[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 4, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31887-31888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-12389]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-62,964]


G-III Apparel Group, Starlo Dresses Division, Computer Patterns 
Team, New York, NY; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated April 22, 2008, petitioners 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 March 24, 2008 and 
published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2008 (73 FR 19900).
    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 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination 
signed on March 24, 2008 was based on the finding that imports of 
electronically marked and graded patterns did not contribute 
importantly to worker separations at the subject plant and there was no 
shift of production to a country that is a party to a free trade 
agreement with the United States or a beneficiary country. The 
``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a 
survey of the workers' firm's declining domestic customers. In this 
instance, the subject firm did not sell electronically marked and 
graded patterns to outside domestic customers, thus a survey was not 
conducted. The subject firm did not import electronically marked and 
graded patterns into the United States during the relevant period.
    In the request for reconsideration the petitioner refers to the 
events which have occurred at the subject facility since 1998.
    When assessing eligibility for TAA, the Department exclusively 
considers import impact during the relevant time period (one year prior 
to the date of the petition). Events occurring prior to February 19, 
2007 are outside of the relevant time period and thus cannot be 
considered in this investigation.
    The petitioner also alleges that the statement in the initial 
investigation ``* * * the patterns were used exclusively in China* * 
*'' is erroneous and that some patterns were manufactured for a 
domestic market. To support this allegation, the petitioner provided 
the name of a domestic retail company, which allegedly purchased 
products from the subject firm in the relevant time period.
    The Department contacted a company official to address these 
allegations. The company official stated that G-III Apparel Group, 
Starlo Dresses Division, Computer Patterns Team, New York, New York 
does not sell any electronically marked and graded patterns to the 
retailers or any other companies. All patterns are the property of the 
subject firm and are used in the in-house factories to create dresses. 
The company official also clarified that the customer mentioned by the 
petitioner is a retailer who buys dresses from the subject firm and not 
electronically marked and graded patterns.
    The petitioner stated that jobs were shifted from the subject 
facility to China.
    The investigation confirmed that production of electronically 
marked and graded patterns indeed was shifted to China. However, the 
investigation also revealed that the subject firm did not import 
electronically marked and graded patterns from China back into the 
United States during the relevant period.
    The petitioner further stated that workers of the subject firm were 
previously employed at other companies, which were certified for TAA.
    The two companies indicated by the petitioner were certified 
eligible for TAA in August 2001 and April 2007 since the companies 
increased imports of samples of dresses, and wedding and bridesmaid 
gowns. The certifications of these companies are not relevant to this 
investigation.

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.


[[Page 31888]]


    Signed in Washington, DC, this 29th day of May, 2008.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E8-12389 Filed 6-3-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P