[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18925-18926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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