Carolina Mills, Inc., Plant #3, Newton, NC; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 33002-33003 [E6-8777]

Agencies

• Employment and Training Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33002-33003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8777]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-58,948]


Carolina Mills, Inc., Plant 3, Newton, NC; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated April 19, 2006, a company official 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 27, 2006 and 
published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2006 (71 FR 19755).
    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 petition for the workers of Carolina Mills, Inc., Plant 
3, Newton, North Carolina engaged in production of woven 
textile fabrics was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' 
group eligibility requirement of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, 
as amended, was not met, nor was there a shift in production from that 
firm to a foreign country. The ``contributed importantly'' test is 
generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's 
customers. The survey revealed no imports of woven textile fabrics 
during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import woven 
textile fabrics nor did it shift production to a foreign country during 
the relevant period.
    The petitioner states that the affected workers lost their jobs as 
a result of the negative impact of increased imports of gloves on U.S. 
glove manufacturing. The

[[Page 33003]]

petitioner alleges that the major declining customer of the subject 
firm which manufactures gloves decreased purchases of the woven textile 
fabrics from Carolina Mills, Inc., Plant 3, Newton, North 
Carolina because the customer has been importing the finished glove 
products from abroad. The petitioner states that the sales and 
production of woven textile fabrics at the subject firm have been 
negatively impacted by increasing presence of foreign imports of gloves 
on the market, thus workers of the subject firm should be eligible for 
TAA.
    In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider 
imports that are like or directly competitive with those produced at 
the subject firm. Imports of gloves cannot be considered like or 
directly competitive with woven textile fabrics produced by Carolina 
Mills, Inc., Plant 3, Newton, North Carolina and imports of 
gloves are not relevant in this investigation.
    The petitioner also alleges that production of woven textile 
fabrics has been negatively impacted by ``problems with yarn 
sourcing'', a component in the manufacturing process of woven fabrics. 
The petitioner provided the names of the yarn suppliers who were 
negatively impacted either by the shift in production of yarn abroad or 
increased imports of yarn.
    The fact that subject firm's suppliers shifted their production 
abroad or were import impacted is relevant to this investigation if 
determining whether workers of the subject firm are eligible for TAA 
based on the secondary downstream producer of trade certified primary 
firm impact. For certification on the basis of the workers' firm being 
a secondary downstream producer, the subject firm must purchase 
articles for further production from a trade certified firm which in 
its turn has been impacted by shift in production to/increase in 
imports from Canada or Mexico.
    The investigation revealed that the subject firm had only one 
supplier of yarn who was under TAA certification during the relevant 
time period. However this supplier accounted for less than one percent 
of subject firm's total purchases of yarn and a loss of business with 
this company did not contribute importantly to determine a negative 
trade impact on the subject firm. The rest of the companies which 
supplied yarn to the subject firm are not certified for TAA. Therefore, 
the subject firm workers are not eligible under secondary impact as a 
downstream producer.

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 22nd day of May, 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E6-8777 Filed 6-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P