[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8627-8628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-4281]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41, 640]


Halmode Apparel, Inc., Roanoke, VA; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application received on September 5, 2002, a company official 
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). The 
denial notice applicable to workers of Halmode Apparel Inc., Roanoke, 
Virginia was signed on August 26, 2002, and published in the Federal 
Register on September 10, 2002 (67 FR 57456).
    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 was filed on behalf of workers at Halmode Apparel 
Inc., Roanoke, Virginia engaged in activities related to the 
distribution of apparel. The petition was denied because the 
petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning of 
section 222(3) of the Act.
    The petitioner alleges that layoffs at Halmode Apparel Inc., 
Roanoke, Virginia were ``directly related to the impact of imports''. 
The petitioner stated that the subject facility had once served as a 
production facility and that that production had been shifted abroad.
    Since that production ceased in 1998, it falls outside the time 
frame of this investigation.
    The petitioner also alleges that the loss of jobs at the subject 
facility was impacted by imports due to the company shifting its 
distribution services to a location that was more cost effective to 
receive import shipments.
    As the worker activity that was shifted did not involve production, 
the shift in subject firm activities is irrelevant.

[[Page 8628]]

    Only in very limited instances are service workers certified for 
TAA, namely the worker separations must be caused by a reduced demand 
for their services from a parent or controlling firm or subdivision 
whose workers produce an article and who are currently under 
certification for TAA.
    In conclusion, the workers at the subject firm did not produce an 
article within the meaning of section 222(3) of the Trade Act 1974.

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 in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of February, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-4281 Filed 2-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P