Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Notices 66427

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 December,

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 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 of 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–05352; Visteon Systems,

LLC, Connersville, IN

NAFTA–TAA–05518; Appleton Papers,

Inc., Harrisburg Plant, Camp Hill, PA

NAFTA–TAA–05360; Con Lime, Inc.,

Bellefonte, PA

NAFTA–TAA–05262; Lamtech, LLC,

Hartsville, TN

NAFTA–TAA–04781; Globe Building

Materials, Inc., Cornell, WI

NAFTA–TAA–04958; Philips Display

Components, Display Components,

Ottawa, OH

NAFTA–TAA–05421; Stitches, Inc., El

Paso, TX

NAFTA–TAA–05389; Stephens Pipe and

Steel, Russell Springs, KY

NAFTA–TAA–04780; WSW Company of

Sharon, Inc., Sharon, TN

NAFTA–TAA–05281; Haemer-Wright

Tool and Die, Inc., Saegertown, PA

NAFTA–TAA–04759A; Thomson

Saginaw Ball Screw Company LLC,

Cut Center, Saginaw, MI

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–05295; Genlyte Thomas

Group, LLC, Hopkinsville, KY

NAFTA–TAA–05550; Datamark, Inc., El

Paso, TX

NAFTA–TAA–05274; Toastmaster, Inc.,

A Subsidiary of Salton, Inc.,

Boonville, MO

Affirmative Determinations NAFTA–

TAA

NAFTA–TAA–04759; Thomson Saginaw

Ball Screw Company LLC, Saginaw,

MI: April 12, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05001; Louisiana Pacific

Corp., Rogue River Veneer Plant,

Rogue River, OR: June 18, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05259; Specialty Coatings

of Virginia, Ltd, Ridgeway, VA:

August 20, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05212; Yarway Corp., A

Div. of Tyco International, Blue Bell,

PA: August 8, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05420; Communications

and Power Industries, Inc., Satcom

Div., Palo Alto, CA: October 4, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05322; Volvo

Construction Equipment North

America, Inc., Asheville Plant,

Skyland, NC: September 13, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05468; CW Industries,

Hazleton Enterprises, Hazleton, PA:

October 22, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05246; Teccor

Electronics, A Div. of Invensys, Irving,

TX: August 17, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05523; Motorola,

Automotive Communications and

Electronics Systems, Elk Grove

Village, IL: November 5, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05333; Tyco

International, Anderson Greenwood

Crosby Div., Wrentham, MA: August

31, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05363; Advanced Wood

Resources, Brownville, OR September

22, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05317; Tyco Electronics

Corp., Communications, Computer

and Electronics Div., Carlisle, PA:

September 7, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05474; Bremen-Bowdon

Investment Company, Bowdon, GA:

October 24, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05487; Crouzet Corp.,

Carrollton, TX: June 29, 2001.

NAFTA–TAA–05243; Maxell Corp., of

America, Conyers, GA: August 29,

2000.

NAFTA–TAA–5189; Tyco Electronics

Corp., East Berlin, PA: August 3, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05251; Willamette

Industries, Inc., Korpine Div., Bend,

OR: August 17, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05458; Scientific Atlanta,

Inc., Norcross, GA: October 22, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05044; Kimlor Mills, Inc.,

Orangeburg, SC: June 30, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05308 and A; Carolina

Mills, Inc., Plant #23, Gastonia, NC

and Plant #26, St. Pauls, NC:

September 4, 2000.

I hereby certify that the

aforementioned determinations were

issued during the month of December,

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: December 18, 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of, Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–31625 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[Docket No. TA–W–38, 893] and [NAFTA–

04613]

The Budd Company Stamping and

Frame Division Philadelphia, PA,

Notice of Affirmative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration

By letter of July 9, 2001 the petitioner

requested administrative

reconsideration of the Department of

Labor’s Notice of Negative

Determination Regarding Eligibility to

Apply for Worker Adjustment

Assistance and NAFTA Transitional

Adjustment Assistance, applicable to

petition numbers TA–W–38,893 and

NAFTA 04613, respectively. The denial

notices were signed on May 10, 2001

and published in the Federal Register

on May 23, 2001 (66 FR 28553 and

28554, respectively).

