[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53025-53026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-20619]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-6124]


Holophane, a Division of Acuity Lighting Group, Inc., 
Springfield, OH; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application 
for Reconsideration

    By application dated July 9, 2002, the International Union, UAW, 
Region 2B and Local Union No. 1876 requested administrative 
reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding 
eligibility to apply for North American Free Trade Agreement-
Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA), applicable to workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on 
May 22, 2002, and was published in the Federal Register on June 11, 
2002 (67 FR 40005).
    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 denial of NAFTA-TAA for workers engaged in activities related 
to the production of castings which are sold within the corporation at 
Holophane, a Division of Acuity Lighting Group, Inc., Springfield, Ohio 
was based on the finding that criteria (3) and (4) of the group 
eligibility requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of the 
Trade Act, as amended, were not met. There were no company imports of 
castings from Mexico or Canada, nor did the subject firm shift 
production from Springfield, Ohio to Mexico or Canada. The subject firm 
has decided to outsource castings domestically and transfer some other 
secondary functions to another company facility in the United States.
    The petitioner alleges that the subject firm shifted subject plant 
machinery and equipment to a warehouse located in Brownsville, Texas 
and then shipped the machinery to an affiliated plant located in 
Matamoros, Mexico that produces outdoor architectural lighting fixtures 
and poles. The petitioner also supplied pictures and various shipping 
information (printed and handwritten) pertaining to the shifts in plant 
machinery to Mexico.
    A review of the company data supplied in the initial decision shows 
the subject plant was an internal component supplier of Aluminum Die-
Castings, Low Pressure Castings and Sand Casting to an affiliated 
Holophane manufacturing plant located in Newark, New Jersey. As part of 
a business diagnostics project, an evaluation was made by the company 
to determine if Holophane should continue to produce its own castings 
since manufacturing Aluminum castings is not a core competency of 
Holophane. Consequently, the building and Die Cast equipment was sold 
to a domestic company located in Arkansas with a production plant 
located in Tennessee. The plant located in Tennessee will supply the 
Die cast component parts to Holophane. With regard to the Low-pressure 
Castings and Sand Casting, other firms located in Ohio are now 
supplying Holophane products produced by the subject plant. All 
secondary operations previously performed at the Springfield facility 
have been transferred to affiliated plants located in Utica, Ohio. 
Therefore, all of the work performed at the subject plant prior to the 
closure is still being

[[Page 53026]]

produced in the United States, either at Company facilities or by 
various domestic suppliers.
    Further review of the initial decision shows that a very small 
amount of the foundry equipment from Springfield was transferred to the 
company's existing foundry operation at the Cast Light de Mexico S. A. 
plant located in Matamoros, Mexico. The transferred equipment to Mexico 
shows the machinery was not being used and therefore has not replaced 
any of the production previously performed at the Springfield, Ohio 
plant during the relevant period.

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 6th day of August, 2002.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 02-20619 Filed 8-13-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P