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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 9, 2001 / Notices 23733

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. 01–11628 Filed 5–8–01; 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, 2001.

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 sub-division 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

separations, or threat thereof, and to the

absolute decline in sales or production.

Negative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

In each of the following cases the

investigation revealed that criterion (3)

has not been met. A survey of customers

indicated that increased imports did not

contribute importantly to worker

separations at the firm.

TA–W–38, 557; Southern Webbing

Mills, Inc., Floyd, VA

TA–W–38, 791; Sierra Pacific

Industries, Loyalton, CA

TA–W–38, 784; Joseph L. Schlessinger,

T/A Schlessinger Industries

Ridgefield Machine, Inc., P & G

Machinery Repair Corp., Ridgefield,

NJ

TA–W–38, 470; Plum Creek Timber Co.,

Pablo, MT

TA–W–38, 599; Sherwood Harso Corp.,

Lockport, NY

TA–W–38, 615; Koppel Steel Corp.,

Koppel, PA

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

Increased imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separations at the

firm.

TA–W–38, 965; Ingersoll Milling

Machine Co., High Velocity

Machine Div., Rockford, IL

TA–W–38, 493 & A; Creative Products,

Inc., Potomac, IL and Rossville, IL

TA–W–38, 983; Zapata Technologies,

Inc., Hazelton, PA

TA–W–39, 059; Ludlow Building

Products, Inc., Adrian, MI

TA–W–38, 873; Kodak Polychrome

Graphics, Holyoke, MA

TA–W–38, 885; Grote Industries, LLC,

Harness Div., Madison, IN

TA–W–39, 001; Accuride International,

Inc., Charlotte, NC

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–38, 818; STS Systems, Inc., d/b/

a 3DFX Interactive of Texas, Inc., El

Paso, TX

TA–W–38, 808; Hit or Miss Stoughton,

MA

TA–W–38, 461; Oxford Automotive,

Argos, IN

The investigation revealed that

criteria (2) has not been met. Sales or

production did not decline during the

relevant period as required for

certification.

TA–W–38, 758; PerkinElmer

Optoelectronics, St. Louis, MO

TA–W–39, 028; M&G Polymer USA,

LLC, Apple Grove, WV

Affirmative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

The following certifications have been

issued; the date following the company

name and location of each

determination references the impact

date for all workers of such

determination.

TA–W–38, 987; GIGI of Carolina, Inc.,

Cherryville, NC: March 22, 2000.

TA–W–38, 718; Weyerhauser Co., Mt.

Pine Wood Products, Mt Pine, AR:

February 8, 2000.

TA–W–38, 472; Mid-American Electro

Cords, Decatur, AL: December 12,

1999.

TA–W–38, 530; The Fletcher Corp.,

Fletcher Paper Co and Fletcher

Coated Products, Alpena, MI:

December 21, 1999.

TA–W–38, 903; United Design Corp.,

Noble, OK: March 5, 2000.

TA–W–38, 841; Pathfinders U.S.A.,

LLC, Sedro Woolley, WA: February

7, 2000.

TA–W–38, 552; North Star SteelKentucky, Calvert City, KY:

December 29, 1999.

TA–W–38, 857; Erie Coke Corp., Erie,

PA: February 22, 2000.

TA–W–38, 867; Kerr-McGee Chemical

LLC, Electrolytic Div., Hamilton,

MS: March 2, 2000.

Also, pursuant to Title V of the North

American Free Trade Agreement

Implementation Act (P.L. 103–182)

concerning transitional adjustment

assistance hereinafter called (NAFTA–

TAA) and in accordance with Section

250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II,

of the Trade Act as amended, the

Department of Labor presents

summaries of determinations regarding

eligibility to apply for NAFTA–TAA

issued during the month of April, 2001.

In order for an affirmative

determination to be made and a

certification of eligibility to apply for

NAFTA–TAA the following group

eligibility requirements of section 250 of

the Trade Act must be met:

(1) That a significant number or

proportion of the workers in the

workers’ firm, or an appropriate

subdivision thereof, (including workers

in any agricultural firm or appropriate

subdivision thereof) have become totally

or partially separated from employment

and either—

(2) That sales or production, or both,

of such firm or subdivision have

decreased absolutely,

(3) That imports from Mexico or

Canada of articles like or directly

competitive with articles produced by

such firm or subdivision have increased,

and that the increases imports

contributed importantly to such

workers’ separations or threat of

separation and to the decline in sales or

production of such firm or subdivision;

or

(4) That there has been a shift in

production by such workers’ firm or

subdivision to Mexico or Canada of

articles like or directly competitive with

articles which are produced by the firm

or subdivision.

Negative Determinations NAFTA–TAA

In each of the following cases the

investigation revealed that criteria (3)

and (4) were not met. Imports from

Canada or Mexico did not contribute

importantly to workers’ separations.

There was no shift in production from

the subject firm to Canada or Mexico

during the relevant period.