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