Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Notices 15199

Avenue, NW., Room C–4327,

Washington, DC 20210. Telephone:

(202) 501–6653 (this is not a toll-free

number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Please

refer to the notice published in the

Federal Register on March 13, 1997 (62

FR 11924) for supplementary

information.

Signed at Washington, DC., on March 26,

1997.

Irasema T. Garza,

Secretary, National Administrative Office.

[FR Doc. 97–8067 Filed 3–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–28–M

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 March, 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–33,006; East Point Seafood Co.,

South Bend, WA

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

TA–W–33,224; Personal Products Co/

Johnson & Johnson, Milltown, NJ

TA–W–33,130; Zenith Electronics Corp.

of Texas, McAllen, TX

TA–W–33,287; D.D. Jones Transfer &

Warehouse Co., Inc., Harrisburg, PA

TA–W–33,065; Richland Development

(Penzoil Co), Houston, TX

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–33,000 & A, B, C; Pratt &

Whitney, North Haven, CT,

Middletown, CT, & Rocky Hill, CT

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–33,107; Systems and Electronics,

Inc., West Plains, MO

Worker layoffs at the subject firm

were attributable to a cessation of

production that was caused by technical

problems. Other employment declines

were the result of a work stoppage.

TA–W–33,150; Cinch Connector, Div. of

Labinal Components & Systems,

Inc., Lombard, IL

TA–W–33,125; New River Castings Co.,

Radford, VA

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 sales or production.

TA–W–33,186; Mail-Well I Corp., dba

Quality Park Products, St. Paul, MN

TA–W–33,222; Coltec Industries, Inc.,

Div. of FMD Electronics Operations,

Roscoe, IL

Layoffs at the subject firm were

caused by the consolidation operations

transfering the production of the subject

plant to another domestic facility.

TA–W–33,053; Mid-America Dairymen,

Inc., Sabetha, KS

Subject plant closure was due to the

reduction of relevant products available

in the area the company relocated; work

previously performed at the subject

plant and consolidated operations.

TA–W–33,063; Ball Corp., Columbus, IN

TA–W–33,029; Willamette Industries,

Inc., Plywood Div., Dallas, OR

Increased imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separations at the

firm.

TA–W–33,068; Smith and Wesson,

Springfield, MA

U.S. imports of handguns declined

significantly in the Jan-Sept period of

1996 compared with the same period of

1995.

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–33,219; Tectronics, Inc, Berlin,

CT: February 5, 1996.

TA–W–33,181; ADA Garment Finishers,

Inc., El Paso, TX: January 23, 1996.

TA–W–33,111; Davol, Inc., Cranston, RI:

January 3, 1996.

TA–W–33,074; R & W Apparel,

Scottsboro, AL: December 18, 1995.

TA–W–33,131; Carolina Knits, Inc.,

Statesville, NC: January 8, 1996.

TA–W–33,176; Binks Sames Corp.,

Franklin Park, IL: January 26, 1996

TA–W–33,020; Weldotron Corp.,

Piscataway, NJ: December 10, 1996.

TA–W–33,246; Schindler Elevator Corp.,

Randolph, NJ: February 10, 1996.

TA–W–33,011; Joe Manufacturing, San

Francisco CA: November 18, 1995.

TA–W–33,179; Joyce Sportswear Co.,

Gary, IN: January 30, 1996.

TA–W–33,047; Lance Garment Corp.,

Red Bay, AL: December 12, 1995.

TA–W–33,083, A & B; Sparkle

Sportswear, Inc., Rahway, NJ, New

York, NY, and Pulaski, VA:

December 4, 1995.

TA–W–33,194; Hasbro Corporate

Offices, Pawtucket, RI, A; Hasbro,

Inc., Pawtucket, RI, B; Rhole Island

Manufacturing (RIM), Central Falls,

RI, C; Hasbro Manufacturing

Services, Easley, SC, D; Hasbro

Manufacturing Services, Northvale,

NJ, E; Hasbro Toy Group,

Cincinnati, OH, F; Hasbro Games

Group—Milton Bradley Co, East

Longmeadow, MA, G; Hasbro

Games Group—Parker Brothers,

Beverly, MA, H; Hasbro Games

Group—MB Wood Products,

Fairfax, VT, I; Hasbro

Manufacturing Services, Arcade,

NY: February 1, 1997.

