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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 26, 2001 / Notices 66429

articles like or directly competitive with

articles which are produced by the firm

or subdivision.

Negative Determinations NATA–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–05164; Kysor Panel

Systems, A Div. of Enodis Corp.,

Portland, OR

NAFTA–TAA–04953; G.E. Lighting, Inc.,

Bucyrus, OH

NAFTA–TAA–04455; Sunlite Casual

Furniture, Paragould, AR

NAFTA–TAA–05326; FB Johnston

Group, North Carolina Div.,

Hillsborough, NC

NAFTA–TAA–05081 & A, B, C & G;

Spartan International, Inc.,

Cherokee Finishing Plant, SC,

Spartan Plant, Spartansburg, SC,

Rosemont Plant, Jonesville, SC King

Finishing Plant, Dover, GA and

Retail Business Office, Charlotte,

NC

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–05346; Contract Apparel,

Inc., El Paso, TX

Affirmative Determinations NAFTA–

TAA

NAFTA–TAA–05081D; & E, F, H & I;

Spartan International, King Mill,

August, GA, Cleveland Mills,

Lawndale, NC, Cleveland-Caroknit,

Jefferson SC, Sales Office, New

York, NY and Corporate Office,

Spartanburg, SC: July 13, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05434; Tect, Inc., Sewing

and Embellishment Departments,

Allentown, PA: October 12, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05433; Tect, Inc., Temple

Sewing Plant, Temple, PA: October

12, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05430; Tect, Inc., Topton

Sewing Plants, Topton, PA: October

12, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05432; Tect, Inc., Knitting

Department, Allentown, PA:

October 12, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05349; Brooks

Automation, Tracking Div.,

Including Leased Workers of K

Force Professional Staffing, Volt

Contractors, Superior Contractors

and Aerotek Contractors, Colorado

Springs, Co: September 20, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05393; Liebert Corp.,

Irvine California Operations, Irvine,

CA: September 27, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04988; California Cedar

Products Co., Roseburg Sawmill,

Roseburg, OR: June 11, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05342; Curtain and

Drapery Fashions, Inc., Gastonia,

NC: September 20, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05431; Tect, Inc., Cutting

and Automated Sewing

Departments, Allentown, PA:

October 12, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05374; Axiohm

Transaction Solutions, Inc.,

American Magnetics Division,

Cypress, CA: September 20, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05494; Sportrack

Accessories, Div. of Sportrack

Automotive, Shelburne, VT:

October 26, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–05398; IFF, Inc., Salem,

OR: October 3, 2000.

I hereby certify that the

aforementioned determinations were

issued during the month of November

and 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: November 30, 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–31634 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–38,809]

Blue Mountain Products Pendleton,

OR; Notice of Affirmative

Determination Regarding Application

for Reconsideration

By letter of July 17, 2001, the

petitioner requested administrative

reconsideration of the Department of

Labor’s Notice of Negative

Determination Regarding Eligibility to

Apply for Worker Adjustment

Assistance, petition TA–W–38,809. The

denial notice was signed on June 18,

2001 and published in the Federal

Register on July 5, 2001 (66 FR 35462).

The Department has reviewed the

request for reconsideration and has

determined that further clarification of a

survey response from a major customer

of the subject firm would be

appropriate.

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 11th day of

December 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade, Adjustment

Assistant.

[FR Doc. 01–31624 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–39,908]

Cleveland Caroknit Lawndale, NC;

Notice of Termination of Investigation

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade

Act of 1974, an investigation was

initiated on August 27, 2001, in

response to a worker petition which was

filed on behalf of workers at Cleveland

Caroknit, Lawndale, North Carolina.

An investigation applicable to the

petitioning group of workers is in

process (TA–W–39,518). Consequently,

further investigation in this case would

serve no purpose; and the investigation

has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC this 11th day of

December 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment,

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–31632 Filed 12–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–40,133 and TA–W–40,133A]

Eagle Knitting Mills, Inc. Shawano, WI;

Eagle Knitting Mills, Inc. Kenosha, WI;

Notice of Termination of Investigation

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade

Act of 1974, an investigation was

initiated on September 28, 2001, in

response to a worker petition at Eagle

Knitting Mills, Inc., Shawano and

Kenosha, Wisconsin.

A negative determination applicable

to the petitioning group of workers was

issued on May 14, 2001 (TA–W–39,070).

The petition filed in the subject case is

identical to that filed for the prior case.

No new information is evident which