65100 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 1997 / Notices

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 1st day of

December 1997.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–32298 Filed 12–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Notice of 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 November, 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–33,797; SMS Textile Mills,

Allentown, PA

TA–W–33,893; Simpson Industries,

Jackson, MI

TA–W–33,815; Amity Dyeing &

Finishing, Augusta, GA

TA–W–33,982; Gary Peterson Logging,

Inc., Cascade, ID

TA–W–33,923; Timberline Lumber, Inc.,

Kalispell, MT

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

TA–W–33,933; University Technical

Service, Inc., San Diego, CA

TA–W–33,879; Cygne Design, Inc., New

York, NY

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–33,890; Wolverine World Wide

Hy-Test, Inc., Kirksville, MO

TA–W–33,909; Redco Foods, Inc., Little

Falls, NY

TA–W–33,840; Energizer Power Systems,

Gainesville, FL

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–33,675; J.G. Furniture Group,

Inc., Quakertown, PA

The predominant cause of worker

separations at the subject firm was

caused by a transfer of production to

other another existing domestic

company facility.

TA–W–33,826; Chevron Fox Oil Team

TA–W–34,006; Packwood Lumber Co, A

Subsidiary of Pacific Lumber and

Shipping, Packwood, WA

TA–W–33,833; University Technical

Service, Inc., San Diego, CA

TA–W–33,863; Batesville Casket Co.,

Campbellsville, KY

TA–W–33,573; The Bethlehem Corp.,

Easton, PA

TA–W–33,917; International Paper Co.,

Erie Mill, Erie, PA

Increased imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separations at the

firm.

TA–W–33,739; Tsumura International,

A Subsidiary of Tsumura & Co.,

North Bergen, NJ

The subject company made a decision

to sell a part of the business and to

consolidate the functions of two leased

facilities in New Jersey into an owned

facility in Minnesota.

TA–W–33,952; Amesbury Group, Inc.,

Amesbury, MA

The investigation revealed that

criteria (2) and criteria (3) have not been

met. Sales or production did not decline

during the relevant period as required

for certification. Increases of imports of

articles like or directly competitive with

articles produced by the firm or

appropriate subdivision have not

contributed importantly to the

separations or threat thereof, and the

absolute decline in sale or production.

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–33,872; Franklin Furniture Corp.,

Greeneville, TN: September 22,

1996.

TA–W–33,899; Gandalf Systems Corp.,

Delran, NJ: September 26, 1996.

TA–W–33,657; O & H Manufacturing

Co., Inc., Allentown, PA: June 30,

1996.

TA–W–33,956; Veratec, A Division of

International Paper Co., Lewisburg,

PA; October 10, 1996.

TA–W–33,960 & A; Wilhold, Sunbury,

PA and Distribution Center, Milton,

PA: October 20, 1996.

TA–W–33,915; DO Investment Corp., d/

b/a Accudate Data Entry

Operations, San Diego, CA:

September 30, 1996.

TA–W–33,938 & TA–W–33,939; Lees

Manufacturing Co., Cannon Falls,

MN and KD Industries, Lees

Manufacturing, Blountsville, AL:

October 9, 1996.

TA–W–33,581; Pro Line Cap Co., Bowie,

TX: May 9, 1996

TA–W–33,783; General Electric Co.,

Motors Div., General Electric Co

Transformer Div., Fort Wayne, IN:

July 19, 1997.

TA–W–33,898; Weyerhaeuser Wood

Products, Plywood Division,

Philadelphia, MS: October 3, 1996.

TA–W–33,868; About Sportswear, New

York, NY: September 18, 1996.

TA–W–33,827; Standard Fittings (Jobs

for St. Landry Parish, Inc),

Opelousas, LA: September 11, 1996.

TA–W–33,931; The Stroh Brewery Co.,

St. Paul, MN: October 8, 1996.

