[Federal Register: May 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 22901-22902]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr03my05-84]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-56,277]
Glenshaw Glass Company; Glenshaw, PA; Notice of Negative
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application of March 9, 2005, United Steel Workers of American,
District 10, 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 termination notice applicable to workers of
Glenshaw Glass Company, Glenshaw, Pennsylvania was signed on January
28, 2005, and published in the Federal Register on February 23, 2005
(70 FR 8828).
[[Page 22902]]
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 TAA petition was filed on behalf of workers at Glenshaw Glass
Company, Glenshaw, Pennsylvania engaged in the maintenance and repair
of mold equipment used in the production of glass containers. The
petition was terminated due to the fact, that no new information or
change in circumstances was evident which would result in a reversal of
the Department's previous negative determination (TA-W-55,898). The TA-
W-55,898 petition was filed by the production workers of the subject
firm engaged in manufacturing of glass containers. The petition TA-W-
55,898 was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' group
eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended, was not met. The ``contributed importantly'' test is generally
demonstrated through a survey of customers of the workers' firm. The
survey revealed that the major declining customers did not increase
their imports of glass containers during the relevant time period. The
subject firm did not import glass containers in the relevant period nor
did it shift production to a foreign country.
In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner contends that
the Department erred in establishing the worker group under a new
petition. The petitioner further states that the group of employees
which was denied TAA under petition TA-W-55,898 was not engaged in the
same job duties as the group of workers petitioning under TA-W-56,277,
thus a new investigation should have been performed regarding the new
petitioning group of workers.
The original investigation did reveal that the petitioning group of
workers was engaged in the maintenance and repair of mold equipment.
However, this activity is not considered production of an article
within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. Therefore, the
subject group of workers can not be eligible for TAA on its own, based
on the fact, that workers do not produce an article. However, it was
determined that the petitioning service workers supported production of
glass containers at the subject firm and could be considered eligible
for TAA as directly-impacted workers in support of production of glass
containers at Glenshaw Glass Company, Glenshaw, Pennsylvania. If
production workers were found to be certifiable for TAA during the
relevant period, service workers in support of production at an
affiliated facility would be determined eligible for TAA as well. Due
to the fact that Glenshaw Glass Company, Glenshaw, Pennsylvania was
investigated previously and denied of TAA (TA-W-55,898) and no new
information was discovered in the second investigation the petition was
terminated.
The petitioner further alleges that the subject firm lost its
business due to its major customers importing like or directly
competitive products.
The customers of the subject firm were surveyed by the Department
during the original investigation. A review of the surveys confirmed no
increase in import of glass containers during the relevant period.
The petitioner further states that the subject firm imported mold
equipment which is used to produce glass containers. The petitioner
concludes that, because the production of mold equipment occurs abroad,
the petitioning workers who repair this equipment domestically are
import impacted.
The Department contacted a company official to verify whether a
production of mold equipment occurs at the subject facility. The
official stated that workers of the subject firm did not produce mold
equipment during the relevant time period.
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 customer regarding their purchases of glass
containers. The survey revealed that the declining customers did not
increase their imports of glass containers during 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 22nd day of April 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-2131 Filed 5-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P