Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 97 / Friday, May 17, 1996 / Notices 24959

set forth the reasons why DEA believes

Ganes’ application should be granted

under the factors pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

823(a) as set forth below.

In stating that Ganes Chemicals, Inc.’s

application to manufacture

methylphenidate would be contrary to

the public interest under 21 U.S.C.

823(a), the commentor argues that Ganes

would lack effective controls against

diversion of methylphenidate; that

Ganes’ past experience in the

manufacture of controlled substances

and experience in the establishment of

effective control against diversion were

questionable; that there is currently an

adequate and uninterrupted supply of

methylphenidate under adequately

competitive conditions; and that there

were other relevant factors to indicate

that Ganes’ registration would be

contrary to the public health and safety.

In support of the contentions that

Ganes lacks effective controls to prevent

diversion and that Ganes’ past

experience in this regard was

questionable, the commentor states that

as a result of an Order to Show Cause

issued by DEA and a Civil Complaint

filed in the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey charging

Ganes with various security and recordkeeping violations and with

manufacturing controlled substances in

excess of quotas, Ganes entered into a

Consent Agreement in December 1980,

agreeing to withdraw its application to

bulk manufacture methaqualone and not

reapply until 1984 and pay a $25,000

fine.

Ganes’ application is based on the

firm’s request to add methylphenidate

to its existing registration as a bulk

manufacturer. Ganes has been and is

currently registered with DEA as a bulk

manufacturer of other Schedule II

controlled substances. Both the Order to

Show Cause and the civil complaint

occurred over fifteen years ago. The firm

has been investigated by DEA on a

regular basis since that time to

determine if the firm maintains effective

controls against diversion and if its

continued registration is consistent with

the public interest. These investigations

have included, in part, inspection and

testing of the firm’s physical security,

audits of the firm’s records, verification

of compliance with state and local law

and a review of the firm’s background

and history. The investigations have

found Ganes to be in compliance with

the CSA and its implementing

regulations.

The commentor argues that there is an

adequate and uninterrupted supply of

methylphenidate under adequately

competitive conditions. In support of

this argument, the commentor asserts

that the present bulk manufacturers are

adequate for this purpose, that quota

restrictions have been eased sufficiently

since 1988, and that the commentor

sells methylphenidate in dosage form to

itself and other distributors.

Under Title 21, CFR 1301.43(b), DEA

is not required to limit the number of

manufacturers solely because a smaller

number is capable of producing an

adequate supply, provided effective

controls against diversion are

maintained. DEA has determined that

effective controls against diversion will

be maintained by Ganes.

The commentor, in support of its

argument that Ganes’ registration would

be contrary to the public health and

safety, cites Ganes’ manufacture of the

List I chemicals, ephedrine and

pseudoephedrine. The commentor states

that DEA has reported that ephedrine

and pseudoephedrine are used in the

clandestine manufacture of

methamphetamine and methcathinone

and that companies such as Ganes may

be the source of these chemicals.

With respect to Ganes’ manufacture of

ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, there

is no evidence of any violations of the

Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act

(CDTA) and the Domestic Chemical

Diversion Control Act (DCDCA).

Another factor which the commentor

claims is relevant is that the Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) has made

various inspections of Ganes’ two

production centers between 1980 and

1994, and noted various problems with

record keeping, manufacturing practices

and product-complaint procedures. The

commentor states that some of these

findings pertain to controlled

substances.

The FDA violations are based on the

practices of another federal agency

within another department of

government operating under the

authority of distinctly different statutes.

Moreover, DEA has verified with FDA

that Ganes’ drug registration under the

Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act is

current, that the nature of the indicated

(or noted) FDA citations against Ganes

and the FDA actions to ensure

compliance do not warrant a finding

that Ganes’ compliance with Federal

laws is so lacking or inadequate as to

warrant denial under the CSA.

It is within DEA’s sole discretion to

decide whether or not to file an Order

to Show Cause after reviewing all of the

evidence, including the comments and

objections provided to DEA under 21

CFR 1301.43(a). After reviewing all the

evidence, including the comment filed,

DEA has determined, pursuant to 21

U.S.C. 823(a), that it is consistent with

the public interest to grant Ganes’

application to manufacture

methylphenidate at this time. Therefore,

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR

0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant

Administrator, Office of Diversion

Control, hereby orders that the

application submitted by the above firm

for registration as a bulk manufacturer

of the basic classes of controlled

substances listed above is granted.

