57384 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 185 / Friday, September 22, 2000 / Notices

II. Background on the Wyoming AMLR

Plan

The Secretary of the Interior approved

Wyoming’s AMLR plan on February 14,

1983. You can find background

information on the Wyoming AML

program, including the Secretary’s

findings and our responses to

comments, in the February 14, 1983,

Federal Register (48 FR 6536).

Wyoming changed its plan a number of

times since the Secretary first approved

it. In 1984, we accepted the State’s

certification that it addressed all known

coal-related impacts in Wyoming that

were eligible for funding under its

program. As a result, the State may now

reclaim low priority non-coal

reclamation projects. You can read

about the certification and OSM’s

acceptance in the May 25, 1984, Federal

Register (49 FR 22139). At the same

time, we also accepted Wyoming’s

proposal that it will ask us for funds to

reclaim any additional coal-related

problems that occur during the life of

the Wyoming AML program as soon as

it becomes aware of them. In the April

13, 1992, Federal Register (57 FR

12731), we announced our decision to

accept other changes in Wyoming’s plan

that describe how it will rank eligible

coal, non-coal, and facility projects for

funding. Those changes also authorized

the Governor of Wyoming to elevate the

priority of a project based upon the

Governor’s determination of need and

urgency. They also expanded the State’s

ability to construct public facilities

under section 411 of SMCRA. We

approved additional changes in

Wyoming’s plan concerning noncoal

lien authority and contractor eligibility

that improve the efficiency of the State’s

AML program. That approval is

described in the February 21, 1996,

Federal Register (61 FR 6537).

Once a State certifies that it has

addressed all remaining abandoned coal

mine problems, and the Secretary

concurs, then it may request funds to

undertake abandoned noncoal mine

reclamation, community impact

assistance, and public facilities projects

under sections 411 (b), (e), and (f) of

SMCRA.

State law and regulations that apply

to the proposed Greybull Sewer

Improvement project funding request

include Wyoming Statute 35–11–1202

and Wyoming Abandoned Mine Land

Regulations, Chapter VII, of the

Wyoming Abandoned Mine Program.

III. Wyoming’s Request To Fund Part of

the Cost of the Greybull Sewer

Improvement Project

The Wyoming Department of

Environmental Quality submitted to us

a grant application requesting new

funding for the FY2002 consolidated

grant. In that application, Wyoming

asked for $105,668 that it will use to pay

for part of the cost of building the

Greybull Sewer Improvements project.

This project is a public facility in a

community impacted by bentonite and

typsum mineral mining activities. The

requested funding is 50 percent of the

project’s total costs. Money for the

balance of the project costs will come

from the Town of Greybull (50 percent).

The Governor of Wyoming certified the

need and urgency to fund the Greybull

Sewer Improvements project prior to

completing the State’s remaining

inventory of non-coal reclamation, as

allowed by section 411(f) of SMCRA.

That certification says the project is in

a community impacted by mineral

mining activities. The project consists of

replacement of old and failing clay tile

sewer lines. Potential contamination of

groundwater by sewage poses both a

threat to human health and safety and

a possible negative impact on the

environment. I.

The Governor’s certification states

that the project meets the requirements

for his certification under the authority

of Wyoming Statute W.S. 35–11–1202(c)

and the AML Regulations, Chapter VII,

Section 6(c).

IV. How We Will Review Wyoming’s

Grant Application

We will review this grant application

with respect to the regulations at 30 CFR

875.15, specifically subsections

875.15(e) (1) through (7). As stated in

those regulations, the application must

include the following information: (1)

The need or urgency for the activity or

the construction of the public facility;

(2) the expected impact the project will

have on Wyoming’s coal or minerals

industry; (3) the availability of funding

from other sources and, if other funding

is provided, its percentage of the total

costs involved; (4) documentation from

other local, State, and Federal agencies

with oversight for such utilities or

facilities describing what funding they

have available and why their agency is

not fully funding this specific project;

(5) the impact on the State, the public,

and the minerals industry if the facility

is not funded; (6) the reason why this

project should be selected before a

priority project relating to the protection

of the public health and safety or the

environment from the damages caused

by past mining activities, and (7) an

analysis and review of the procedures

Wyoming used to notify and involve the

public in this funding request, and a

copy of all comments received and their

resolution by the State. Wyoming’s

application for the Greybull Sewer

improvements project contains the

information described in these seven

subsections.

Section 875.159(f) requires us to

evaluate all comments we receive and

determine whether the funding meets

the requirements of sections 875.15(e)(1)

through (7) described above. It also

requires us to determine if the request

is in the best interests of the State’s

AML program. We will approve

Wyoming’s request to fund this project

if we conclude that it meets all the

requirements of 30 CFR 875.15.

What To Do If You Want To Comment

on the Proposed Project

We are asking for public comments on

Wyoming’s request for funds to pay for

part of the cost of completing the

Greybull Sewer Improvement project.

