Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices 28899

[TA–W–31, 780; TA–W–31, 781]

Cray Research, Incorporated, Eagan,

MN; Cray Research, Incorporated (CRI)

Chippewa Falls, WI; Notice of Negative

Determination Regarding Application

for Reconsideration

By an application dated March 22,

1996, one of the petitioners requested

administrative reconsideration of the

subject petition for trade adjustment

assistance. The denial notice was signed

on February 26, 1996 and published in

the Federal Register on March 19, 1996

(61 FR 11223).

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.

The investigation files show that

workers of Cray Research, Incorporated,

Eagan, Minnesota and Cray Research,

Incorporated (CRI) customer service in

Chippewa Falls, Minnesota produced

supercomputer systems and provided

sales, administrative and support

services.

The petitioner claims that aggressive

pricing from Japanese competitors,

contributed to worker separations at the

subject firm locations in Eagan and

Chippewa Falls. The petitioner explains

that foreign competitors ‘‘dumped’’ a

supercomputer at a Texas university.

There were at least two other failed

attempts to dump similar systems at

other U.S. universities. It was only the

intervention of the Commerce

Department coupled with severe price

cuts by CRI that averted these attempts.

However, the documentation submitted

by the petition shows that these events

occurred prior to the time period

relevant to the investigation.

The Department’s denial was based

on the fact that the ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ test of the Group

Eligibility Requirements of Trade Act

was not met. The Department was not

able to obtain imports statistics on

supercomputers because there are no

provisions for that commodity in the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States. To determine import

impact for workers of Cray Research, the

Department relied on a survey of the

subject firm’s customers. The

Department’s survey revealed that none

of the respondents purchased imports of

supercomputer systems in the relevant

time period of the investigation, which

for the full years 1993 through 1995.

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, DC, this 16th day of

May, 1996.

Russell T. Kile,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 96–14286 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–32,233]

Dataproducts Corporation, Norcross,

GA; 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

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for

Worker Adjustment Assistance on May

15, 1996, applicable to all workers of

Dataproducts Corporation located in

Norcross, Georgia. The notice will soon

be published in the Federal Register.

At the request of the State agency, the

Department reviewed the certification

for workers of the subject firm. The

Department is amending the

certification for workers of the subject

firm to change the impact date. New

findings show that workers of the

subject firm in Norcross, engaged in the

production of computer ribbons, are

covered under an existing certification,

TA–W–29,840, which does not expire

until August 8, 1996.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–32,233 is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of Dataproducts Corporation,

Norcross, Georgia engaged in employment

related to the production of computer ribbon

products who became totally or partially

separated from employment on or after

August 8, 1996, are eligible to apply for

adjustment assistance under Section 223 of

the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC this 20th day of

May 1996.

Russell T. Kile,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 96–14291 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

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–32,063; Grumman Olson,

Mayfield, PA

TA–W–32,253; Pioneer Manufacturing,

Inc., Salisbury, NC

TA–W–32,175; Berkley Medical

Resources, Inc., Michael Berkowitz

Co., Inc., Uniontown, PA

TA–W–32,223; Freedom Textile

Chemical Co., Conshohocken, PA

TA–W–32,182; Bend Wood Products,

Inc., Bend, OR

TA–W–32,082, TA–W–32,083; ECC

International, Sandersville, GA

Savannah, GA

TA–W–31,983; Whisper Woods (a

Division of Jessup Door Co),

Redmond, OR
28900 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reason specified.

TA–W–32,290; Keystone PowderedMetal

Co., St. Marys, PA

TA–W–32,303; Shaw Industries, Inc.,

Trenton, SC

TA–W–32,040; Hughes Training, Inc.,

Binghamton, NY

TA–W–32,105; Milliken & Co., Barnwell,

SC

Increased imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separations at the

firm.

TA–W–32,071; Syracuse Lithographing

Co., Syracuse, NY

TA–W–32,038; Allied Signal, Inc.,

Automotive Aftermarket, Rumford,

RI

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–32,252, A & B; Penn Virginia Oil

and Gas Corp., Located in the

States of TN, WV and KY

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 an production.

Affirmative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

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.

TA–W–32,265; Whirlpool Corp.,

Evansville, IN: April 10, 1995.

TA–W–32,239; American Apparel, Inc.,

Knoxville, TN: April 5, 1995.

TA–W–32,084; Richilene Industries,

New York, NY: February 20, 1995.

