27748 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 97 /Wednesday, May 20, 1998 / Notices

6 19 CFR 201.6.

Federal Register. The Commission’s

determination regarding initiation of

review investigations is due within 30

days of the close of the comment period.

Any person desiring to submit a

document (or portion thereof) to the

Commission in confidence must request

business confidential treatment under

§ 201.6 of the Commission’s rules.6 Such

requests should be directed to the

Secretary to the Commission and must

include a full statement of the reasons

why the Commission should grant such

treatment. Each sheet must be clearly

marked at the top ‘‘Confidential

Business Information.’’ The Commission

will either accept the submission in

confidence or return it. All

nonconfidential written submissions

will be available for public inspection in

the Office of the Secretary.

Copies of the non-confidential version

of the request and any other documents

in this matter are available for public

inspection during regular business

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the

Office of the Secretary to the

Commission; telephone 202–205–2000.

Issued: May 12, 1998.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–13426 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–34,214 and NAFTA–02157]

Fort James Corp., Towel and Tissue

Division, Ashland, WI; Negative

Determination Regarding Application

for Reconsideration

By application dated March 27, 1998,

the United Paperworkers International

Union (UPIU) Local 1104 requested

administrative reconsideration of the

Department’s negative determination

regarding eligibility to apply for Trade

Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and

NAFTA-Transitional Adjustment

Assistance (NAFTA–TAA), applicable

to workers and former workers of the

subject firm. The denial notices were

signed on March 11, 1998. The TAA and

NAFTA–TAA decisions were published

in the Federal Register on April 3, 1998,

(63 FR 16574) and (63 FR 16575),

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 mis-interpretation of facts or

of the law justified reconsideration of

the decision.

The negative TAA determination

issued by the Department was based on

the binding that the ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ test of the worker group

eligibility requirements of section 222 of

the Trade Act of 1974 was not met for

workers of Fort James Corporation,

Ashland, Wisconsin producing

commercial napkins. The ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ test is generally

demonstrated through a survey of the

workers’ firm’s customers. The

Department of Labor surveyed the major

declining customers of the subject firm

regarding their purchases of commercial

napkins. None of the respondents

reported import purchases of

commercial napkins in 1996, 1997 or in

January 1998.

The subject firm workers were denied

eligibility to apply for NAFTA–TAA

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 commercial napkins 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 UPIU Local 1104 asserts that

some of the machinery at the Ashland

mill is scheduled for delivery to China

and Europe by the end of summer 1998.

The shipment or sale of production

equipment to foreign countries is not a

basis for a worker group certification

under the Trade Act of 1974.

The UPIU Local 1104 provided import

statistics for tablecloths and table

napkins made of paper for 1997. this

information does not substantiate

import impact for workers of Fort James

Corporation. There must be company or

customer increases of imports of articles

like or directly competitive with those

produced by workers at the subject firm.

The UPIU Local 1104 asserts that

during the petition investigation, the

customer list provided by the company

did not include all of the Fort James

Corporation Ashland customers. The

customer list requested by the

Department and provided by company

officials accounted for Ashland’s major

declining customers.

Finally, the UPIU Local 1104 asserts

that prices for market pulp and

paperboard has increased, thereby

affecting company cost to compete for

materials used in the production of

commercial napkins. Price of raw

materials to produce a product is not a

basis for a worker group certification

under the Trade Act of 1974.

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 decision. Accordingly, the

application is denied.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of

May 1998.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 98–13419 Filed 5–19–98; 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 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

separation, or threat thereof, and to the

absolute decline in sales or production.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 97 /Wednesday, May 20, 1998 / Notices 27749

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–34,104; Sunbeam Corp.,

Murfreesboro, TN

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

TA–W–34,461; ARC USA, Pauls Valley,

OK

TA–W–34,193; Kat-Em International, A

Division of Concord Fabrics Inc.,

Los Angeles, CA

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–34,318; Streamline Fashions

Mfg., Inc., Philipsburg, PA

Increased imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separations at the

firm.

TA–W–34,223; Geneva Steel, Provo, UT

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–34,481; Renfro Corp., Barber

Plant, Mt. Airy, NC

Renfro Corp. Officials made a

decision to close it’s Barber plant and

transfer all production to another

domestic plant.

