Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Notices 8065

The purpose of each of the

investigations is to determine whether

the workers are eligible to apply for

adjustment assistance under Title II,

Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations

will further relate, as appropriate, to the

determination of the date on which total

or partial separations began or

threatened to begin and the subdivision

of the firm involved.

The petitioners or any other persons

showing a substantial interest in the

subject matter of the investigations may

request a public hearing, provided such

request is filed in writing with the

Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance, at the address shown below,

not later than February 21, 1995.

Interested persons are invited to

submit written comments regarding the

subject matter of the investigations to

the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance, at the address shown below,

not later than February 21, 1995.

The petitions filed in this case are

available for inspection at the Office of

the Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance, Employment and Training

Administration, U.S. Department of

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20210.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 30th day of

January, 1995.

Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Manager, Policy & Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

APPENDIX

Petitioner: union/workers/firm— Location Date received

Date of petition Petition No. Articles produced

Union Camp Corp (UPIU) ................... Savannah, GA ........ 01/30/95 01/16/95 30,688 Paper Bags for Retail Customers.

Baker Hughes Inteq (Co) .................... Houston, TX ........... 01/30/95 01/06/95 30,689 Oil and Gas.

Pennzoil Products Co (OCAW) .......... Roosevelt, UT ........ 01/30/95 01/12/95 30,690 Petroleum Products.

Champion Technologies, Inc (wkrs) ... Houston, TX ........... 01/30/95 01/18/95 30,691 Oilfield Chemicals.

Eveready Battery Co (wkrs) ................ Red Oak, IA ........... 01/30/95 01/17/95 30,692 Batteries.

Hudson Valley Polymers (wkrs) .......... Poughkeepsie, NY . 01/30/95 01/06/95 30,693 Rubber Parts for Milking Equip.

Leica, Inc (Co) .................................... Buffalo, NY ............. 01/30/95 01/17/95 30,694 Ophthalmic Instruments.

Malcolm Clothing Corp. (ILGWU) ....... Passaic, NJ ............ 01/30/95 01/17/95 30,695 Women’s Coats.

Statler Tissue Co (UPIU) .................... Augusta, ME .......... 01/30/95 01/13/95 30,696 Tissue.

Empire Manufacturing Co (wkrs) ........ Winder, GA ............ 01/30/95 01/05/95 30,697 Casual Slacks & Shorts.

Classic Fashions (ILGWU) ................. Paterson, NJ .......... 01/30/95 01/17/95 30,698 Ladies’ Coats.

Novelle Industries, Inc (wkrs) ............. Miami, FL ............... 01/30/95 01/18/95 30,699 Ladies’ Sportswear.

E.G. & G Vactec, Inc (UAW) .............. St. Louis, MO ......... 01/30/95 01/18/95 30,700 Photocells.

[FR Doc. 95–3400 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–29,927; NAFTA–00120]

Walker Manufacturing Company

Hebron, Ohio; 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 workers filing under petition TA–

W–29,927 were initially denied

eligibility to apply for trade adjustment

assistance (TAA) on September 2, 1994

(59 FR 45711) and denied on

application for reconsideration on

October 5, 1994 (59 52194). The

Department’s denial was based on the

fact that increased import criterion and

the ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test of the

Worker Group Eligibility Requirements

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

imports of mufflers and exhaust pipes

declined in 1993 compared to 1992 and

in the latest twelve month period

ending in May 1994 compared to the

same twelve month period ending in

May 1993.

The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is

generally demonstrated through a

survey of the workers’ firm’s customers.

The Department’s survey of Hebron’s

sole customer shows that the sole

customer’s import purchases were not

important relative to Hebron’s sales

during the relevant period.

The workers were also denied under

the NAFTA petition (NAFTA–00120) on

June 30, 1994 (59 FR 3997) 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 from Mexico

or Canada nor the shift in production to

Mexico or Canada criterion of the

Worker Group Eligibility Requirements

of the NAFTA provisions of the Trade

Act were met.

The record states that the Ohio

Bureau of Employment Security (OBES)

made a preliminary finding that the

employment and production decline

and the aggregate import criteria had

been met. Under the NAFTA–TAA

provisions, the State does not make a

finding on the ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ test.

On remand the Department contacted

the plaintiff’s counsel, and other

witnesses to provide the Department

with any information or documentation

that would contradict the Department’s

negative determinations. The plaintiffs

indicated 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

to the phasedown.

