46040 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 153 / Thursday, August 7, 2008 / Notices 

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, which was filed on 

behalf of workers at Thomasville 

Furniture Industries, Inc., Upholstery 

Plant 9, Hickory, North Carolina 

engaged in the production of 

upholstered furniture, was denied based 

on the findings that sales and 

production of upholstered furniture at 

the subject firm did not decrease from 

2006 to 2007, and during the period of 

January through May 2008 when 

compared to the same period in 2007. 

Furthermore, there was no shift in 

production from the subject firm to a 

foreign country during the relevant 

period. 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioner stated that in order to reveal 

the negative trend in sales and 

production, the Department should 

investigate the time period prior to 2006 

and compare current data with 2005. To 

support his allegation, the petitioner 

attached financial information for sister 

plants from 2004, 2005 and 2006. The 

information was submitted to the 

Department in previous investigations, 

which led to certifications of those 

facilities. The petitioner seems to allege 

that because those facilities were 

previously certified eligible for TAA, 

the workers of the subject firm should 

be also eligible for TAA. 

When assessing eligibility for TAA, 

the Department exclusively considers 

employment, production and sales 

during the relevant time period (one 

year prior to the date of the petition). 

Therefore, events occurring in 2005 are 

outside of the relevant time period and 

are not relevant in this investigation. 

Should conditions change in the 

future, the company is encouraged to 

file a new petition on behalf of the 

worker group which will encompass an 

investigative period that will include 

any changing conditions. 

After careful review of the request for 

reconsideration, the Department 

determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not 

been met. 

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, DC, this 31st day of 

July, 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–18171 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–63,420A] 

Bernhardt Furniture Company, 

Bernhardt Central Warehouse, Lenoir, 

NC; Notice of Negative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration 

By application dated July 17, 2008, a 

petitioner requested administrative 

reconsideration of the Department’s 

negative determination regarding 

eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers 

and former workers of the subject firm. 

The denial notice was signed on June 

13, 2008 and published in the Federal 

Register on June 27, 2008 (73 FR 36576). 

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 negative TAA determination 

issued by the Department for workers of 

Bernhardt Furniture Company, 

Bernhardt Central Warehouse, Lenoir, 

North Carolina was based on the finding 

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. 

The petitioner states that the workers 

of the subject firm warehouse and sell 

products exclusively manufactured by 

Bernhardt in China. The petitioner 

further states that the exported products 

from China have poor quality and 

require longer delivery periods. As a 

result, customers of the subject firm 

choose to purchase furniture 

manufactured in the United States, thus 

negatively impacting business at the 

subject firm. The petitioner seems to 

allege that because Chinese products are 

less competitive than American-made, 

workers of the subject firm, who 

distribute foreign-made products should 

be eligible for TAA. 

To establish workers’ eligibility for 

TAA, the Department determines 

whether increased imports of foreign 

manufactured products negatively 

impact domestic production of those 

products. In this case, however, the 

workers state that imports of 

upholstered furniture from China do not 

have an impact on domestic production 

of upholstered furniture. Moreover, the 

petitioner states that domestic 

customers actually prefer buying 

domestic products. Therefore, based on 

worker allegations, foreign imports 

cannot negatively impact domestic 

production of upholstered furniture. 

The petitioner did not supply facts 

not previously considered; nor provide 

additional documentation indicating 

that there was either (1) a mistake in the 

determination of facts not previously 

considered or (2) a misinterpretation of 

facts or of the law justifying 

reconsideration of the initial 

determination. 

After careful review of the request for 

reconsideration, the Department 

determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not 

been met. 

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 in Washington, DC, this 1st day of 

August 2008. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8–18169 Filed 8–6–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

TA–W–63,164 

SB Acquisition, LLC, d/b/a Saunders 

Brothers, Fryeburg, ME; Notice of 

Termination of Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on April 9, 

2008 in response to a worker petition 

filed by the Maine State Workforce 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES