[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 12935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6417]



[[Page 12935]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,600]


Columbia Sportswear Company, Portland, OR; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application received on October 16, 2002, a 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). The 
denial notice applicable to workers of Columbia Sportswear Company, 
Portland, Oregon was signed on September 25, 2002, and published in the 
Federal Register on September 27, 2002 (67 FR 61160).
    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 Columbia 
Sportswear Company, Portland, Oregon engaged in activities related to 
the design services for sportswear 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 the same workers were certified in 
1996, and attached a copy of a certification for the Portland facility 
(TA-W-31,649).
    A review of this certification reveals that cutters and sewers were 
part of the petitioning worker group and, as such, were determined to 
be engaged in production of an article within the meaning of section 
222(3) of the Act. Workers engaged in design services were in support 
of this production and were also determined to be eligible. However, in 
the current negative determination under reconsideration, the 
petitioning worker group did not include production workers, and 
therefore workers providing design services cannot be grouped with 
production workers.
    The petitioner alleges that the workers are not engaged in 
``bookkeeping services'' as addressed in the ``Negative Determination 
Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance''.
    A review of the initial investigation indicates that the workers 
were engaged in design services for sportswear apparel. The TAA 
decision was based on the correct service function provided by the 
petitioning workers. The Department inadvertently referenced 
``bookkeeping'' rather than ``design'' services in the decision.
    Finally, the petitioner alleges that subject firm workers produced 
a product, and that they were not engaged in ``providing design 
services.''
    In clarifying their job function, the petitioner states that the 
petitioning worker group ``were a group of technicians who made the 
first patterns, sized patterns and figured out how much fabric those 
patterns (required),'' concluding that the work was done ``on a 
computer system.'' The fact that the pattern-making was generated 
electronically and did not involve a physical product constitutes a 
service rather than the production of an article as established by 
section 222(3) of the Act.
    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.
    Further, even if the patterns generated by the petitioning worker 
group were considered articles, they are shipped to an affiliated 
offshore facility, where they are incorporated into mass produced 
sportswear apparel. Thus, since the company does not import patterns, 
there would be no evidence of import impact.

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 26th day of February, 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-6417 Filed 3-17-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P