[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 23, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 8829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-698]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-54,796]


Venture Industries, Lancaster Ohio Plant, Lancaster, OH; Notice 
of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated July 19, 2004, a petitioner requested 
administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative 
determination regarding the eligibility for workers of Venture 
Industries to apply for trade adjustment assistance. The denial notice 
applicable to workers of the subject firm located Lancaster, Ohio, was 
signed on June 25, 2004, and was published in the Federal Register on 
August 3, 2004 (69 FR 46574).
    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.
    In the request for reconsideration of the petition denial, the 
petitioner claims that worker separations were ``due to the 
circumstances of the Venture Pegaform plant in Germany being in 
financial trouble, profits from the American plants were used to help 
get this facility back to where it could turn a profit, therefore 
leaving the American Venture Plants in financial trouble.'' The 
petitioner adds that the money used for the Venture Pegaform plant in 
Germany could have kept the Lancaster, Ohio plant open.
    In order for the workers of the subject firm to be certified 
eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance, the worker group 
eligibility requirements of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended, must be met.

    (1) A significant number or proportion of the workers in such 
workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have 
become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become 
totally or partially separated; and
    (2)(A)(i) The sales or production, or both, of such firm or 
subdivision have decreased absolutely;
    (ii) Imports of articles like or directly competitive with 
articles produced by such firm or subdivision have increased; and
    (iii) The increase in imports described in clause (ii) 
contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of 
separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such 
firm or subdivision; or
    (B)(i) There has been a shift in production by such workers' 
firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or 
directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm 
or subdivision; and
    (ii)(I) The country to which the workers' firm has shifted 
production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with 
the United States;
    (II) The country to which the workers' firm has shifted 
production of the articles is a beneficiary country under the Andean 
Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the 
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or
    (III) There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports 
of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles 
which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.

    The worker group eligibility requirements described above does not 
contain a provision for a shift of profits from a U.S. firm to a firm 
in a foreign country.
    The workers of Venture Industries, Lancaster Ohio Plant, Lancaster, 
Ohio, produced sheet/fiberglass molding compound for exterior 
automotive parts. The Department's initial investigation determined 
that during the relevant period (from 2002 through April 2004) there 
were no imports by the firm or its customers of like or directly 
competitive products. Furthermore, the subject firm did not shift 
production of sheet/fiberglass molding compound from the Lancaster, 
Ohio plant to a foreign country.

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 in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of December, 2004.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-698 Filed 2-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P