteria II and III have not been met.
Criterion II has not been met because Sandy Alexander did
not increase imports of printed material in 2008, 2009 and
January 2010 compared to 2009. Sandy Alexander also did not shift
or acquire from a foreign country production of printed materials
like those produced by the workers during the relevant period.
Customer surveys revealed that customer imports were
insignificant during the relevant period in comparison to Sandy
Alexander’s sales.
Criterion III has not been met because the worker
separations at Sandy Alexander was not related to an increase of
imports or a shift or acquisition of articles from a foreign
country like those produced by the workers during the relevant
period.
In response to the workers allegations, outsourcing to a
foreign country by Sandy Alexander or by its customers did not
contribute importantly to the worker separations at Sandy
Alexander.
With respect to Section 222(c) of the Act, the investigation
revealed that Criterion (2) has not been met because the workers
did not produce an article or supply a service that was used by a
Trade Adjustment Assistance certified firm for an article or
service that was the basis for certification.
Finally, the group eligibility requirements under Section
222(f) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(f), have not been satisfied
because Sandy Alexander was not the subject of a affirmative
determination of injury by the International Trade Commission.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the
investigation, I determine that workers of Sandy Alexander,
Clifton, New Jersey who are engaged in activities related to the
production of printed material are denied eligibility to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. §
2273.
Signed in Washington, D.C., this 24th day of November, 2010


/s/Elliott S. Kushner
______________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Office of
Trade Adjustment Assistance




- 7 -