Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2001 / Notices 22005

investigation under section 733(b) of the

Act, or, if the preliminary determination

is negative, upon notice of an

affirmative final determination in that

investigation under section 735(a) of the

Act. Parties that filed entries of

appearance in the preliminary phase of

the investigation need not enter a

separate appearance for the final phase

of the investigation. Industrial users,

and, if the merchandise under

investigation is sold at the retail level,

representative consumer organizations

have the right to appear as parties in

Commission antidumping and

countervailing duty investigations. The

Secretary will prepare a public service

list containing the names and addresses

of all persons, or their representatives,

who are parties to the investigation.

Background

On March 12, 2001, a petition was

filed with the Commission and

Commerce by Great Eastern Mussel

Farms, Tenants Harbor, ME, alleging

that an industry in the United States is

threatened with material injury by

reason of LTFV imports of mussels from

Canada. Accordingly, effective March

12, 2001, the Commission instituted

antidumping duty investigation No.

731–TA–924 (Preliminary).

Notice of the institution of the

Commission’s investigation and of a

public conference to be held in

connection therewith was given by

posting copies of the notice in the Office

of the Secretary, U.S. International

Trade Commission, Washington, DC,

and by publishing the notice in the

Federal Register of March 19, 2001 (66

FR 15503). The conference was held in

Washington, DC, on April 2, 2001, and

all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in

person or by counsel.

The Commission transmitted its

determination in this investigation to

the Secretary of Commerce on April 26,

2001. The views of the Commission are

contained in USITC Publication 3416

(May 2001), entitled Mussels from

Canada: Investigation No. 731–TA–924

(Preliminary).

Issued: April 27, 2001.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–11016 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Settlement

Agreement Pursuant to the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation and Liability

Act

Notice is hereby given that, on March

23, 2001, a proposed Settlement

Agreement in In Re: Teplitz Auto Parts,

Inc., No. 00–13384 (ash) (Bankr.

S.D.N.Y.), a bankruptcy action involving

Teplitz Auto Parts, Inc., a defendant in

United States v. Woodward Metal

Processing, Corp. et al., No. 98–2736

(JWB/GDH) (D.N.J.), was lodged with

the United States District Court for the

District of New Jersey. By its terms, the

Settlement Agreement becomes effective

only after approval is obtained from

both the Bankruptcy Court and the

District Court.

In the District Court action, the

United States sought to recover response

costs incurred in connection with a

removal action at the Woodward Metal

Processing Corporation Site, located at

125 Woodward Street, Jersey City, New

Jersey (‘‘Site’’), pursuant to Section 107

of the Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (‘‘CERCLA’’), 42 U.S.C. 9607. The

proposed Settlement Agreement would

allow a general unsecured claim in the

bankruptcy action by the United States

in the amount of $375,000. Together

with other ending settlements, the

Settlement Agreement would resolve

the District Court action in its entirety.

The U.S. Department of Justice will

receive, for period of thirty (30) days

from the date of publication of this

Notice, comments relating to the

proposed Settlement Agreement. Any

comments should be addressed to the

Assistant Attorney General for the

Environmental and Natural Resources

Division, U.S. Department of Justice,

P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044–

7611, and should reference the

following case name and number:

United States v. Metal Processing Corp.,

et al., DJ #90–11–2–1299/1.

The proposed Settlement Agreement

may be examined at the offices of EPA

Region II, located at 290 Broadway, New

York, New York, c/o Virginia Curry,

Esq., (212) 637–3134, or at the U.S.

Attorney’s Office, 970 Broad St., 7th

Floor, Newark, NJ 07102, c/o Susan

Cassell, Esq., (973) 645–2700. A copy of

the proposed Settlement Agreement

may also be obtained by mail from the

Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611,

U.S. Department of Justice, Washington,

DC 20044–7611, c/o Peggy Fenlon-Gore,

(202) 514–5245. In requesting a copy,

please enclose a check in the amount of

$6.75 (25 cents per page reproduction

cost) payable to the Consent Decree

Library.

Ronald G. Gluck, Esq.,

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement

Section, Environment and Natural Resources

Division.

[FR Doc. 01–10883 Filed 5–1–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–15–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 March and April,

2001.

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–38,500; American Pine Products,

Prineville, OR

TA–W–38,651; Georgia Pacific Corp.,

Industrial Wood Products Div.,

Gaylord Particleboard, Gaylord, MI

TA–W–38,533; Spray Cotton Mills,

Eden, NC

TA–W–38,775; Q and M Manufacturing,

Inc., Cheboygan, MI