[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64592-64593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-3020]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-55,427]


Kincaid Furniture Taylorsville, NC; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of September 23, 2004, a petitioner 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 September 8, 2004 and published in the 
Federal Register on September 23, 2004 (69 FR 57093).
    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 TAA petition, which was filed on behalf of workers at Kincaid 
Furniture, Taylorsville, North Carolina engaged in the production of 
upholstered furniture products (sofas and chairs), was denied because 
criterion (1) was not met. The investigation revealed no decline in 
employment during the relevant time period.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges that the 
company official of the subject firm did not report accurate employment 
data and that there was a significant number of layoffs among the 
administrative support at Kincaid Furniture in Taylorsville, North 
Carolina. The petitioner also stated upon further contact that a big 
portion of production employees has been recently separated from the 
subject firm.
    A company official was contacted in regards to these allegations. 
Two of the company officials confirmed the accuracy of the employment 
numbers provided by the subject firm during the original investigation 
and verified that employment at the subject firm increased by 
approximately fifteen percent during the relevant time period. The 
company official also stated that there were no recent separations at 
the subject firm as alleged by the petitioner.
    The petitioner further alleges that because workers of several 
sister companies at various locations were granted certification for 
TAA, workers of the subject firm should also be eligible for TAA.
    When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department makes its 
determinations based on the requirements as outlined in Section 222 of 
the Trade Act. In particular, the Department considers the relevant 
employment data for the facility where the petitioning worker group was 
employed. As employment levels at the subject facility did not decline 
in the relevant period, criteria (I.A.) of Section (a)(2)(A) has not 
been met.

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

[[Page 64593]]

reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. 
Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 27th day of October, 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E4-3020 Filed 11-4-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P