[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 136 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 38428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18981]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-34,475; NAFTA-02331]
Ocean Beauty, Astoria, Oregon; Notice of Negative Determination
Regarding Application for Reconsideration
By application dated May 27, 1998, the company and the United Food
and Commercial Workers Local 555 requested administrative
reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding
eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and NAFTA-
Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA), applicable to workers
and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notices applicable
to workers of the subject firm located in Astoria, Oregon, were signed
on May 12, 1998. The TAA and NAFTA-TAA decisions were published in the
Federal Register on June 22, 1998 (63 FR 33958) and May 29, 1998 (63 FR
29431), respectively.
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 TAT petition, filed on behalf of workers of Ocean Beauty,
Astoria, Oregon, producing processed fish 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. None of the Ocean Beauty
customers responding to the survey reported purchases of imported
processed fish during the relevant time period (1997-1998).
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. There
were no company or customer imports of processed fish from Mexico or
Canada, nor was there a shift in production from the workers' firm to
Mexico or Canada.
In support of their application for reconsideration, the
petitioners assert that some of the significant customers of Ocean
Beauty were not surveyed concerning their import purchases of raw fish.
An official of Ocean Beauty was contacted to respond to this
allegation. Ocean Beauty has confirmed that customers identified by the
petitioners were major customers, but they did not decrease their
purchases of processed fish from Ocean Beauty during the relevant time
period.
The petitioners provided U.S. Department of Agriculture import data
for various fish to support their claim that increased imports of like
products were significant enough to facilitate a reduction in market
value of the finished product causing production expenses to exceed
sales receipts. The Department, however, must examine the import
purchases of processed fish by 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, DC, this 8th day of July, 1998.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-18981 Filed 7-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
