Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 97 /Wednesday, May 20, 1998 / Notices 27747

1 19 U.S.C. 1675(b).

2 19 U.S.C. 1675(b)(2)(A). 3 19 U.S.C. 1675(b).

4 19 CFR 207.45(b).

5 19 CFR 201.8.

any other Indian tribe that believes itself

to be culturally affiliated with these

objects should contact Dr. Robert

Pickering, Chairman of the

Anthropology Department, Denver

Museum of Natural History, 2001

Colorado Blvd., Denver, CO 80205;

telephone (303) 370–6388 before June

19, 1998. Repatriation of these objects to

the Hopi Tribe may begin after that date

if no additional claimants come

forward.

Dated: May 14, 1998.

Francis P. McManamon,

Departmental Consulting Archeologist,

Manager, Archeology and Ethnography

Program.

[FR Doc. 98–13397 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–70–F

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

Ferrosilicon From Brazil, China,

Kazakstan, Russia, Ukraine, and

Venezuela

AGENCY: United States International

Trade Commission (Commission).

ACTION: Request for comments regarding

the institution of section 751(b) review

investigations concerning the

Commission’s affirmative

determinations in the following

investigations:

Country

Action taken by the Commission Action taken by the Dept. of Commerce

Investigation

No.

Date of

determination

Federal Register citation Order No. Date of order Federal Register citation

Brazil ................................................................... 731–TA–641 01/24/94 59 FR 10165 A–351–820 03/14/94 59 FR 11769

China .................................................................. 731–TA–567 03/04/93 58 FR 13503 A–570–819 03/11/93 58 FR 13448

Kazakstan ........................................................... 731–TA–566 03/23/93 58 FR 16847 A–843–804 04/07/93 58 FR 18079

Russia ................................................................. 731–TA–568 06/16/93 58 FR 34064 A–821–804 06/24/93 58 FR 34243

Ukraine ............................................................... 731–TA–569 03/23/93 58 FR 16847 A–823–804 04/07/93 58 FR 18079

Venezuela ........................................................... 303–TA–23 06/16/93 58 FR 34064 C–307–808 05/10/93 58 FR 27539

731–TA–570 06/16/93 58 FR 34064 A–307–807 06/24/93 58 FR 34243

SUMMARY: The Commission invites

comments from the public on whether

changed circumstances exist sufficient

to warrant the institution of

investigations pursuant to section 751(b)

of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act),1 to

review the affirmative determinations of

the Commission in the above

investigations. The purpose of the

proposed review investigations is to

determine whether revocation of the

existing countervailing duty order on

imports of ferrosilicon from Venezuela

and the antidumping orders on imports

of ferrosilicon from Brazil, China,

Kazakstan, Russia, Ukraine, and

Venezuela, is likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material

injury.2 Ferrosilicon is provided for in

subheadings 7202.21.10, 7202.21.50,

7202.21.75, 7202.21.90, and 7202.29.00,

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

the United States.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fred

Fischer (202–205–3179) or Vera Libeau

(202–205–3176), Office of

Investigations, U.S. International Trade

Commission, 500 E Street SW,

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain

information on this matter by contacting

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility

impairments who will need special

assistance in gaining access to the

Commission should contact the Office

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000.

General information concerning the

Commission may also be obtained by

accessing its internet server at http://

www.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 24, 1998, the Commission

received a request to review its

affirmative determination, as it applied

to imports from Brazil (the request), in

the light of changed circumstances,

pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act.3

The request was filed by counsel on

behalf of Associac ̧a ̃o Brasileira dos

Productores de Ferroligas e de Silicio

Metalico (ABRAFE), Companhia

Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio (CBCC),

Companhia de Ferroligas de Bahia

(FERBASA), Nova Era Silicon S/A,

Italmagnesio S/A-Industria e Comercio,

Rima Industrial S/A, and Companhia

Ferroligas Minas Gerais (Minasligas).

The alleged changed circumstances

include: (1) The revelation of a

nationwide ferrosilicon price-fixing

conspiracy maintained by major U.S.

ferrosilicon producers from at least as

early as late 1989 to at least mid-1991.

Following criminal price-fixing

investigations by the Antitrust Division

of the U.S. Department of Justice, Elkem

Metals Co. and American Alloys

pleaded guilty in 1995 and 1996,

respectively, to conspiring to fix prices

of commodity ferrosilicon products.

SKW Metals & Alloys Inc. and its

executive vice-president were found

guilty in 1997 of conspiring to fix prices

of commodity ferrosilicon products,

and; (2) the consequential invalidation

of the Commission’s determination of

material injury that was based upon

improper and distorted price data.

Because the alleged changed

circumstances predominantly relate to

the domestic industry and are not

limited to imports from Brazil,

submissions should also address the

possibility of the Commission selfinitiating reviews of the outstanding

orders on China, Kazakstan, Russia,

Ukraine, and Venezuela.

