TNS Mills Inc., Rockingham Plant, Rockingham, NC; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration [Notices] [05/30/2002]
TNS Mills Inc., Rockingham Plant, Rockingham, NC; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration [05/30/2002]
Volume 67, Number 104, Page 37872
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-40,039]
TNS Mills Inc., Rockingham Plant, Rockingham, NC; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated March 19, 2002, the company, 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). The
denial notice was signed on February 15, 2002 and published in the
Federal Register on February 28, 2002 (67 FR 9324).
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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at TNS Mills
Incorporated, Rockingham Plant, Rockingham, North Carolina engaged in
the production of ring spun carded cotton yarn, was denied because the
``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of section
222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The
``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a
survey of the workers' firm's customers. The Department conducted a
survey of the subject company's major customers regarding their
purchases of ring spun carded cotton yarn. The survey revealed that
none of the customers increased their import purchases of ring spun
carded cotton yarn during the relevant period.
The petitioner alleges that various customers of the subject firm
were certified for TAA. Therefore, they believe that due to the number
of customers certified for TAA, they should be certified for TAA.
The certification of the subject firm's customers is irrelevant
unless the customers are affiliated with the subject firm by corporate
ownership. If there was corporate affiliation the workers could receive
consideration for eligibility under TAA. The customers certified under
TAA were outside the TNS Mills corporate structure, and therefore
cannot be considered eligible for TAA under those certifications.
The petitioner also alleges that imports of ring spun cotton yarn
are lower in price than the domestic market, thus impacting the subject
firm workers.
The price of ring spun cotton yarns is not relevant to the TAA
investigation that were filed on behalf of workers producing ring spun
cotton yarns.
The petitioner further claims that imported carded yarns impacted
the closing of the subject plant. The petitioner supplied a chart with
import trends of various yarn imports.
Although, the Department uses industry data in their TAA
determinations, the Department of Labor normally examines if the
``contributed importantly'' test is met through a survey of the
workers' firm's customers. A review of the survey results shows that
the customers did not increase their imports of ring spun carded cotton
yarn during the relevant period. Further, the ratio of imports of
carded yarn to U.S. production is relatively low during the relevant
period and therefore not a major contributing factor relating to the
declines in sales and employment at the subject firm.
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 decisions. Accordingly, the application is denied.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of April, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-13541 Filed 5-29-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
|