19752 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 76 /Tuesday, April 21, 1998 / Notices

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 March and April,

1998.

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–34,145; Bassett Motion

Furniture, Booneville, MS;

TA–W–34,205; Bucilla Corp., Hazleton,

PA

TA–W–34,307; Wulfrath Refractories,

Inc., Tarentum, PA

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

TA–W–34,292; Fashion Development

Center, Inc., El Paso, TX

TA–W–34,290; Western Mobile Corp.,

Boulder, CO

TA–W–34,338; PK Electronics,

Scottsdale, AZ

TA–W–34,212; Interim Personnel of

Buffalo, Employed at Advanced

Organics, Buffalo, NY

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–34,287; Foster Electric America,

a Div. of Foster Electric (USA), Inc.,

Schaumburg, IL

TA–W–34,332; NGK Metals Corp.,

Temple, PA

TA–W–34,260; Northland, A Scott

Fetzer Co., Watertown, NY

TA–W–34,175; Great Connections, A

Div. of Trendlines Home Div., Inc.,

Litiz, PA

TA–W–34,249 & A; Niagara Mohawk

Power Corp., Syracuse, NY and

Various Locations Throughout New

York

Increased imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separations at the

firm.

TA–W–34,282; Graphic Nesting-Layout

Employees, Delphi Interior and

Lighting Systems, Warren, MI

The investigation revealed that

criteria (1) has not been met. A

significant number or proportion of the

workers did not become totally or

partially separated as required for

certification.

Affirmative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

The following certifications have been

issued; the date following the company

name and location of each

determination references the impact

date for all workers of such

determination.

TA–W–33,913; Bates of Maine, Lewiston,

ME: October 6, 1996.

TA–W–33,300; McDonnell Douglas

Corp., Douglas Aircraft Co (DAC),

Long Beach, CA: March 23, 1997.

TA–W–33,971 & A; Buster Brown

Apparel, Inc., Hosiery Div.,

Chattanooga, TN and N.

Wilkesboro, NC: October 3, 1996.

TA–W–34,336; Nobel Biocare

Manufacturing, Inc., Oglesly, IL:

March 3, 1997.

TA–W–34,255; Leshner Corp., Phenix

City, AL: February 13, 1997.

TA–W–34,216; JoLene Co., Inc., Provo,

UT: January 19, 1997.

TA–W–34,172; Lone Pine Forest

Products, Bend, OR: December 29,

1996.

TA–W–34,157; EBO Cedar Products,

Mark EBY Cedar Products, Bonners

Ferry, ID: January 5, 1997.

TA–W–34,349; Lee Apparel Service,

Inc., Boaz, AL: March 5, 1997.

TA–W–34,321; Jean Hosiery Mill, Inc.,

Villa Rica, GA: March 2, 1997.

TA–W–33,355; American Components,

Inc., Dandridge, TN: March 12,

1997.

TA–W–34,288 & A; Valerie Sportswear,

New York, NY & Brentwood, Long

Island, NY: February 13, 1997.

TA–W–34,238; Murata Electronics North

America, Rockmart, GA: February

3, 1997.

TA–W–34,213; U.S. Kinds Apparel

Group, Canton, GA: January 14,

1997.

TA–W–34,322; Treboro Electric Co., L.P.,

Formerly Known as Triboro Electric

Corp., Doylestown, PA: March 2,

1997.

TA–W–34,368; Lyle Wood Products,

Tacoma, WA: March 17, 1997.

TA–W–34,279; Harman Automotive,

Harvard Industries, Bolivar, TN:

February 5, 1997.

TA–W–34,252; Roper and Broderick, d/

b/a The Conair Group, Inc.,

Agawan, MA: February 13, 1997.

TA–W–34,195; Cascade Pine

Specialties, Inc., a/k/a Morrison

Enterprises, Redmond, OR: January

2, 1997.

TA–W–34,299, A & B; Capstar Corp.,

Statesville, NC, Marion, SC and

Lane, SC: February 19, 1997.

TA–W–34,339; AR Accessories, West

Bend, WI: March 3, 1997.

TA–W–34,327; G and W Manufacturing,

Inc., Paducah, KY: March 3, 1997.

TA–W–34,226; New West, Cookeville,

TN: January 28, 1997.

TA–W–34,162; Thomas & Betts, LRC

Electronics, Horseheads, NY:

January 9, 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 months of March and

April, 1998.

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
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