[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16064-16066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-6115]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,414]


Consistent Textile Industries, Dallas, NC; Notice of Negative 
Determination on Reconsideration

    On November 29, 2007, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of Consistent Textiles Industries, Dallas, North 
Carolina (the subject firm). The Department's Notice of affirmative 
determination was

[[Page 16065]]

published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2007 (72 FR 70344).
    The initial determination was based on the Department's findings 
that the subject firm did not separate or threaten to separate a 
significant number or proportion of workers (at least three workers 
with a workforce of fewer than 50 workers, or five percent of the 
workers with a workforce of 50 or more, or 50 workers) as required by 
section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
    The company-filed petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 
and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) alleges that the 
worker group works at a firm that has increased imports of like or 
directly competitive articles, has shifted production of the article to 
a foreign country, and has customers that have increased imports from 
another country.
    In the request for reconsideration, a company official states that 
three workers were separated from the subject firm.
    In order to apply for TAA, petitioners must meet the group 
eligibility requirements for directly-impacted workers under section 
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. The requirements can be 
satisfied in either one of two ways.
    Under Section (a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
    A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such 
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become 
totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or 
partially separated; and
    B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision 
have decreased absolutely; and
    C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with 
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed 
importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to 
the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision;
    Under Section (a)(2)(B), the following must be satisfied:
    A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such 
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become 
totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or 
partially separated; and
    B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or 
subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly 
competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or 
subdivision; and
    C. One of the following must be satisfied:
    1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of 
the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United 
States; or
    2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of 
the articles is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference 
Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin 
Economic Recovery Act; or
    3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of 
articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are 
or were produced by such firm or subdivision.
    During the reconsideration investigation, the Department confirmed 
that the subject firm separated three of its four workers. Accordingly, 
the Department determines that section (a)(2)(A)(A) and section 
(a)(2)(B)(A) were met.
    A review of previously-submitted information confirmed that subject 
firm sales decreased in 2006 from 2005 levels, and decreased during 
January through October 2007 as compared to the corresponding period 
the prior year. Accordingly, the Department determines that section 
(a)(2)(A)(B) was met.
    In order to determine that the subject workers meet the TAA group 
eligibility requirements, the Department must also find that either 
section (a)(2)(A)(C) was met or section (a)(2)(B)(B) and section 
(a)(2)(B)(C) were met.
    The analysis of Section (a)(2)(A)(C) begins with identifying the 
``articles produced by such firm or subdivision,'' continues with a 
finding of ``increased imports of articles like or directly competitive 
with articles produced by such firm,'' and concludes with the 
determination that increased imports ``have contributed importantly'' 
to the workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline 
in subject firm sales or production.
    The company-filed petition identified no article produced at the 
subject firm [Question--What (if any) articles are produced at subject 
firm? Answer--Just Sales, Question--If none are produced, what do 
workers do? Answer--Sales]. When the Department contacted the subject 
firm's major declining customer during the reconsideration 
investigation, the customer stated that it had no records of purchases 
of machine parts from the subject firm. Rather, all of the subject firm 
orders are for repair work on the customer's machines. Further, a 
company official stated that the machine parts produced were ``used for 
replacement or repair'' of textile machines.
    The Department has consistently determined that repair work is a 
service and that items created incidental to provision of a service are 
not articles for purposes of the Trade Act. As such, the Department 
determines that no article was produced by the subject firm, and that 
the subject workers cannot be considered import impacted or affected by 
a shift of production abroad, and cannot be certified as eligible to 
apply for worker adjustment assistance under the Trade Act.
    Even if the subject firm does produce an article, for purposes of 
the Trade Act, the petitioning workers would not meet the group 
eligibility requirements for directly-impacted workers under section 
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
    The workers allege that they produce machine parts for textile 
machines. As such, a certification would be based on either a shift of 
production of machine parts to a foreign country or a determination 
that increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with 
the machine parts produced by the subject firm contributed importantly 
to workers' separation and declines in subject firm sales or 
production.
    According to additional information obtained during the 
reconsideration investigation, the subject firm ceased machine part 
production in November 2007, did not shift production of machine parts 
to a foreign country, and did not increase its imports of machine parts 
like or directly competitive with those produced by workers at the 
subject firm.
    Because there was no shift of production, as required by Section 
(a)(2)(B)(B), the petitioning workers can be certified eligible to 
apply for TAA only if the Department finds that there were ``increased 
imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced 
by such firm,'' and that increased imports ``have contributed 
importantly'' to the workers'' separations and to the decline in 
subject firm sales or production.
    Since the subject firm did not increase its imports of machine 
parts or articles like or directly competitive with those produced by 
workers at the subject firm, the Department conducted a survey to 
determine whether the subject firm's major declining customers had 
increased their imports of machine parts or articles like or directly 
competitive with those produced by workers at the subject firm. None of 
the customers reported increased imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with the machine parts produced by workers at the subject 
firm.
    Absent a finding of increased imports, the Department cannot 
determine that increased imports contributed importantly to the 
workers' separations.

[[Page 16066]]

Accordingly, the Department determines that section (a)(2)(A)(C) was 
not met.
    Although the request for reconsideration did not allege that the 
subject workers were adversely affected as secondary workers (workers 
of a firm that supply component parts to a TAA-certified company or 
finished or assembled for a TAA-certified company), the Department 
expanded the reconsideration investigation to determine whether they 
would be eligible to apply for TAA on this basis. Such a certification, 
under section 223(b)(2), must be based in the certification of a 
primary firm.
    The reconsideration investigation revealed that although several of 
the subject firm's customers are TAA-certified, the article produced by 
the subject workers (machine parts) are not a component part of the 
article produced by the workers eligible to apply for TAA (textiles). 
As such, the Department determines that section 223(b)(2) has not been 
met.
    In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility 
to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), the 
subject worker group must be certified eligible to apply for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA). Since the subject workers are denied 
eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible 
for ATAA.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the new and addition information obtained 
during the reconsideration investigation, I affirm the original notice 
of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment 
assistance for workers and former workers of Consistent Textiles 
Industries, Dallas, North Carolina.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of March 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-6115 Filed 3-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P