[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47094-47095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-20115]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-50,730]


PPG Industries, Inc., Automotive Coating Division, Troy, MI; 
Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for 
Reconsideration

    By application post marked on April 17, 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 was signed on March 26, 2003 and published in the Federal 
Register on April 7, 2003 (68 FR 16833).
    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, filed on behalf of workers at PPG Industries, 
Inc., Automotive Coating Division, Troy, Michigan engaged in the 
production of pretreatment and specialty products, was denied because 
the ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of 
section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The 
``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a 
survey of the workers' firm's customers. The Department conducted a 
survey of the subject company's major customers regarding their 
purchases of pretreatment and specialty products. The survey revealed 
that none of the customers increased their import purchases of 
pretreatment and specialty products during the relevant period.
    The petitioner alleges that the company shifted production to a 
company affiliate in Mexico. To support this, the petitioner provides 
what are described as ``ship histories'' dating back to 1997, alleging 
that these documents indicate products that were sent from the subject 
firm to the facility in Mexico. In addition, the petitioner indicates 
that production at the Mexican facility was ``formulated and produced'' 
at the Troy facility, and that the Troy facility ``supplemented'' the 
inventory at the Mexican facility.
    A company official was contacted in regard to these allegations. 
Concerning the production conducted at the Mexican affiliate, the 
official confirmed that the Technical Division at the Troy facility had 
developed products that were later produced at the Mexican facility. 
The official also confirmed that there was similar production conducted 
at both facilities; however, the Mexican facility has exclusively 
served a foreign customer base with no overlap from the subject firm's 
customer base. As a result, there is no indication of a shift in 
production in this instance. In regard to the allegation that the Troy 
facility supplemented the inventory of the Mexican affiliate, a fact of 
this nature does not in and of itself provide proof of a shift in 
production. Further, when questioned on the issue of shipments from the 
subject firm to the Mexican affiliate, a company official stated that, 
having reviewed company invoices of shipments from the subject firm in 
the relevant period (specifically, 2001 and 2002), it was revealed that 
the Troy facility shipped a negligible amount of products to the 
Mexican affiliate. Finally, the official confirmed directly that there 
had not been a shift in production from the subject firm to the Mexican 
affiliate in the relevant period.
    The petitioner also alleges that there was a shift in production 
from the subject firm to Canada in the relevant period.
    In the initial investigation, a shift in production to Canada was 
acknowledged; however the shift was not considered significant. In the 
investigation pursuant to the reconsideration, the company official 
indicated that the shift in production to Canada represented a 
negligible portion of production at the subject plant, and was not 
projected to increase.
    The petitioner further alleges that a specific product (Rinse 
Conditioner GL) was shifted to Canada.
    The company official indicated that this product was temporarily 
shifted to Canada while the machinery in Euclid, Ohio was being set up. 
However, this production, in tandem with all other production shifted 
to Canada, was not considered significant.

[[Page 47095]]

    Finally, the company official was asked to provided a detailed list 
of imports like or directly competitive with those produced at the Troy 
facility. The total volume of imports since 2001 is negligible relative 
to subject firm production, and thus could not have contributed 
importantly to layoffs at the subject firm.

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 decisions. Accordingly, the application is denied.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 23rd day of July, 2003.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 03-20115 Filed 8-6-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P