[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Page 56327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-24698]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-51,750]


Federated Merchandising Group, a Part of Federated Department 
Stores, New York, NY; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding 
Application for Reconsideration

    By application of July 2, 2003, 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 10, 2003, and 
published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2003 (68 FR 36846).
    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 petition for the workers of Federated Merchandising Group, a 
part of Federated Department Stores, New York, New York was denied 
because the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement 
of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met, 
nor did the subject firm shift production to a foreign source in the 
relevant period. The investigation revealed that the subject firm did 
not import products like or directly competitive with paper patterns 
and sample garments during the relevant period of 2001 to April of 
2003, nor did it transfer production abroad.
    The petitioner states that the company could not have replaced the 
manual labor eliminated through petitioning worker layoffs with a 
computer program, as revealed in the initial investigation. The 
petitioner concludes that because of the complexity of decision making 
required in pattern making and the physical demands required to 
construct sample garments, the company must have outsourced production 
to an outside (potentially foreign) source in order to offset the labor 
shortage.
    A company official was contacted in regard to petitioner 
allegations. As a result, it was revealed that, in fact, a computer 
program had reduced the need for manpower, although a minimal number of 
workers were retained to input data and create samples. The official 
also stated unequivocally that production performed by the petitioning 
worker group had not been outsourced domestically or internationally.

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 19th day of August 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-24698 Filed 9-29-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P