[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 40338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14787]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-40,495 and NAFTA-05581]


G & L Service Company, North America (USA), Incorporated, Eagle 
Pass, Texas; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application of April 4, 2002, the petitioners 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-40,495 and North American Free Trade Agreement-
Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) under petition NAFTA-
5581. The TAA denial notice applicable to workers of G & L Service 
Company, North America (USA), Incorporated, Eagle Pass, Texas was 
signed on March 8, 2002 and published in the Federal Register on March 
29, 2002 (67 FR 15226). The NAFTA-TAA denial notice applicable to 
workers of G & L Service Company, North America (USA), Incorporated, 
Eagle Pass, Texas, was signed on March 8, 2002 and published in the 
Federal Register on March 29, 2002 (67 FR 15227).
    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 G & L Service 
Company, North America (USA), Incorporated, Eagle Pass, Texas were 
engaged in providing support services to a manufacturing facility 
located in Mexico. There was no separation of workers manufacturing a 
product at a corporately-affiliated domestic facility. Sales increased 
in 2000 compared to 1999 and in January-September 2001 compared to the 
same period in 2000.
    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. There 
was no shift in production from the workers' firm to Mexico or Canada 
during the relevant period. The workers of the subject firm provided 
services to a manufacturing facility of their parent company located in 
Mexico. Increased company imports from Mexico did not cause separations 
of workers at the subject firm, however, production of men's and 
women's slacks at the Mexican facility contributed to employment at the 
subject facility.
    The petitioners allege that production at the subject firm declined 
during the relevant period of the investigation. The petitioners 
further state that they believe all criteria at the subject firm have 
been met and therefore they should qualify for Trade Adjustment 
Assistance and NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment Assistance.
    The Department reviewed the data supplied by the company during the 
initial investigation and requested clarification from the company 
concerning the functions performed at the subject firm. Based on 
further information provided by the company, it has become evident that 
the workers were not engaged in production of an article, men's and 
women's pants and shorts. Workers instead, only performed 
administrative services at the subject facility during the 2000 and 
2001 period. The workers provided services in support of a foreign 
affiliated plant that produced a product.
    The subject workers do not produce an article within the meaning of 
section 222(3) of the Act (TAA) and section 250 of the Trade Act of 
1974 (NAFTA-TAA).
    The petitioners also allege that a portion of their work was 
performed in Mexico.
    Subject plant worker functions performed outside the subject plant 
location are not relevant. The Department conducts TAA and NAFTA-TAA 
investigations for specified locations that are indicated on the TAA 
and/or NAFTA-TAA petition. Regardless, the work performed by the 
workers was not producing an article.
    The new information provided by the petitioner, which while perhaps 
altering the basis for the prior decisions, does not provide a basis to 
change the prior decisions.

Conclusion

    After review of the application and investigative findings, I 
conclude that there has been no 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, DC, this 31st day of May, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-14787 Filed 6-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P