19754 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 76 /Tuesday, April 21, 1998 / Notices

produced primarily for the export

market. Layoffs were the result of a loss

in export sales by the subject firm.

Furthermore, a survey of major

declining domestic customers of the

subject firm revealed that they did not

increase import purchases of Douglas

Fir planks while decreasing purchases

from the subject firm.

The Department’s denial of NAFTA–

TAA for the same worker group was

based on the finding that criteria (3) and

(4) of the group eligibility requirements

of paragraph (a)(1) of Section 250 of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, were

not met. There was no shift in

production of lumber, primarily post

and beams, from the subject firm to

Mexico or Canada, nor were there

company or customer imports of like or

directly competitive products from

Mexico or Canada.

The I.A.M. Woodworkers Local W–

261 asserts that when the Coos Bay

Export Sawmill experienced a sharp

decline in sales to Japan, the company’s

focus was to increase domestic sales.

For a while production levels became

competitive, but the subject firm

experienced high log costs and could

not remain competitive. In order to

determine worker group eligibility, the

Department must examine the impact of

imports of products like or directly

competitive with those articles

produced at the North Bend mill.

Pricing and/or the cost of raw material

is not a criterion for worker

certification.

The I.A.M. Woodworkers Local W–

261 also questioned the time period

used for the survey of customers of the

Coos Bay Export Sawmill and suggest

that the time period include late 1996

and full year 1997. The survey covered

the 1997 time period in which plank

was produced by Coos Bay Export

Sawmill for domestic sale.

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 decisions. Accordingly,

the application is denied.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 3rd day of

April, 1998.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 98–10529 Filed 4–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–33,989]

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation

Leechburg, PA; Notice of Negative

Determination on Reconsideration

On February 23, 1998, the Department

issued an Affirmative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration for the workers and

former workers of the subject firm. The

petitioner presented new evidence

regarding declines in employment at the

subject firm. The notice was published

in the Federal Register on March 16,

1998 (63 FR 12829).

The Department initially denied TAA

to workers of Allegheny Ludlum Steel,

Leechburg, Pennsylvania because the

criterion (2) of the group eligibility

requirement of Section 222 of the Trade

Act of 1974, as amended, was not met.

Sales and production at the subject firm

did not decline. Employment remained

unchanged since the September 8, 1997

expiration of the previous TAA

certification (TA–W–31,231) for workers

at the Leechburg plant.

On reconsideration, the Department

requested that Allegheny Ludlum Steel

provide data for January through

September 1996, and full year 1997.

Information provided by the company

shows that employment at the

Leechburg plant declined from 1996 to

1997. Production levels increased in

January through September 1997

compared to the same time period of

1996, and increased in 1997 compared

to 1996.

Statistics for electrical steel sheet and

strip show that U.S. imports increased

absolutely from 1996 to 1997, but the

ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. shipments

declined from 23.6 percent in 1996 to

21.8 percent in 1997.

Conclusion

After reconsideration, I affirm the

original notice of negative

determination of eligibility to apply for

worker adjustment assistance for

workers and former workers of

Allegheny Ludlum Steel, Leechburg,

Pennsylvania.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 3rd day of

April, 1998.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 98–10530 Filed 4–20–98; 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 Revised Determination on

Reconsideration

The Department, on its own motion,

has reconsidered its negative

determination in United Steelworkers of

America, AFL–CIO–CLC, and United

Steelworkers of America, Local 13694 v.

Alexis Herman, No. 97–09–01601, U.S.

Court of International Trade. As a result

of this reconsideration, the Department

is now certifying the workers of CDR

Ridgway in Ridgway, Pennsylvania as

eligible to apply for trade adjustment

assistance under Section 223 of the

Trade Act.

The April 28, 1997, denial of TAA for

workers of the subject firm was based on

the finding that criterion (2) of the group

eligibility requirements of Section 222

of the Trade Act was not met. Companywide sales of pigments increased in

1996 compared to 1995. Layoffs were

attributable to the parent company’s

decision to transfer the Ridgway

pigment production to three other

domestic locations.

New investigation findings show that

although corporate-wide sales of

pigments increased from 1995 to 1996,

sales, production and employment at

the Ridgway plant declined to zero

when the plant closed in the first

quarter of 1997. Accordingly, criteria (1)

and (2) of Section 222 of the Trade Act

are met.

On reconsideration, the Department

conducted a survey of Ridgway’s major

declining customers. Survey results

show that in 1996 compared to 1995,

customers increased reliance on imports

of pigments while decreasing purchases

from CDR Ridgway, Ridgway,

Pennsylvania.

Conclusion

After careful review of the additional

facts obtained on remand, it is

concluded that increased imports of

articles like or directly competitive with

pigments produced at CDR Ridgway,

Ridgway, Pennsylvania contributed

importantly to the decline in sales or

production and to the total or partial

separation of workers at subject firm. In

accordance with the provisions of the

Trade Act of 1974, I make the following

revised determination:

‘‘All workers of CDR Ridgway, Ridgway,

Pennsylvania, who became totally or

partially separated from employment on or

after February 19, 1996 through two years