[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 45546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-17147]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-41,255]


American Greetings Corp., Corbin, KY Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application received on June 6, 2002 and June 7, 2002, a worker 
and the Teamsters, Local 89, respectively, 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 May 13, 2002, and published in the Federal Register on 
June 4, 2002 (67 FR 38521).
    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 petition for the workers of American Greetings Corporation, 
Corbin, Kentucky was denied because the ``contributed importantly'' 
group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended, was not met. Increased imports did contribute 
importantly to worker separations. The denial was based on Corbin, 
Kentucky production of printed greeting card sheets being consolidated 
with another American Greetings Corporation domestic production 
facility. The company did not import printed greeting card sheets 
during the relevant period.
    The petitioners allege that American Greetings Corporation has been 
forced to restructure the company in order to cut costs, which resulted 
in lost jobs at the Corbin plant over a three year period, leading to 
the final closing of the subject plant. The petitioners further allege 
that the jobs lost at the Corbin plant is the result of American 
Greetings moving manufacturing production (candles, party goods, print 
greeting cards) from the Corbin plant to China, Mexico, Taiwan and Hong 
Kong. A copy of a label attached to the petitioner(s) request depicts 
that a product produced in China was imported directly to American 
Greetings Corp., Corbin, Kentucky.
    A review of the initial decision and recent clarification by the 
company indicate there was no decline in the firm's customer base. Any 
declines in plant sales or production (party goods, gift wrap and bows, 
candles, printed greeting card sheets) are due to shifts in plant 
production to other domestic locations. That is, virtually all plant 
production was shifted to other domestic sources, except for a small 
portion of printed greeting card sheets that were ordered from a 
foreign source and scheduled to enter the United States beyond the 
relevant period of the investigation. In any event, the amount of 
printed greeting card sheets to be imported is relatively low and would 
not be considered a major contributing factor to the layoffs at the 
subject firm.
    Further review and contact with the company shows that the 
preponderance in the declines in employment at the subject plant is 
related to other factors unrelated to imported products ``like or 
directly competitive'' with what the subject plant produced. That is, 
internet card competition and cost cutting measures such as the 
elimination of some high cost product lines and the consolidation of 
subject plant production to other affiliated domestic locations to cut 
costs are the dominant factors leading to the layoffs at the subject 
plant.
    The Department contacted the company regarding a label attached and 
labels referenced in the petitioner's request for reconsideration. The 
company indicated that some of the products produced by the subject 
plant have been intermittently imported, but the amount of each type of 
product imported was negligible during the relevant period.
    In a further allegation by the petitioner, it is indicated that the 
subject plant candle production was shifted to China and imported back 
to the United States. The company indicated candles imported back to 
the United States were negligible 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 21st day of June 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-17147 Filed 7-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P