Written Comments Requested

Pursuant to § 207.45(b) of the

Commission’s rules of practice and

procedure,4 the Commission requests

comments concerning whether the

alleged changed circumstances are

sufficient to warrant institution of

review investigations.

Written Submissions

In accordance with 201.8 of the

Commission’s rules,5 the signed original

and 14 copies of all written submissions

must be filed with the Secretary to the

Commission, 500 E Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20436. All comments

must be filed no later than June 19,

1998, which is at least 30 days after the

date of publication of this notice in the
27748 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 97 /Wednesday, May 20, 1998 / Notices

6 19 CFR 201.6.

Federal Register. The Commission’s

determination regarding initiation of

review investigations is due within 30

days of the close of the comment period.

Any person desiring to submit a

document (or portion thereof) to the

Commission in confidence must request

business confidential treatment under

§ 201.6 of the Commission’s rules.6 Such

requests should be directed to the

Secretary to the Commission and must

include a full statement of the reasons

why the Commission should grant such

treatment. Each sheet must be clearly

marked at the top ‘‘Confidential

Business Information.’’ The Commission

will either accept the submission in

confidence or return it. All

nonconfidential written submissions

will be available for public inspection in

the Office of the Secretary.

Copies of the non-confidential version

of the request and any other documents

in this matter are available for public

inspection during regular business

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the

Office of the Secretary to the

Commission; telephone 202–205–2000.

Issued: May 12, 1998.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13426 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–34,214 and NAFTA–02157]

Fort James Corp., Towel and Tissue

Division, Ashland, WI; Negative

Determination Regarding Application

for Reconsideration

By application dated March 27, 1998,

the United Paperworkers International

Union (UPIU) Local 1104 requested

administrative reconsideration of the

Department’s negative determination

regarding eligibility to apply for Trade

Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and

NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment

Assistance (NAFTA–TAA), applicable

to workers and former workers of the

subject firm. The denial notices were

signed on March 11, 1998. The TAA and

NAFTA–TAA decisions were published

in the Federal Register on April 3, 1998,

(63 FR 16574) and (63 FR 16575),

respectively.

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 negative TAA determination

issued by the Department was based on

the binding that the ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ test of the worker group

eligibility requirements of section 222 of

the Trade Act of 1974 was not met for

workers of Fort James Corporation,

Ashland, Wisconsin producing

commercial napkins. The ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ test is generally

demonstrated through a survey of the

workers’ firm’s customers. The

Department of Labor surveyed the major

declining customers of the subject firm

regarding their purchases of commercial

napkins. None of the respondents

reported import purchases of

commercial napkins in 1996, 1997 or in

January 1998.

The subject firm workers were denied

eligibility to apply for NAFTA–TAA

based on the finding that criteria (3) and

(4) of the group eligibility requirements

of paragraph (a)(1) of section 250 of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, were

not met. There was no shift in

production of commercial napkins from

the subject firm to Mexico or Canada,

nor were there company or customer

imports of like or directly competitive

products from Mexico or Canada.

The UPIU Local 1104 asserts that

some of the machinery at the Ashland

mill is scheduled for delivery to China

and Europe by the end of summer 1998.

The shipment or sale of production

equipment to foreign countries is not a

basis for a worker group certification

under the Trade Act of 1974.

The UPIU Local 1104 provided import

statistics for tablecloths and table

napkins made of paper for 1997. this

information does not substantiate

import impact for workers of Fort James

Corporation. There must be company or

customer increases of imports of articles

like or directly competitive with those

produced by workers at the subject firm.

The UPIU Local 1104 asserts that

during the petition investigation, the

customer list provided by the company

did not include all of the Fort James

Corporation Ashland customers. The

customer list requested by the

Department and provided by company

officials accounted for Ashland’s major

declining customers.

Finally, the UPIU Local 1104 asserts

that prices for market pulp and

paperboard has increased, thereby

affecting company cost to compete for

materials used in the production of

commercial napkins. Price of raw

materials to produce a product is not a

basis for a worker group certification

under the Trade Act of 1974.

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 4th day of

May 1998.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 98–13419 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Notice of Determinations Regarding

Eligibility To Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA

Transitional Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the

Department of Labor herein presents

summaries of determinations regarding

eligibility to apply for trade adjustment

assistance for workers (TA–W) issued

during the period of April, 1998.

In order for an affirmative

determination to be made and a

certification of eligibility to apply for

worker adjustment assistance to be

issued, each of the group eligibility

requirements of section 222 of the Act

must be met.

(1) That a significant number or

proportion of the workers in the

workers’ firm, or an appropriate

subdivision thereof, have become totally

or partially separated,

(2) That sales or production, or both,

of the firm or subdivision have

decreased absolutely, and

(3) That increases of imports of

articles like or directly competitive with

articles produced by the firm or

appropriate subdivision have

contributed importantly to the

separation, or threat thereof, and to the

absolute decline in sales or production.