DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-39,977
AND
NAFTA-05262

LAMTECH, LLC
HARTSVILLE, TENNESSEE

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application of January 21, 2002, the petitioner 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) under petition TA-W-39,977 and North American
Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-
TAA) under petition NAFTA-5262. The TAA and NAFTA-TAA denial
notices applicable to workers of Lamtech, LLC, Hartsville,
Tennessee, were signed on December 11, 2001 and published in the
Federal Register on December 26, 2001 (66 FR 66426 & 66427,
respectively).
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 Lamtech,
LLC, Hartsville, Tennessee engaged in employment related to the
production of sew stands and sew tops, 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 survey
revealed that none of the respondents increased their imports of
products like or directly competitive with what the subject plant
produced during the relevant period. The subject firm did not
import sew stands and sew tops.
The NAFTA-TAA petition for the same worker group was denied
because criteria (3) and (4) of the group eligibility
requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act,
as amended, were not met. The survey revealed that none of the
respondents increased their imports of products like or directly
competitive with what the subject plant produced from Canada or
Mexico during the relevant period. The subject firm did not
import (including Canada or Mexico) products like or directly
competitive with what the subject plant produced, nor was the
subject plant's production shifted from the workers' firm to
Mexico or Canada.


The petitioner alleges that their major customers purchased
imported products like or directly competitive with what the
subject firm produced from foreign sources, specifically Mexico
and Central America. The petitioner further states that some of
their customers are purchasing products from other domestic
sources that are importing.
The Department, as already indicated, examines the impact of
imports (including Canada And Mexico) by a survey of the subject
firm's major declining customers to examine if the "contributed
importantly" test is met. The survey conducted during the
initial investigation revealed that none of the respondents
increased their imports (including Canada or Mexico), while
decreasing their purchases from the subject firm during the
relevant period.
The petitioner further attached a list of major declining
customers with corresponding allegations concerning their
customer purchases from foreign sources.
A review of the customer list revealed that some of the
major customers were located in foreign countries. Also, some of
the domestic customers on the list were surveyed during the
initial investigation, the respondents as already indicated, did
not increase their imports of products like or directly
competitive with what the subject firm produced. A further
review of the list in combination with the survey results and
data supplied by the company further shows that some of the
customers did not purchase any products from the subject firm
during the relevant period and therefore cannot be considered
customers of the subject firm. In conclusion, the Department's
further review of the customer list provided supports the initial
decision.
The petitioner further stated that the respondents may not
have had an understanding of what they were being asked in the
survey and also may not have answered in a factual manner.
The survey the Department conducted was specific to the
products produced by the subject plant, as reported by the
company. The respondents in the survey were provided with a
Department contact if they needed any further clarification. In
respect to the respondents reported results, they are reviewed
and accepted if they appear to be filled out correctly. If
further clarification of the customer response is necessary, the
customer is contacted.
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, D.C., this 29th day of March, 2002.

/s/ Edward A. Tomchick

_______________________
EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-39,977

LAMTECH, LLC
HARTSVILLE, TENNESSEE


Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 USC 2273) as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness
Act of 1988 (P. L. 100-418), the Department of Labor herein
presents the results of an investigation regarding certification
of eligi-bility to apply for worker adjustment assistance.
In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a
certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance,
each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the
Act must be met:
(1) that a significant number or proportion of the workers
in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision
thereof, have become totally or partially separated, or
are threatened to become totally or partially separat-
ed;

(2) that sales or production, or both, of the firm or
subdivision have decreased absolutely; and

(3) that increases of imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles produced by the firm or
appropriate subdivision have contributed importantly to
the separations, or threat thereof, and to the absolute
decline in sales or production.

The investigation was initiated on September 10, 2001 in
response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of
all workers at Lamtech, LLC, Hartsville, Tennessee.


The workers are engaged in employment related to the produc-
tion of sew stands and sew tops. The workers are not separately
identifiable by product line.
The investigation revealed that criterion (3) has not been
met.
The subject company does not import sew stands or sew tops.
The Department of Labor conducted a survey of the subject
company's major customers regarding their purchases of sew stands
and sew tops.
The survey revealed that the customers did not increase
their purchases of sew stands or sew tops during the period of
sales and production declines at the subject company.
Currently, there is a NAFTA-TAA petition pending for the
workers at the subject company, NAFTA-5262.
Conclusion
After careful review, I determine that all workers of
Lamtech, LLC, Hartsville, Tennessee, are denied eligibility to
apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade
Act of 1974.

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 11th day of December, 2001.


/s/ Linda G. Poole
______________________________
LINDA G. POOLE
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment