DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-51,355

CULP, INC.
ROSSVILLE DIVISION
CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE


Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application postmarked May 20, 2003, three workers
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 April 28, 2003
and published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2003 (68 FR
25060).
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 mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified
reconsideration of the decision.

The TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Culp, Inc.,
Rossville Division, Chattanooga, Tennessee engaged in the
production of upholstery fabrics, 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 firm’s major
customers regarding their purchases of competitive products in
2000 through October 2002. The respondents reported no increased
imports. The subject firm did not increase its reliance on
imports of upholstery fabrics during the relevant period, nor did
it shift production to a foreign source.
The workers allege that production has been shifted to
China.
A company official was contacted in regard to this
allegation. As a result, it was revealed that the company will be
opening a foreign “finishing” plant for upholstery products in
November of 2003. This information has no bearing on a revised
consideration for subject firm workers because (a) the weaving
that was done at the Chatanooga facility is not competitive with
the finishing that will be done at the foreign facility, and (b),
the November start date for production at the foreign facility is
outside the relevant period for 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.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 16th day of June, 2003.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance