[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 193 (Thursday, October 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50683-50684]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-24822]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,839 and NAFTA-4547]


ASARCO, Inc., East Helena Plant, East Helena, MT; Notice of 
Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application of May 31, 2001, the company requested 
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) under 
petition TA-W-38,839, and North American Free Trade Agreement-
Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) under petition NAFTA-
4547. The denial notices applicable to workers of ASARCO Inc., East 
Helena Plant, East Helena, Montana, were signed on April 17, 2001, and 
published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2001 (66 FR 22262).

[[Page 50684]]

    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 at ASARCO Inc., East 
Helena Plant, East Helena, Montana, producing lead bullion (primary 
product produced at the plant), 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 the 
workers' firm's customers. The subject plant customers are located 
outside the United States and therefore the company can not be impacted 
by customers purchasing imported lead bullion. The subject firm did not 
import lead bullion during the relevant period.
    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 was not conducted due to the conditions depicted in the previous 
paragraph. The subject firm did not import lead bullion, nor was 
production of lead bullion shifted form the workers' firm to Mexico or 
Canada.
    The petitioner alleges that other ASARCO Incorporated locations 
have been certified for Worker Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA-
Transitional Adjustment Assistance. The certifications were based on 
different principle products, with a different customer base than the 
subject plants' customer base. The work performed at the subject plant 
is not vertically integrated into any of those products during the 
relevant period and therefore can not be associated with any of those 
certifications. Although the subject plant produced lead bullion for a 
certified facility, producing refined lead, ASARCO's Omaha, Nebraska 
(TA-W-35,300 and NAFTA-02752) those certifications expired on May 31, 
1998. Therefore, the subject plant can not be considered vertically 
integrated, due to the time frame of that certification not being 
within under the relevant time frame.
    The petitioner also alleges that the plant was impacted by 
depressed lead prices and events in international markets. Price and 
events in international markets are not factors which pertain to the 
``contributed importantly'' criteria.
    The Department, when determining import impact for a worker group, 
does consider import statistics for products similar to what the 
subject plant produces. U.S. import statistics for refined lead are 
available, however these statistics are not equivalent to the product 
(lead bullion--an intermediate product) the subject plant produced. 
Therefore, those statistics are not reflective of the plant's product. 
While U.S. import data are helpful in identifying trends in imports of 
specific products, in most cases, the Department relies on a survey of 
the major declining customers of the subject firm.

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, D.C., this 18th day of September, 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-24822 Filed 10-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M