Dated: May 13, 1996.

Gene R. Haislip,

Deputy Assistant Administrator Office of

Diversion Control Drug Enforcement

Administration.

[FR Doc. 96–12429 Filed 5–16–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–09–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 May, 1996.

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–32,177; EMI Co., Erie, PA
24960 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 97 / Friday, May 17, 1996 / Notices

TA–W–32,097; International Paper,

Gardiner, OR

TA–W–31,981; Sealright Packaging Co.,

Inc., Desoto, KS

TA–W–32,119; Jasper Yarn Processing,

Inc., Jasper, GA

TA–W–32,190 & A; Northeast Lumber

Co., Inc., Chester, ME

TA–W–32,115; Fox Point Sportswear,

Inc., Merrill, WI

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

TA–W–32,209; Chic By HIS, Henry I.

Siegel Co., Inc., Clinton, KY

TA–W–32,219; Pelican Seafoods, Inc.,

Pelican, AK

TA–W–32,110; Cowtown Boot Co., Inc.,

El Paso, TX

TA–W–32,127; Pennsylvania Power Co.,

Bruce Mansfield Plant,

Shippingport, PA

TA–W–31,985; United Technologies,

Hamilton Standard Commercial

Aircraft Products, Mesa, AZ

Increased imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separations at the

firm.

TA–W–32,075; Coach Leatherware,

Carlstadt, NJ

TA–W–32,167; Red Kap Industries, Inc.,

Tupelo, MS

TA–W–32,235; Zenith Electronics Corp.,

El Paso, TX

TA–W–31,990; L. Bonfanti, Inc., Salem,

MA

TA–W–32,128; Permian Basin

Community Center, Midland, TX

TA–W–32,045; Noram Gas

Transmission, Shreveport, LA

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–32,005; The McGraw Hill Co.,

Blue Ridge Summit, PA

The investigation revealed that

criterion (2) and criterion (3) have not

been met. Sales or production did not

decline during the relevant period as

required for certification. Increases of

imports of articles like or directly

competitive with articles produced by

the firm or appropriate subdivision have

not contributed importantly to the

separations or threat thereof, and the

absolute decline in sales or production.

TA–W–31,997; Morton International

Adhesives & Chemical Specialties,

Danvers, MA

The investigation revealed that

criterion (2) has not been met. Sales or

production did not decline during the

relevant period as required for

certification.

TA–W–32,149; Vanity Fair Mills,

McAllen, TX

The investigation revealed that

criterion (1) has not been met. A

significant number or proportion of the

workers did not become totally or

partially separated as required for

certification.

TA–W–32,196; Liz Clairborne, Inc.,

(Headquarters Building—1 Liz

Clairborne Avenue), North Bergen,

NJ

The investigation revealed that

criterion (1) and criterion (2) have not

been met. A significant number or

proportion of the workers did not

become totally or partially separated as

required for certification. Sales or

production did not decline during the

relevant period as required for

certification.

Affirmative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

The following certifications have been

issued; the date following the company

name and location for each

determination references the impact

date for all workers for such

determination.

TA–W–32,060; Rhubarb Fashions, Jersey

City, NJ: February 28, 1995.

TA–W–32,073; Rust Evader Corp.,

Altoona, PA: March 4, 1995.

TA–W–32,087; Vans, Inc., Orange, CA:

February 6, 1995.

TA–W–32,131; Ranick Ltd, Athens, GA:

March 25, 1995.

TA–W–32,132; Ranick Ltd, Washington,

GA: March 25, 1995.

TA–W–32,178 & A; Kentucky Apparel

LLP, Burkesville, KY, & El Paso, TX:

March 11, 1995.

TA–W–32,260; Buster Brown Apparel,

Inc., Garmet Finished Department,

Chatanooga, TN: April 15, 1995.

TA–W–32,146; Tex Mex Sportswear

International, Inc., El Paso, TX:

March 14, 1995.

TA–W–32,099; Stapleton Garmet Co.

(Knight Industries), Stapleton, GA:

March 11, 1995.

TA–W–32,171; L. Chessler, Inc.,

Philadelphia, PA: March 25, 1995.

TA–W–32,080; Award Lighting, Miami

Lakes, FL: February 19, 1995.

TA–W–32,024; GEM II, Inc., Florala, AL:

February 22, 1995.

TA–W–32,181; Century Pine Products,

Inc., Redmond, OR: March 25, 1995.

