Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices 41423

(2) that sales or production, or both,

of such firm or subdivision have

decreased absolutely,

(3) that imports from Mexico or

Canada of articles like or directly

competitive with articles produced by

such firm or subdivision have increased,

and that the increases in imports

contributed importantly to such

workers’ separations or threat of

separation and to the decline in sales or

production of such firm or subdivision;

or

(4) that there has been a shift in

production by such workers’ firm or

subdivision to Mexico or Canada of

articles like or directly competitive with

articles which are produced by the firm

or subdivision.

Negative Determinations NAFTA–TAA

In each of the following cases the

investigation revealed that criteria (3)

and (4) were not met. 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.

NAFTA–TAA–01714; McNeill

Contracting, Belle Glade, FL

NAFTA–TAA–01684; Tubafor Mill, Inc.,

Morton, WA

NAFTA–TAA–01649 A & B; Medite

Corp., Medford, OR, MDF Plant,

Medford, OR and Veneer Div.,

Medford, OR

NAFTA–TAA–01679; Burlington

Industries, Inc., Charm Tred

Spinning Plant, Monticello, AR

NAFTA–TAA–01689; Emess Lighting,

Inc., Ellwood City, PA

NAFTA–TAA–01735; Ladish Malting

Co., Jefferson Junction, WI

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

NAFTA–TAA–01791; P.B.I., Ltd, New

York, NY

NAFTA–TAA–01660; Nu World

Marketing Limited, NCH

Promotional Services Div., Coupon

Processing Operations, Mascoutah,

IL

The investigation revealed that the

workers of the subject firm did not

produce an article within the meaning

of Section 250(a) of the Trade Act, as

amended.

Affirmative Determinations NAFTA–

TAA

The following certifications have been

issued; the date following the company

name & location for each determination

references the impact date for all

workers for such determination.

NAFTA–TAA–01685; Impact Furniture

Co., Div. of Bassett Furniture

Industries, Hickory, NC: June 4,

1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01686; Landmark USA,

Ltd, Berlin, WI: June 4, 1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01697, A & B; The Miller

Group, Inc., Including H.L. Miller &

Son, Port Carbon, PA, Schuylkill

Haven, PA, Pine Grove, PA and

Miller Fabrics, Schuylkill Haven,

PA: June 9, 1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01663 & A; Nu-Kote,

International Connellsville Div.,

Connellsville, PA: May 16, 1996 and

Derry Div., Derry, PA: May 19, 1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01669 & A; Tyco

Manufacturing, Beaverton, OR and

Portland, OR: May 20, 1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01696; Compaq

Computer Corp., Network Products

Div., Austin, TX: June 11, 1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01587, Stanley-Bostitch

Co., Stanley Fastening Systems Div.,

Sanford, NC: March 18, 1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01676, Rugged Sport,

LLC, Littleton Facility, Littleton, NC:

May 22, 1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01792 & A; Motor Coils

Manufacturing Co., Braddock, PA

and Lawrenceville, PA: June 12,

1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01639; National Starch

and Chemical Co., Plainfield, NJ:

April 22, 1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01740; Plaid Clothing

Co., Inc., Cincinnati, OH: May 22,

1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01804; L.A. Jeans, Inc.,

Commerce, CA: July 3, 1996.

I hereby certify that the

aforementioned determinations were

issued during the month of July, 1997.

Copies of these determinations are

available for inspection in Room C–

4318, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20210 during normal

business hours or will be mailed to

persons who write to the above address.

Dated: July 21, 1997.

Russell T. Kile,

Program Manager, Policy & Reemployment

Services Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance

[FR Doc. 97–20341 Filed 7–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–32,709 and NAFTA–01224]

Penn Mould Industries, Incorporated,

Washington, Pennsylvania; Notice of

Negative Determination On

Reconsideration on Remand

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

Penn Mould Industries, Incorporated v.

U.S. Secretary of Labor, No. 97–01–

00175.

The Department’s initial denial of

TAA for the workers of Penn Mould

Industries, Incorporated, Washington,

Pennsylvania, issued on November 27,

1996 and published in the Federal

Register on December 13, 1996 (61 FR

65599), was based on the fact that

criterion (3) of the group eligibility

requirements of Section 222 of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not

met.

The Department’s initial denial of

NAFTA-TAA for the same worker

group, issued on October 10, 1996 and

published in the Federal Register on

October 29, 1996 (61 FR 55882), was

based on the fact that criteria (3) and (4)

of the group eligibility requirements in

paragraph (a)(1) Section 250 of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, were

not met.

