Hudson RCI; Temecula, CA; Notice of Termination of Investigation, 22902 [E5-2135]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
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]
[Page 22902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-2135]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
