[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 91 (Tuesday, May 11, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 26181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-1067]



[[Page 26181]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-53,597]


Fashion Technologies, Gaffney, SC; Notice of Negative 
Determination on Reconsideration

    On March 23, 2004, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on April 5, 2004 (69 FR 17711).
    The petition for the workers of Fashion Technologies, Gaffney, 
South 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 imports of 
engraved rotary screens.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner states that 
Fashion Technology, Gaffney, South Carolina worked very closely with 
companies (converters) that print fabric using engraved rotary screens 
produced by the subject firm. The petitioner believes that even though 
engraved rotary screens are not being imported by customers, they are 
used in the production of print fabric, and customers were shifting 
their fabric printing production abroad. The petitioner concludes that, 
because these print plants are being transferred abroad, the subject 
firm workers producing the engraved rotary screens are import impacted. 
The petitioner supplied a list of customers, alleging that these 
companies are now printing fabric abroad and an investigation of these 
additional customers would prove that the subject firm was eligible 
under secondary impact.
    In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider 
imports that are like or directly competitive with those produced at 
the subject firm. The Department conducted a survey of the additional 
customers regarding their purchases of engraved rotary screens. The 
survey revealed no imports of engraved rotary screens during the 
relevant period.
    The fact that subject firm's customers are shifting their 
production abroad may be relevant to this investigation if determining 
whether workers of the subject firm are eligible for trade adjustment 
assistance (TAA) based on the secondary upstream supplier impact. For 
certification on the basis of the workers' firm being a secondary 
upstream supplier, the subject firm must have customers that are TAA 
certified, and these TAA certified customers must represent a 
significant portion of subject firm's business. In addition, the 
subject firm would have to produce a component part of the product that 
was the basis for the customers' certification.
    In this case, however, the subject firm does not act as an upstream 
supplier, because engraved rotary screens do not form a component part 
of the fabric. Furthermore, none of the customers provided by the 
petitioner are certified for TAA. Thus the subject firm workers are not 
eligible under secondary impact.

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 13th day of April, 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E4-1067 Filed 5-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-13-P