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:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 1995 / Notices 63737

All 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 who become totally or partially

separated from employment on or after

October 5, 1994 are eligible to apply for

adjustment assistance under Section 223 of

the Trade Act of 1994.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 1st day of

November 1995.

Russell T. Kile,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–30155 Filed 12–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[NAFTA–00358]

Sun Apparel, Inc., El Paso, Texas;

Amended Certification Regarding

Eligibility To Apply for NAFTA

Transitional Adjustment Assistance

In accordance with Section 250(a),

Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19

U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor

issued a Certification for NAFTA

Transitional Adjustment Assistance on

March 10, 1955, applicable to all

workers of Sun Apparel, Inc.,

Concepcion Plant located in El Paso,

Texas. The notice was published in the

Federal Register on March 22, 1995 (60

FR 15164).

At the request of the State Agency, the

Department reviewed the subject

certification. New findings show that

worker separations have occurred at the

Sun Apparel’s Armour Plant in El Paso.

The workers at the Armour Plant, like

the Concepcion Plant, are engaged in

employment related to the production of

jeans. The intent of the Department’s

certification is to include all workers of

the subject firm who were adversely

affected by increased imports from

Mexico or Canada. Therefore, the

Department is amending the

certification to expand coverage to all

workers of Sun Apparel in El Paso, not

just those workers at the Concepcion

Plant.

The amended notice applicable to

NAFTA–00358 is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of Sun Apparel, El Paso, Texas

who became totally or partially separated

from employment on or after February 2,

1994 are eligible to apply for NAFTA–TAA

Section 250 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. 95–30148 Filed 12–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Collection of Information Submitted for

OMB Review

In compliance with the requirement

of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on

October 4, 19985, Federal Register No.

192, page 52024, the National Science

Foundation (NSF) published, for public

comment, a proposed collection of

information, ‘‘Survey of Industrial

Research and Development, 1995–97.’’

No public comments were received. The

collection of information is now being

forwarded to the Office of Management

and Budget for consideration. To

request more information on the

proposed project or to obtain a copy of

the data collection plans and

instruments, call Herman Fleming, NSF

Clearance Officer at (703) 306–1243, or

send comments to: National Science

Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,

Suite 485, Arlington, VA 22230.

Written comments should be received

by January 5, 1995.

Abstract: This survey measures the

amount and indicates the direction of

R&D expenditures by U.S. industry,

Government agencies, corporations,

academic researchers, trade

associations, research organizations, and

others use the survey statistics to

analyze and forecast technological

growth, investigate productivity

determinants, formulate tax policies,

and compare individual company

performance with industry averages.

Companies with known R&D activity

and samples of companies in selected

industries that may conduct R&D are

included.

Dated: December 7, 1995.

Herman G. Fleming,

NSF Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–30229 Filed 12–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555–01–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50–309, 50–285, 50–317, 50–

318, 50–336, and 50–335]

Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co.,

Omaha Public Power District,

Baltimore Gas and Electric Co.,

Northeast Nuclear Energy Co., and

Florida Power & Light Co.; Maine

Yankee, Fort Calhoun Unit 1, Calvert

Cliffs Units 1 and 2, Millstone Unit 2,

and St. Lucie Unit 1; Issuance of

Director’s Decision Under 10 CFR

2.206

Notice is hereby given that the

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, has taken action with regard

to a Petition dated May 2, 1995, by Mr.

John F. Doherty, J.D. (Petition for action

under 10 CFR 2.206). The Petition

pertains to the following plants: Maine

Yankee, Fort Calhoun Unit 1, Calvert

Cliffs Units 1 and 2, Millstone Unit 2,

and St. Lucie Unit 1.

In the Petition, Petitioner requested

that the following six pressurized-water

reactors be immediately shut down:

Maine Yankee, Fort Calhoun Unit 1,

Calvert Cliffs Units 1 and 2, Millstone

Unit 2, and St. Lucie Unit 1. In addition,

the Petitioner requested that steam

generator tubes be inspected

immediately at those plants.

The Director of the Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation has determined to

deny the Petition. The reasons for this

denial are explained in the ‘‘Director’s

Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206’’

(DD–95–22), the complete text of which

follows this notice, and is available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC.

A copy of the Decision will be filed

with the Secretary of the Commission

for the Commission’s review in

accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the

Commission’s regulations. As provided

by this regulation, the Decision will

constitute the final action of the

Commission 25 days after the date of

issuance unless the Commission, on its

own motion, institutes a review of the

Decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day

of December, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William T. Russell,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation,

William T. Russell, Director

In the Matter of: Maine Yankee Atomic

Power Co., Omaha Public Power District,

Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., Northeast