Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 107 / Friday, June 2, 2000 / Notices 35399

[FR Doc. 00–13754 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–37,016]

Deluxe Corporation, Financial Services

Division, Springfield, Massachusetts;

Dismissal of Application for

Reconsideration

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an

application for administrative

reconsideration was filed with the

Director of the Division of Trade

Adjustment Assistance for workers at

Delux Corporation, Financial Services

Division, Springfield, Massachusetts.

The application contained no new

substantial information which would

bear importantly on the Department’s

determination. Therefore, dismissal of

the application was issued.

TA–W–37,106; Deluxe Corporation,

Financial Services Division, Springfield,

Massachusetts (May 23, 2000).

Signed at Washington, DC this 25th day of

May 2000.

Grant D. Beale,

Program Manager, Division of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00–13757 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–37,541]

Joshua L. Bailey Co., Inc., Hoboken,

New Jersey; Dismissal of Application

for Reconsideration

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an

application for administrative

reconsideration was filed with the

Director of the Division of Trade

Adjustment Assistance for workers at

Joshua L. Bailey Co., Inc., Hoboken,

New Jersey. The application contained

no new substantial information which

would bear importantly on the

Department’s determination. Therefore,

dismissal of the application was issued.

TA–W–37, 541; Joshua L. Bailey Co.,

Hoboken, New Jersey (May 24, 2000).

Signed at Washington, DC this 25th day of

May 2000.

Grant D. Beale,

Program Manager, Division of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00–13758 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–37,060]

Liz Claiborne, North Bergen, NJ;

Notice of Negative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration

By application dated March 30, 2000,

the Union of Needletrades, Industrial

and Textile Employees (UNITE) request

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 February 29, 2000,

and published in the Federal Register

on March 17, 2000 (65 FR 14627).

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 misinterpretation of facts or of

the law justified reconsideration of the

decision.

The February 29, 2000 denial of TAA

for workers producing samples and

patterns at Liz Claiborne, North Bergen,

New Jersey, was based on the finding

that the ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test

of the worker group eligibility

requirements of Section 222 of the

Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The

investigation revealed that the layoffs at

the subject firm were not related to

increased imported but instead, a

restructuring of operations at the subject

facility.

The petitioners disagree with the

statement in the denial notice that

‘‘Samples produced at the subject

facility are used in the company’s

worldwide production of apparel and

could not therefore, have been adversely

affected by increased imports.’’ UNITE

believes that the Department set a

precedent when it certified other

sample-making workers.

The TAA certifications referenced by

UNITE were applicable to workers of

those companies where sample-making/

cutting were shifted abroad and the

samples were returning to the United

States. That is not the case for the

workers producing samples and patterns

at Liz Claiborne in North Bergen, New

Jersey. UNITE states North Bergen

employees no longer produce certain

sizes of sample garments. The

Department’s investigation, however,

revealed that the company chose to

reduce sample making and patterns at

North Bergen.

UNITE suggests that the company’s

apparent decision to shift sample

making and patterns abroad support a

certification. However, there is no

provision in the group eligibility

requirements of Section 222 of the

Trade Act of 1974 to certify workers

based on a shift in production.

UNITE asserts that imports of articles

at a later stage of processing have had

an economic effect on the North Bergen

workers comparable to the effect of

importation of foreign-made sample

garments and/or markers by definition

in the Code of Federal Regulations, 29

CFR 90.2. The Department points out

that the importation of the article

(apparel) would have to have an

economic effect on producers of the

domestic article (samples and patterns)

in the same stage as processing as the

domestic article. In this case the

importation of apparel is not in the

same stage of processing as samples and

patterns.

Conclusion

After review of the application and

investigation 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, D.C. this 22nd day

of May 2000.

Grant D. Beale,

Program Manager, Division of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00–13756 Filed 6–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M