Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 14 /Thursday, January 22, 1998 / Notices 3353

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–33,487; TA–W–33,487A; TA–W–

33,487B; TA–W–33,487C; NAFTA 01649;

NAFTA 01649A; NAFTA 01649B; NAFTA

01649C]

Medite Corporation; Corporate Office,

Medford Oregon; MDF Plant, Medford,

Oregon; Veneer Division, Rogue River,

Oregon; Forestry Division, Medford,

Oregon; and Corporate Office, Medford

Oregon; MDF Plant, Medford Oregon;

Veneer Division, Rogue River, Oregon;

Forestry Division, Medford, Oregon;

Notice of Negative Determination on

Reconsideration

On September 22, 1997, 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 that

the collection of information regarding

company sales and imports was

incomplete for the time period relevant

to the investigation. The notice was

published in the Federal Register on

September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51156).

The Department initially denied TAA

to workers of Medite Corporation

because the ‘‘contributed importantly’’

group eligibility requirement of Section

222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as

amended, was not met. The workers at

the subject firm were engaged in

employment related to the production of

lumber products.

On reconsideration, the Department

requested that Medite Corporation

provide additional customers for the

various Medite facilities included in the

petition. A survey of the major

customers of Medite Corporation

revealed that imports did not contribute

importantly to the worker separations.

All but one of the customers survey

revealed that they are still purchasing

domestic lumber products. The one

customer that indicated some product

was being produced outside the U.S.

had declining imports during the

relevant time period.

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 Medite

Corporation in Medford and Rogue

River, Oregon.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of

December 1997.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 98–1476 Filed 1–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–33,829 AND NAFTA–01932]

Trans World Airlines Kansas City

Overhaul Base, Kansas City, Missouri;

Notice of Negative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration

By application of December 5, 1997,

the International Association of

Machinists and Aerospace Workers

(IAMAW) requested administrative

reconsideration of the Department’s

negative determination regarding

worker 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.

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 TAA and NAFTA–TAA petitions,

filed on behalf of workers who repaired

and overhauled aircraft and aircraft

parts, were denied on September 30,

1997, on the basis that the workers did

not produce an ‘‘article’’ within the

meaning of Section 222(3) and Section

250(a) of the Trade Act of 1974, as

amended, but rather performed services.

In support of their application for

reconsideration, the IAMAW contended

that ‘‘[t]he overhauling process

[performed by the petitioning workers

on aircraft] takes what had become

worthless parts and/or assemblies [and]

remanufactures and transforms them

into unique and marketable products,’’

enabling aircraft or their parts to satisfy

Federal Aviation Administration

airworthiness requirements.

This contention is insufficient to

support the granting of reconsideration.

Pemberton v. Marshall, 639 F.2d 798

(D.C. Cir. 1981) found a similar

contention insufficient to support

certification. In that case, the workers

alleged that their repair and overhaul of

ships constituted a ‘‘remanufacturing’’

of an ‘‘article.’’ The Court reasoned that

‘‘[e]ven if the repair necessitates the use

of new materials, it cannot be said to be

the creation of a new ship * * * the

same item was also the end product.’’

Id. at F.2d 800. Similarly here, although

the petitioners contend that their

employment conferred ‘‘new life’’ on

aircraft and aircraft parts, no ‘‘new and

different article’’ was created. Nagy v.

Donovan, 571 F.Supp. 1261, 1265 (Ct.

Int’l. Trade 1983). Rather, ‘‘[t]here was

no transformation, but a mere

refurbishing of what already existed’’

(Pemberton, at F.2d 800), permitting old

aircraft and aircraft parts to meet

airworthiness requirements.

Thus, the application for

reconsideration does not alter the

conclusion that the workers did not

create new articles, but rather serviced

existing ones by overhauling and

repairing aircraft and aircraft parts.

Accordingly, the petitioners’ contention

is insufficient to support

reconsideration.

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 5th day of

January 1998.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 98–1472 Filed 1–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Investigations Regarding Certifications

of Eligibility to Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

Petitions have been filed with the

Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a)

of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and

are identified in the Appendix to this

notice. Upon receipt of these petitions,

the Acting Director of the Office of

Trade Adjustment Assistance,