TA–W–33,968; Pendleton Woolen Mills,

Milwaukee, OR: October 23, 1996.

TA–W–33,966; Cason Manufacturing

Co., Stephenville, TX: October 24,

1996.

TA–W–33,948; W.S.W. Company of

Sharon, Inc., Bradford, TN: October

17, 1996.

TA–W–33,838; Elaine Benedict, Inc.,

Miami, FL: August 31, 1996.

TA–W–34,010; Parker Hannifin Co.,

Berea, KY: October 20, 1996.

TA–W–33,892; Port Clyde Canning Co.,

Rockland, ME: September 16, 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 November,

1997.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 237 / Wednesday, December 10, 1997 / Notices 65101

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—

(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–01956; The Stroh Brewery

Co., St. Paul, MN

NAFTA–TAA–02006; Gary Peterson

Logging, Inc., Cascade, ID

NAFTA–TAA–01897; SMS Textile Mills,

Allentown, PA

NAFTA–TAA–01758; Henry Franklin

Green, Pahokee, FL

NAFTA–TAA–01962; Basler Electric,

Corning Division, Corning, AR

NAFTA–TAA–02003; Packwood Lumber

Co., a Subsidiary of Pacific Lumber

and Shipping, Packwood, WA

NAFTA–TAA–01835; J.G. Furniture

Group, Inc., Quakertown, PA

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

NAFTA–TAA–01793; Alpha Mills Corp.,

KXCF Division, Annville, PA

The investigation revealed that

criteria (2) was not met. Sales or

production, or both did not decline

during the relevant period as required

for certification.

Affirmative Determinations NAFTA–

TAA

The following certifications have been

issued; the date following the company

name and location for each

determination references the impact

date for all workers for such

determination.

NAFTA–TAA–01902; General Electric

Co., Motors Division & Transformer

Division, Frt Wayne, IN: November

19, 1997

NAFTA–TAA–01983; Sterling Stainless

Tube Corp. (A Subsidiary of ITT

Automotive), Englewood, CO:

October 15, 1996

NAFTA–TAA–01990; Cason

Manufacturing Co., Stephenville,

TX: October 24, 1996

NAFTA–TAA–01948; Texas

Instruments, Inc., Central Lake, MI:

September 30, 1996

NAFTA–TAA–01952; JLG Industries,

Inc., McConnellsburg, PA: October

6, 1996

I hereby certify that the

aforementioned determinations were

issued during the month of November,

1997. Copies of these determinations are

available for inspection in Room C–

4318, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20210, during normal business

hours or will be mailed to persons who

write to the above address.

Dated: December 2, 1997.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–32299 Filed 12–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–33,870]

Solvay Animal Health, Incorporated,

Mendota Heights, Minnesota; Notice of

Termination of Investigation

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade

Act of 1974, an investigation was

initiated on October 6, 1997 in response

to a worker petition which was filed on

behalf of workers at Solvay Animal

Health, Incorporated, Mendota Heights,

Minnesota.

The petitioners have requested that

the petition be withdrawn.

Consequently, further investigation in

this case would serve no purpose; and

the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 25th day

of November 1997.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–32293 Filed 12–9–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–33,338]

The Standard Products Company,

Lexington, Kentucky; Notice of

Negative Determination Regarding

Application for Reconsideration

By application of July 25, 1997, the

International Union, United

Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural

Implements of America—UAW

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 June 5, 1997 and

was published in the Federal Register

(62 FR 34711) on June 27, 1997.

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 some of the equipment in the

Lexington, Kentucky was being sent to

Georgetown, Canada to produce parts

that were produced at the subject firm

and that some machinery was being sent

to Goldsboro, North Carolina and would

later be sent to the company’s plant in

Mexico.

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 (3) was not met.

Layoffs at the subject firm were the

result of the consolidation of extruded

and molded rubber sealing system

component production from the subject

firm into two other company-owned

plants located domestically in Gaylord,