9408 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 33 / Friday, February 17, 1995 / Notices

Labor’s prior decision.Accordingly, the

application is denied.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of

February, 1995.

Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–4019 Filed 2–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–30,483]

EFR Corporation, Everett, Washington;

Notice of Negative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration

By an application dated January 9,

1995, a former company official

requested administrative

reconsideration of the subject petition

for trade adjustment assistance, TAA.

The denial notice was issued on

December 22, 1994 and published in the

Federal Register on January 20, 1995

(60 FR 4194).

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.

Investigation findings show that the

workers produced logs.

In 1994 EFR went into a partnership

with Crown Pacific to clear a parcel of

land. EFR owned the timber once the

logs were cut. EFR sold the logs to one

customer. The partnership was

dissolved in November 1994.

The Department’s denial was based

on the fact that the ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ test of the worker group

eligibility requirements of the Trade Act

was not met. The ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ test is generally

demonstrated through a survey of the

subject firm’s major declining

customers. The Department’s survey

found that the respondents did not

import logs or limber in the period

relevant to the petition.

Further, foreign competition, in itself,

would not form a basis for a worker

group certification. The worker group

requirements necessary for certification

are (1) a significant decrease in

employment; (2) an absolute decline in

sales or production and (3) increased

imports of articles that are like or

directly competitive with those

produced by the subject firm and which

contributed importantly to declines in

sales or production and employment.

The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test in

this case was not met.

The workers were denied under a

NAFTA petition, (NAFTA 274).

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 decision. Accordingly, the

application is denied.

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

of February 1995.

Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–4018 Filed 2–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–30, 579]

McCord Winn Textron, Winchester,

MA; Certification Regarding Eligibility

To Apply for Worker Adjustment

Assistance

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 USC 2273) as

amended by the Omnibus Trade and

Competitiveness Act of 1988 (P. L. 100–

418), the Department of Labor herein

presents the results of an investigation

regarding certification of eligibility to

apply for worker adjustment assistance.

In order to make an affirmative

determination and issue a certification

of eligibility to apply for adjustment

assistance each of the group eligibility

requirements of Section 222 of the Act

must be met. It is determined in this

case that all of the requirements have

been met.

The investigation was initiated in

response to a petition received on

December 19, 1994, and filed by a

company official and the International

Union of Electrical Workers, Local 277,

on behalf of workers at McCord Winn

Textron, Winchester, Massachusetts.

The workers produce automobile fuel

pump armatures.

The Department of Labor surveyed the

principal customer of the subject firm

regarding its purchases of fuel pump

armatures in 1992–1993 and January to

November, 1993–1994. The survey

revealed that the customer is sourcing a

large portion of the armatures formerly

purchased from the subject firm with

armatures produced abroad.

Conclusion

After careful review of the facts

obtained in the investigation, I conclude

that increases of imports of articles like

or directly competitive with automobile

fuel pump armatures produced at

McCord Winn Textron, Winchester,

Massachusetts, contributed importantly

to the decline in sales or production and

to the total or partial separation of

workers of that firm. In accordance with

the provisions of the Act, I make the

following certification:

‘‘All workers of McCord Winn

Textron, Winchester, Massachusetts,

engaged in employment related to the

production of automobile fuel pump

armatures who became totally or

partially separated from employment on

or after December 8, 1993, through two

years from the date of certification are

eligible to apply for adjustment

assistance under Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974.’’

Signed in Washington, D.C. this 31st day

of January, 1995.

Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–4026 Filed 2–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–30,186]

Owens-Illinois a/k/a Owens Brockway

Glass Containers Waco, TX; 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

November 1, 1994, applicable to all

workers of Owens-Illinois in Waco,

Texas. The certification notice was

published in the Federal Register on

November 16, 1994 (59 FR 59253).

At the request of the State Agency, the

Department reviewed the certification

for workers of the subject firm. The

investigation findings show that the