This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.
The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.
The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.
The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) granted the Secretary of Labor's motion for a voluntary remand for further investigation in Former Employees of Cabot Corporation, Supermetals Division, Boyertown, Pennsylvania v. Elaine Chao, U.S. Secretary of Labor, No. 05-00674.
The Department's initial denial for the workers of Cabot Corporation, Supermetals Division, Boyertown, Pennsylvania (hereafter “Cabot”), issued on November 14, 2005 and published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2005 (70 FR 72655), was based on the finding that “contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met, nor was there a shift in production from that firm to a foreign country. The “contributed importantly” test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers' firm's customers. The survey revealed no imports of tantalum powder during the relevant period. The subject firm did not import tantalum powder nor did it shift production to a foreign country during the relevant period.
On December 8, 2005, the petitioner requested administrative reconsideration, asserting that the decline in tantalum powder production at the subject firm was a result of the subject company purchasing the “same items from European companies”, subject firm's “take or pay” contracts, and foreign competition.
On January 5, 2006, the Department issued a Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration, published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2006 (71 FR 2566), stating that the application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law.
After the petitioner sought review by the USCIT, the Department requested a voluntary remand since the petitioner requested that the Department conduct a further investigation of whether there was an increase of imports of tantalum powder during the relevant time period. The review of the initial investigation revealed that the confidential data request received from the subject firm during the initial investigation refers to “tantalum” as a product manufactured by the subject firm during the relevant time period. The Department contacted the subject company official to verify the exact products manufactured by the subject firm during the relevant time period. The company official reported that “tantalum powder and tantalum wire” were products manufactured by the subject firm during the relevant time period. Consequently, the Department conducted an investigation to determine if the workers were impacted by imports of “tantalum powder and tantalum wire” or a shift in production abroad occurred during the relevant period. The investigation revealed that the subject firm did not import “tantalum powder and tantalum wire”, nor did it shift production of “tantalum powder and tantalum wire” to a foreign country. The investigation further revealed that all declines in sales and production of tantalum powder and tantalum wire at the subject firm are attributed to a loss in foreign market sales.
The subject firm provided two major declining customers, one a foreign company and another which appeared to be a domestic company. The Department conducted a customer survey with the major declining customer. The investigation revealed that the domestic customer purchases of tantalum powder and tantalum wire from the subject firm was for the purpose of exporting these products to its foreign manufacturing facilities. This customer does not import tantalum powder and tantalum wire into the Start Printed Page 26565United States and it uses all of tantalum products in production abroad.
After reconsideration on remand, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Cabot Corporation, Supermetals Division, Boyertown, Pennsylvania.Start Signature
Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of April, 2006.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6-6815 Filed 5-4-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P