[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 42881]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-20547]



[[Page 42881]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[Docket No. TA-W-38,784]


Schlessinger Industries, et al.; Notice of Negative Determination 
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application postmarked May 21, 2001, the 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 23, 2001, and 
published in the Federal Register on May 9, 2001 (66 FR 23733).
    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 negative determination issued by the Department on behalf of 
the workers of the subject firm in Ridgefield, 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 for workers at Joseph L. Schlessinger, T/A Schlessinger 
Industries, Ridgefield Machine, Inc., and P&G Machinery Repair Corp., 
Ridgefield, New Jersey producing parts for Schiffli Embroidery 
Machines. The ``contributed importantly'' test is generally 
demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's customers. The 
Department of Labor surveyed the major customers of the subject firm 
regarding their purchases of Schiffli Embroidery Machine parts. There 
were no company or customer imports of parts for embroidery machines.
    The petitioner asserts that the customers are not running the 
machines, but they are selling them to foreign countries. Petitioners 
also attached a ``Spare Parts of Embroidery Lace Machine.'' The 
petition investigation, however, revealed that the major customers of 
the subject firm do not import products like or directly competitive 
with that which was produced in Ridgefield, New Jersey.
    The petitioner adds that another firm, Swiss Maid, Inc., was sold 
at a bankruptcy sale because Champion went to Mexico. The Department 
notes that Swiss Maid, Inc., has no relevance in this case.

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 1st day of August 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-20547 Filed 8-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M