TA–W–32,160; Casablanca Fan Co., City

of Industry, CA: March 12, 1995.

TA–W–32,156; Lucia, Inc., WinstonSalem, NC: March 21, 1995.

TA–W–32,070 & A; Marcraft,

Bloomsburg, PA & Sewcomp, Inc.,

New Berling, PA: March 11, 1995.

TA–W–32,245; Super Craft, Garfield, NJ:

April 11, 1995.

TA–W–32,124; Mayr Bros. Logging Co.,

Inc., Hoquiam, WA: March 14,

1995.

TA–W–32,276; Early Manufacturing Co.,

Blakely, GA: April 18, 1995.

TA–W–32,109; Branch Oil & Gas,

Shelby, MT: February 29, 1995.

TA–W–32,184; Timber Products Co.,

Grove Lumber Div., Springfield, OR:

March 19, 1995.

TA–W–31,966; Dreher, Inc., Newark, NJ:

January 29, 1995.

TA–W–32,042; Dye-Tex Limited,

Roanoke, VA: March 5, 1995.

TA–W–31,999; Beco Well Service, Co.,

Cement, OK: February 29, 1995.

TA–W–32,272; Teleflex Automotive,

Martinsburg, WV:

TA–W–32,255; General Electric Co.,

Residential Transformer, Hickory,

NC: March 20, 1995.

TA–W–32,180; Majester Production Co.,

Austin, TX: March 20, 1995.

TA–W–32,151; Western Publishing Co.,

Inc., Racine, WI: May 18, 1996.

TA–W–32,215; Pike Manufacturing

Corp., Troy, AL: March 29, 1995.

TA–W–32,186; OSRAM Sylvania, Inc.,

General Lighting Div., Incandescent

Lamp Manufacturing Plant, St.

Mary’s PA: March 26, 1995.

TA–W–32,114; Forte Cashmere Co., Inc.,

Woonsocket, RI: March 16, 1995.

TA–W–32,004; Wrangler, Inc., Silver

Lake Div. of the Alameda Plant, El

Paso, TX: January 10, 1995.

TA–W–32,189; Meren Industries, Inc.,

Newark, NJ: April 2, 1995.

TA–W–32,176; Advance Transformer

Co., Platteville, WI: March 26, 1995.

Also, pursuant to Title V of the North

American Free Trade Agreement

Implementation Act (P.L. 103–182)

concerning transitional adjustment

assistance hereinafter called (NAFTA–

TAA) and in accordance with Section

250(a) Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II,

of the Trade Act as amended, the

Department of Labor presents

summaries of determinations regarding

eligibility to apply for NAFTA–TAA

issued during the month of May, 1996.

In order for an affirmative

determination to be made and a

certification of eligibility to apply for

NAFTA–TAA the following group

eligibility requirements of Section 250

of the Trade Act must be met:

(1) That a significant number of

proportion of the workers in the

workers’ firm, or an appropriate

subdivision thereof, (including workers

in any agricultural firm or appropriate

subdivision thereof) have become totally

or partially separated from employment

and either—

(2) That sales or production, or both,

of such firm or subdivision have

decreased absolutely,
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 97 / Friday, May 17, 1996 / Notices 24961

(3) That imports from Mexico or

Canada of articles like or directly

competitive with articles produced by

such firm or subdivision have increased,

and that the increases in imports

contributed importantly to such

workers’ separations or threat of

separation and to the decline in sales or

production of such firm or subdivision;

or

(4) That there has been a shift in

production by such workers’ firm or

subdivision to Mexico or Canada of

articles like or directly competitive with

articles which are produced by the firm

or subdivision.

Negative Determinations NAFTA–TAA

In each of the following cases the

investigation revealed that criteria (3)

and (4) were not met. Imports from

Canada or Mexico did not contribute

importantly to workers’ separations.

There was no shift in production from

the subject firm to Canada or Mexico

during the relevant period.

