Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Notices 23731

Matters To Be Considered:

1. Agenda for future meeting: none.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Inv. Nos. 701–TA–414 and 731–

TA–928 (Preliminary) (Softwood

Lumber from Canada)—briefing and

vote. (The Commission is currently

scheduled to transmit its determination

to the Secretary of Commerce on May

17, 2001; Commissioners’ opinions are

currently scheduled to be transmitted to

the Secretary of Commerce on May 24,

2001.)

5. Outstanding action jackets:

1. Document No. GC–01–042:

Regarding Inv. No. 337–TA–429 (Certain

Bar Clamps, Bar Clamp Pads, and

Related Packaging, Display, and Other

Materials).

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.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: May 4, 2001.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–11827 Filed 5–7–01; 2:16 pm]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMMISSION

[USITC SE–01–020]

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:

International Trade Commission.

TIME AND DATE: May 18, 2001 at 2 p.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20436, Telephone:

(202) 205–2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

Matters To Be Considered:

1. Agenda for future meeting: none.

2. Minutes.

3. Ratification List.

4. Inv. Nos. 731–TA–929–931

(Preliminary) (Silicomanganese from

India, Kazakhstan, and Venezuela)—

briefing and vote. (The Commission is

currently scheduled to transmit its

determination to the Secretary of

Commerce on May 21, 2001;

Commissioners’ opinions are currently

scheduled to be transmitted to the

Secretary of Commerce on May 29,

2001.)

5. Outstanding action jackets:

1. Document No. GC–01–042:

Regarding Inv. No. 337–TA–429 (Certain

Bar Clamps, Bar Clamp Pads, and

Related Packaging, Display, and Other

Materials).

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.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: May 4, 2001.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–11828 Filed 5–7–01; 2:16 pm]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–38,439 and NAFTA–4365]

Eastern Fine Paper; Brewer, Maine;

Notice of Affirmative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration

By letter of March 16, 2001, the

company requested administrative

reconsideration of the Department of

Labor’s Notices of Negative

Determination Regarding Eligibility to

Apply for Worker Adjustment

Assistance (TA–W–38,439) and NAFTATransitional Adjustment Assistance

(NAFTA–4365) for workers of the

subject firm. The denial notices

applicable to workers of Eastern Fine

Paper, Inc., Brewer, Maine, were signed

on February 7, 2001, and published in

the Federal Register on March 2, 2001,

TA–W–48,439 (66 FR 13086) and

NAFTA–4319 (66 FR 13087).

The company presents new

information regaridng production at the

plant that warrants further petition

investigation.

Conclusion

After careful review of the

application, I conclude that the claim is

of sufficient weight to justify

reconsideration of the Depratment of

Labor’s prior decision. The application

is, threfore, granted.

Dated: Signed at Washington, D.C., this

27th day of April, 2001.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–11629 Filed 5?–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–38,360 and NAFTA–4319]

Georgia Pacific Corp. Structural Panel

Division—OSB, Baileyville, Maine;

Notice of Negative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration

By application of February 20, 2001,

the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical &

Energy Workers International Union

(PACE) request 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) and

North American Free Trade

Agreement—Transitional Adjustment

Assistance (NAFTA–TAA). The denial

notices applicable to workers of Georgia

Pacific Corporation, Structural Panel

Division—OSB, Baileyville, Maine, were

signed on January 5, 2001, and

published in the Federal Register on

February 8, 2001, TA–W–38,360 (66 FR

9599) and NAFTA–4319 (66 FR 9600).

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, filed on behalf of

workers producing oriented strand

board at Georgia Pacific, OSB

Operations in Baileyville, Maine, 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 customers of the workers’

firm’s. None of the customers reported

increasing import purchases of OSB

while decreasing purchases from

Georgia Pacific, OSB Operations in

Baileyville, Maine.

The NAFTA–TAA petition for the

same worker group was denied because

criteria (3) and (4) of the group

eligibility requirements in paragraph

(a)(1) of section 250 of the Trade Act, as

amended, were not met. A survey of the

major declining customers of Georgia

23732 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Notices

Pacific, Structural Panel Division,

showed that none of the respondents

increased import purchases of oriented

strand board from Mexico or Canada,

while reducing purchases from the

subject firm. The subject firm did not

import oriented strand board, nor was

production of oriented strand board

shifted from the workers’ firm to Mexico

or Canada.

