DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

TA-W-50,730

PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.
AUTOMOTIVE COATING DIVISION
TROY, MICHIGAN

Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration

By application post marked on April 17, 2003, 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). The denial notice was signed on March 26, 2003
and published in the Federal Register on April 7, 2003 (68 FR
16833).
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 TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at PPG
Industries, Inc., Automotive Coating Division, Troy, Michigan
engaged in the production of pretreatment and specialty products,
was denied because the "contributed importantly" group
eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of
1974, as amended, was not met. The "contributed importantly" test
is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's
customers. The Department conducted a survey of the subject
company’s major customers regarding their purchases of
pretreatment and specialty products. The survey revealed that
none of the customers increased their import purchases of
pretreatment and specialty products during the relevant period.
The petitioner alleges that the company shifted production
to a company affiliate in Mexico. To support this, the petitioner
provides what are described as “ship histories” dating back to
1997, alleging that these documents indicate products that were
sent from the subject firm to the facility in Mexico. In
addition, the petitioner indicates that production at the Mexican
facility was “formulated and produced” at the Troy facility, and
that the Troy facility “supplemented” the inventory at the
Mexican facility.
A company official was contacted in regard to these
allegations. Concerning the production conducted at the Mexican
affiliate, the official confirmed that the Technical Division at
the Troy facility had developed products that were later produced
at the Mexican facility. The official also confirmed that the
there was similar production conducted at both facilities;
however, the Mexican facility has exclusively served a foreign
customer base with no overlap from the subject firm’s customer
base. As a result, there is no indication of a shift in
production in this instance. In regard to the allegation that
the Troy facility supplemented the inventory of the Mexican
affiliate, a fact of this nature does not in and of itself
provide proof of a shift in production. Further, when questioned
on the issue of shipments from the subject firm to the Mexican
affiliate, a company official stated that, having reviewed
company invoices of shipments from the subject firm in the
relevant period (specifically, 2001 and 2002), it was revealed
that the Troy facility shipped a negligible amount of products to
the Mexican affiliate. Finally, the official confirmed directly
that there had not been a shift in production from the subject
firm to the Mexican affiliate in the relevant period.
The petitioner also alleges that there was a shift in
production from the subject firm to Canada in the relevant
period.
In the initial investigation, a shift in production to
Canada was acknowledged; however the shift was not considered
significant. In the investigation pursuant to the
reconsideration, the company official indicated that the shift in
production to Canada represented a negligible portion of
production at the subject plant, and was not projected to
increase.
The petitioner further alleges that a specific product
(Rinse Conditioner GL) was shifted to Canada.
The company official indicated that this product was
temporarily shifted to Canada while the machinery in Euclid, Ohio
was being set up. However, this production, in tandem with all
other production shifted to Canada, was not considered
significant.
Finally, the company official was asked to provided a
detailed list of imports like or directly competitive with those
produced at the Troy facility. The total volume of imports since
2001 is negligible relative to subject firm production, and thus
could not have contributed importantly to layoffs at the subject
firm.
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 decisions. Accordingly, the
application is denied.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 23rd day of July, 2003.
/s/ Elliott S. Kushner
_______________________
ELLIOTT S. KUSHNER
Certifying Officer, Division of
Trade Adjustment Assistance