NAFTA–TAA–00934; Vanity Fair Mills,

McAllen, TX

NAFTA–TAA–00905; Jasper Yarn

Processing, Inc., Jasper, GA

NAFTA–TAA–00901; Pennsylvania

Power Co., Bruce Mansfield Plant,

Shippingport, PA

NAFTA–TAA–00910; Syracuse

Lithographing Co., Syracuse, NY

NAFTA–TAA–00895; EMI Co., Erie, PA

NAFTA–TAA–00886; International

Paper, Gardiner, OR

NAFTA–TAA–00916; Chic By H.I.S.,

Henry I. Siegel Co., Inc., Clinton, KY

NAFTA–TAA–00915; Shirts Elite, Inc.,

Glens Falls, NY

NAFTA–TAA–00912; Vans, Inc.,

Orange, CA

NAFTA–TAA–00892 & A; Ranick, Ltd,

Athens, GA & Washington, GA

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

NAFTA–TAA–00955; Puchi’s Family

Fashion Centers, Tucson, AZ

NAFTA–TAA–00918; Permian Basin

Community Center, Midland, TX

NAFTA–TAA–00909; Zenith Electronics

Corp., El Paso, TX

NAFTA–TAA–00881; Alemeda

Equipment Co., Inc., Master

Equipment Center, Amherst, NY

The investigation revealed that the

workers of the subject firm did not

produce an article within the meaning

of Section 250(a) of the Trade Act, as

amended.

Affirmative Determinations NAFTA–

TAA

The following certifications have been

issued; the date following the company

name & location for each determination

references the impact date for all

workers for such determination.

NAFTA–TAA–00914; Terminal

Fabrication, Inc., Freeport, IL:

February 28, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00890 & A; Kentucky

Apparel LLP, Burkesville, KY & EL

Paso, TX: March 6, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00896; Branch Oil & Gas,

Shelby, MT: February 29, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00948; Irvin Automotive

Products, Inc., Del Rio Trim, Del

Rio, TX: March 18, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00942; Century Pine

Products, Inc., Redmond, OR:

March 25, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00931; Casablanca Fan

Co., City of Industry, CA: March 12,

1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00932; Timber Products

Co., Grove Lumber Div., Springfield,

OR: March 19, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00940; OSRAM Sylvania,

Inc., General Lighting Div.,

Incandescent Lamp Manufacturing

Plant, St. Mary’s PA: March 26,

1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00936; Advance

Transformer Co., Platteville, WI:

March 26, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00922; Western

Publishing Co., Inc., Racine, WI:

March 22, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00935; Majestic Products

Co., Austin, TX: March 20, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00919; Flexitallic, Inc.,

Pennsauken, NJ: March 12, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00911; Mayr Bros.

Logging Co., Inc., Hoquiam, WA:

March 14, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00933; McGill Electric

Switch Product Group, a Div. of

Therm-O-Disc, Inc., Valparaiso, IN:

March 28, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00963; Dolphin

International Ltd, The Dalles, OR:

April 1, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00913; TxMx Sportswear

International, Inc., El Paso, TX:

March 14, 1995.

I hereby certify that the

aforementioned determinations were

issued during the month of May 1996.

Copies of these determinations are

available for inspection in Room C–

4318, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20210 during normal

business hours or will be mailed to

persons who write to the above address.

Dated: May 9, 1996.

Russell Kile,

Acting Program Manager, Policy &

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 96–12443 Filed 5–16–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–30,472A]

Exxon Company, U.S.A., a/k/a Exxon

Corporation, Houston/Corpus Christi

Production Division, Including the

Marketing Division, Houston, TX;

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 December 15, 1994,

applicable to all workers of Exxon

Company, U.S.A., Houston/Corpus

Christi Production Division, Houston,

Texas. The notice was published in the

Federal Register on January 20, 1995

(60 FR 4195). The notice was

subsequently amended to reflect a name

change from Exxon Company U.S.A. to

Exxon Corporation, and published in

the Federal Register on March 31, 1995

(60 FR 16677).

At the request of the State agency, the

Department reviewed the certification

for workers of the subject firm. The

State reports that some of the workers of

the subject firm are being denied

eligibility to apply for TAA because

they were in the Marketing Division of

Exxon in Houston. Findings show that

when the certification was issued it was

the Department’s intent to include

workers of the subject firm engaged in

employment related to the exploration

and drilling for crude oil, and the

administrative, technical and support

staff. Accordingly, the Department is

amending the certification to

specifically include the Marketing

Division of the subject firm.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–30,472A is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of Exxon Company U.S.A., a/

k/a Exxon Corporation, Houston/Corpus

Christi Production Division, including the

Marketing Division, Houston, Texas who

became totally or partially separated from

employment on or after October 23, 1993 are

eligible to apply for adjustment assistance

under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 9th day of

May 1996.

Russell T. Kile,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 96–12440 Filed 5–16–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M