[Federal Register: December 21, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 76699-76700]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21de06-89]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-60,056]
Short Bark Industries, Tellico Plains, TN; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of October 20, 2006 a 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) and
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The denial notice was
signed on October 3, 2006 and
[[Page 76700]]
published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2006 (71 FR 63800).
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 Short Bark
Industries, Tellico Plains, Tennessee engaged in production of cut
pieces for camouflage clothing was denied because the ``contributed
importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade
Act of 1974 was not met. The ``contributed importantly'' test is
generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's
customers. The survey revealed no imports of cut pieces for camouflage
clothing in 2004, 2005 and January through August of 2006 when compared
with the same period in 2005. The subject firm did not import cut
pieces for camouflage clothing in the relevant period nor did it shift
production to a foreign country.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges that the
layoffs at the subject firm are attributable to a shift in production
to Honduras and Puerto Rico.
Two company officials were contacted regarding the above
allegations. The company officials stated that the subject firm did not
shift production from the subject facility to Honduras. The officials
stated that the subject firm exported cut pieces for camouflage
clothing abroad to a customer with the foreign facility for further
production. This ceased its business with the subject firm in order to
perform all the cutting abroad. The Short Bark Industries decided not
to pursue the cutting business any longer and sold some of the
machinery from the subject firm to the customer. Both of the officials
confirmed that there is no affiliation between Short Bark Industries,
Tellico Plains, Tennessee and its major customer.
Contact with an official of the subject firm's customer confirmed
that all production for this customer was exclusively for export
purposes. As trade adjustment assistance is concerned exclusively with
whether imports impact layoffs of petitioning worker groups, the above-
mentioned allegations regarding agreements between the subject firm and
their foreign customer base are irrelevant.
The official also confirmed that some of the production was shifted
from the subject facility to a plant in Puerto Rico during the relevant
time period.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner seems to imply
that a shift of production to Puerto Rico on the part of the company
constitutes a shift of production to a country included in Caribbean
Basin Economic Recovery Act. The petitioner seems to conclude that this
shift to Puerto Rico is responsible for separations at the subject
facility.
Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory and therefore any movement of
production to this region would not constitute a shift of production to
a foreign source.
The petitioner provided the name of the former supervisor who
according to the petitioner is currently in Honduras training workers.
The official confirmed this statement and added that this
supervisor in question is now employed by subject firm's customer and
is working in Honduras on behalf of this customer.
The petitioner also provided a name of the subject firm's employee
who is allegedly currently making patterns for the Honduras plant.
The Department contacted this employee to verify the above
information. The employee stated that he is still employed by Short
Bark Industries and that he does not make markers or patterns for the
Honduras plant.
The petitioner attached an article, with no reference to the source
or the date of the article. The article is a short biography on the
founder of Short Bark Industries, and refers to the activities of the
subject firm from 1991 to 2003.
In its investigation, the Department considers events and facts
that occurred within a year prior to the date of the petition. Thus,
the period between 1991 and 2003 is outside of the relevant period as
established by the current petition date of November 9, 2006.
The officials of the subject firm confirmed directly that Short
Bark Industries did not shift production from the subject firm to any
facility abroad in the relevant period.
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 13th day of December, 2006
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment, Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6-21791 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P