Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices 63735

[TA–W–30,932; TA–W–30, 932A]

Thomas & Betts Company, Elizabeth,

New Jersey, et al.; Amended

Certification Regarding Eligibility to

Apply for Worker Adjustment

Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the

Department of Labor issued a Notice of

Certification Regarding Eligibility to

Apply for Worker Adjustment

Assistance on May 3, 1995, applicable

to all workers of Thomas & Betts

Company, located in Elizabeth, New

Jersey. The notice was published in the

Federal Register on May 17, 1995 (60

FR 26459).

Based on new information received

from petitioners, the Department

reviewed the subject certification.

Findings show that worker separations

have occurred at the distribution center

of Thomas & Betts located in Cranbury,

New Jersey. The intent of the

Department’s certification is to include

all workers of the subject firm who were

adversely affected by increased imports.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–30,932 is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of Thomas & Betts Company,

Elizabeth, New Jersey (TA–W–30,932) and

Cranbury, New Jersey (TA–W–30,932A) who

became totally or partially separated from

employment on or after April 12, 1994 are

eligible to apply for adjustment assistance

under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 29th day

of November 1995.

Russell T. Kile,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–30149 Filed 12–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–30,329A; TA–W–30, 329D; TA–W–30,

329E]

United Technologies Corporation, Pratt

& Whitney East Hartford, Connecticut,

et al.; Amended Certification

Regarding Eligibility to Apply for

Worker Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the

Department of Labor issued an

Amended Certification Regarding

Eligibility to Apply for Worker

Adjustment Assistance on February 22,

1995, applicable to all workers of Pratt

& Whitney, East Hartford, Connecticut

engaged in employment related to the

production of jet engine parts. The

notice was published in the Federal

Register on March 1, 1995 (60 FR

11119).

At the request of two State Agencies,

the Department reviewed the

certification for workers of the subject

firm. New findings show that state field

representatives for the subject firm

located in Florida and Michigan, were

paid by the subject firm and should

have been included in the certification.

The intent of the Department’s

certification is to include all workers of

Pratt & Whitney who were adversely

affected by increased imports.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–30,329 is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of United Technologies

Corporation, Pratt & Whitney, East Hartford,

Connecticut (TA–W–30,329A); and field

representatives located in Florida (TA–W–

30,329D) and Michigan (TA–W–30,329E)

whose wages were paid by Pratt & Whitney,

East Hartford Connecticut, engaged in

employment related to the production of jet

engine parts who became totally or partially

separated from employment on or after

September 7, 1993 are eligible to apply for

adjustment assistance under Section 223 of

the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 28th day

of November 1995.

Russell T. Kile,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–30158 Filed 12–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–29,927, NAFTA—00120]

Walker Manufacturing Company,

Hebron, OH; Notice of Negative

Determination on Reconsideration

On December 14, 1994 the United

States Court of International Trade

(USCIT) granted the Secretary of Labor’s

motion for a voluntary remand for

further investigation in UAW Local 1927

and Employees and Former Employees

of Walker Manufacturing v. Secretary of

Labor (94–10–00584).

The Department’s initial denial for the

Hebron workers, issued on August 15,

1994 and published in the Federal

Register on September 2, 1994 (59 FR

45711), was based on the fact that the

increased import criterion and the

‘‘contributed importantly’’ test of the

Worker Group Eligibility Requirements

of the Trade Act were not met. U.S.

aggregate imports of mufflers and

exhaust pipes declined absolutely in

1993 compared to 1992 and in the latest

twelve month period from June 1993

through May 1994 compared with the

same period one year earlier.

The Hebron plant had only one

customer and that customer’s import

purchases were not important relative to

Hebron’s sales during the relevant

period.

The workers were also denied

eligibility to apply for TAA on

reconsideration. The reconsideration

notice was issued on October 5, 1994

and published in the Federal Register

on October 14, 1994 (59 FR 52194).

The reconsideration findings show

that as a result of the Hebron closure,

the company is making Hebron’s

machinery available to other corporate

North American plants including some

machinery to Mexico. However, the

capital equipment used to make exhaust

systems is not like or directly

competitive with exhaust systems

themselves and as such would not form

a basis of a worker group certification.

Other findings on reconsideration show

that no production was shifted to

Mexico and only a very small portion of

Hebron’s total production, the

production of resonator bodies, was

shifted to Canada; however, the workers

who produced resonator bodies were

not separately identifiable. (AR p. 23

and p. 28).

The workers were also denied under

a NAFTA petition (NAFTA–00120) on

June 30, 1994 (59 FR 37997) and on

reconsideration on October 7, 1994 (59

FR 53213). The Department’s denial was

based on the fact that neither the

increased import criterion nor the shift

in production to Mexico or Canada

criterion of the Worker Group Eligibility

Requirements of the NAFTA provisions

of the Trade Act was met.

The record states that the Ohio

Bureau of Employment Security (OBES)

made a preliminary finding that the firm

met the increased import criterion. (See

AR p. 30). This state finding is only a

preliminary finding to get the

investigatory process started. The state’s

investigation was not as extensive as the

Department’s investigation. Further,

under the NAFTA–TAA provisions, the

state, unlike the Department, does not

make a finding on the ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ test, which the workers

failed to pass.