Also, pursuant to Title V of the North

American Free Trade Agreement

Implementation Act (Pub. 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 March,

1997.
15200 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 61 / Monday, March 31, 1997 / Notices

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–01484; Camp, Inc., Div. of

Trulife, Jackson, MI

NAFTA–TAA–01474; Mail-Well I Corp.,

dba Quality Park Products, St. Paul,

MN

NAFTA–TAA–01501; Coltec Industries,

Inc., Div. of FMD Electronics

Operations, Roscoe, IL

NAFTA–TAA–01320; Joe

Manufacturing, San Francisco, CA

NAFTA–TAA–01492; Juki Union

Special, Inc., Wayne, NJ

NAFTA–TAA–01426; Systems &

Electronics, Inc., West Plains, MO

NAFTA–TAA–01533; D.D. Jones

Transfer and Warehouse Co., Inc.,

Harrisburg, PA

NAFTA–TAA–01477; ITT Cannon

Commercial Div., Santa Ana, CA

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–01473; Joyce Sportswear

Co., Gary, IN: January 30, 1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01445; Federal Mogul

Corp., Leiters Ford Plant, Leiters

Ford, IN: January 21, 1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01466; ADA Garment

Finishers, Inc., El Paso, TX: January

23, 1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01444; Commemorative

Brands, Inc., L.G. Balfour Co., North

Attleboro, MA: January 22, 1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01436; Bins Sames Corp.,

Franklin Park, IL: January 14, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–01463; Maidenform, Inc.,

Jacksonville, FL: December 20,

1995.

NAFTA–TAA–1349; Killark Electric

Manufacturing Co., a Subsidiary of

Hubbell, Inc., St. Louis, MO:

November 14, 1995. NAFTA–TAA–

01524; Schindler Elevator Corp.,

Randolph, NJ: February 10, 1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01455; J & J Group, Inc.,

Formerly Known as Connie

Sportswear, Franklin, WV: January

23, 1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01451; Westinghouse

Electric Corp., Pensacola, FL:

January 27, 1996.

NAFTA–TAA–01479; General Motors,

Goleta, CA: February 3,

1997.NAFTA–TAA–01345;

Louisiana Pacific, Ketchikan Pulp

Co., Ketchikan, AK: November 1,

1995.

NAFTA–TAA–01476; Sun Apparel, Inc.,

Concepcion Plant, El Paso, TX:

January 6, 1996.

I hereby certify that the

aforementioned determinations were

issued during the month of March,

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: March 21, 1997.

Linda G. Poole,

Acting Program Manager, Policy &

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–8031 Filed 3–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–32,588; TA–W–32,588A; TA–W–

32,588B; TA–W–32,588C; TA–W–32,588D;

and TA–W–32,588E]

Burlington Industries, Inc., Knitted

Fabrics Division, North Carolina and

New York; Notice of Revised

Determination on Reopening

On March 10, 1997, the Department,

on its own motion, reopened its

investigation for the former workers of

the subject firm.

The initial investigation resulted in a

negative determination issued on

August 27, 1996, because the

‘‘contributed importantly’’ test of the

Group Eligibility Requirements of the

Trade Act was not met for workers at

the subject firm. The workers produced

knitted fabric. The denial notice was

published in the Federal Register on

September 25, 1996 (61 FR 50332).

A late response to the customer

survey conducted by the Department

revealed that a customer of the subject

firm increased import purchases of

knitted fabric during the time period

relevant to the investigation.

Conclusion

After careful consideration of the new

facts obtained on reopening, it is

concluded that increased imports of

articles like or directly competitive with

knitted fabric produced by the subject

firm contributed importantly to the

decline in sales and to the total or

partial separation of workers of the

subject firm. In accordance with the

provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, I

make the following revised

determination:

‘‘All workers of Burlington Industries Inc.,

Knitted Fabrics Division, Greensboro, North

Carolina (TA–W–32,588), Wake Forest, North

Carolina (TA–W–32,588A), Denton, North

Carolina (TA–W–32,588B), Rocky Mount,

North Carolina (TA–W–32,588C), Cramerton,

North Carolina (TA–W–32,588D) and New

York, New York (TA–W–32,588E) who

became totally or partially separated from

employment on or after July 19, 1995, are

eligible to apply for adjustment assistance

under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.’’

Signed in Washington, DC, this 12th day of

March 1997.

Russell T. Kile,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–8034 Filed 3–28–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–33,144]

Howard Industries, div. of NTT Inc.,

Milford, Illinois; Termination of

Investigation

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade

Act of 1974, an investigation was

initiated on February 13, 1997 in

response to a worker petition which was

filed on February 13, 1997 on behalf of

workers at Howard Industries, division

of NTT, Inc., Milford, Illinois.

An active certification covering the

petitioning group of workers remains in

effect (TA–W–31,376). Consequently,