[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 245 (Thursday, December 21, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76699-76700]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21791]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,056]


Short Bark Industries, Tellico Plains, TN; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of October 20, 2006 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) and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The denial notice was 
signed on October 3, 2006 and

[[Page 76700]]

published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2006 (71 FR 63800).
    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, filed on behalf of workers at Short Bark 
Industries, Tellico Plains, Tennessee engaged in production of cut 
pieces for camouflage clothing was denied because the ``contributed 
importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade 
Act of 1974 was not met. The ``contributed importantly'' test is 
generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's 
customers. The survey revealed no imports of cut pieces for camouflage 
clothing in 2004, 2005 and January through August of 2006 when compared 
with the same period in 2005. The subject firm did not import cut 
pieces for camouflage clothing in the relevant period nor did it shift 
production to a foreign country.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges that the 
layoffs at the subject firm are attributable to a shift in production 
to Honduras and Puerto Rico.
    Two company officials were contacted regarding the above 
allegations. The company officials stated that the subject firm did not 
shift production from the subject facility to Honduras. The officials 
stated that the subject firm exported cut pieces for camouflage 
clothing abroad to a customer with the foreign facility for further 
production. This ceased its business with the subject firm in order to 
perform all the cutting abroad. The Short Bark Industries decided not 
to pursue the cutting business any longer and sold some of the 
machinery from the subject firm to the customer. Both of the officials 
confirmed that there is no affiliation between Short Bark Industries, 
Tellico Plains, Tennessee and its major customer.
    Contact with an official of the subject firm's customer confirmed 
that all production for this customer was exclusively for export 
purposes. As trade adjustment assistance is concerned exclusively with 
whether imports impact layoffs of petitioning worker groups, the above-
mentioned allegations regarding agreements between the subject firm and 
their foreign customer base are irrelevant.
    The official also confirmed that some of the production was shifted 
from the subject facility to a plant in Puerto Rico during the relevant 
time period.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner seems to imply 
that a shift of production to Puerto Rico on the part of the company 
constitutes a shift of production to a country included in Caribbean 
Basin Economic Recovery Act. The petitioner seems to conclude that this 
shift to Puerto Rico is responsible for separations at the subject 
facility.
    Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory and therefore any movement of 
production to this region would not constitute a shift of production to 
a foreign source.
    The petitioner provided the name of the former supervisor who 
according to the petitioner is currently in Honduras training workers.
    The official confirmed this statement and added that this 
supervisor in question is now employed by subject firm's customer and 
is working in Honduras on behalf of this customer.
    The petitioner also provided a name of the subject firm's employee 
who is allegedly currently making patterns for the Honduras plant.
    The Department contacted this employee to verify the above 
information. The employee stated that he is still employed by Short 
Bark Industries and that he does not make markers or patterns for the 
Honduras plant.
    The petitioner attached an article, with no reference to the source 
or the date of the article. The article is a short biography on the 
founder of Short Bark Industries, and refers to the activities of the 
subject firm from 1991 to 2003.
    In its investigation, the Department considers events and facts 
that occurred within a year prior to the date of the petition. Thus, 
the period between 1991 and 2003 is outside of the relevant period as 
established by the current petition date of November 9, 2006.
    The officials of the subject firm confirmed directly that Short 
Bark Industries did not shift production from the subject firm to any 
facility abroad in the relevant period.

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 13th day of December, 2006
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment, Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6-21791 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P