[Federal Register: January 23, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 15)]
[Notices]               
[Page 3391]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23ja04-84]                         


[[Page 3391]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-52,326]

 
Bojud Knitting Mills, Inc., Amsterdam, NY; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of September 8, 2003, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the 
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on August 13, 2003, and 
published in the Federal Register on September 2, 2003 (68 FR 52228).
    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 petition for the workers of Bojud Knitting Mills, Inc., 
Amsterdam, New York was denied because criterion (1) was not met. 
Employment at the subject plant increased from 2001 to 2002, and in 
January to July of 2003 relative to the same period of 2002.
    The petitioner implies that the petitioning worker group met the 
criterion concerning an immediate threat of layoffs, as workers were 
laid off soon after the negative determination; specifically, he states 
that workers were laid off in the last week of August and the first 
week of September.
    A company official was contacted in regard to this issue and 
indicated that employment increased in January through August of 2003 
relative to the same period in 2002, but employment levels did decline 
in September of 2003. The official further clarified that future 
``employment declines are very hard to predict as the volume of 
employees is based on customer orders.''
    Further, the official confirmed that which was discovered in the 
initial investigation, which was that the company did not shift 
production, nor did it import like or directly competitive products.
    Finally, results of a survey of major declining customers conducted 
at the time of the initial investigation established that customer 
imports did not contribute importantly to layoffs at the subject firm.

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, DC, this 23rd day of December, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-1436 Filed 1-22-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-P