[Federal Register: January 2, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 116]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02ja04-91]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-52,451]
Saurer Inc., a/k/a Schlafhorst Inc., Charlotte, NC; Notice of
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of September 30, 2003, a petitioner requested
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative
determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of
the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). The
denial notice applicable to workers of Saurer Inc., a/k/a Schlafhorst
Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina was signed on September 5, 2003, and
published in the Federal Register on October 10, 2003 (68 FR 58719).
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.
The TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at Saurer Inc., a/
k/a Schlafhorst Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina engaged in buying and
selling of textile machinery and parts. The petition was denied because
the petitioning workers did not produce an article within the meaning
of section 222 of the Act.
The petitioner alleged that, in fact, the petitioning worker group
was engaged in production of a variety of articles in connection with
servicing textile machinery, including training manuals, flash cards
containing software upgrades, and a variety of spare parts used to
service existing customer machinery. The petitioner further directed
the Department to contact a specific company official who would be
particularly knowledgeable about production activity at the facility.
The Department contacted the company official specified in regard
to these allegations. As a result, it was revealed that the petitioning
worker group worked in the Service Department, and were separately
identifiable from two other departments at the subject facility,
engaged in buying and selling of textile machinery and performing
repair work, respectively. Ensuing conversations with this official
revealed that all of the items specified by the petitioner were
produced at the subject facility, collectively constituting a small but
significant portion of work performed by the petitioning worker group.
These products include manuals, flashcards encoded with customized
software and spare parts. However, none of the products are being
imported, rather they continue to be produced at the subject firm,
albeit in dramatically diminished volumes due to a downturn in the
market for textile machinery.
The official further concluded that the manuals and customized
software were designed specifically for machinery purchased by the
customer from the subject firm, so there was little likelihood of
outside competition in regard to these products. Regarding spare parts
made on demand, this production accounted for a negligible amount of
work performed by the petitioning worker group when considered in
isolation in the relevant period.
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 25th day of November, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-32280 Filed 12-31-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P