The petitioners’ request for

reconsideration resulted in a negative

determination on reconsideration which

was issued on December 27, 1996 and

published in the Federal Register on

January 23, 1997 (62 FR 3528). The

Department’s findings on

reconsideration affirmed that the

customers of Penn Mould did not

purchase imported glass molds during

the relevant time period.

On remand, the petitioners presented

additional statistics for U.S. imports of

molds for glass, injection or

compression type, and other types.

Although the aggregate statistics show

an increase in imports of molds for glass

from 1995 to 1996, the critical

determination for the Department is

whether the customers of Penn Mould

increased their import purchases during

the relevant time period.

On remand, the plaintiffs question if

the Department gave consideration to

the fact that Penn Mould Industries,

Incorporated changed from a totally

captive mold producer to a commercial

producer which expanded their

customer base prior to any layoffs. The
41424 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices

initial negative determination and

negative determination on

reconsideration revealed that the subject

firm produced molds for its parent

company, Ball-Foster Glass Container.

On July 1, 1996, when Penn Mould

Industries, Incorporated was purchased

by Ross Mould, Inc., the Washington,

Pennsylvania plant became a

commercial production facility. The

workers were laid-off on July 5, 1996. A

survey of the principal customer of

Penn Mould, which account for the

predominate proportion of the subject

firm’s sales, revealed no import

purchases of glass forming molds from

Mexico, Canada or other foreign sources

through September 1996.

On remand, the Department has

further determined that criterion (2) of

paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 and

Section 222 of the group eligibility

requirements of the Trade Act of 1974,

as amended, was not met. Production of

molds at the Washington plant had a

negligible decline of 0.7 percent prior to

the worker separations.

The plaintiffs also question the

accuracy and validity of the customer

survey conducted during the

investigation. Unless it has definitive

information to the contrary, the

Department must rely on the

information provided by the company

and the survey responses from the

subject firm customers since the

company and the responding customers

are in the best position to provide

reliable information.

Conclusion

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 Penn Mould

Industries Incorporated, Washington,

Pennsylvania.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 10th day

of July 1997.

Curtis K. Kooser,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–20349 Filed 7–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–33,481]

Abele Knitting Mills, Incorporated,

Farmingdale, New York; Notice of

Termination of Investigation

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade

Act of 1974, an investigation was

initiated on May 12, 1997 in response to

a worker petition which was filed on

behalf of former workers at Abele

Knitting Mills, Incorporated, located in

Farmingdale, New York (TA–W–

33,481).

The Department of Labor has been

unable to locate the company official at

the subject firm. Consequently, the

Department of Labor cannot conduct an

investigation to make a determination as

to whether the workers are eligible for

adjustment assistance benefits under the

Trade Act of 1974.

Therefore, further investigation in this

matter would serve no purpose, and the

investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 18th day

of July 1997.

Curtis K. Kooser,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–20342 Filed 7–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–33,289]

CDR Ridgway, Ridgway, Pennsylvania;

Notice of Negative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration

By application of May 9, 1997, the

United Steelworkers of America

requested administrative

reconsideration of the Department’s

negative determination regarding

worker eligibility to apply for trade

adjustment assistance, applicable to

workers of the subject firm. The denial

notice was signed on April 28, 1997 and

will soon be published in the Federal

Register.

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 request for reconsideration claims

that the amount of pigment production

in the United States has decreased and

that the amount of inks and ink related

products being shipped into the United

States has affected the employment at

CDR Ridgway.

In order for the Department to issue

a worker group certification, all of the

group eligibility requirements of Section

222 of the Trade Act must be met.

Review of the investigation findings

show that criterion (2) was not met.

Layoffs at the subject firm were the

result of the consolidation of pigment

production from the subject firm into

three other company-owned plants

located domestically. Corporate wide

sales of pigments increased in 1996

compared to 1995.

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 11th day of

July 1997.

Curtis K. Kooser,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–20351 Filed 7–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–33,404]

Devoe & Raynolds Company,

Louisville, Kentucky; Notice of

Affirmative Determination Regarding

Application for Reconsideration

By letter of May 15, 1996, the United

Paperworkers International Union

(UPIU), Local 7906, requested

administrative reconsideration of the

Department of Labor’s Notice of

Negative Determination Regarding

Eligibility to Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance, applicable to

petition number TA–W–33,404. The

denial notice was signed on April 23,