On further reconsideration, the

Department has difficulty obtaining

additional information from Walker

Manufacturing especially as to a further

breakout of Hebron’s production and

sales. On December 20, 1994, the

Department, however, did contact the

plaintiffs’ counsel, and other union

witnesses to request any information or

documentation that would contradict

the Department’s negative

determinations. Counsel for the

plaintiffs alleged that about 50 resonator

workers were laid off in February 1994

and that 40 percent of the plant’s

production was shipped to Mexico prior
63736 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices

to the phasedown. (See AR pp. 69–70).

These allegations were not backed up by

any supporting documentation, and

none of the other union witnesses

supplied any evidence or

documentation.

The remand findings show that the

Walker plant in Queretaro, Mexico does

not produce any goods or products like

or directly competitive with the articles

formerly produced at Hebron. The

Mexican plant is a supplier of exhaust

systems for General Motors, Chrysler

and Volkswagen and to the replacement

parts market (aftermarket) in Mexico.

The Herbron plant, on the other hand,

produced exhaust systems only for

Ford. These customized exhaust

systems are not interchangeable. (See

AR p. 74).

The findings also show that no

production was transferred to Mexico as

a result of the closure of the Hebron

plant. (See AR p.49, p.64). Neither the

Hebron plant nor Walker’s Mexico plant

supply the same customers. (See AR p.

49). Only the production of resonator

bodies was transferred to Canada;

however, this transfer accounted for

only a very small portion of Hebron’s

total production and the workers were

not separately identifiable by product.

All other production was transferred to

company owned domestic plants,

primarily Marshall, Michigan and

Ligonier, Indiana. (See AR p. 62).

Other findings on reconsideration

show that the Hebron plant closure was

due to capacity concerns within Walker

Manufacturing and Walker’s desire to

provide better service for Hebron’s sole

customer, Ford Motor Company. (See

AR p. 62).

On remand, the Department received

a further breakout by month of Hebron’s

production and a listing of all Hebron’s

capital assets shipped to other corporate

locations. (See AR pp. 118–46). These

new findings show that Canadian

corporate exports (from Cambridge) to

the U.S. from May 1, 1992 to April 30,

1994, were less than one-tenth of one

percent of Hebron’s sales during the

same period. (See AR pp. 147, 149).

Such a small proportion is too

insignificant to form a basis for a worker

group certification, especially since the

Hebron workers are not separately

identifiable by product, and thus it

cannot be determined how many

workers produced the components that

are now being imported. (See AR p. 23,

pp. 28–29).

Other findings on reconsideration

show only very small amounts of

Hebron’s assets were shipped to Mexico.

(See AR pp. 118–152). Contrary to the

contention of the plaintiffs’ counsel,

(See AR p. 163), the mere transfer of

machinery from a domestic plant to a

Mexican or Canadian plant would not,

by itself, form a basis for a worker group

certification under the NAFTA

provisions of the Trade Act. Rather the

NAFTA provisions specifically state

that there must be a shift in production

of articles from a domestic firm to a

Mexican or Canadian plant for the

workers to be eligible to apply for

transitional adjustment assistance, not

the shifts of machinery associated with

those, or any other type of articles.

(Trade Act, Sec 250(a)(1)(B), 19 U.S.C.

§ 2331(a)(1(B)). Since no articles

formerly produced at the Hebron plant

are now being produced in Mexico, the

transfer of production criterion has not

been met here.

Conclusion

After reconsideration, I affirm the

original notice of negative

determination of eligibility to apply for

adjustment assistance for workers and

former workers of the Walker

Manufacturing Company in Hebron,

Ohio.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 5th day of

May 1995.

Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–30156 Filed 12–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[NAFTA–00602]

Conagra Flour Milling Company

Superior, Wisconsin; Dismissal of

Application for Reconsideration

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an

application for administrative

reconsideration was filed with the

Program Manager of the Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance for workers at

ConAgra Flour Milling Company,

Superior, Wisconsin. The review

indicated that the application contained

no new substantial information which

would bear importantly on the

Department’s determination. Therefore,

dismissal of the application was issued.

NAFTA–00602; ConAgra Flour Milling

Company, Superior, Wisconsin (November

22, 1995)

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 29th day

of November, 1995.

Russell T. Kile,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–30161 Filed 12–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[NAFTA–00609]

Dow Chemical Company Corporate

Aviation Division, Freeland, Michigan;

Dismissal of Application for

Reconsideration

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an

application for administrative

reconsideration was filed with the

Program Manager of the Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance for workers at

Dow Chemical Co., Corporate Aviation

Division, Freeland, Michigan. The

review indicated that the application

contained no new substantial

information which would bear

importantly on the Department’s

determination. Therefore, dismissal of

the application was issued.

NAFTA–00609; Dow Chemical Co.,

Corporate Aviation Division, Freeland,

Michigan (November 22, 1995)

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 29th day

of November, 1995.

Russell T. Kile,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–30160 Filed 12–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[NAFTA–00634]

Lockheed Martin, Ocean, Radar &

Sensor Systems, Utica, New York;

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

October 26, 1995, applicable to all

workers of Lockheed Martin, Ocean,

Radar & Sensor Systems Division

located in Utica, New York. The notice

will soon be published in the Federal

Register.

At the request of the State designee,

the Department has reviewed the subject

certification to specify that only the

inspection operation of the printed

circuit board assemblies are being

shifted to Mexico.

The intent of the Department’s

certification is to include workers

engaged in the inspection operation of

the printed circuit board assemblies at

Lockheed Martin, Ocean, Radar &

Sensor Systems Division located in

Utica, New York that were adversely

affected by the shift in production of the

inspection operation to Mexico.

The amended notice applicable to

NAFTA—00634 is hereby issued as

follows: