65220 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2001 / Notices

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Devry Boughner (202) 205–3313,

dboughner@usitc.gov, in the

Commission’s Office of Industries. For

information on legal aspects of the

investigation contact Mr. William

Gearhart, wgearhart@usitc.gov, of the

Commission’s Office of the General

Counsel at (202) 205–3091.

Hearing-impaired individuals are

advised that information on this matter

can be obtained by contacting our TDD

terminal on (202) 205–1810.

Background

For purposes of making

determinations of the U.S. market for

fuel ethyl alcohol as required by section

7 of the Act, the Commission instituted

Investigation No. 332–288, Ethyl

Alcohol for Fuel Use: Determination of

the Base Quantity of Imports, in March

1990. The Commission uses official

statistics of the U.S. Department of

Energy to make these determinations as

well as the PIERS database of the

Journal of Commerce, which is based on

U.S. export declarations.

Section 225 of the Customs and Trade

Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–382, August

20, 1990) amended the original language

set forth in the Steel Trade

Liberalization Program Implementation

Act of 1989. The amendment requires

the Commission to make a

determination of the U.S. domestic

market for fuel ethyl alcohol for each

year after 1989.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: December 12, 2001.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–31057 Filed 12–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

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 November, 2001.

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

indicted that increased imports did not

contribute importantly to worker

separations at the firm.

TA–W–39,869; Cognis Corp/ Lock

Haven, Castanea, PA

TA–W–39,979; Fort Atkinson Industries,

Fort Atkinson, WI

TA–W–39,471; Besser Co., Alpena, MI

TA–W–39,880; Tuscarora Yarns, James

C. Fry Plant, Kinston, NC

TA–W–39,724; L.E. Smith Glass Co., Mt.

Pleasant, PA

TA–W–38,944; Crane Pumps and

Systems, Piqua, OH

TA–W–39,882; JSJ Corp., Grand Haven

South Plant, Grand Haven, MI

TA–W–39,312; Formtech Enterprises,

Orwigsburg, PA

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

Increased imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separations at the

firm.

TA–W–39,579; Newell Window

Furnishing, Inc./Kirsch, Waco, TX

TA–W–40,274; A.O. Smith Corp.,

Electrical Products Co., Owosso, MI

TA–W–39,950; Antec Network Plastics,

a/k/a Arris, El Paso, TX

TA–W–40,121; Connelly North America,

El Paso, TX

TA–W–40,052 & A; Emsar, Inc.,

Bridgeport, CT and Stratford, CT

TA–W–39,417; Innovex, Inc., Chandler,

AZ

TA–W–39,414; Marshall and Williams

Products, Inc., Providence, RI

TA–W–39,778; Coats North America,

Thomasville, GA

TA–W–40,048; Three-Five Systems, Inc.,

Tempe, AZ

TA–W–39,849; Square D, Scheider

Electric, Huntington, IN

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–39,382; Allied Vaughn, Clinton,

TN

TA–W–39,693; Winkel Industries, Inc.,

Confield, OH

The investigation revealed that

criteria (2) and (3) have not been met.

Sales or production did not decline

during the relevant period as required

for certification. Increased imports did

not contribute importantly to worker

separations at the firm.

TA–W–39,878; Pennzoil/Quaker State

Co., Shreveport Refinery,

Shreveport, LA

Affirmative Determinations for Worker

Adjustment Assistance

The following certifications have been

issued; the date following the company

name and location of each

determination references the impact

date for all workers of such

determination.

TA–W–39,954 & A; Pulp and Paper of

America, Berlin, NH and Gorham,

NH: August 21, 2000.

TA–W–40,046; Parker Hannifim Corp.,

Integrated Hydraulics Div.,

Lincolnshire, IL: August 31, 2000.

TA–W–39,619; Converse, Inc., Charlotte,

NC: June 25, 2000.

TA–W–39,616; United States Ceramic

Tile Co., East Sparta, OH: June 24,

2000.

TA–W–39,401; Industrial Seaming Co.,

Inc., Granite Falls, NC: June 14,

2000.

TA–W–38,974; Randy Industries, Inc.,

New York, NY: March 26, 2000.

TA–W–39,536; Georgia-Pacific Corp.,

West, Bellingham, WA: June 15,

2000.

TA–W–39,613; Dutton Manufacturing,

Laconia, NH: June 27, 2000.

TA–W–40,264; Winona Knitting Mills,

Div. of Hampshire Designers, Inc.,

Winona, MN: April 15, 2001.

TA–W–39,359; G.E. Marquette Medical,

d/b/a Corometrics, Wallingford, CT:

May 15, 2001.

TA–W–39,695; PEC of America Corp.,

Santee, CA: July 11, 2000.

TA–W–39,473; Boston Scientific Corp.,

Watertown, MA: June 7, 2000.

