Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 33 / Friday, February 17, 1995 / Notices 9407

[TA–W–30,360 Nylon Hosiery Department

TA–W–30,360A Polyester Filament

Department]

BASF Corporation, Lowland,

Tennessee; Amended Certification

Regarding Eligibility To Apply for

Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) the

Department of Labor issued a

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for

Worker Adjustment Assistance on

December 7, 1994, applicable to all

workers of the nylon hosiery

department. The certification notice was

published in the Federal Register on

January 3, 1995 (60 FR 148).

The certification was amended on

February 3, 1995 to include all the

workers of the polyester filament

department. This notice will soon be

published in the Federal Register.

At the request of the workers and with

congressional support, the Department

again reviewed the certification for

workers of the subject firm. New

findings show that some workers were

laid off just prior to the September 19,

1993 impact date set in the certification.

The Department in setting its impact

date can go back to August 1, 1993.

Accordingly, the Department is

amending the certification by deleting

the September 19, 1993 impact date and

setting a new impact date of August 1,

1993.

The intent of the Department’s

certification is to include all workers

who were adversely affected by

increased imports.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–30,360 is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of BASF Corporation,

Polyester Filament Department and the

Nylon Hosiery Department, Lowland,

Tennessee who became totally or partially

separated from employment on or after

August 1, 1993 are eligible to apply for

adjustment assistance under Section 223 of

the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed in Washington, D.C., this 10th day

of February 1995.

Victory J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 94–4020 Filed 2–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–30,360]

BASF Corporation, Lowland,

Tennessee; Investigations Regarding

Certifications of Eligibility to Apply for

Worker Adjustment Assistance;

Correction

This notice corrects the notice for

petition TA–W–30,360 which was

published in the Federal Register on

October 21, 1994 (59 FR 53209) in FR

Document 94–26176.

This revises the date received and the

date of petition on the 1st line of the

third and fourth columns in the

appendix table on page 53209. The date

received and the date of petition should

both read ‘‘August 1, 1994’’ in the third

and fourth columns on the first line of

the appendix table.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 10th day of

February, 1995.

Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–4021 Filed 2–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–30,259]

Contract Fusing, Duryea, Pennsylvania

Notice of Negative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration

By an application dated December 19,

1994, counsel for the workers requested

administrative reconsideration of the

subject petition for trade adjustment

assistance (TAA). The denial notice was

singed on November 21, 1994 (59 FR

63822).

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c)

reconsideration may be granted under

the following conditions:

(1) If it appears on the basis of facts

not previously considered that the

determination complained of was

erroneous;

(2) If it appear that the determination

complained of was based on a mistake

in the determination of fact 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 investigation findings show that

the workers performed various fusing

services for various manufacturers.

The Department’s denial was based

on the fact that the ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ test of the workers group

eligibility requirements of the Trade Act

was not met. This test is generally

demonstrated through a survey of the

workers’ firm’s customers. The

Department’s survey of manufacturers

for whom the subject firm performed

contract work in 1992, 1993 and in the

first nine months of 1994 showed that

none of the respondents reported

importing fused cloth material in the

relevant period.

Counsel states that Contract Fusing

was a subdivision of Valley Dress whose

workers were certified for TAA by the

Department. Counsel also states that the

issue is not the importation of fused

cloth but rather the importation of

garments/dresses and that the entire

garment industry has been adversely

affected by increased imports.

A review of the investigation files for

Valley Dress (TA–W–27,889) shows that

the workers produced ladies’ dresses

and suits and the workers were certified

for TAA; however, the plant closed

permanently on June 15, 1992. The date

of the petition for the subject workers of

Contract Fusing is August 19, 1994.

To show integration of production

between Valley Dress and Contract

Fusing, the workers of Contract fusing

should have filed 2 to 3 years earlier

when Valley Dress was in operation. At

this late date the Department sees no

effect on Contract Fusing from a

certified plant that closed much earlier.

Very early in the administration of the

worker adjustment assistance program,

the courts addressed the issue of

components and finished articles. In

United Shoe Workers of America, AFLCIO v. Bedell, 506 F2d 174, (D.C. Cir.

1974) the court held that imported

finished women’s shoes were not like or

directly competitive with shoe

components—shoe counters. Similarly,

ladies’ dresses and suits cannot be

considered like or directly competitive

with fused cloth or other components

for ladies’ dresses or suits.

Further, the worker adjustment

assistance program was not intended to

provide TAA to workers who are in

some way related to import competition

but only for those workers who produce

an article and are adversely affected by

increased imports of like or directly

competitive articles which contributed

importantly to sales or production and

employment declines at the workers’

firm. Fusing cloth (an operation or

service) is not like or directly

competitive with ladies’ dresses or suits.

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