[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 17, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Page 18926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-9338]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-39,162 and NAFTA-04822]


ME International, Inc., Duluth, MN; Notice of Negative 
Determination on Reconsideration

    On February 12, 2002, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on March 8, 2002 (67 FR 10765).
    The Department initially denied TAA to workers of ME International, 
Inc., Duluth, Minnesota because criteria (1) and (3) were not met. A 
significant number or proportion of the workers did not become totally 
or partially separated from employment as required for certification. 
The ``contributed importantly'' group eligibility requirement of 
section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. 
Imports did not contribute importantly to the worker separations.
    The Department denied NAFTA-TAA because criteria (1), (3) or (4) 
have not been met. A significant number or proportion of the workers 
did not become totally or partially separated from employment as 
required for certification. 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.
    The workers at the subject firm were engaged in employment related 
to the production of mining wear parts (such as mill linings).
    The petitioner alleges the workers were impacted by increased 
imports from Canada that are like or directly competitive with what the 
subject plant produced. The petitioner also states that employment 
declines occurred at the subject plant during the relevant period 
meeting the requirements of criterion (1).
    The Department of Labor concurs with the petitioners' allegation 
that employment declines occurred at the subject plant.
    On reconsideration, the Department contacted the company for a list 
of major declining customers of the subject plant and further requested 
a detailed explanation of the reasons for the declines in sales, 
production and employment at the subject firm.
    The U.S. Department of Labor conducted a survey of the declining 
customer(s) of the subject firm regarding their purchases of mill 
linings during the relevant period. The survey revealed that a customer 
increased their imports of mill linings from Canada, while decreasing 
their purchases from the subject firm during the relevant period. 
However, the reduced purchases from the subject firm are relatively 
small in relation to the sales declines at the subject plant, thus the 
imports did not contribute importantly to the declines at the subject 
plant. A major customer, LTV Steel, was not surveyed due to bankruptcy 
in December 2000. They were a major customer of the subject firm.
    The company indicated that the Duluth facility experienced a small 
decline in sales dollars related to lower prices. The overwhelming 
majority of those declines was attributed to price concessions given to 
customers as a direct result of competing with a Canadian company. 
Price, however, is not a factor relevant to the TAA or NAFTA-TAA 
investigations that were filed on behalf of workers producing mining 
wear parts. Any potential lost business due to imports was considered 
as described in the survey results.
    The company provided additional information concerning sales, 
production and employment declines at the subject plant.
    The company indicated that nearly half of the sales declines are 
the direct result of a shift in subject plant production to Tempe, 
Arizona. That coupled with softening of Original Equipment 
Manufacturers (OEM) markets and mining closures and curtailments 
further contributed to the declines at the subject plant. The 
combination of these factors account for nearly all the sales and 
production declines at the subject firm.
    The company further indicated that sometime during the third 
quarter of 2000 it implemented manufacturing efficiencies. These 
improved manufacturing efficiencies led to a corresponding reduction in 
the manufacturing work force at the Duluth facility during the relevant 
period.
    Therefore, based on the information as indicated above, imports of 
products like or directly competitive with what the subject plant 
produced did not contribute importantly to the declines at the subject 
firm. Also, the subject plant did not shift any plant production to 
Canada or Mexico during the relevant period.
    The preponderance in the declines in employment at the subject firm 
is the direct result of a shift in production to another domestic 
location, softening of OEM markets and mining closures and curtailments 
and improved manufacturing efficiencies at the subject plant.

Conclusion

    After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative 
determinations regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment 
assistance and NAFTA--Transitional Adjustment Assistance for workers 
and former workers of ME International, Inc., Duluth, Minnesota.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 25th day of March 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-9338 Filed 4-16-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M