[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16841-16842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8350]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-42,256]


Jackson Sewing Center, Madisonville, TN; Notice of Negative 
Determination on Reconsideration

    On February 19, 2003, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The notice will soon be 
published in the Federal Register.
    The Department initially denied the workers of Jackson Sewing 
Center, Madisonville, Tennessee because the ``contributed importantly'' 
group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended, was not met. Imports of sewn furniture parts did not 
contribute importantly to the layoffs at the subject plant. The workers 
at the subject firm were engaged in employment related to the 
manufacture (sewing) of upholstered furniture parts. The sewn articles 
were sent to other affiliated plants to be incorporated into 
upholstered furniture.
    The petitioner asserts that company sales were down and thus the 
company was attempting to cut costs by importing Chinese products (cut-
sewn fabric for furniture) competitive with those produced by the 
subject plant. The petitioner further alleges that, during September 
2002, some ``parts'' from China were seen at an affiliated plant. The 
petitioner also supplied style numbers believed to be imported from 
China.
    On reconsideration, the Department contacted the company for 
further clarification concerning company imports of cut-sewn fabric for 
upholstered furniture. In response to the style numbers supplied by the 
petitioner, the company indicated that, with the exception of one style 
number, they did not import these products. The one style number 
imported (7866) constituted a negligible amount in relation to 
production at the subject firm and the company further indicated this 
was a one time event during 2002, and in fact was not even produced at 
the subject firm, but rather at an affiliated facility. (However, the 
subject plant had the capability to produce that style.)
    The company also reported that they imported cut-sewn leather 
furniture parts and tables but that they did not produce cut-sewn 
leather furniture parts and tables. In any event, the amount of 
imported cut-sewn leather furniture parts was extremely small in 
relation to production at the Madisonville plant during January through 
September 2002. In fact, the imported pre-cut and sewn leather covers 
were purchased from manufacturers that specialize in producing these 
products. The company indicated that the investment in equipment and 
training would far exceed any profitability they could expect in such a 
program.
    The company also indicated that they imported tables during the 
relevant period. However, since the worker group does not produce this 
product,

[[Page 16842]]

imported tables are not ``like or directly'' competitive with what the 
subject plant produced (cut-sewn fabric for furniture parts) and thus 
does not meet the eligibility requirements of Section 222(3) of the 
Trade Act of 1974.
    The plant ships all cut-sewn fabric parts for furniture produced at 
the subject plant to other affiliated plants that incorporate the sewn 
parts into furniture; therefore, a customer survey is not relevant to 
this investigation.
    In summary, the sum of cut-sewn fabric and one style of cut-sewn 
leather furniture parts imported was extremely small amount relative to 
what the subject plant produced during the relevant period, and 
therefore did not contribute importantly to layoffs at the subject 
plant.
    The company also indicated that from 2001 to 2002 the styles of 
furniture have changed and thus require a smaller number of cut sewn 
furniture parts to produce a piece of furniture.
    The company further indicated that the Madisonville plant was an 
extension for the sewing operation of an affiliated domestic facility. 
The subject plant was opened several years ago when additional sewing 
capacity was needed at the affiliated plant, since the labor market was 
extremely tight. Since less sewing is now required the company decided 
to shift the sewing operation back to the affiliated plant.

Conclusion

    After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative 
determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance 
for workers and former workers of Jackson Sewing Center, Madisonville, 
Tennessee.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 21st day of March 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-8350 Filed 4-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P