You are welcome to comment on the

project. If you do, please send us written

comments. Make sure your comments

are specific and pertain to Wyoming’s

funding request in the context of the

regulations at 30 CFR 875.15 and the

provisions of section 411 of SMCRA.

You should explain any

recommendations you make. If we

receive your comments after the time

shown under DATES or at locations other

than the Casper Field Office, we will not

necessarily consider them in our final

decision or include them in the

administrative record.

Dated: September 12, 2000.

Guy Padgett,

Director, Casper Field Office.

[FR Doc. 00–24382 Filed 9–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–34,013]

Alcatel Telecommunications Cable

Roanoke, Virginia; Amended Notice of

Negative Determination on Remand

In accordance with Section 223 of the

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the

Department of Labor issued a Negative

Determination on Remand applicable to

workers and former workers of the

subject firm. The notice will soon be

published in the Federal Register. In the

second paragraph, second sentence, of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 185 / Friday, September 22, 2000 / Notices 57385

the decision document, the Department

inadvertently included an irrelevant

citation, 19 U.S.C. 2231(a)(1)(A)(iii) and

(B). Accordingly, the notice of negative

determination on remand is amended to

delete the reference to 19 U.S.C.

2231(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (B).

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 15th day

of September 2000.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00–24419 Filed 9–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–34,013]

Alcatel Telecommunications Cable

Roanoke, Virginia; Notice of Negative

Determination on Remand

On July 27, 2000, the United States

Court of International Trade remanded

this matter to the Secretary of Labor for

further investigation in Former

Employees of Alcatel

Telecommunications Cable v. Secretary

of Labor, No. 98–03–00540 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 2000).

The Department’s initial negative

determination of eligibility to apply for

trade adjustment assistance (TAA) for

the workers and former workers of

Alcatel Telecommunications Cable

located in Roanoke, Virginia was issued

on December 9, 1997 and published in

the Federal Register on January 6, 1998,

see 63 Fed. Reg. 577 (1998). The denial

was based on the finding that criteria (3)

of the group eligibility requirements of

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as

amended, 19 U.S.C. 2231(a)(1)(A)(iii)

and (B), were not met: i.e., imports did

not contribute importantly to the worker

separations, and the company

transferred production to another

domestic location.

On remand, the court ordered the

Department to undertake a full and

complete investigation into the

eligibility of former workers at Alcatel

Telecommunications cable, Roanoke,

Virginia to apply for trade adjustment

assistance (TAA).

A complete investigation was

undertaken, and the results of that

investigation revealed that increased

imports of singlemode optical fiber did

not contribute importantly to the worker

separations. Information provided by

the company revealed that the company

imports of singlemode optical fiber in

1998 were less than 2% of the 1997

production levels at the Roanoke

facility. Further, a survey of Alcatel’s

customers who were purchasing

singlemode optical fiber for the U.S.

market revealed that those customers

did not increase their reliance on

purchases of imported singlemode

optical fiber.

Conclusion

After careful consideration of the

results of the remand investigation, I

affirm the original notice of negative

determination of eligibility to apply for

trade adjustment assistance for workers

and former workers of Alcatel

Telecommunications Cable, Roanoke,

Virginia.

Signed at Washington, DC this 11th day of

September 2000.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Program Manager, Division of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00–24422 Filed 9–21–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–37,715; TA–W–37,715A]

Murray, Incorporated, Lawrenceburg,

TN, and Mantachie, MS; 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 June

20, 2000, applicable to workers of

Murray, Incorporated, Lawrenceburg,

Tennessee. The notice was published in

the Federal Register on July 24, 2000

(65 FR 45620).

At the request of the company, the

Department reviewed the certification

for workers of the subject firm. New

findings show that worker separations

will occur at Murray, Incorporated’s

Mantachie, Mississippi facility when it

closes in October, 2000. The workers are

engaged in the production of bicycles.

Accordingly, the Department is

amending the certification to cover

workers at Murray, Incorporated,

Mantachie, Mississippi. The intent of

the Department’s certification is to

include all workers of Murray,

Incorporated adversely affected by

increased imports.

The amended notice applicable to

TA–W–37,715 is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of Murray, Incorporated,

Lawrenceburg, Tennessee (TA–W–37,715)

and Mantachie, Mississippi (TA–W–37,715A)

engaged in employment related to the

production of bicycles who became totally or

partially separated from employment on or

after May 11, 1999 through June 20, 2002 are

eligible to apply for adjustment assistance

under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC this 13th day of

September, 2000.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 00–24420 Filed 9–21–00; 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 September, 2000.

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–37,940; Cloverland

Manufacturing, Inc., Escanaba, MI

TA–W–37,670; Berstone Knitting Mills,

Brooklyn, NY

TA–W–37,753; Spray Cotton Mills, Nova

Yarns Div., Eden, NC