The remand findings show that the

Walker plant in Mexico does not

produce any products for the workers’

firm’s only customer.

The findings also show that no

production was transferred to Mexico as

a result of the closure of the Hebron

plant. Only the production of resonator

bodies was transferred to Canada;

however, this 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.

The Department’s survey showed that

Hebron’s customers did not decease

their purchases of exhaust systems from

Hebron and increase their imports from

Mexico or Canada in the relevant

period.

The findings on remand show that as

a result of the Hebron closure, the

company is making its excess

machinery available to other corporate

North American plants including the

one in Mexico. According to several

company officials, the Hebron closing is

the result of capacity issues within

Walker Manufacturing in North

America.
8066 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 28 / Friday, February 10, 1995 / Notices

The transfer of machinery from a

domestic plant to a Mexican or

Canadian plant would not form a basis

for a worker group certification under

the NAFTA provisions of the Trade Act.

The NAFTA provisions to the Trade Act

specifically state that there must be a

transfer of production from a domestic

firm to a Mexican or Canadian plant to

be eligible to apply for transitional

adjustment assistance, not machinery

associated with that or any other type of

production.

Further, the Department has never

considered in any of its investigations

under the NAFTA provisions of the

Trade Act that the transfer of machinery

is tantamount to the transfer of

production. Certification under the

NAFTA provisions of the Trade Act is

premised on increased imports of

articles from Mexico or Canada that are

like or directly competitive with those

produced at the workers’ firm or a shift

in production to Mexico or Canada of

articles that are like or directly

competitive with those produced at the

workers’ firm. Accordingly a shift of

machinery or other capital assets would

not meet the shift in production

criterion of the NAFTA Worker Group

Eligibility Requirements.

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 27th day

of January 1995.

Victor J. Trunzo,

Program Director, Policy and Reemployment

Services, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 95–3404 Filed 2–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

Job Training Partnership Act: Native

American Programs; Proposed Total

Allocations and Allocation Formulas

for Program Year 1995 Regular

Program and Calendar Year 1995

Summer Youth Employment and

Training Program

AGENCY: Employment and Training

Administration (ETA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The ETA of the Department of

Labor (DOL) is publishing the proposed

Native American allocations,

distribution formulas and rationale, and

individual grantee planning estimates

for Program Year (PY) 1995 (July 1,

1995–June 30, 1996) for regular

programs funded under Title IV–A of

the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA),

and for Calendar Year (CY) 1995 for

Summer Youth Employment and

Training Programs (SYETP) funded

under Title II–B of the JTPA.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposal are invited and must be

received on or before March 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

Mr. Paul A. Mayrand, Director, Office of

Special Targeted Programs, Employment

and Training Administration, room N–

4641, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Thomas M. Dowd, Phone: 202–219–

8502 (this is not a toll free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Section 162 of the JTPA, ETA of the

DOL publishes below for review and

comment the proposed allocations and

distribution formulas for areas to be

served by Native American grantees to

be funded under JTPA Section 401, and

JTPA Title II, Part B. The amounts to be

distributed are $64,080,040 for the JTPA

Section 401 programs for PY 1995 (July

1, 1995–June 30, 1996); and $15,768,370

for the JTPA Title II, Part B, SYETP for

the Summer of CY 1995. The planning

estimates reflect the existing grantees

and their currently assigned areas, and

are subject to change for such reasons as

Administrative Law Judge decisions, the

possibility that a grantee will want to

have its designation withdrawn, and

legislative changes.

The formula for allocating JTPA

Section 401 funds provides that 25

percent of the funding will be based on

the number of unemployed Native

Americans in the grantee’s area, and 75

percent will be based on the number of

poverty-level Native Americans in the

grantee’s area.

The formula for allocating SYETP

funds divides the funds among eligible

recipients based on the proportion that

the number of Native American youths

in a recipient’s area bears to the total

number of Native American youths in

all eligible recipients’ areas.

The rationale for the above formulas

is that the number of poverty-level

persons, unemployed persons, and

youths among the Native American

population is indicative of the need for

training and employment funds.

Statistics on youths, unemployed

persons, and poverty-level persons

among Native Americans used in the

above programs are derived from the

Decennial Census of the Population,

1990.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 6th day of

February 1995.

Douglas Ross,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

U.S. Department of Labor—

Employment and Training

Administration, PY 1995 Title IV–A

and CY 1995 Title II–B (Summer 1995)

Planning Estimates for Native

American Grantees, (Date)

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M