59888 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1997 / Notices

produced on that equipment will be

imported into the United States at some

point in the future and, thus, be a

significant reason to conclude that

potential future imports contributed

significantly to the previous

employment declines at Precision

Scientific.

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 27th day of

October 1997.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–29214 Filed 11–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–33, 446; TA–W–33, 447; TA–W–33,

448; TA–W–33, 449]

Quarles Drilling Corporation

Headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma and

Quarles Drilling Corporation Operating

at Various Locations in the Following

States: Oklahoma (Except Tulsa);

Texas; Louisiana; Amended

Certification Regarding Eligibility To

Apply for Worker Adjustment

Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) the

Department of Labor issued a Notice of

Certification Regarding Eligibility to

Apply for Worker Adjustment

Assistance on June 12, 1997, applicable

to workers of Quarles Drilling

Corporation, headquartered in Tulsa,

Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,

Houston, Texas and Houma, Louisiana.

The notice will soon be published in the

Federal Register.

At the request of the State agency, the

Department reviewed the certification

for workers of the subject firm location

in Houston, Texas. All workers at

Quarles Drilling Corporation are

engaged in employment related to the

production of crude oil and natural gas.

Findings on review show that the

Department inadvertently limited the

certification to workers at the subject

firm locations in Tulsa and Oklahoma

City, Oklahoma, Houston, Texas, and

Houma, Louisiana. It was the intent of

the Department’s certification to include

all workers of Quarles Drilling at

various locations within the States of

Oklahoma, Texas and Louisiana.

Accordingly, the Department is

amending the worker certification to

reflect this matter.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–33, 446 is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of Quarles Drilling

Corporation, headquartered in Tulsa,

Oklahoma (TA–W–33, 446), and operating at

various locations in the following States:

Oklahoma, except Tulsa, (TA–W–33, 447),

Texas (TA–W–33, 448), and Louisiana (TA–

W–33, 449) engaged in employment related

to the production of crude oil and natural

gas, who became totally or partially separated

from employment on or after April 15, 1996,

are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance

under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC this 27th day of

October 1997.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–29215 Filed 11–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–33,654]

Webster Lens Company, Webster,

Massachusetts, Notice of Revised

Determination on Reopening

On August 8, 1997, the Department

issued a Negative Determination

Regarding Eligibility to apply for worker

adjustment assistance, applicable to

workers and former workers of Webster

Lens Company located in Webster,

Massachusetts. The notice was

published in the Federal Register on

August 8,1997 (62 FR 48887).

By letter of August 14, 1997, Mr.

Mauno A. Petajasoja, a petitioner,

requested administrative

reconsideration regarding the

Department’s denial of trade adjustment

assistance for workers of the subject

firm. Workers at the subject firm were

engaged in employment related to the

production of eyeglass lenses. The

workers are not separately identifiable

by product line.

New information provided by Webster

Lens Company and one of its suppliers

shows that company was purchasing

through a broker eyeglass lenses which

were manufactured overseas and being

imported into the U.S.

Conclusion

After careful review of the additional

facts obtained on reopening, I conclude

that increased imports of articles like or

directly competitive with eyeglass

lenses contributed importantly to the

declines in sales or production and to

the total or partial separation of workers

of Webster Lens Company, Webster,

Massachusetts. In accordance with the

provisions of the Act, I make the

following certification:

All workers of Webster Lens Company of

Webster, Massachusetts engaged in

employment related to the production of

eyeglass lenses, who became totally or

partially separated from employment on or

after June 24, 1996 are eligible to apply for

worker adjustment assistance under Section

223 of the Trade Act of 1976.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 22nd day

of October 1997.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–29216 Filed 11–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–33,654]

Webster Lens Company Webster,

Massachusetts; Notice of Affirmative

Determination Regarding Application

for Reconsideration

By letter of August 14, 1997, Mr.

Mauno A. Petajasoja, a petitioner,

requested administrative

reconsideration of the Department of

Labor’s Notice of Negative

Determination Regarding Eligiblity to

Apply for Worker Adjustment

Assistance, applicable to petition

number TA–W–33,654. The denial

notice was signed on August 8, 1997

and published in the Federal Register

on September 17, 1997 (62 FR 48887).

The Petitioner asserts that there are

imports of like and directly competitive

articles from foreign sources and that

these imported products are being

obtained by the subject company from

another domestic source.

Conclusion

After careful review of the

application, I conclude that the claim is

of sufficient weight to justify

reconsideration of the Department of

Labor’s prior decision. The application

is, therefore, granted.