[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 28, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68841-68842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-20059]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-59,977]


Central Penn Sewing Machine Company, Inc., Bloomsburg, PA; Notice 
of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated October 1, 2006, 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 September 14, 2006 and 
published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56172).
    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 petition for the workers of the Central Penn Sewing Machine 
Company, Inc., Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania engaged in production of 
industrial sewing machines was denied because the ``contributed 
importantly'' group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade 
Act of 1974, as amended, was not met, nor was there a shift in 
production from that firm to a foreign country in 2004, 2005 or January 
through August, 2006. The ``contributed importantly'' test is generally 
demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's customers. The 
survey revealed no imports of sewing machines during the relevant 
period. The subject firm did not import sewing machines nor did it 
shift production to a foreign country during the relevant period.
    The petitioner states that the affected workers lost their jobs as 
a direct result of a loss of customers in the apparel industry. The 
petitioner alleges that major declining customers of the subject firm 
increased imports of apparel or were negatively impacted by imports of 
apparel. As a result, they decreased their purchases of sewing machines 
from the Central Penn Sewing Machine Company, Inc., Bloomsburg, 
Pennsylvania. The petitioner also states that several of the subject 
firm's customers were certified eligible for TAA based on an increase 
in imports of various apparel products. The petitioner concludes that 
because industrial sewing machines are used to manufacture apparel and 
sales and production of industrial sewing machines at the subject firm 
have been negatively impacted by increasing presence of foreign imports 
of apparel on the market, workers of the subject firm should be 
eligible for TAA.
    In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider 
imports that are like or directly competitive with those produced at 
the subject firm. The Department conducted a survey of the subject 
firm's major declining customers regarding their purchases of 
industrial sewing machines. The survey revealed that the declining 
customers did not increase their imports of industrial sewing machines 
during the relevant period.
    Imports of apparel cannot be considered like or directly 
competitive with industrial sewing machines produced by Central Penn 
Sewing Machine Company, Inc., Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania and imports of 
apparel are not relevant in this investigation.
    The fact that subject firm's customers are importing or were import 
impacted is relevant to this investigation if determining whether 
workers of the subject firm are eligible for TAA based on the secondary 
upstream supplier of trade certified primary firm impact. For 
certification on the basis of the workers' firm being a secondary 
upstream supplier, the subject firm must produce a component part of 
the article that was

[[Page 68842]]

the basis for the customers' TAA certification.
    In this case, however, the subject firm does not act as an upstream 
supplier, because industrial sewing machines do not form a component 
part of apparel and other textile products. Thus the subject firm 
workers are not eligible under secondary impact.

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, day 20th of November, 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6-20059 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P