[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44544-44545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-19220]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-51,098]


Colonial Tanning Corporation, Gloversville, NY; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of June 17, 2003, the Union of Needletrades, 
Industrial, and Textile Employees 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 
May 23, 2003 and published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2003 (68 
FR 36845).
    Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c) reconsideration may be granted under 
the following circumstances:


[[Page 44545]]


    (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 Colonial Tanning 
Corporation, Gloversville, New York engaged in the production of tanned 
leather, was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' group 
eligibility requirement of Section 222 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 
Department conducted a survey of the subject firm's major customers 
regarding their purchases of competitive products in 2001 through April 
of 2003. The respondents reported no increased imports. The subject 
firm shifted production to China, but did not import tanned deerskins 
during the relevant period.
    The union alleges that the subject firm is affiliated with two 
other companies and that these two companies imported tanned leather 
from foreign sources.
    In the original investigation, one of the two companies noted by 
the union above was listed as a major declining customer; their survey 
response indicated no imports. In regard to the second company named by 
the union, a company official was contacted. In regard to this second 
company, it was revealed that one of the owners of the subject firm 
also owned the rights to the company name of the second company. It was 
also revealed that the total sales volume of this affiliated company 
was negligible relative to the sales volume at the subject firm, and 
thus any imports that occurred at the second company could not 
contribute importantly to layoffs at the subject firm.
    The union also alleged that subject firm workers should be eligible 
because workers at a ``direct competitor'' (Johnstown Leather, TA-W-
51,104) were certified eligible for trade adjustment assistance.
    A review of the abovementioned case for workers at Johnstown 
Leather revealed that these workers were certified eligible for trade 
adjustment assistance based on increased customer imports. However, as 
Colonial Tanning Corporation has a different major declining customer 
base, this certification has no bearing on the eligibility of subject 
firm workers for TAA.

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 at Washington, DC, this 16th day of July, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-19220 Filed 7-28-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-U