[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 159 (Friday, October 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60430-60431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-2547]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-55,175]


Levi Strauss and Company, Knoxville Area Office, Knoxville, TN; 
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application dated August 27, 2004, 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) and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The denial notice 
applicable to workers of Levi Strauss and Company, Knoxville Area 
Office, Knoxville, Tennessee was signed on July 27, 2004, and published 
in the Federal Register on August 10, 2004 (69 FR 48530).
    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/ATAA petition was denied because the petitioning workers 
did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the 
Act. The Department determined that the subject worker group process 
sales orders.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners contend that 
the Department erred in its interpretation of the work performed at the 
subject facility. The petitioners state that the subject worker group 
does not process sales orders, but instead work in the subject 
company's Product Integrity Raw Material Quality Division and the 
Technical Services portion of the Customer Fulfillment Division.
    The petitioners also describe several functions performed by the 
subject worker group: processing and resolving

[[Page 60431]]

all production fabric rejections; processing color standards; ensuring 
that the various color expectations of customers are met; establishing 
perimeters for all fabrics and finished garments produced in the United 
States, Latin America and Asia; developing pressing specifications and 
procedures; executing seasonal training; testing new fabrics and 
products; and ensuring fabric quality.
    The petitioners contend that the subject worker group does in fact 
support a qualifying production facility, specifically Levi Strauss and 
Company, Powell, Tennessee, and their separations were the result of 
that closure. A certification regarding eligibility to apply worker 
adjustment assistance, applicable to workers of the Powell, Tennessee 
location of Levi Strauss and Company was issued on July 10, 2002 and 
expired on July 10, 2004, petition number TA-W-41,377B.
    While the Department may have erred in identifying the subject 
worker group, the petitioning worker group does not meet the criteria 
set forth in the Trade Act because the workers do not produce an 
article and did not support a domestic production facility during the 
relevant time period.
    Non-production workers may be certified if the work they perform 
support a firm or an appropriate subdivision of a firm that produced an 
article domestically during the twelve-month period preceding the date 
of the petition. In the case at hand, the petition date is April 15, 
2004. Therefore, because no production occurred at Levi Strauss and 
Company, Powell, Tennessee, between April 15, 2003 and April 15, 2004, 
the workers of Levi Strauss and Company, Knoxville Area Office, 
Knoxville, Tennessee did not support a qualifying production facility.

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 17th day of September, 2004.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E4-2547 Filed 10-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P