[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 47091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-20110]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-51,659]


Brookline, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of July 7, 2003, a company official requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the 
subject firm. The denial notice was signed on June 23, 2003, and 
published in the Federal Register on July 10, 2003 (68 FR 41179).
    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 petition for the workers of Brookline, Inc., Charlotte, North 
Carolina 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 customers of the workers' firm. The 
survey revealed that none of the respondents increased their purchases 
of knit fabric. The company did not import knit fabric in the relevant 
period nor did it shift production to a foreign country.
    The company official states that his business, as well as the cut 
and sew businesses he sells to, have been displaced as a result of 
retailers purchasing finished apparel abroad. The official concludes 
that the subject firm is obviously import impacted as a result of this.
    In assessing import impact, the Department considers imports of 
like or directly competitive products (in this case, knit fabrics) to 
determine import impact. Thus, the imports of apparel are not relevant 
in determining import impact in a primary investigation of these 
workers. The imports of apparel would be relative in determining 
secondary impact on the subject firm workers if the subject firm 
supplied knit fabric to customers producing apparel who were under 
active TAA certification. The Department examined whether the subject 
workers were eligible for trade adjustment assistance under secondary 
impact and determined that only a negligible amount of the customer 
base was trade-affected.

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 24th day of July, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-20110 Filed 8-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P