[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 45 (Monday, March 8, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10757-10758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E4-465]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-53,023]


Cardinal Glass Industries, Inc. Sextonville, Wisconsin; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    On January 29, 2004, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on February 11, 2004 (69 FR 6693).
    The Department initially denied TAA to workers of Cardinal Glass 
Industries, Inc. because the ``contributed importantly'' group 
eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974 was 
not met. The company did not import glass handling equipment in the 
relevant period nor did it shift production of glass handling equipment 
to a foreign country. The investigation revealed that the cause of the 
worker separations was a domestic shift of production.
    The company official who filed the reconsideration request alleges 
that, in order to remain competitive with foreign suppliers of glass, 
the company was forced to keep the prices of glass at the same level 
for the last twenty years and that the glass production declines are 
attributed to foreign competition. The official further states that, 
the Sextonville facility was not efficient enough in both production 
speed and quality to meet competitive forces; however it was an 
integral part in the selling of glass products.
    Contact with another company official at the headquarters of 
Cardinal FG confirmed what had been established in the initial 
investigation, which was that workers of the subject firm produced 
glass handling equipment and their separations were predominantly 
caused by a shift of production from the Sextonville, Wisconsin 
facility to a newly built domestic site at Spring Green, Wisconsin. The 
official further stated that production at the new facility will be of 
an equal or greater value to that produced by the subject firm.
    In order to establish import impact, the Department must consider 
imports that are like or directly competitive with those produced at 
the subject firm. As the majority of the production of glass handling 
equipment was used to supply internal demand, and the company reported 
no imports, there is no

[[Page 10758]]

evidence of import impact in regard to this product in conjunction with 
an assessment of eligibility for affected workers at the subject plant.
    The petitioner states that the glass handling equipment produced by 
the subject firm has been displaced as a result of an increase in 
imports of glass and mentions a new glass plant going into production 
in Mexico in the next month.
    As noted above, the Department considers imports of like or 
directly competitive products (in this case, glass handling equipment, 
as the initial investigation established that layoffs are predominantly 
attributable to the domestic shift of production) when conducting TAA 
investigations. Thus, although the products produced by the subject 
firm workers may be indirectly import impacted, the import impact of 
glass is not relevant to an investigation of eligibility for trade 
adjustment assistance on behalf of subject firm workers producing glass 
handling equipment.
    The review of the initial investigation revealed that the 
Department erred in its description of the subject firm's product 
during the customer survey, thus purchases of glass were surveyed 
instead of glass handling equipment. Further contact with the company 
official revealed that major customers of the subject firm are all 
internal Cardinal Glass Industries, Inc. glass processing plants. It 
was found that these customers do not import glass handling equipment.
    The investigation further revealed that none of the Cardinal Glass 
Industries, Inc. facilities are under an existing Trade Adjustment 
Assistance certification.

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 20th day of February, 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E4-465 Filed 03-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-13-P