DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-62,414

CONSISTENT TEXTILE INDUSTRIES
DALLAS, NORTH CAROLINA

Notice of Negative Determination
on Reconsideration

On November 29, 2007, the Department issued an Affirmative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the
workers and former workers of Consistent Textiles Industries,
Dallas, North Carolina (the subject firm). The Department’s
Notice of affirmative determination was published in the Federal
Register on December 11, 2007 (72 FR 70344).
The initial determination was based on the Department’s
findings that the subject firm did not separate or threaten to
separate a significant number or proportion of workers (at least
three workers with a workforce of fewer than 50 workers, or five
percent of the workers with a workforce of 50 or more, or 50
workers) as required by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The company-filed petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance
(TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) alleges
that the worker group works at a firm that has increased imports
of like or directly competitive articles, has shifted production
of the article to a foreign country, and has customers that have
increased imports from another country.

In the request for reconsideration, a company official
states that three workers were separated from the subject firm.
In order to apply for TAA, petitioners must meet the group
eligibility requirements for directly-impacted workers under
Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. The
requirements can be satisfied in either one of two ways.
Under Section (a)(2)(A), the following must be satisfied:
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. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have
contributed importantly to such workers’ separation or
threat of separation and to the decline in sales or
production of such firm or subdivision;

Under Section (a)(2)(B), the following must be satisfied:

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
C. 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; or
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
3. 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.

During the reconsideration investigation, the Department
confirmed that the subject firm separated three of its four
workers. Accordingly, the Department determines that Section
(a)(2)(A)(A) and Section (a)(2)(B)(A) were met.
A review of previously-submitted information confirmed that
subject firm sales decreased in 2006 from 2005 levels, and
decreased during January through October 2007 as compared to the
corresponding period the prior year. Accordingly, the Department
determines that Section (a)(2)(A)(B) was met.
In order to determine that the subject workers meet the TAA
group eligibility requirements, the Department must also find
that either Section (a)(2)(A)(C) was met or Section (a)(2)(B)(B)
and Section (a)(2)(B)(C) were met.
The analysis of Section (a)(2)(A)(C) begins with identifying
the “articles produced by such firm or subdivision,” continues
with a finding of “increased imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles produced by such firm,” and concludes
with the determination that increased imports “have contributed
importantly” to the workers’ separation or threat of separation
and to the decline in subject firm sales or production.
The company-filed petition identified no article produced at
the subject firm [Question - What (if any) articles are produced
at subject firm? Answer - Just Sales, Question - If none are
produced, what do workers do? Answer - Sales]. When the
Department contacted the subject firm’s major declining customer
during the reconsideration investigation, the customer stated
that it had no records of purchases of machine parts from the
subject firm. Rather, all of the subject firm orders are for
repair work on the customer’s machines. Further, a company
official stated that the machine parts produced were “used for
replacement or repair” of textile machines.
The Department has consistently determined that repair work
is a service and that items created incidental to provision of a
service are not articles for purposes of the Trade Act. As such,
the Department determines that no article was produced by the
subject firm, and that the subject workers cannot be considered
import impacted or affected by a shift of production abroad, and
cannot be certified as eligible to apply for worker adjustment
assistance under the Trade Act.
Even if the subject firm does produce an article, for
purposes of the Trade Act, the petitioning workers would not meet
the group eligibility requirements for directly-impacted workers
under Section 222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
The workers allege that they produce machine parts for
textile machines. As such, a certification would be based on
either a shift of production of machine parts to a foreign
country or a determination that increased imports of articles
like or directly competitive with the machine parts produced by
the subject firm contributed importantly to workers’ separation
and declines in subject firm sales or production.
According to additional information obtained during the
reconsideration investigation, the subject firm ceased machine
part production in November 2007, did not shift production of
machine parts to a foreign country, and did not increase its
imports of machine parts like or directly competitive with those
produced by workers at the subject firm.
Because there was no shift of production, as required by
Section (a)(2)(B)(B), the petitioning workers can be certified
eligible to apply for TAA only if the Department finds that there
were “increased imports of articles like or directly competitive
with articles produced by such firm,” and that increased imports
“have contributed importantly” to the workers’ separations and to
the decline in subject firm sales or production.
Since the subject firm did not increase its imports of
machine parts or articles like or directly competitive with those
produced by workers at the subject firm, the Department conducted
a survey to determine whether the subject firm’s major declining
customers had increased their imports of machine parts or
articles like or directly competitive with those produced by
workers at the subject firm. None of the customers reported
increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with
the machine parts produced by workers at the subject firm.
Absent a finding of increased imports, the Department cannot
determine that increased imports contributed importantly to the
workers’ separations. Accordingly, the Department determines
that Section (a)(2)(A)(C) was not met.
Although the request for reconsideration did not allege that
the subject workers were adversely affected as secondary workers
(workers of a firm that supply component parts to a TAA-certified
company or finished or assembled for a TAA-certified company),
the Department expanded the reconsideration investigation to
determine whether they would be eligible to apply for TAA on this
basis. Such a certification, under Section 223(b)(2), must be
based in the certification of a primary firm.
The reconsideration investigation revealed that although
several of the subject firm’s customers are TAA-certified, the
article produced by the subject workers (machine parts) are not a
component part of the article produced by the workers eligible to
apply for TAA (textiles). As such, the Department determines
that Section 223(b)(2) has not been met.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance
(ATAA), the subject worker group must be certified eligible to
apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). Since the subject
workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers
cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review of the new and addition information
obtained during the reconsideration investigation, I affirm the
original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply
for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers
of Consistent Textiles Industries, Dallas, North Carolina.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 18th day of March 2008


/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
___________________________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance

4510-FN-P


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-62,414

CONSISTENT TEXTILE INDUSTRIES
DALLAS, NORTH CAROLINA

Negative Determinations Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance
And Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended (19 USC 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of an investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for worker adjustment assistance. The group eligibility
requirements for directly-impacted (primary) workers under Section
222(a) the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, can be satisfied in
either of two ways:
I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:
B. 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;
B. the sales or production, or both, of such firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and
C. increased imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles produced by such firm or
subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers’
separation or threat of separation and to the decline in
sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or

II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:

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;
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

C. One of the following must be satisfied:
3. 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;
4. 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
5. 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.

The investigation was initiated on November 6, 2007, in
response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of
workers at Consistent Textile Industries, Inc., Dallas, North
Carolina. The workers are engaged in machining parts for textile
machinery.
The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and
(a)(2)(B)(II.A.) have not been met.
The investigation revealed that the subject firm did not
separate or threaten to separate a significant number or proportion
of workers as required by Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Significant number or proportion of the workers in a firm or
appropriate subdivision thereof, means that at least three workers
with a workforce of fewer than 50 workers or five percent of the
workers with a workforce of 50 or more, or 50 workers.
In accordance with Section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 USC
2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the
results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility
to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) for
older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of
eligibility to apply for ATAA, the worker group must be certified
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). Since the
workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot
be certified eligible for ATAA.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of
Consistent Textile Industries, Inc., Dallas, North Carolina are
denied eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance under


Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also denied
eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance
under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 13th day of November, 2007.
/s/ Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance





- 8 -