Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Notices 66431

meaningful portion of the subject plant’s

customer base.

The additional information supplied

by the company helped clarity customer

response(s) in the survey that was

conducted during the original

investigation. Upon examination of the

survey, it is now clear that major

customer significantly increased their

imports of machinery like and directly

competitive with what the subject plant

produced during the relevant period.

Conclusion

After careful review of the additional

facts obtained on reconsideration, I

conclude that increased imports or

articles like or directly competitive with

those produced at STEAG Hamatech,

Saco, Maine contributed importantly to

the declines in sales or production and

to the total or partial separation of

workers at the subject firms. In

accordance with the provisions of the

Act, I the following certification:

All workers of STEAG Hamatech, Saco,

Maine, who became totally or partially

separated from employment on or after

March 21, 2000 through two years from the

date of this certification, are eligible to apply

for adjustment assistance under section 223

of the Trade Act of 1974.

Dated: Signed in Washington, DC this 11th

day of December 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–31622 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–38,989]

Trico Steel Company Decatur, AL;

Notice of Negative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration

By application dated July 26, 2001,

the company 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 July 5,

2001, and published in the Federal

Register on July 20, 2001 (66 FR 38026).

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 the opinion of the Certifying

Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of

the law justified reconsideration of the

decision.

The petition for the workers of Trico

Steel Co., Decatur, 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. Respondents reported that they

either did not import or had very minor

and declining imports in the relevant

time periods.

The petitioner feels that the time

period considered in the investigation is

not correct. The petitioner states that the

January through March 2001 period is

not representative of the relevant

period. That is, the petitioner indicates

that imports of hot rolled products were

illegally dumped into the United States

during the May through November 2000

period and therefore the Department

should look at the 2000 time frame.

During the initial investigation, plant

and survey data were examined for the

following periods: 1999, 2000 and

January through March 2001 over the

corresponding 2000 period. Plant sales

and production increased substantially

from 1999 to 2000, followed by declines

through the closure of the plant during

March 2001. Employment data reported

by the company was stable during the

2000 period.

The survey as already indicated,

revealed that the respondents (all

customers supplied by the company

responded to the survey) reported that

they did not import or had very minor

and declining imports from 1999 to

2000. The survey further revealed that,

during the January through March 2001

period over the corresponding 2000

period, imports were negligible.

Examination of industry data further

revealed that United States imports of

hot rolled carbon sheet steel decreased

both absolutely and relative to the U.S

shipments in the January through April

2001 period, compared to the same

period one year earlier. In the year 2000,

both U.S. shipments and U.S. imports of

hot rolled carbon sheet steel increased

over the 1999 period. The ratio of U.S.

imports to U.S. shipments remained

relatively stable in 1999 into 2000.

However, during the last eight months

of 2000 of the ratio of U.S. imports to

U.S. shipments declined.

The petitioner further indicates that

the International Trade Commission

(ITC) issued a preliminary dumping

duties decision against eleven countries

and that the ITC investigation would

examine possible trade restrictions

relating to the dumping of steel under

the 201 provision of the trade act.

The Department of Labor does take

into consideration such factors as the

International Trade Commission (ITC)

preliminary dumping duties and the

factors that are alleged and decided on,

but also investigates each company on

the basis of how increased imports

impacted products produced by the

petitioning plant and how increasing

imports contributed importantly to the

declines in employment.

The petitioner further indicates that,

during the period of January through

March 2001, Trico Steel Company was

forced to reduce it’s capacity by 50%

because of high customer inventories of

foreign steel that was imported during

the fourth quarter of 2000.

Inventory level build up can not be

considered in meeting the ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ group eligibility

requirement of section 222(3) of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

Conclusion

After review of the application and

investigative findings, I conclude that

there has been no error of

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 12th day of

December 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–31621 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[NAFTA–5085]

Besser Lithibar, Holland, MI; Notice of

Termination of Investigation

Pursuant to Title V of the North

American Free Trade Agreement

Implementation Act (Pub. 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 of 1974, as amended

(19 U.S.C. 2331), an investigation was

initiated on July 13, 2001, in response