Glenshaw Glass Company; Glenshaw, PA; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 22901-22902 [E5-2131]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 3, 2005 / Notices
ChevronTexaco Corporation.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
Texaco Inc.
Texaco Exploration and Production
Inc.
Group VI.
ConocoPhillips Company.
Group VII.
Eni Petroleum Co. Inc.
Eni Petroleum Exploration Co. Inc.
Eni Deepwater LLC.
Eni Oil USA LLC.
Dated: April 14, 2005.
R.M. ‘‘Johnnie’’ Burton,
Director, Minerals Management Service.
[FR Doc. 05–8776 Filed 5–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[USITC SE–05–016]
Government in the Sunshine Act
Meeting Notice
United
States International Trade Commission.
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:
TIME AND DATE:
May 11, 2005 at 10:30
a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:
(202) 205–2000.
PLACE:
STATUS:
Open to the public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1. Agenda for future meetings: None.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Inv. No. 731–TA–101 (Second
Review) (Greige Polyester/Cotton
Printcloth from China)—briefing
and vote. (The Commission is
currently scheduled to transmit its
determination and Commissioners’
opinions to the Secretary of
Commerce on or before May 25,
2005.)
5. Outstanding action jackets: None.
In accordance with Commission
policy, subject matter listed above, not
disposed of at the scheduled meeting,
may be carried over to the agenda of the
following meeting.
Issued: April 27, 2005.
By order of the Commission:
Marilyn R. Abbott,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–8830 Filed 4–28–05; 5:09 pm]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:43 May 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
workers of Express Personnel Services,
Raleigh, North Carolina are denied
eligibility to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance under Section 246
of the Trade Act of 1974.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment And Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,708]
AVX Corporation, Subsidiary Of
Kyocera Corporation Including On-Site
Leased Workers of Express Personnel
Services, Raleigh, North Carolina;
Amended Certification Regarding
Eligibility to Apply for Worker
Adjustment Assistance and Negative
Determination Regarding Eligibility to
Apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment
Assistance
In accordance with Section 223 of the
Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the
Department of Labor issued a
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for
Worker Adjustment Assistance and
Negative Determination Regarding
Eligibility to Apply for Alternative
Trade Adjustment Assistance on March
25, 2005, applicable to workers of AVX
Corporation, subsidiary of Kyocera
Corporation, Raleigh, North Carolina.
The notice will be published soon in the
Federal Register.
At the request of a company official,
the Department reviewed the
certification for workers of the subject
firm. New information shows that
leased workers of Express Personnel
Services were employed on-site at the
Raleigh, North Carolina location of AVX
Corporation, subsidiary of Kyocera
Corporation.
Information also shows that some
workers separated from employment at
the subject firm had their wages
reported under a separate
unemployment insurance (UI) tax
account for Express Personnel Services.
Accordingly, the Department is
amending the certification to properly
reflect this matter.
The intent of the Department’s
certification is to include all workers
employed at AVX Corporation,
subsidiary of Kyocera Corporation, who
were adversely affected by a shift in
production to Mexico.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–56,708 is hereby issued as
follows:
‘‘All workers of AVX Corporation,
subsidiary of Kyocera Corporation, including
on-site leased workers of Express Personnel
Services, Raleigh, North Carolina, who
became totally or partially separated from
employment on or after March 8, 2004,
through March 25, 2007, are eligible to apply
for adjustment assistance under Section 223
of the Trade Act of 1974.’’
I further determine that all workers of
AVX Corporation, subsidiary of Kyocera
Corporation including on-site leased
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
22901
Signed at Washington, DC this 25th day of
April 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–2133 Filed 5–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,845]
Elringklinger Sealing Systems (USA),
Inc., Livonia, Michigan; Notice of
Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on March 29,
2005 in response to a worker petition
filed by a company official on behalf of
workers at Elringklinger Sealing
Systems (USA), Inc., Livonia, Michigan.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of
April 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–2118 Filed 5–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
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).
E:\FR\FM\03MYN1.SGM
03MYN1
22902
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 84 / Tuesday, May 3, 2005 / Notices
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
VerDate jul<14>2003
15:43 May 02, 2005
Jkt 205001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,819]
Hudson RCI; Temecula, CA; Notice of
Termination of Investigation
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, an investigation was
initiated on March 24, 2005 in response
to a petition filed by a company official
on behalf of workers at Hudson RCI,
Temecula, California.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 22nd day
of April 2005.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–2135 Filed 5–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–56,680]
Industrial Metal Products, Lansing,
Michigan; Notice of Termination of
Investigation
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade
Act of 1974, as amended, an
investigation was initiated on March 4,
2005 in response to a petition filed by
a state agent representative on behalf of
workers at Industrial Metal Products,
Lansing, Michigan.
The petitioner has requested that the
petition be withdrawn. Consequently,
the investigation has been terminated.
Signed at Washington, DC this 7th day of
April, 2005.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E5–2115 Filed 5–2–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–30–P
E:\FR\FM\03MYN1.SGM
03MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22901-22902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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