Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 76 /Tuesday, April 21, 1998 / Notices 19753

competitive with articles produced by

such firm or subdivision have increased,

and that the increased 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–02226; Wulfrath

Refractories, Inc., Tarentum, PA

NAFTA–TAA–02195; Cascade Pine

Specialties, Inc., a/k/a Morrison

Enterprises, Redmond, OR

NAFTA–TAA–02065; Dekalk Genetics

Corp., Homestead, FL

NAFTA–TAA–02186 & A; Niagara

Mohawk Power Corp., Syracuse, NY

and Various Other Locations

Throughout The State of New York

NAFTA–TAA–02197; Tenneco

Packaging, Clayton, NJ

NAFTA–TAA–02130; Great

Connections, A div. of Trendlines

Home Fashions, Inc., Litiz, PA

NAFTA–TAA–02085; Delbar Products,

Inc., Perkasie, PA

NAFTA–TAA–02135; Color Box, Inc.,

Buffalo, NY

NAFTA–TAA–02243; Foster Electric

America, A Div of Foster

Electrics (USA), Inc., Schaumburg, IL

NAFTA–TAA–02219; Copes-Vulcan,

Inc., Sootblowers Div., Lake City,

PA

NAFTA–TAA–02216; Munekata

America, Inc., Dalton, GA

NAFTA–TAA–02218; Doehler-Jarvis,

Div. of Harvard Industries, Toledo,

OH

NAFTA–TAA–02222; Hafer Logging

Co., Inc., LaGrande, OR

NAFTA–TAA214; Harris Enterprises,

Inc., Marshfield, MO

NAFTA–TAA–02201; Johns Manville

Corp., Roofing and Thermal-12

Divisions, Waukegan, IL

NAFTA–TAA–02180; Eagle Veneer,

Inc., Harrisburg Plywood Div.,

Harrisburg, OR

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

NAFTA–TAA–02165; Interim Personnel

of Buffalo, Employed at Advanced

Organics, Buffalo, NY

NAFTA–TAA–02229; Fashion

Development Center, Inc., El Paso,

TX

NAFTA–TAA–02261; PK Electronics,

Scottsdale, AZ

NAFTA–TAA–02236; Weyerhaeuser

Co., Coos Bay Dock Services Div.,

North Bend, OR

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

NAFTA–TAA–02212; Thomas & Betts,

LRC Electronics Div., Horseheads,

NY: February 23, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02249; Triboro Electric

Co., L.P. Formerly Known as

Triboro Electric Corp., Doylestown,

PA: March 2, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02205; Harman

Automotive, Harvard Industries,

Bolivar, TN: February 5, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02125 & NAFTA–TAA–

02126; EBO Cedar Products,

Bonners Ferry, ID: January 7, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02237; Jean Hosiery Mill,

Inc., Villa Rica, GA: March 2, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02217; Casolco USA,

Inc., Cutting Department, El Paso,

TX: February 16, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02119; Paul-Bruce/L.V.

Myles, Scotland Neck, NC: January

8, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02149; Lone Pine Forest

Products, Bend, OR: January 2,

1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02179; U.S. Kinds

Apparel Group, Canton, GA:

February 3, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02187; Kwikset Corp.

and Remedy Intelligant Staffing

Anaheim, CA: January 26, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02259; Stanley Blacker,

Inc., Vidalia, GA: March 11, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02278; Superior Pants

Co., Men’s Apparel Group, Athens,

GA: March 23, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02257; Jantzen, Inc., A

Company Div. of Vanity Fair Corp.,

Vancouver, WA: March 12, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02269; Avent, Inc.,

Including Temporary and Contract

Employees from Interim Personnel,

Olsten Tempories and H.L. Yoh,

Tucson, AZ: March 17, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02172; Unimark Foods,

Inc., Flavor Fresh Div., Lawrence,

MA: January 26, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02144; Powers Holdings,

Inc., Milwaukee, WI: January 15,

1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02221; Jandy Apparel,

Hellam, PA: February 11, 1997.

I hereby certify that the

aforementioned determinations were

issued during the months of March and

April 1998. 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: April 13, 1998.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 98–10537 Filed 4–20–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–34,085 and NAFTA–02071]

Weyerhaeuser Company Coos Bay

Export Sawmill North Bend, Oregon;

Notice of Negative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration

By application of February 27, 1998,

the I.A.M. Woodworkers Local W–261,

requested administrative

reconsideration of the Department’s

negative determination regarding

eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment

Assistance (TAA) and NAFTATransitional Adjustment Assistance

(NAFTA–TAA), applicable to workers

and former workers of the subject firm.

The denial notices applicable to workers

of the subject firm located in North

Bend, Oregon, were signed on February

17, 1998. The TAA and NAFTA–TAA

decisions were published in the Federal

Register on March 16, 1998 (63 FR

12830) and (63 FR 12838), respectively.

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 denial of TAA for workers of

Weyerhaeuser’s Coos Bay Export

Sawmill in North Bend, Oregon was

based on the finding that the

‘‘contributed importantly’’ criterion of

the group eligibility requirements of

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974

was not met. The subject facility
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