TA–W–32,277; Motor Wheel Corp.,

Mendota, IL: April 16, 1995.

TA–W–32,062; Forstmann & Co., Inc.,

Dublin, GA: March 6, 1995.

TA–W–32,048; Chicago Miniature Lamp,

Inc., Pauls Valley, OK: February 21,

1995.

TA–W–32,163; Barber Rose, Inc., Eynon,

PA: March 22, 1995.

TA–W–32,279; Pants Plus, New York,

NY: April 17, 1995.

TA–W–32,081; Dallco Industries, Inc.,

Mount Union, PA: March 12, 1995.

TA–W–32,274; Lucent Technologies,

Formerly AT&T, Montgomery, IL:

April 17, 1995.

TA–W–32,179, A & B; Dallco Industries,

Inc., Hountontown, PA,

Headquarters & Production Facility,

York, PA and Adams County, PA:

March 12, 1995.

TA–W–32,240; Connie Rose

Manufacturing, Inc., Philadelphia,

PA: April 8, 1995.

TA–W–32,107, A, B, C; Basin

Exploration, Inc., Denver Co, & Also

Located in The States of CO, TX &

WY: March 15, 1995.

TA–W–32,052; Vulcan Corp.,

Clarksville, TN: March 4, 1995.

TA–W–32,238; Vishay-Sprague, Inc.,

Sanford, ME: April 3, 1995.

TA–W–32,183; Thomas & Betts Corp.,

Electrical Dept., Montgomeryville,

PA: March 18, 1995.

TA–W–32,227; Ralph Lauren

Womenswear, Inc., Bidermann

Industries Corp., New York, NY:

March 27, 1995.

TA–W–32,323; The Sero Co., Inc.,

Sewing Operations, Cordele, GA:

May 7, 1995.

TA–W–32,299; New Trend Sportswear

Selinsgrove, PA: April 23, 1995.

TA–W–32,257; Salem Screen South,

Inc., Florence, AL: March 15, 1995.

TA–W–32,212; Kellogg USA, Inc., San

Leandro Plant, San Leandro, CA:

April 1, 1995.

TA–W–32,056; Herald Handbags, New

York, NY: February 28, 1995.

TA–W–32,046; Skyline Sportswear/

Donn Kenny Apparel, Floyd, VA:

February 11, 1995.

TA–W–32,012; IPM Products Corp.,

Hybritex Automotive Controls, El

Paso, TX: February 19, 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 or

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,

(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 on 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–00933; Shopware, Div. of

Cambridge Resource Group,

Aberdeen, WA

NAFTA–TAA–00938; Berkley Medical

Resources, Inc., Michael Berkowitz

Co., Inc., Uniontown, PA

NAFTA–TAA–00947; Salem Screen

South, Inc., Florence, AL

NAFTA–TAA–00990; Mainline

Industrial Distributors (formerly

Flood Industries, Inc), Iron

Mountain, MI

NAFTA–TAA–00966; Connie Rose

Manufacturing, Inc., Philadelphia,

PA

NAFTA–TAA–00899; A, B, C; Dallco

Industries, Inc., Hustontown, PA,

Mount Union, PA, Headquarters &

Production Facility, York, PA

Production Facility, Adams County,

PA

NAFTA–TAA–00930; Bend Wood

Products, Inc., Bend, OR

NAFTA–TAA–00985; Georgia Girl

Manufacturing, Smithville, TN

NAFTA–TAA–00945; Freedom Textiles

Chemicals Co., Conshohocken, PA

NAFTA–TAA–00923; Weyerhaeuser Co.,

Western Lumber, Kamiah, ID

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

None

Affirmative Determinations NAFTA–

TAA

The following certifications have been

issued; the date following the company
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 110 / Thursday, June 6, 1996 / Notices 28901

name & location for each determination

references the impact date for all

workers for such determination.

NAFTA–TAA–00989; United

Technologies Automotive, Wiring

Systems Div., El Paso, TX: April 19,

1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00959; Newell Home

Hardware Co., Dorfile Storage &

Shelving Systems, Los Angeles, CA:

April 1, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00983; Ratelco

Electronics, Inc., A C&D Charter

Power Systems Co., Seattle, WA:

April 16, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00976; A and C

Enterprises, Inc., Carthage, TN:

April 4, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00973; Siecor Corp., Otay

Mesa, CA: March 14, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00971; Ronnie

Manufacturing Co., Inc., New

Bedford, MA: April 11, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00975; American Apparel

Corp., Knoxville, TN: April 5, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–01004; Telex

Communications, Inc., LeSueur,

MN: April 30, 1995.

