[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27510]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 7, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-30,223]

 

Brown Shoe Company (Trenton Warehouse) Trenton, TN; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By applications dated September 27 and 28, 1994 and October 3, 
1994, the petitioners and others requested administrative 
reconsideration of the subject petition for trade adjustment assistance 
(TAA). The denial notice was signed on September 15, 1994 and will soon 
be published in the Federal Register.
    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 petitioners state that the workers should be certified because 
all of Brown Shoe company's facilities which have been closed are 
certified for TAA.
    The worker adjustment assistance program is based on increased 
imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with those 
produced by the petitioning workers. The Department's denial of TAA for 
workers was based on the fact that they do not produce an article 
within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974 and as such are out of 
scope from the worker adjustment assistance program.
    Service workers (warehouse workers) are rarely certified for TAA 
when the company's manufacturing plants' certifications are based on 
company imports. The condition that must be met is that over half of 
the warehouse's activity must come from certified facilities. The 
findings, however, show that the major portion of Trenton's activity 
did not come from certified facilities but instead originated from 
company imports. Accordingly, increased company imports would have a 
positive employment effect on the subject workers, not an adverse one.
    Other findings show that Trenton's warehousing was transferred to 
another domestic facility.
    The worker adjustment assistance program was not intended to 
provide TAA to workers who are in some way related to import 
competition but only for those workers who produce an article and are 
adversely affected by increased imports of like or directly competitive 
articles which contributed importantly to sales or production and 
employment declines at the workers' firm.

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 27th day of October 1994.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 94-27510 Filed 11-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M