[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 90 (Friday, May 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 25664]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-12228]



[[Page 25664]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-30,617]


Shaw Pipe, Incorporated Highspire, Pennsylvania Notice of 
Negative Determination of Reconsideration on Remand

    The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) remanded for 
further investigation the Secretary of Labor's negative determination 
in Former Employees of Shaw Pipe, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, No. 95-
04-00482.
    The Department's initial denial of the petition for employees of 
Shaw Pipe, Incorporated, Highspire, Pennsylvania, was issued on 
February 24, 1995 and published in the Federal Register on March 10, 
1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 13,177). The denial was based on the fact that the 
workers provided a service and did not produce an article.
    On remand, during the Department's investigation, it was determined 
that the work performed by employees of Shaw Pipe, Incorporated, 
consisted of applying concrete and polyethylene coatings to small and 
large diameter pipe which is ultimately used for pipeline transmission. 
The purpose of coating steel pipe is to prevent rust and corrosion, and 
thus, extend the life of the pipe. Findings on remand show that in the 
coating process performed by employees at the subject firm, the pipe 
moves along a conveyor line and the coating is applied to the pipe.
    Other findings on remand show that coating the pipe does not change 
the end use of the pipe. Subject firm officials report the pipe used 
for pipeline transmission could be used without the protective coating, 
but it is not likely. Therefore, it can be concluded that the coating 
of pipe does not constitute the production of a tangible or new 
product.
    Remand findings also show that the subject firms closed the 
Highspire, Pennsylvania plant because the contract with the primary 
customer was not renewed. The customer awarded the contract to another 
domestic company.
    Even if the work performed at Highspire was considered the 
production of a new product, the workers would not be eligible to apply 
for Trade Adjustment Assistance because they did not meet all of the 
group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, 
as amended. Although criteria (1) and (2) were met, criterion (3) was 
not met because the primary customer of the subject firm awarded the 
pipe coating contract to another domestic company. Thus, increased 
imports did not contribute to the separation of the workers or to Shaw 
Pipe's decline in sales and production.

Conclusion

    After reconsideration on remand, I affirm the original notice of 
negative determination of eligibility to apply for adjustment 
assistance for workers and former workers of Shaw Pipe, Incorporated, 
Highspire, Pennsylvania.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 2nd day of May 1997.
Russell T. Kile,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-12228 Filed 5-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M