TA–W–40,092; MICTEC, Inc.,

Canonsburg, PA: September 7,

2000.

TA–W–39,986; Lexington Fabrics, Inc.,

Geraldine, AL: August 22, 2000.

TA–W–39,177; Wand Tool Co., Inc.,

Wheeling, IL: April 5, 2000.

TA–W–39,389; Precision Marshall Steel

Co., Washington, PA: May 12, 2000.

TA–W–39,963 & A; Thomasville

Furniture Industries, Inc., West

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2001 / Notices 65221

Jefferson Plant, West Jefferson, NC

and Sawmills Plant, Hudson, NC:

August 15, 2000.

TA–W–39,957 & A, B; Acushnet Rubber

Co., Inc., Belleville Facility, New

Bedford, MA, Riverside Facility,

New Bedford, MA and Warehouse,

New Bedford, MA: August 15, 2000.

Also, pursuant to Title V of the North

American Free Trade Agreement

Implementation Act (Pub. 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 November,

2001.

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

worker’s 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 imports

contributed importantly to such

workers’ separations or threat of

separation 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–04972; Besser Co.,

Alpena, MI

NAFTA–TAA–05382; Wilson Sporting

Goods Co., Racquet Sports,

Fountain Inn, SC 

NAFTA–TAA–05445; Graphic

Packaging Portland, OR

NAFTA–TAA–05289; JSJ Corp., Grand

Haven South Plant, Grand Haven,

MI

NAFTA–TAA–04793; Johnstown

America Corp., Freight Car Div.,

Johnstown, PA

NAFTA–TAA–05257; J.T. Fennell Co.,

Inc., Chillicothe, IL

NAFTA–TAA–05249; Anvil

International, Inc., Statesboro, GA

NAFTA–TAA–05210; Elastic

Corporation of America, Inc.,

Hemingway, SC

NAFTA–TAA–05179; Pennzoil/Quaker

State Co., Shreveport Refinery,

Shreveport, LA

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2,

Title II, of the trade Act of 1974, as

amended.

NAFTA–TAA–04985; Winona, Inc.,

Nashville, IN

NAFTA–TAA–04942; Allied Vaughn,

Clinton, TN

Affirmative Determinations NAFTA–

TAA

NAFTA–TAA–05380; Joplin

Manufacturing, Orica USA, Inc.,

Joplin, MO: September 26, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05489; Arvin Meritor,

Fayette, AL: October 19, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04788; J and L Speciality

Steel, Inc., Midland, PA: April 14,

2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05313; Bolivar Tees,

Bolivar, MO: September 4, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05167; Coats North

America, Thomasville, GA: July 18,

2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05356; Eaton Corp.,

Torque Control Products Div.,

Marshall, MI: September 18, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05012; Jaymar-Ruby, Inc.,

d/b/a Trans Apparel Group,

Michigan City, IN: June 13, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05417 & A; FCI USA, Inc.,

Fremont, CA and Cypress, CA:

October 8, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05283; W P Textile

Processing Corp., Richmond, VA:

September 4, 2000.

I hereby certify that the

aforementioned determinations were

issued during the month of November,

2001. Copies of these determinations are

available for inspection in Room C–

5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20210 during normal business hours

or will be mailed to persons who write

to the above address.

Dated: November 30, 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–31147 Filed 12–17–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–38,693 AND NAFTA–04514]

Summit Timber Co., Darrington, WA;

Notice of Negative Determination on

Reconsideration

On September 24, 2001, the

Department issued an Affirmative

Determination Regarding Application

for Reconsideration for the workers and

former workers of the subject firm. The

notice as published in the Federal

Register on October 19, 2001 (66 FR

53253).

The Department initially denied TAA

to workers of Summit Timber Company

because the ‘‘contributed importantly’’

group eligibility requirement of section

222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as

amended, was not met. None of the

customers increased their import

purchases of softwood dismenional

lumber, while reducing their purchases

from the subject firm.

The Department denied NAFTA–TAA

because the ‘‘contributed importantly’’

group eligibility requirement of Section

250 was not met and because there was

no shift in production to either Mexico

or Canada. None of the customers

increased their import purchases of

softwood dimensional lumber from

Canada or Mexico, while reducing their

purchases from the subject firm.

The workers at the subject firm were

engaged in employment related to the

production of softwood dimensional

lumber.

The company supplied an additional

list of customers that they believed were

importing softwood dimensional

lumber.

On reconsideration, the Department

conducted a survey of Summit Timber

Company’s additional customer list

regarding their purchases of softwood

dimensional lumber during 1999, 2000

and January through September 2001.

The survey revealed that there were no

meaningful increased customer

purchases of imported (including from

Canada or Mexico) softwood

dimensional lumber, while customers

decreased their purchases from the

subject plant during the relevant period.

Any customer import purchases of

softwood lumber were relatively small