The petitioner indicated that the

subject firm opened a new stamping

plant in Silao, Mexico during the fall of

2000. The petitioner further stated that

the opening of the Mexican plant

resulted in a significant shift in plant

production to Mexico.

66428 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Notices

Conclusion

After careful review of the

application, I conclude that the claim is

of sufficient weight to justify

reconsideration of the Department of

Labor’s prior decision. The application

is, therefore, granted.

Signed at Washington, DC this 30th day of

November 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–31619 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–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 November and

December, 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 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–39,506; Unico, Sanford, ME

TA–W–39,806; Kysor Panel Systems, a

Div. of Enodis Corp., Portland, OR

TA–W–39,883; FB Johnston Group,

North Carolina Div., Hillsborough,

NC

TA–W–39,033 G.E. Lighting, Inc.,

Bucyrus, OH

TA–W–39,511; Philips Display

Components, Display Components,

Ottawa, OH

TA–W–40.069; Westvaco Corp., Tyrone,

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–39,926; Anvil Knitwear, Inc.,

King Mountain, NC

TA–W–39,991; Broyhill Furniture, Plant

#34, Lenoir, NC

TA–W–39,955; Pennco Tool & Die,

Meadville, PA

TA–W–39,703; Echo Bay Minerals Co.,

Battle Mountain, NV

TA–W–40,254; Graphic Packaging,

Portland, OR

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–40,140; Wormser Knitting Mills,

Charlotte, NC

TA–W–40,262; Parago, Inc., Coppell, TX

The investigation revealed that

criteria (2) has not been met. Sales or

production did not decline during the

relevant period as required for

certification.

TA–W–39,682; Wellmade Industries,

New York, New York

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–40,022; Tyco International,

Anderson Greenwood Crosby Div.,

Wrentham, MA: August 29, 2000.

TA–W–40,373 & A, B, C, D; Tect, Inc.,

Topton Sewing Plant, Topton, Pa.,

Cutting and Automated Sewing

Dept., Allentown, PA, Knitting Dept,

Allentown, PA, Temple Sewing

Plant, Temple, PA and Sewing and

Embellishment Dept., Allentown,

PA: October 5, 2000.

TA–W–40,074; Kentucky Apparel,

Tompkinsville, KY: September 5,

2000.

TA–W–39,909; RF Monolithics, Inc.,

Dallas, TX: August 13, 2000.

TA–W–39,858; Fedders Corp., Columbia

Specialties, Inc., Columbia, TN:

August 20, 2000.

TA–W–40,213; Communications and

Power Industries, Inc., Satcom Div.,

Palo Alto, CA: October 4, 2000.

TA–W–40,247; IFF, Inc., Salem, OR:

October 2, 2000.

TA–W–40,042; WP Textiles Processing

Corp., Richmond, VA: September 4,

2000.

TA–W–39,874; Zinc Corp. of America,

Balmat Mining Div., Hailesboro,

NY: August 20, 2000.

TA–W–39,893; Union Apparel, Inc.,

Norvelt, PA: August 8, 2000.

TA–W–39,767; Bremen-Bowdon

Investment Col, Bowdon, GA: July

20, 2000.

TA–W–39,805; Donaldson Co., Inc., Dust

Collection Equipment, Lousville,

KY: July 27, 2000.

TA–W–40,054; Fairchild

Semiconductor, (Formerly Intersil

Corp), Mountaintop, PA: September

2, 2000.

TA–W–39,489; California Cedar

Products Co., Roseburg Sawmill,

Roseburg, OR: June 7, 2000

TA–W–39,895; Crossville Rubber, Inc.,

Crossville, TN: August 15, 2000.

TA–W–39,896; KPT, Inc., Bloomfield,

IN: August 7, 2000

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 November

and December, 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 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 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