[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16835-16836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8357]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-50,492]


Adventure Travel, Iron Mountain, MI; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application received on March 3, 2003, 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 Adventure Travel, Iron Mountain, 
Michigan was signed on February 7, 2003, 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 mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the 
decision.
    The TAA petition was filed on behalf of a worker at Adventure 
Travel, Iron Mountain, Michigan engaged in activities related to travel 
services. The petition was denied because the petitioning worker did 
not produce an article within the meaning of section 222(3) of the Act.
    The petitioner appears to allege that ``the `article' definitions 
from the U.S.

[[Page 16836]]

Code Collections'' support the argument that travel services constitute 
production. The petitioner further states that ``as you can see, the 
code and hard data evidence I provided with my petition are 
synonymous.'' When the petitioner was contacted in regard to what was 
meant by ``US Code Collections'', she clarified that she meant section 
222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974.
    Of the several attachments sent with the original petition, the 
first is a letter written by the petitioner stating why the worker 
produced a product. The petitioner states that subject firm services 
required ``skills and tools'' to produce. When contacted for further 
clarification, the petitioner stated that the complexity of the work 
involved, including the fact that multiple airline carrier inventories 
were consulted to produce a single ticket, deserved consideration of 
the work as production.
    The sophistication of the work involved is not an issue in 
ascertaining whether the petitioning workers are eligible for trade 
adjustment assistance, but rather only whether they produced an article 
within the meaning of section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974.
    In the letter attached to the petition, the petitioner also asserts 
that the tickets produced by the subject firm are ``tangible'' and 
states that she ``has boxes and files of these very real copies of 
(travel) contracts''.
    The fact that the terms of travel contract services performed by 
the petitioner are printed on paper does not constitute production of 
an article within the meaning of section 222(3).
    The second attachment appears to be the first page of an e-mail 
from the ``Chairman of Congressional Travel Industry Caucus'' to 
Attorney General Ashcroft, with a section circled alleging that ``major 
carriers'' are engaging in unfair taxation and commission standards 
regarding U.S. and Canadian travel agents relative to ``foreign'' 
travel agents.
    The information in this attachment has no bearing on the reason for 
denying the petitioning worker; an article was not produced within the 
meaning of section 222(3) of the Trade Act.
    The third attachment is an untitled single page that appears to be 
printed from the internet. At the top of the page there is a table with 
the heading ``NAFTA by Country Trade Comparisons, 1992.'' The 
petitioner has circled a paragraph below this that suggests that there 
is a downward trend in U.S. production and a corresponding increase in 
U.S. service industries.
    This information is irrelevant to the criteria used to assess 
eligibility for trade adjustment assistance.
    The next attachment is titled ``Upheaval in Travel Distribution: 
Impact on Consumers and Travel Agents'' and appears to be an excerpt of 
a study authored by a congressional commission. On the first page, a 
section has been highlighted by the petitioner that describes the 
mission of the study to establish ``whether there are impediments to 
obtaining information about the airline industry's services and 
products.'' It seems to be the intent of the petitioner to assert that 
this congressional commission may be referring to the ``airline 
contracts'' (as noted on petition) processed by the petitioner as 
products, and that, as a result, the worker should be considered 
eligible for trade adjustment assistance. In another section circled by 
the petitioner, a section notes that ``internet technology is not going 
to save consumers from airline domination of retailing.'' Again, the 
petitioner appears to believe that commission's use of words 
(specifically, retailing) merit the acknowledgement of airline tickets 
as products.
    In fact, the processing of contracts and/or tickets does not 
constitute production within the meaning of section 222(3).
    Upon further review, the Department has determined that, even if 
the petitioning worker were considered a production worker, criterion 
(1) has not been met. Section 222 of the Trade Act defines an eligible 
worker ``group'' as ``three or more workers in a firm or an appropriate 
subdivision thereof.''
    The investigation revealed that the subject firm is owner-operated 
and there are no employees of the 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 in Washington, DC, this 20th day of March 2003.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-8357 Filed 4-4-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P