Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices 27691

TA–W–38,771; Elkins Hardwood

Dimension, Elkins, West Virginia:

February 9, 2000.

TA–W–38,977; The Doe Run Co.,

Smelter Division, Herculaneum,

MO: March 16, 2000.

TA–W–38,749; Guilford Mills, Inc.,

Herkimer, NY: February 20, 2001.

TA–W–38,897; J.E. Morgan Knitting

Mills, Inc., Tamaqua, PA: March 7,

2000.

TA–W–38,672; TECO Westinghouse

Motor Co., Round Rock, TX:

January 30, 2000.

TA–W–38,858; The Goodyear Tire and

Rubber Co., Cartersville, GA: June

17, 2000.

TA–W–38,714; Spec Cast, Dyersville, IA:

February 3, 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 in

ports 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.

NAFTA–TAA–04651; Discwax Corp.,

Stanley, NC

NAFTA–TAA–04640; Hastings

Manufacturing Co., Hastings, MI

NAFTA–TAA–04542; Weyerhaeuser Co.,

Mt. Pine Wood Products, Mt. Pine,

AR

NAFTA–TAA–04630; Sierra Pacific

Industries, Loyalton, CA

NAFTA–TAA–04439 & A, B; Outboard

Maine Corp. (OMC), Andrews, NC,

Burnsville, NC and Spruce Pine, NC

NAFTA–TAA–04444; Outboard Marine

Corp. (OMC), Waukegan, IL

NAFTA–TAA–04440; Outboard Marine

Corp. (OMC), Beloit, WI

NAFTA–TAA–04597; Reptron

Manufacturing Services, Gaylord,

MI

NAFTA–TAA–04734; Pleasant River

Lumber Co., Dover Foxcroft, ME

NAFTA–TAA–04699; American Steel

Foundries, ASK-Keystone, Inc., East

Chicago, IL

The investigation revealed that the

criteria for eligibility have not been met

for the reasons specified.

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

NAFTA–TAA–04755; Diamler Chrysler

AG, Auburn Hills, MI

NAFTA–TAA–04746; Small Woodlands

Services, Inc., Eagle Point, OR

NAFTA–TAA–04767; Precision Twist

Drill Co., Sandvik Division, Crystal

Lake, IL

Affirmative Determinations NAFTA–

TAA

NAFTA–TAA–04645; Acme Die Casting,

Racine, WI: March 9, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04711; Snuffy’s Pet

Products, Inc., McConnellsburg, PA:

March 30, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04687; Avaya, Inc.,

Formerly Known as Lucent

Technologies, Shreveport, LA:

March 15, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04577; GST Steel Co.,

Kansas City, MO: February 13,

2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04490; Fleischmann’s

Yeast, Div. of Burns Philip Food,

Inc., Gastonia, NC: January 25,

2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04689; Cajun Bag and

Supply Corp., Rayne, LA: March 23,

2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04742; Grove U.S. LLC,

Shady Grove, PA: March 28, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04554; Haggar Clothing

Co., Edinburg Manufacturing,

Edinburg, TX and Haggar Clothing

Co., Weslaco Operations, Weslaco,

TX: May 1, 2001.

NAFTA–TAA–04698; Cummins, Inc.,

Cummins Power Generation, St.

Peter, MN: March 29, 2000.

I hereby certify that the

aforementioned determinations were

issued during the month of April, 2001.

Copies of these determinations are

available for inspection in Room C–

5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20210 during normal business hours

or will be mailed to persons who write

to the above address.

Dated: May 7, 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–12562 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–38,024]

Alabama Structural Beams, a Division

of Gulf States Steel, Gadsden, AL;

Notice of Negative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration

By application dated January 15,

2001, the attorney for United

Steelworkers of America, Local 2176,

requested administrative

reconsideration of the Department’s

negative determination regarding

eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment

Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers

and former workers of the subject firm.

The denial notice was signed on

December 5, 2000, and was published in

the Federal Register on December 21,

2000 (65 FR 80456).

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 petition for the workers of

Alabama Structural Beams, a Division of

Gulf States Steel, Gadsden, Alabama,

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. None of the customers reported

purchasing imported I-beams.

27692 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices

The petitioner states that the workers

at the Structural Beams plant should be

eligible to apply for the program

benefits because the Structural Beams

plant and the parent company, Gulf

States Steel, were on in the same. They

shared the same Board of Directors,

payroll, on-site medical facilities,

workers compensation, and health

insurance. The petitioner adds that

Alabama Structural Beams was part of

Gulf States Steel in every sense except

that the pay scale and employee union

contract was different. When Gulf States

Steel closed, so too did the subject firm

plant. The petitioner states that the

Structural Beam plan relied on the

parent company for the raw material to

produce the I-beams. The I-beams were

sold mainly to manufacturers of mobile

homes.

The source of the raw material to

produce the I-beams is irrelevant in this

case. Workers of the Alabama Structural

Beams plant could be certified only if

they supplied the I-beams to Gulf States

Steel (whose workers were certified

eligible to apply for TAA).

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 30th day of

April 2001.

Linda A. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–12564 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–38,507]

Dresser-Wayne Division (Halliburton)

Salisbury, MD; Notice of Negative

Determination Regarding Application

for Reconsideration

By Application of February 8, 2001,

the International Union, United

Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural

Implement Workers of America (UAW),

Local 354, 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).

The denial notice was signed on January

17, 2001, and published in the Federal

Register on February 8, 2001 (66 FR

9599).

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 producing retail fuel dispensers

at Dresser-Wayne Division (Halliburton)

in Salisbury, Maryland, was denied

because the group eligibility

requirement of Section 222(2) of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not

met. Sales and production of articles

produced at the plant increased from

1999 to 2000.

The petitioner provided a copy of an

e-mail from a company official at

Dresser-Wayne to the President of UAW,

Local 354, indicating that jobs were lost

at the plant because some of the work

at the subject firm plant was being sent

to Brazil.

The transfer of work, or shift of

production, is not a basis for worker

group certification under the worker

adjustment assistance provisions of

Section 222 of 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 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. 01–12565 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–37,964, TA–W–37,964A]

Hampton Industries, Kinston, NC;

Hampton Industries Distribution

Center, Snow Hill, NC; Amended

Certification Regarding Eligibility To

Apply for Worker Adjustment

Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the

Department of Labor issued a Notice of

Certification Regarding Eligibility to

Apply for Worker Adjustment

Assistance on October 11, 2000,

applicable to workers of Hampton

Industries, Kinston, North Carolina. The

notice was published in the Federal

Register on November 1, 2000 (65 FR

65330).

At the request of the Company, the

Department reviewed the certification

for workers of the subject firm. The

workers were engaged in the production

of Men’s and boys’ woven and knit

shirts. New information shows that

worker separations have occurred at the

subject firms’ Distribution Center

located in Snow Hill, North Carolina.

The Snow Hill, North Carolina location

provided distribution services for

Hampton Industries’ production

facilities including Kinston, North

Carolina.

Accordingly, the Department is

amending the certification to cover the

workers of Hampton Industries,

Distribution Center, Snow Hill, North

Carolina.

The intent of the Department’s

certification is to include all workers of

Hampton Industries who were adversely

affected by increased imports of men’s

and boys’ woven and knit shirts.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–37,964 is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of Hampton Industries,

Kinston, North Carolina (TA–W–37,964) and

Distribution Center, Snow Hill, North

Carolina (TA–W–37,964A) who became

totally or partially separated from

employment on or after July 20, 1999,

through October 11, 2002, are eligible to

apply for adjustment assistance under

Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of

April, 2001.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–12566 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M