[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 58172]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-28984]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,679 and NAFTA-04608]


Kazoo, Inc. San Antonio, TX; Notice of Negative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of April 12, 2001, 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-38,679 and North American Free Trade Agreement-
Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) under petition NAFTA-
4608. The TAA denial notice applicable to workers of Kazoo, Inc., San 
Antonio, Texas, was signed on March 12, 2001 and will soon be published 
in the Federal Register. The NAFTA-TAA denial notice applicable to 
workers of Kazoo, Inc., San Antonio, Texas, was signed on March 12, 
2001 and published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2001 (66 FR 
18118).
    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 Kazoo, Inc., San 
Antonio, Texas engaged in cutting fabric, was denied because the 
``contribution 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 subject firm did not 
increase their imports of cut fabric. Sales at the subject firm 
increased during 2000. The subject firm transferred their cutting 
operations to another domestic facility.
    The NAFTA-TAA petition for the same workers 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 subject firm did not import cut fabric like and directly 
competitive with what the subject plant produced from Mexico or Canada, 
nor was the cutting operation shifted from the workers' firm to Mexico 
or Canada.
    The petitioner alleges that the company shifted the cutting 
operation at Mexico. The petitioner attached selected letters of 
recommendation which depicts a shift in production in Mexico. The 
company was contacted and confirmed that the cutting operation was not 
shifted to Mexico, nor was the cutting operation contracted out to any 
Mexican contractor.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no error or misinterpretation of the law 
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 October, 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-28984 Filed 11-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M