41422 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 148 / Friday, August 1, 1997 / Notices

8 CFR 103.7(b)(1), currently seventy

dollars ($70), or a properly documented

fee waiver request pursuant to 8 CFR

244.20, must accompany the Form I–

765. An alien who does not request

employment authorization must

nonetheless file Form I–765 along with

Form I–821, but in such cases no fee

will be charged.

(6) Pursuant to subsection

244(b)(3)(A) of the Act, the Attorney

General will review, at least 60 days

before September 17, 1998, the

designation of Somalia under the TPS

program to determine whether the

conditions for designation continue to

be met. Notice of that determination,

including the basis for the

determination, will be published in the

Federal Register.

(7) Information concerning the TPS

program for nationals of Somalia (and

aliens having no nationality who last

habitually resided in Somalia) will be

available at local Immigration and

Naturalization Service offices upon

publication of this notice.

Dated: July 26, 1997.

Janet Reno,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 97–20375 Filed 7–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Determinations Regarding Eligibility

To Apply for Worker Adjustment

Assistance and NAFTA Transitional

Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the

Department of Labor herein presents

summaries of determinations regarding

eligibility to apply for trade adjustment

assistance for workers (TA–W) issued

during the period of July, 1997.

In order for an affirmative

determination to be made and a

certification of eligibility to apply for

worker adjustment assistance to be

issued, each of the group eligibility

requirements of Section 222 of the Act

must be met.

(1) that a significant number or

proportion of the workers in the

workers’ firm, or an appropriate

subdivision thereof, have become totally

or partially separated,

(2) that sales or production, or both,

of the firm or subdivision have

decreased absolutely, and

(3) that increases of imports of articles

like or directly competitive with articles

produced by the firm or appropriate

subdivision have contributed

importantly to the separations, or threat

thereof, and to the absolute decline in

sales or production.

Negative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

In each of the following cases the

investigation revealed that criterion (3)

has not been met. A survey of customers

indicated that increased imports did not

contribute importantly to worker

separations at the firm.

TA–W–33,574; Active Products Corp,

Marion, IN

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

TA–W–33,621; P.B.I. Ltd, New York, NY

TA–W–33,664; Merchants Fast Motor

Lines, Odessa, TX

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 22 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–33,514; Spring Industries, Inc.,

Kershaw, SC

Separations at the subject firm were

due to a corporate decision to close the

subject plant and source needed

supplies from other domestic

manufacturers.

TA–W–33,578; Simpson Paper Co.,

Shasta Mill, Anderson, CA

The investigation revealed that

criteria (2) has not been met. Sales or

production did not decline during the

relevant period as required for

certification.

TA–W–33,568; Burlington Industries,

Inc., Charm Tred Spinning Plant,

Monticello, AR

TA–W–33,616; Ladish Malting Co.,

Jefferson Junction, WI

TA–W–33,487 & A, B; Medite Corp,

Medford, OR, MDF Plant, Medford,

OR and Veneer Div., Rogue River,

OR

Increased imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separations at the

firm.

Affirmative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

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.

TA–W–33,547; Borden Prince, Inc.,

Lowell, MA: May 23, 1996.

TA–W–33,596; C and H Apparel, Milan,

TN: June 10, 1996.

TA–W–33,520 & A; Delta Apparel Co.,

Sandersville, GA and Ashburn, GA:

March 9, 1996.

TA–W–33,523; Nu-Kote International,

Connellsville, PA: May 13, 1996.

TA–W–33,531; Nu-Kote International,

Derry Div., Derry, PA: May 13, 1996.

TA–W–33,417; Stanley-Bostitch Co.,

Stanley Fastening System Div.,

Sanford, NC: April 3, 1996.

TA–W–33,530; Tyco Manufacturing,

Beaverton, OR, Portland, OR: May

20, 1996.

TA–W–33,556; Rugged Sport, LLC,

Littleton Facility, Littleton, NC: May

22, 1996.

TA–W–33,508; SPX Corp., Contech Div.,

Dowagiac, MI: May 6, 1996.

TA–W–33,588, A,B,C; The Miller Group,

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

Port Carbon, PA, Schuylkill Haven,

PA, Pine Grove, PA and The Miller

Group, Miller Fabrics, Schuylkill

Haven, PA: June 10, 1996.

TA–W–33,482; Vision Technologies LLC,

Iron Ridge, WI: May 2, 1996.

TA–W–33,478; Brian Toggs, Inc.,

Hobson City, AL: April 28, 1996.

TA–W–33,468; National Starch and

Chemical Co., Plainfield, NJ: April

22, 1996.

TA–W–33,511; Philips Display

Components Co., A Div. of North

American Philips Corp., Ottawa,

OH: May 13, 1996.

TA–W–33,648; L.A. Jeans, Inc.,

Commerce, CA: July 3, 1996.

TA–W–33,462; Spotlight Co., Inc., New

York, NY: April 18, 1996.

TA–W–33,575; Landmark USA Ltd.,

Berlin, WI: June 4, 1996.

TA–W–33,565; Concord Fabrics, Inc.,

New York, NY: June 3, 1996.

TA–W–33,583; Spotlight Co., Inc.,

Ashdown, AR: June 6, 1996.

TA–W–33,580; Impact Furniture Co.,

Div. of Bassett Furniture Industries,

Hickory, NC: June 4, 1996.

Also, pursuant to Title V of the North

American Free Trade Agreement

Implementation Act (P.L. 103–182)

concerning transitional adjustment

assistance hereinafter called NAFTA–

TAA) and in accordance with Section

250(a) Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II,

of the Trade Act as amended, the

Department of Labor presents

summaries of determinations regarding

eligibility to apply for NAFTA–TAA

issued during the month of July, 1997.

In order for an affirmative

determination to be made and a

certification of eligibility to apply for

NAFTA–TAA the following group

eligibility requirements of Section 250

of the Trade Act must be met:

(1) that a significant number or

proportion of the workers in the

workers’ firm, or an appropriate

subdivision thereof, (including workers

in any agricultural firm or appropriate

subdivision thereof) have become totally

or partially separated from employment

and either—
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