[Federal Register: March 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 59)]
[Notices]
[Page 16064-16066]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26mr08-118]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-62,414]
Consistent Textile Industries, Dallas, NC; Notice of Negative
Determination on Reconsideration
On November 29, 2007, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers
and former workers of Consistent Textiles Industries, Dallas, North
Carolina (the subject firm). The Department's Notice of affirmative
determination was
[[Page 16065]]
published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2007 (72 FR 70344).
The initial determination was based on the Department's findings
that the subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a
significant number or proportion of workers (at least three workers
with a workforce of fewer than 50 workers, or five percent of the
workers with a workforce of 50 or more, or 50 workers) as required by
section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The company-filed petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)
and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) alleges that the
worker group works at a firm that has increased imports of like or
directly competitive articles, has shifted production of the article to
a foreign country, and has customers that have increased imports from
another country.
In the request for reconsideration, a company official states that
three workers were separated from the subject firm.
In order to apply for TAA, petitioners must meet the group
eligibility requirements for directly-impacted workers under section
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. The requirements can be
satisfied in either one of two ways.
Under Section (a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become
totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or
partially separated; and
B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision
have decreased absolutely; and
C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed
importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to
the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision;
Under Section (a)(2)(B), the following must be satisfied:
A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become
totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or
partially separated; and
B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or
subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly
competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or
subdivision; and
C. One of the following must be satisfied:
1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of
the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United
States; or
2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of
the articles is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference
Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin
Economic Recovery Act; or
3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of
articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are
or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
During the reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed
that the subject firm separated three of its four workers. Accordingly,
the Department determines that section (a)(2)(A)(A) and section
(a)(2)(B)(A) were met.
A review of previously-submitted information confirmed that subject
firm sales decreased in 2006 from 2005 levels, and decreased during
January through October 2007 as compared to the corresponding period
the prior year. Accordingly, the Department determines that section
(a)(2)(A)(B) was met.
In order to determine that the subject workers meet the TAA group
eligibility requirements, the Department must also find that either
section (a)(2)(A)(C) was met or section (a)(2)(B)(B) and section
(a)(2)(B)(C) were met.
The analysis of Section (a)(2)(A)(C) begins with identifying the
``articles produced by such firm or subdivision,'' continues with a
finding of ``increased imports of articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by such firm,'' and concludes with the
determination that increased imports ``have contributed importantly''
to the workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline
in subject firm sales or production.
The company-filed petition identified no article produced at the
subject firm [Question--What (if any) articles are produced at subject
firm? Answer--Just Sales, Question--If none are produced, what do
workers do? Answer--Sales]. When the Department contacted the subject
firm's major declining customer during the reconsideration
investigation, the customer stated that it had no records of purchases
of machine parts from the subject firm. Rather, all of the subject firm
orders are for repair work on the customer's machines. Further, a
company official stated that the machine parts produced were ``used for
replacement or repair'' of textile machines.
The Department has consistently determined that repair work is a
service and that items created incidental to provision of a service are
not articles for purposes of the Trade Act. As such, the Department
determines that no article was produced by the subject firm, and that
the subject workers cannot be considered import impacted or affected by
a shift of production abroad, and cannot be certified as eligible to
apply for worker adjustment assistance under the Trade Act.
Even if the subject firm does produce an article, for purposes of
the Trade Act, the petitioning workers would not meet the group
eligibility requirements for directly-impacted workers under section
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
The workers allege that they produce machine parts for textile
machines. As such, a certification would be based on either a shift of
production of machine parts to a foreign country or a determination
that increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with
the machine parts produced by the subject firm contributed importantly
to workers' separation and declines in subject firm sales or
production.
According to additional information obtained during the
reconsideration investigation, the subject firm ceased machine part
production in November 2007, did not shift production of machine parts
to a foreign country, and did not increase its imports of machine parts
like or directly competitive with those produced by workers at the
subject firm.
Because there was no shift of production, as required by Section
(a)(2)(B)(B), the petitioning workers can be certified eligible to
apply for TAA only if the Department finds that there were ``increased
imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced
by such firm,'' and that increased imports ``have contributed
importantly'' to the workers'' separations and to the decline in
subject firm sales or production.
Since the subject firm did not increase its imports of machine
parts or articles like or directly competitive with those produced by
workers at the subject firm, the Department conducted a survey to
determine whether the subject firm's major declining customers had
increased their imports of machine parts or articles like or directly
competitive with those produced by workers at the subject firm. None of
the customers reported increased imports of articles like or directly
competitive with the machine parts produced by workers at the subject
firm.
Absent a finding of increased imports, the Department cannot
determine that increased imports contributed importantly to the
workers' separations.
[[Page 16066]]
Accordingly, the Department determines that section (a)(2)(A)(C) was
not met.
Although the request for reconsideration did not allege that the
subject workers were adversely affected as secondary workers (workers
of a firm that supply component parts to a TAA-certified company or
finished or assembled for a TAA-certified company), the Department
expanded the reconsideration investigation to determine whether they
would be eligible to apply for TAA on this basis. Such a certification,
under section 223(b)(2), must be based in the certification of a
primary firm.
The reconsideration investigation revealed that although several of
the subject firm's customers are TAA-certified, the article produced by
the subject workers (machine parts) are not a component part of the
article produced by the workers eligible to apply for TAA (textiles).
As such, the Department determines that section 223(b)(2) has not been
met.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility
to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), the
subject worker group must be certified eligible to apply for Trade
Adjustment Assistance (TAA). Since the subject workers are denied
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible
for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the new and addition information obtained
during the reconsideration investigation, I affirm the original notice
of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment
assistance for workers and former workers of Consistent Textiles
Industries, Dallas, North Carolina.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of March 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-6115 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P