[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 110 (Thursday, June 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 33765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2946]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-56,479]


Hoffmaster, Subsidiary of Solo Cup Company, Green Bay, WI; Notice 
of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of May 5, 2005, 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) and 
Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The denial notice was 
signed on April 1, 2005 and published in the Federal Register on May 2, 
2005 (70 FR 22710).
    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 Hoffmaster, 
Subsidiary of Solo Company, Green Bay, Wisconsin engaged in production 
of napkins, placemats, and table covers was denied because the 
``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of section 
222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not met, nor was there a shift in 
production from that firm to a foreign country. The ``contributed 
importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the 
workers' firm's declining customers. The survey of customers was 
irrelevant in this case as the investigation revealed that sales of 
napkins, placemats and tablecovers increased at the subject firm during 
the relevant time period. Nevertheless, the survey was conducted in the 
initial investigation. The survey revealed an insignificant amount of 
imports. The subject firm did not import napkins, placemats and 
tablecovers in the relevant period, nor did it shift production to a 
foreign country.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges that the 
layoffs at the subject firm are attributable to a shift in production 
to a foreign country. Specifically, the petitioner mentions several 
locations where the subject firm has plants and which might be foreign 
locations, such as El Cajon, Glen Falls, Goshen and St. Albans.
    A company official was contacted regarding the above allegations. 
The company official confirmed what was revealed during the initial 
investigation. In particular, the official stated that all the products 
which were produced at the subject facility are now produced at other 
domestic facilities. He further clarified that all locations mentioned 
by the petitioner are domestic facilities--El Cajon in California, Glen 
Falls in New York, Goshen in Indiana and St. Albans in Vermont.

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 25th day of May, 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5-2946 Filed 6-8-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P