[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22901-22902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2131]


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

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