97-21394. Gruen Marketing Corporation, Exeter, Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43353]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21394]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-33,216]


Gruen Marketing Corporation, Exeter, Pennsylvania; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated March 18, 1997, one of the petitioners 
requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding worker eligibility to apply for trade 
adjustment assistance. The denial notice applicable to workers of the 
subject firm located in Exeter, Pennsylvania, was signed on February 
26, 1997 and published in the Federal Register on March 21, 1997 (62 
CFR 13709).
    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.
    Findings of the initial investigation showed that workers of Gruen 
Marketing Corporation, Exeter, Pennsylvania were engaged in employment 
related to the merchandising of imported watches. The workers at the 
Exeter facility provided warehousing, packaging and distribution 
services. The Department's denial of TAA for workers of the subject 
firm was based on the fact that the workers provided a service and did 
not produce an article within the meaning of the group eligibility 
requirements of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
    The petitioner claims that since the workers installed batteries, 
performed watch repair, packaged and bar coded the product, the work 
performed should be considered producing a product.
    The company official reports that the Exeter facility was a 
packaging and shipping facility. Battery installation constituted only 
a minuscule part of the Exeter plant's work. With respect to watch 
repair, there was a department at the subject plant that did warranty 
work, including battery replacement. It also handled stock repairs, 
which involved refurbishing watches.
    Packaging and refurbishing of foreign production does not 
constitute a basis for a worker group certification under the Trade Act 
of 1974, as amended.

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 l justify reconsideration of the Department 
of Labor's prior decision. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 30th day of July 1997.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-21394 Filed 8-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M