The petitioner supplemented the

application for reconsideration with

information on U.S. imports of OSBWaferboard and suggested that

increased imports of these articles from

Canada negatively impacted the OSB

producers in the northeastern part of the

United States. The Department, when

determining import impact for a worker

group, does not break out import

statistics by port of entry but instead use

aggregate import data. For NAFTA–TAA

petition investigations the Department

examines aggregate U.S. imports from

Mexico and Canada. While U.S. import

data are helpful in identifying trends in

imports of specific products, in most

cases, the Department relies a survey of

the major declining customers of the

subject firm.

The petitioner adds that the

Department’s survey results regarding

customer purchases of oriented strand

board are erroneous, citing that a federal

official informed PACE that only three

customers were surveyed, two of which

were other Georgia Pacific divisions,

and that Georgia Pacific imports

oriented strand board.

The information collected by the

Department during the petition

investigation is business confidential

and cannot be released to the public

without express written consent of the

individual and/or company official

providing the information. The

Department cannot release how many

customers of the subject firm were

surveyed or who responded. The

respondents of the survey group for

Georgia Pacific represented the majority

of the subject firm sales of OSB during

the time period when the Baileyville

plant had sales and production declines.

The petitioner believes that the

subject firm imports OSB. The

Department stands corrected in that

Georgia Pacific Corporation does import

oriented strand board, including

purchases from Canada. The

investigation, however, showed that

company imports of OSB declined.

The petitioner also states that the

Department totally disregarded the

Maine Department of Labor preliminary

affirmative finding that all eligibility

criteria for NAFTA–TAA have been met.

The petitioner’s statement is true, but all

preliminary findings for NAFTA–TAA

petitions are forwarded to the

Department of Labor for a final

determination.

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, DC, this 30th day of

April 2001.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–11627 Filed 5–8–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–38,461 and NAFTA–4357]

Oxford Automotive, Argos, Indiana;

Notice of Negative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration

By application of February 1, 2001,

the International Union, United

Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural

Implement Workers of America (UAW),

Local 2088, request 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) and

North American Free Trade AgreementTransitional Adjustment Assistance

(NAFTA–TAA). The denial notices

applicable to workers of Oxford

Automotive, Argos, Indiana, were

signed on January 24, 2001. The TAA

decision will soon be published in the

Federal Register. The notice for the

NAFTA–TAA decision was published

in the Federal Register on February 20,

2001 (66 FR 10917).

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, filed on behalf of

workers producing side panels for

vehicles in Argos, Indiana, was denied

because the ‘‘contributed importantly’’

criterion of the group eligibility

requirements of Section 222 of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not

met. The primary customer of the

subject firm is going to produce the side

panels at their own U.S. plants and

ceased doing business with Oxford

Automotive.

The NAFTA–TAA petition for the

same worker group was defined because

criteria (3) and (4) of the group

eligibility requirements in paragraph

(a)(1) of section 250 of the Trade Act, as

amended, were not met. There were no

company or customer imports from

Mexico or Canada of side panels for

vehicles. The subject firm did not shift

the production of side panels for

vehicles from Argos, Indiana to Mexico

or Canada.

The petitioner provided a copy of a

memorandum dated August 1, 2000,

addressed to Local 2988 from an

individual (title not provided), notifying

the Union of equipment that will be

moving to another Oxford Automotive

location, or a request for equipment

from another Oxford Automotive

location. In that listing, it is noted that

authorization was being sought to move

the 180′′ press line and two single post

spot welders to Mexico.

During the investigation that

information was available and the

Department found that some of the

machinery was sent to Mexico but it

was not being used. The shift of

production of equipment to Mexico or

Canada, or any other foreign country,

does not in of itself provide a basis for

worker group certification under TAA

or NAFTA–TAA. With respect to the

TAA petition, the Department could

issue a certification only if the

equipment shifted is being used to

produce the articles and replace the

production at the workers’ firm and that

there are increases in imports of articles

like or directly competitive with side

panels for vehicles produced on that

machinery. With respect to the NAFTA–

TAA petition, the Department could

issue a certification only if the

equipment shifted is being used to

produce the articles and replace the

production at the workers’ firm. This is

not the case for the petitioning workers,

as was described in the initial findings.

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