Affirmative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

TA–W–34,376; Beam Corp., A Div. Of

Deena Corp., Tolleson, AZ: March

19, 1997.

TA–W–34,359; Canaan Fashions,

Brooklyn, NY: March 11, 1997.

TA–W–34,388; Georgia-Pacific Corp.,

Building Products Div., Oriented

Strand Board Mill, Woodland, MR:

March 18, 1997.

TA–W–34,385; Delphi Automotive

Systems, Delphi Interior and

Lighting, Brea Operations, Brea, CA:

March 17, 1997.

TA–W–34,265; H.H. Cutler Co., Grand

Rapids, MI: February 4, 1997.

TA–W–34,378 & A; Newel Co., Acme

Frame—a/k/a Intercraft,

Mundelein, IL and Waukegan, IL:

March 5, 1997.

TA–W–34,352; Wintron, Bellefonte, PA:

March 11, 1997.

TA–W–34,412; Hit Apparel, Inc.,

Athens, TN: March 18, 1997.

TA–W–34,438; A.D.H. Mfg Corp.,

Farner, TN: March 31, 1997.

TA–W–34,444; Covington Industries,

Inc., Opp, Al and Operating at the

Following Locations: A; Samson

Plant, Samson, AL, B; Florala Plant,

Florala, AL, C; Kinston Plant,

Kinston, AL, D: Opp Distribution,

Opp, AL, E: Opp Sewing, Opp, AL:

March 13, 1997.

TA–W–34,448; IBP, Inc., Luverne, MN:

March 18, 1997.

TA–W–34,413; Babcock & Wilcox Co.,

Paris, TX: March 26, 1997.

TA–W–34,259; Cleveland Kniting Mills,

Cleveland, OH: February 9,

TA–W–34,395; Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc.,

Chic by H.I.S. Div., Monticello, KY:

March 24, 1997.

TA–W–34,382; Decora Mongomery City,

MO: March 12, 1997.

TA–W–34,251; Donna Maria’s Sewing,

Inc., Ripley, WV: February 4, 1997.

TA–W–34,381; Cannon County Knitting

Mills, Smithville, TN: March 13,

1997.

TA–W–34,404; Henry I. Siegel, Chic By

H.I.S. Div., Saltillo, TN: March 17,

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 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

competitive with articles produced by

such firm or subdivision have increased,

and that the increases 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–02231; Spirax Sarco, Inc.,

Allentown, PA

NAFTA–TAA–02309; Harry G. Kramer,

III, Pittsburg, PA

NAFTA–TAA–02247; Streamline

Fashions Mfg., Inc., Philipsburg, PA

The investigation revealed that the

criteria for eligibility have not been met

for the reasons specified.

NAFTA–TAA–02282; Georgia-Pacific

Corp., Distribution Facility, Eugene,

OR

NAFTA–TAA–02338; Johnson

Wholesale, Punta Gorda, FL

NAFTA–TAA–02308; Southport

Aviation, d/b/a/ Million Air Kansas

City, Kansas City, MO

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–02322; American Powder

Coatings, Inc., El Paso, TX: March

31, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02343; Russell Corp.,

Milton, FL: March 26, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02188; Donna Maria’s

Sewing, Inc., Ripley, WV: February

11, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02284; IBP, Inc., Luverne,

MN: March 18, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02271; Cannon County

Knitting Mills, Smithville, TN:

March 13, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02288; Henry I. Siegel

Co., Chic By H.I.S. Div., Monticello,

KY: March 24, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02273 & A,B,C; Henry I.

Siegel Co., Inc., Chic By H.I.S. Div.,

Saltillo, TN, Gleason, TN,

Trezevant, TN and South Fulton,

TN: March 17, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02306; Covington

Industries, Inc., Opp, AL, and
27750 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 97 /Wednesday, May 20, 1998 / Notices

Operating at the Following

Locations: A; Samson Plant,

Samson, AL, B; Florala Plant,

Florala, AL, C; Kinston Plant,

Kinston, AL, D; Opp Distribution

Plant, Opp, AL, E; Opp Sewing

Plant, Opp, AL: March 13, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02265; Beam Corp., Div.

of Deena, Inc., Tolleson, AZ: March

19, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02279; Hit Apparel, Inc.,

Athens, TN: March 18, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02324; A.D.H. Mfg. Corp.,

Farner, TN: March 31, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02252; Briggs Industries,

Somerset, PA: March 6, 1997.

