[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Page 31164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15537]


Employment and Training Administration

Carter-Wallace, Inc., Trenton, New Jersey; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By an application dated May 10, 1996, the United Steelworkers of 
America (USWA), Local No. 514L, requested administrative 
reconsideration of the subject petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(TAA). The denial notice was signed on April 5, 1996 and published in 
the Federal Register on April 29, 1996 (61 FR 18757).
    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 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration 
of the decision.

    Workers at the subject firm were engaged in employment related to 
the production of condoms. The Union questions why the Department, in 
making its determination, used corporate wide sales and production at 
the Trenton, New Jersey production facility, as opposed to limiting the 
date inquiry to the appropriate subdivision. The Union also claims that 
the 40% increase in U.S. imports of condoms between 1994 and 1995 
contributed importantly to worker separations at Carter-Wallace.
    The Department's denial of TAA for worker of Carter-Wallace, 
Trenton, New Jersey was based on the fact the criteria (2) and (3) of 
the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 
1974 were not met. Failure to meet any one of the worker group 
eligibility requirements is basis for denial.
    The Department's findings in the investigation showed that Carter-
Wallace made the decision to transfer production from Trenton to 
another domestic facility. A domestic transfer of production would not 
provide a basis for certification.
    Since layoffs at the subject firm were attributable to a domestic 
transfer of production, the Department examined corporate-wide sales. 
Corporate sales and production of condoms increased for the time period 
relevant to the investigation. Therefore, criterion (2) of the group 
eligibility requirements is not met.
    The Union also raises issues related to foreign ownership of U.S.-
based condom manufacturers. Foreign ownership of U.S.-based companies 
producing articles that are competitive with the condoms produced by 
Carter-Wallace is irrelevant to this case.
    The Union cites that workers of another domestic producer of 
condoms was certified eligible for TAA benefits. This producer had 
declining sales, production and employment, and increased its import 
purchases of condoms, thereby meeting all the certification criteria.


    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 5th day of June 1996.
Curtis K. Kooser,
Acting Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of 
Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 96-15537 Filed 6-18-96; 8:45 am]