[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 135 (Tuesday, July 15, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41847-41848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-17827]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-51,120]


Sun Apparel of Texas, Armour Facility, El Paso, TX; Notice of 
Determinations Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of May 22, 2003, three workers 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 was signed on April 7, 2003 and published in the Federal 
Register on April 24, 2003 (68 FR 20177).
    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 Sun Apparel, Armour 
Facility, El Paso, Texas engaged in the production of patterns, 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 subject firm did not increase its reliance on imports of 
patterns during the relevant period, nor did it shift production to a 
foreign source.
    In the reconsideration process, it was revealed that patterns and 
markers created at the subject firm were electronically generated and 
transmitted, and thus do not constitute production within the meaning 
of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
    The workers allege that other production was performed at the 
subject facility and imply that some or all of this production work was 
transferred to a company-owned facility in Mexico in the relevant 
period.
    Aside from the original request for reconsideration, further 
information was provided by worker representatives. In order to get a 
comprehensive sense of work performed at the subject facility, the 
Department requested that both the workers and a company official 
supply a list of all work functions performed at the subject facility. 
The Department further requested that the company official indicate 
whether work functions at the subject facility were shifted to Mexico, 
or if the company imported products like or directly competitive with 
those produced at the subject facility in the relevant period.
    The workers allege that petitioning workers produced samples (also 
known as approval garments), and imply that work was shifted to Mexico. 
They further state that samples were shipped directly to customers in 
the U.S.
    A company official was contacted on this point and reported that 
samples were and are produced at the subject facility. However, sample 
production has never occurred at the Mexican affiliate, so no 
production of samples was shifted. Further, the company does not import 
samples. (As samples are produced for internal use, there is no issue 
in regard to customer imports.)
    Workers allege that the ``Print Shop'' at the subject facility 
produced jokers (waist band labels) and stickers (leg stickers used to 
designate size).
    The company official contacted affirmed that print shops producing 
like or directly competitive stickers were located at both the Amour 
and Mexican facilities, and that the company elected to close the Amour 
Print Shop and rely exclusively on the Mexican production in this area.
    The workers describe the typical functions involved in the Shipping 
and Receiving Department. They also list several manufacturing labels 
that they serviced in this department.
    As the title implies, the functions concerned with shipping and 
receiving were not involved with production. Aside from the sample 
production, almost all of the production handled by this department 
concerned Mexican production, although a very small amount concerned 
cutting production that was performed at another El Paso facility. Thus 
workers engaged in shipping and receiving at the subject facility 
performed services mainly for a foreign production facility.
    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.
    The workers then address the nature of the production performed at 
the subject facility, which includes the Pattern Making Department, the 
Cutting Department, and the Sewing Department. In this section, the 
workers

[[Page 41848]]

also address laundering, inspection, packing and shipping.
    The company official maintained that, aside from miscellaneous 
sewing repair, sample production, and print shop production, no 
production occurred at the subject facility. The departments and 
functions described by workers in the line of production were performed 
mainly for sample production, with the exception of miscellaneous 
repairs.
    Workers also describe a Trim Department involving functions 
performed ``specifically for audit'' purposes, which involved checking 
to see that ``orders for * * * accessories were distributed correctly 
here and in El Paso.''
    As described by the workers, the Trim Department does not involve 
production, but performance of a service.
    Finally, the workers allege that they trained workers in similar 
functions as those performed at the subject facility, although no 
specific functions were noted.
    The company official did not deny that there was some similarity in 
work functions such as production in the Print Shop. However, she did 
affirm that no production occurred at the subject facility aside from 
sample production and print shop production.
    In the original request for reconsideration, the workers state that 
the subject firm was previously certified for trade adjustment 
assistance, and that the basis for previous certification should be 
used to establish eligibility of the current petitioning worker group. 
The workers also appear to allege that they performed regular 
production of apparel for a specific customer, and not just sample 
production.
    Workers producing jeans and laundering jeans at the subject 
facility were previously certified for trade adjustment assistance (TA-
W-37,187 and TA-W-37,412, respectively). The last active certification, 
TA-W-37,412, expired on July 7, 2002. By the date of the above 
certification (July 7, 2000), a company official confirmed that all 
mass production of apparel had been shifted from the subject facility 
to Mexico. As this shift occurred outside the relevant period, it 
cannot be used to certify the current worker group. In the current 
investigation, it was reconfirmed by a company official that the 
subject facility produces apparel for sample purposes only and that all 
other apparel production was shifted from the subject facility in 2000.
    Finally, to support their claim of a production shift, worker 
representatives attached a series of statements from subject firm 
workers who performed machine operations, supervision, labeling, 
shipping and receiving, and repair and maintenance of equipment at the 
Amour facility. One worker statement appears to claim that work was 
shifted to Mexico, Canada and Japan.
    In regard to specific statements made by employees that they were 
engaged in production and that production shifted, the company 
confirmed that the only production at the subject facility was for 
samples and print shop labels, and that there was no shift in 
production of samples or imports of samples.
    Workers are separately identifiable between workers in the Print 
Shop and all other workers at the subject facility.
    It has been determined with respect to workers at Sun Apparel, 
Armour Facility, Print Shop, El Paso, Texas that all of the criteria 
have been met.
    It has been determined with respect to all other workers at Sun 
Apparel, Armour Facility, El Paso, Texas that criteria I.C and II.B 
have not been met.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I 
conclude that there was a shift in production from Sun Apparel, Armour 
Facility, Print Shop, El Paso, Texas to Mexico of articles that are 
like or directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm or 
subdivision. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the 
following certification:

    All workers of Sun Apparel, Armour Facility, Print Shop, El 
Paso, Texas, who became totally or partially separated from 
employment on or after January 8, 2002 through two years from the 
date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974. and;
    I further determine that all other workers at Sun Apparel, Amour 
Facility, El Paso, Texas, are denied eligibility to apply for 
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of July, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-17827 Filed 7-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P