Springs Global U.S., Inc., Springs Direct Division, Springmaid Wamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster, SC; Notice of Revised Determination on Remand, 10298-10299 [E9-5040]

Agencies

• Employment and Training Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10298-10299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5040]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,422]


Springs Global U.S., Inc., Springs Direct Division, Springmaid 
Wamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster, SC; Notice of Revised Determination 
on Remand

    On February 6, 2009, the U.S. Court of International Trade (USCIT) 
remanded to the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) for further 
review Former Employees of Springs Global, Inc., Springs Global Direct 
Division, Springmaid-Wamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster, South Carolina 
(FEO Springs Global) v. United States, Court No. 08-00255.
    On May 19, 2008, an official of Springs Global U.S. Inc. (subject 
firm) filed a petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) on behalf of workers of 
Springs Global U.S. Inc., Springs Global Direct Division, Springmaid-
Wamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster, South Carolina (subject facility).
    The subject facility closed during February 2008. Prior to the 
closure, workers at the subject facility managed Springs Global, U.S., 
Inc. (subject firm) retail operations, sold linen products manufactured 
by the subject firm to the public and other subject firm employees, and 
handled special orders for linen products placed by other subject firm 
employees.
    The negative determination, issued on May 30, 2008, stated that in 
order to be considered eligible to apply for adjustment assistance 
under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, the subject worker group 
must work for a ``firm'' or appropriate subdivision that produces an 
article domestically and there must be a relationship between the 
workers' work and the article produced by the workers' firm or 
appropriate subdivision. The determination also stated that although 
the subject firm produced an article, the subject workers did not 
support that production. The Department determined that the subject 
worker group cannot be considered import impacted or affected by a 
shift in production of an article. The Department's Notice of 
determination was published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2008 
(73 FR 34044).
    The Department did not receive a request for administrative 
reconsideration.
    In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege that workers at the subject 
facility, who ``provided the means by which Springs Global dispensed of 
manufactured goods that were not able to be sold otherwise * * * 
thereby enabling the company's production operations * * * to reduce 
their per-unit overhead and operate more efficiently,'' should be 
treated like the workers covered by TA-W-62,768 (Springs Global U.S., 
Inc., Springs Direct Division, Corporate Support Group, Lancaster, 
South Carolina; certified February 14, 2008). Workers covered by TA-W-
63,422 are located in the same building as workers covered by TA-W-
62,786.
    Workers covered by TA-W-62,786 are engaged in production 
estimation, production scheduling, distribution, logistics, and 
operational services. The determination for TA-W-62,786 stated that the 
workers supported production at a TAA-certified facility (Springs 
Global U.S., Inc., Grace Complex, Bedding Division, Lancaster, South 
Carolina; TA-W-61,258) and that the worker separations are ``related to 
a shift of production and increased imports of textile products.''
    The group eligibility requirements for directly-impacted workers 
under Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, based on a 
shift of production are satisfied if the criteria set forth under 
Section 222(a)(2)(B) have been met:

    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 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;
    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 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.

    On remand, the Department carefully reviewed the language of the 
statute, the Department's policy, Plaintiffs' submissions, and the 
administrative record.
    The intent of the Department is for a certification to cover all 
workers of the subject firm or appropriate subdivision who were 
adversely affected by increased imports of the article

[[Page 10299]]

produced by the firm or a shift in production of the article, based on 
the investigation of the TAA/ATAA petition.
    After careful review on remand, the Department determines that a 
significant number or proportion of the workers in the appropriate 
subdivision of the subject firm was separated. Further, the Department 
determines that these workers performed activities related to the 
firm's production of an article, that the firm shifted production of 
that article to a foreign country (and there were increased imports of 
like or directly competitive articles produced by the firm), and this 
shift in production was a factor in Plaintiffs' separations.
    Based on the above, the Department determines that the group 
eligibility requirements under Section 222(a)(2)(B) of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended, has been met.
    In accordance with Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 
2813), as amended, the Department herein presents the results of its 
investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA. 
The Department has determined in this case that the group eligibility 
requirements of Section 246 have been met.
    A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and 
possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions 
within the industry are adverse.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the facts during the remand investigation, 
I determine that there was a shift of production from the workers' firm 
or subdivision to Brazil of articles that are like or directly 
competitive with those produced by the subject firm or subdivision, and 
there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of like or 
directly competitive articles. In accordance with the provisions of the 
Act, I make the following certification:

    All workers of Springs Global U.S. Inc., Springs Global Direct 
Division, Springmaid-Wamsutta Factory Store, Lancaster, South 
Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after May 19, 2007, through two years from the issuance of 
this revised determination, are eligible to apply for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, 
and are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment 
assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 23rd day of February 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-5040 Filed 3-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P