[Federal Register: June 15, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 114)]
[Notices]               
[Page 33421-33422]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15jn04-82]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-54,227]

 
Glenshaw Glass Co., Glenshaw, Pennsylvania; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of April 16, 2004, Glass, Molders, Plastics & Allied 
Workers International Union, Local 134 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 March 18, 2004, and published in the Federal Register on 
May 24, 2004 (69 FR 29575).
    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;

[[Page 33422]]

    (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 petition for the workers of Glenshaw Glass Company, Glenshaw, 
Pennsylvania was denied because criterion (1) was not met. Employment 
at the subject plant did not decline from 2002 to 2003, and January 
2004 as compared to January 2003.
    The petitioner alleges that employment declined at least 5 percent 
``at this point'' and questions total employment data collected during 
the original investigation.
    In the request for reconsideration, the company official confirmed 
that there were no employment declines in 2003 and January 2004. The 
official further stated that employment is even likely to increase 
further in 2004.
    The petitioner further alleges that production at the subject 
facility was impacted by imports from Canada.
    In order for import data to be considered, employment declines must 
have occurred at the subject facility in the relevant period. As 
criterion (1) has not been met for the petitioning worker group, 
imports are irrelevant.

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 4th day of June, 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-13384 Filed 6-14-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-P