[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18925-18926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-9340]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-39,977, and NAFTA-05262]
Lamtech, LLC, Hartsville, TN; Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of January 21, 2002, the 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) under
petition TA-W-39,977 and North American Free Trade Agreement--
Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) under petition NAFTA-
5262. The TAA and NAFTA-TAA denial notices applicable to workers of
Lamtech, LLC, Hartsville, Tennessee, were signed on December 11, 2001
and published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2001 (66 FR 66426
& 66427, respectively).
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.
The TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Lamtech, LLC,
Hartsville, Tennessee engaged in employment related to the production
of sew stands and sew tops, was denied because the ``contributed
importantly'' group eligibility requirement of section 222(3) of the
Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The ``contributed
importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the
workers' firm's customers. The survey revealed that none of the
respondents increased their imports of products like or directly
competitive with what the subject plant produced during the relevant
period. The subject firm did not import sew stands and sew tops.
The NAFTA-TAA petition for the same worker group was denied because
criteria (3) and (4) of the group eligibility requirements in paragraph
(a) (1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act, as amended, were not met. The
survey revealed that none of the respondents increased their imports of
products like or directly competitive with what the subject plant
produced from Canada or Mexico during the relevant period. The subject
firm did not import (including Canada or Mexico) products like or
directly competitive with what the subject plant produced, nor was the
subject plant's production shifted from the workers' firm to Mexico or
Canada.
The petitioner alleges that their major customers purchased
imported products like or directly competitive with what the subject
firm produced from foreign sources, specifically Mexico and Central
America. The petitioner further states that some of their customers are
purchasing products from other domestic sources that are importing.
The Department, as already indicated, examines the impact of
imports (including Canada and Mexico) by a survey of the subject firm's
major declining customers to examine if the ``contributed importantly''
test is met. The survey conducted during the initial investigation
revealed that none of the respondents increased their imports
(including Canada or Mexico), while decreasing their purchases from the
subject firm during the relevant period.
The petitioner further attached a list of major declining customers
with corresponding allegations concerning their customer purchases from
foreign sources.
A review of the customer list revealed that some of the major
customers were located in foreign countries. Also, some of the domestic
customers on the list were surveyed during the initial investigation,
the respondents as already indicated, did not increase their imports of
products like or directly competitive with what the subject firm
produced. A further review of the list in combination with the survey
results and data supplied by the company further shows that some of the
customers did not purchase any products from the subject firm during
the relevant period
[[Page 18926]]
and therefore cannot be considered customers of the subject firm. In
conclusion, the Department's further review of the customer list
provided supports the initial decision.
The petitioner further stated that the respondents may not have had
an understanding of what they were being asked in the survey and also
may not have answered in a factual manner.
The survey the Department conducted was specific to the products
produced by the subject plant, as reported by the company. The
respondents in the survey were provided with a Department contact if
they needed any further clarification. In respect to the respondents
reported results, they are reviewed and accepted if they appear to be
filled out correctly. If further clarification of the customer response
is necessary, the customer is contacted.
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 decisions. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of March, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-9340 Filed 4-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M