NAFTA–TAA–01000; American Olean

Tile Co., Lansdale, PA: April 23,

1995.

NAFTA–TAA–01011; Allied Signal, Inc.,

Automotive Safety Restraint

Systems, Greenville, AL: April 30,

1995.

NAFTA–TAA–00977; Whirlpool Corp.,

Evansville, IN: April 10, 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 28, 1996.

Russell Kile,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 96–14281 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–31,368, 369 & 369A]

Roxanne of New Jersey, Neptune, NJ;

Art San Corporation, Neptune, NJ;

Milady Brassiere and Corset Company,

New York, NY; 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

Revised Determination on Reopening on

March 26, 1996, applicable to all

workers of Roxanne of New Jersey and

Art San Corporation, both located in

Neptune, New Jersey. The notice was

published in the Federal Register on

April 3, 1996 (61 FR 14823).

At the request of petitioners, the

Department reviewed the certification

for workers of the subject firm. New

information shows that worker

separations have occurred at the parent

company, Milady Brassiere and Corset

Company located in New York, New

York. The workers at Milady were

engaged in employment related to the

production of swimwear at Roxanne of

New Jersey and the Art San Corporation.

Based on these new findings, the

Department is amending the

certification to cover workers of Milady

Brassiere and Corset Company, New

York, New York.

The intent of the Department’s

certification is to include all workers of

Roxanne and Art San who were

adversely affected by increased imports.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–31,368 is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of Roxanne of New Jersey (TA–

W–31,368), and Art San Corporation (TA–W–

31,369), Neptune, New Jersey, and Milady

Brassiere and Corset Company (TA–W–

31,369A), New York, New York, who became

totally or partially separated from

employment on or after August 17, 1994, are

eligible to apply for adjustment assistance

under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 28th day of

May 1996.

Russell T. Kile,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 96–14278 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–30,896, etc.]

Phillips Petroleum Company

Exploration and Production Group

(dba Exploration Division and North

American Production Division)

(Including General Counsel);

Bartlesville, Oklahoma and All Other

Locations in Oklahoma and All

Locations in the Following States:

Kansas, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana,

New Mexico, California, Alabama,

Alaska; 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

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for

Worker Adjustment Assistance on May

3, 1995, applicable to all workers of

Phillips Petroleum Company,

Exploration and Production Group, dba

Exploration Division and North

American Production Division,

Bartlesville, Oklahoma, all other

Oklahoma locations, and other locations

in various States. The notice was

published in the Federal Register on

May 17, 1995 (60 FR 26459).

At the request of petitioners, the

Department reviewed the certification

for workers of the subject firm. General

Counsel employees of the subject firm

were not explicitly cited in the

certification. However, new findings

show that General Counsel employees of

the subject firm did support the

exploration and production of crude oil

and natural gas.

The intent of the Department’s

certification is to include all workers of

Phillips Petroleum adversely affected by

imports of crude oil and natural gas.

Accordingly, the Department is

amending the worker certification to

specifically provide coverage to General

Counsel employees of the subject firm.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–30,896 is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of Phillips Petroleum

Company, Exploration and Production

Group, dba Exploration Division and North

American Production Division, Including

General Counsel, Bartlesville, Oklahoma

(TA–W–30,896), all other locations in

Oklahoma (TA–W–30,896A), and all

locations in the following States: Kansas

(TA–W–30,896B), Arkansas (TA–W–

30,896C), Texas (TA–W–30,896D), Louisiana

(TA–W–30,896E), New Mexico (TA–W–

30,896F), California (TA–W–30,896G),

Alabama (TA–W–30,896H), and Alaska (TA–

W–30,896I) who became totally or partially

separated from employment on or after

March 23, 1994, are eligible to apply for

adjustment assistance under Section 223 of

the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 23rd day

of May 1996.

Russell T. Kile,

Acting Program Manager, Policy and

Reemployment Services, Office of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 96–14287 Filed 6–5–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

[TA–W–32,129]

Phillips Petroleum Company, General

Counsel, Bellaire, TX; Notice of

Termination of Investigation

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade

Act of 1974, an investigation was

initiated on April 1, 1996 in response to

a worker petition which was filed

February 7, 1996, on behalf of workers

at Phillips Petroleum Company, General