Anchor Glass Container Corporation, Zanesville Mould Division, Zanesville, OH; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 4466-4467 [E9-1491]

Agencies

• Employment and Training Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4466-4467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1491]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,208]


Anchor Glass Container Corporation, Zanesville Mould Division, 
Zanesville, OH; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application 
for Reconsideration

    By application dated December 29, 2008, United Steelworkers, Local 
121 T requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's 
negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance 
(ATAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. 
The denial notice was signed on November 21, 2008 and published in the 
Federal Register on December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75136).
    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 mis-
interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the 
decision.
    The initial investigation that resulted in a negative determination 
was based on the finding that imports of moulds and related glass 
container equipment did not contribute importantly to worker 
separations at the subject facility and there was no shift of 
production to a foreign country. The subject firm did not import moulds 
and related glass container equipment during the relevant period. The 
``contributed importantly'' test is generally demonstrated through a 
survey of the workers' firm's declining

[[Page 4467]]

domestic customers. In this case the survey was not conducted because 
all moulds and related glass container equipment was used internally in 
the products of glassware. The subject firm did not have external 
customers in the relevant period and did not import moulds and related 
glass container equipment.
    The petitioner alleged that subject firm's competitors import mould 
equipment, thus having an advantage over the subject firm in locating 
potential customers.
    The impact of competitors on the domestic firms is revealed in an 
investigation through customer surveys. In the case at hand, in the 
absence of the external customers, the Department solicited information 
from the internal customers of the subject firm to determine if 
customers purchased imported moulds and related glass container 
equipment. The information was intended to determine if competitor 
imports contributed importantly to layoffs at the subject firm. The 
investigation revealed no imports of moulds and related glass container 
equipment during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import 
moulds and related glass container equipment nor was there a shift in 
production from subject firm abroad during the relevant period.
    The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered; nor 
provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a 
mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered or (2) 
a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration 
of the initial determination.
    After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the 
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

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 9th day of January 2009.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-1491 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P