DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-41,640

HALMODE APPAREL, INC.
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application received on September 5, 2002, a company
official 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 applicable to
workers of Halmode Apparel Inc., Roanoke, Virginia was signed on
August 26, 2002, and published in the Federal Register on
September 10, 2002 (67 FR 57456).
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 was filed on behalf of workers at Halmode
Apparel Inc., Roanoke, Virginia engaged in activities related to
the distribution of apparel. The petition was denied because the
petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning
of Section 222(3) of the Act.
The petitioner alleges that layoffs at Halmode Apparel Inc.,
Roanoke, Virginia were "directly related to the impact of
imports". The petitioner stated that the subject facility had
once served as a production facility and that that production had
been shifted abroad.
Since that production ceased in 1998, it falls outside the
time frame of this investigation.
The petitioner also alleges that the loss of jobs at the
subject facility was impacted by imports due to the company
shifting its distribution services to a location that was more
cost effective to receive import shipments.
As the worker activity that was shifted did not involve
production, the shift in subject firm activities is irrelevant.
Only in very limited instances are service workers certified
for TAA, namely the worker separations must be caused by a
reduced demand for their services from a parent or controlling
firm or subdivision whose workers produce an article and who are
currently under certification for TAA.
In conclusion, the workers at the subject firm did not
produce an article within the meaning of Section 222(3) of the
Trade Act 1974.
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., this3rd day of February, 2003.

/s/ Edward A. Tomchick

EDWARD A. TOMCHICK
Director, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance