[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 150 (Friday, August 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45435-45436]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-4213]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-56,876]


American Wood Moulding, LLC, El Paso, Texas; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of May 18, 2005, petitioners 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 April 13, 2005, and 
published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2005 (70 FR 25859).
    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.

[[Page 45436]]

    The petition for the workers of American Wood Moulding, LLC, El 
Paso, Texas engaged in distribution of wood products was denied because 
the petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning 
of section 222 of the Act.
    The petitioner contends that the Department erred in its 
interpretation of work performed at the subject facility as a service 
and further conveys that workers of the subject company converted wood 
products to customer specifications. He further states that because 
moulding was cut into various length to meet customer requests at the 
subject facility, workers of the subject firm should be considered 
engaged in production.
    A company official was contacted for clarification in regard to the 
nature of the work performed at the subject facility. The official 
stated that the subject firm is strictly a distribution and warehousing 
facility. The official further clarified that workers of the subject 
firm do not produce an item, but only occasionally cut finished wood 
moulding into different lengths as requested by customers. He also 
stated that by cutting the moulding, workers do not add value or 
transform the finished moulding into a new and different product, and 
perform cutting for the retail purposes in the distribution stage.
    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 of the Trade Act of 1974.
    Cutting finished products from bulk form into various length as 
requested by customers in the distribution or retail stage is not 
considered production of an article within the meaning of section 222 
of the Trade Act. Petitioning workers do not produce an ``article'' 
within the meaning of the Trade Act of 1974.
    The investigation on reconsideration supported the findings of the 
primary investigation that the petitioning group of workers does not 
produce an article.
    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 certifiable for 
TAA; or if the group of workers are leased workers who perform their 
duties onsite at the TAA certifiable location on established 
contractual basis.

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 13th day of July, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-4213 Filed 8-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P