I hereby certify that the

aforementioned determinations were

issued during the month of April 1998.

Copies of these determinations are

available for inspection in Room C–

4318, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Connstitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20210 during normal

business hours or will be mailed to

persons who write to the above address.

Dated: May 5, 1998.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 98–13416 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–34,204]

Pride Companies, L.P., Abilene, Texas;

Negative Determination Regarding

Application for Reconsideration

By application postmarked April 14,

1998, one of the petitioners requested

administrative reconsideration of the

Department’s negative determination

regarding eligibility to apply for Trade

Adjustment Assistance (TAA),

applicable to workers and former

workers of the subject firm. The denial

notice was signed on March 20, 1998,

and published in the Federal Register

on April 3, 1998 (63 FR 16574).

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 investigation findings for the

March 20 denial of TAA for workers of

Pride Companies, L.P., Abilene, Texas

producing refined petroleum products

showed that criteria (1) and (2) of the

group eligibility requirements of section

222 of the Trade Act were met;

employment, sales and production

decreased in January through September

1997 compared with the same time

period of the previous year. However,

the ‘‘contributed importantly’’

requirement of criterion (3) of section

222 was not met. The ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ test is generally

demonstrated through a survey of the

workers’ firm’s customers. A survey

conducted by the Department regarding

the subject firm’s loss of a portion of a

competitive bid for military jet fuel in

February 1997 revealed that the

remainder was awarded to domestic

suppliers, with the exception of a very

small percentage of the solicitation

awarded to a foreign source.

The petitioner asserts that layoffs at

the Abilene refinery were the result of

increased company purchases of

imported products supplied by the

Texaco Trading and Transportation Inc.

terminal in the Houston ship channel

area. The petitioner adds that Texaco

Trading and Transportation purchases

refined products on the open market

from various refineries and distribution

terminals.

The investigation findings showed

that Pride Companies, L.P. did not

purchase any refined petroleum

products from Texaco or any foreign

sources during the time period relevant

to the petition investigation.

Information obtained during the

investigation shows that Texaco Trading

and Transportation Inc. will supply

refined petroleum products to Pride, but

not until the completion of the

conversion of the Abilene refinery to a

products and crude oil terminal.

Information in Departmental trade

adjustment assistance files shows that

the primary functions of Texaco Trading

and Transportation, Inc. are marketing

of domestic crude oil, and

transportation of crude oil and products

by pipeline and truck.

With respect to the petitioners

assertion that U.S. domestic production

of refined petroleum is at a maximum

and cannot meet demand, U.S. imports

of these products declined absolutely

and relative to domestic shipment from

1996 to 1997.

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 decision. Accordingly, the

application is denied.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of

May 1998.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 98–13418 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–34,199]

Sangamon, Inc., Taylorville, Illinois;

Revised Determination on

Reconsideration

In response to a letter of March 26,

1998, from the United Paperworkers

International Union (UPIU) Local 637,

requesting administrative

reconsideration of the Department’s

denial of TAA for workers of the subject

firm, the Department reopened its

investigation for the former workers of

Sangamon, Incorporated.

The initial investigation resulted in a

negative determination issued on March

6, 1998, because the ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ test of the Group

Eligibility Requirements of the Trade

Act was not met for workers at the

subject firm producing everyday and

seasonal greeting cards. The denial

notice was published in the Federal

Register on April 3, 1998 (63 FR

16,574).

On reconsideration, the Department

conducted further survey analysis of the

major declining customer of Sangamon,

Incorporated. New survey information

shows that the major declining customer

has indirect import purchases of

greeting cards while reducing purchases

from the subject firm.

Statistics on greeting cards show

aggregate U.S. imports increased in both

quantity and value in 1996 and 1997.

Conclusion

After careful consideration of the new

facts obtained on reopening, it is

concluded that increased imports of

articles like or directly competitive with

greeting cards 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