27690 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 97 / Friday, May 18, 2001 / Notices

Background

The Commission instituted these

investigations effective August 18, 2000,

following receipt of a petition filed with

the Commission and Commerce by

Slater Steels Corp., Specialty Alloys

Division, Fort Wayne, IN, and the

United Steelworkers of America, AFL–

CIO/CLC, Pittsburgh, PA. The final

phase of the investigations was

scheduled by the Commission following

notification of preliminary

determinations by Commerce that

imports of stainless steel angle from

Japan, Korea, and Spain were being sold

at LTFV within the meaning of section

733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)).

Notice of the scheduling of the

Commission’s investigations and of a

public hearing to be held in connection

therewith was given by posting copies

of the notice in the Office of the

Secretary, U.S. International Trade

Commission, Washington, DC, and by

publishing the notice in the Federal

Register of January 26, 2001 (66 FR

7942). The hearing was held in

Washington, DC, on March 27, 2001,

and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in

person or by counsel.

The Commission transmitted its

determination in these investigations to

the Secretary of Commerce on May 11,

2001. The views of the Commission are

contained in USITC Publication 3421

(May 2001), entitled Stainless Steel

Angle from Japan, Korea, and Spain:

Investigations Nos. 731–TA–888–890

(Final).

Issued: May 14, 2001.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–12497 Filed 5–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Notice of Determination 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 of 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 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–38,834; Reptron Manufacturing

Service, Gaylord, MI

TA–W–38,844; Discwax Corp., Stanley,

NC

TA–W–39,069; Rosboro Lumber Co., Mill

B, Springfield, OR

TA–W–38,684; Ashley Leigh Enterprises,

Inc., Hillsville, VA

TA–W–38,879; Hastings Manufacturing

Co., Hastings, MI

TA–W–38,908; Electronic Circuits and

Design Co., Sebring, OH

TA–W–38,796; Electronic Corp.,

Edingburg, TX

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

Increases imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separation at the

firm

TA–W–38,687; Outboard Maring Corp.

(OMC), Lebanon, MO

TA–W–38,574; Outboard Marine Corp.,

Lowe Aluminum Boats Div.,

Syracuse, IN

TA–W–39,051; Pleasant River Lumber

Co., Dover Foxcroft, ME

TA–W–38,797; Lehigh Coal and

Navigation Co., Tomaqua, PA

TA–W–38,750; Porex Technologies,

College Point, NY

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–39,141; Textile Sales & Repair,

Inc., Gastonia, NC

TA–W–38,849; BI–Comp, Inc., York, PA

TA–W–39,138; Small Woodland

Services, Inc., Eagle Point, OR

TA–W–39,035; Precision Twist Drill Co.,

Sandvik Div., Crystal Lake, IL

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–38,821; Donohue Industries, A

subsidiary of Abitibi Consolidated,

Sheldon Mill, Sheldon, TX

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–38,811; Universal Furniture

Limited, Morristown, TN: March 10,

2000.

TA–W–38,945; Avaya, Inc., Formerly

Known as Lucent Technologies,

Shreveport, LA: March 15, 2000.

TA–W–39,038; Woodbury Apparel

Group, Woodbury, TN: March 29,

200.

TA–W–38,761; Snuffy’s Pet Products,

Inc., McConnellsburg, PA: February

12, 2000.

TA–W–38,759; GST Steel Co., Kansas

City, MO: February 12, 2000.

TA–W–38,572; Outboard Maine Corp.

(OMC), Calhoun, GA: January 4,

2000.

TA–W–38,564 & A, B; Outboard Maine

Corp.

TA–W–38,606; Outboard Marine Corp.

(OMC), Andrews, NC, Burnsville,

NC and Spruce Pine, NC: January 5,

2000.

TA–W–38,606; Outboard Marine Corp.

(OMC), Beloit, WI: January 10, 2000.

TA–W–38,772; Hedstrom Corp., Alma,

GA: March 5, 2000.

TA–W–38,838; Centec Roll Corp., Div. of

Whemco Corp., Bethlehem, PA:

February 22, 2000.

TA–W–39,003; Cajun Bag and Supply

Corp., Rayne, LA: March 23, 2000.

TA–W–39,063; Grove U.S. LLC, Shady

Grove, PA: March 28, 2000.

TA–W–38,565; Outboard Marine Corp.

(OMC), Waukegan, IL: January 5,

2000.

TA–W–38,685; Hendrickson-Spring,

Chicago, Chicago, IL: January 31,

2000.

TA–W–38,985 & A, B & C; Dunbrooke

Industries, Inc., Orange City, IA,

Hawarden, IA, Marcus, IA and Rock

Rapids, IA: March 23, 2000.

TA–W–38,976; Cummins, Inc., Cummins

Power Generation, St. Peter, MN:

March 20, 2000.

TA–W–38,688; Cooper Tools/Nicholson

Saw, Greenville, MS: February 5,

2000.

TA–W–38,006; American Steel

Foundries, ASK-Keystone, Inc., East

Chicago, IN: March 22, 2000.

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.