27750 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 97 /Wednesday, May 20, 1998 / Notices

Operating at the Following

Locations: A; Samson Plant,

Samson, AL, B; Florala Plant,

Florala, AL, C; Kinston Plant,

Kinston, AL, D; Opp Distribution

Plant, Opp, AL, E; Opp Sewing

Plant, Opp, AL: March 13, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02265; Beam Corp., Div.

of Deena, Inc., Tolleson, AZ: March

19, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02279; Hit Apparel, Inc.,

Athens, TN: March 18, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02324; A.D.H. Mfg. Corp.,

Farner, TN: March 31, 1997.

NAFTA–TAA–02252; Briggs Industries,

Somerset, PA: March 6, 1997.

I hereby certify that the

aforementioned determinations were

issued during the month of April 1998.

Copies of these determinations are

available for inspection in Room C–

4318, U.S. Department of Labor, 200

Connstitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20210 during normal

business hours or will be mailed to

persons who write to the above address.

Dated: May 5, 1998.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 98–13416 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–34,204]

Pride Companies, L.P., Abilene, Texas;

Negative Determination Regarding

Application for Reconsideration

By application postmarked April 14,

1998, one of the petitioners requested

administrative reconsideration of the

Department’s negative determination

regarding eligibility to apply for Trade

Adjustment Assistance (TAA),

applicable to workers and former

workers of the subject firm. The denial

notice was signed on March 20, 1998,

and published in the Federal Register

on April 3, 1998 (63 FR 16574).

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(c)

reconsideration may be granted under

the following circumstances:

(1) If it appears on the basis of facts

not previously considered that the

determination complained of was

erroneous;

(2) If it appears that the determination

complained of was based on a mistake

in the determination of facts not

previously considered; or

(3) If in the opinion of the Certifying

Officer, a misinterpretation of facts or of

the law justified reconsideration of the

decision.

The investigation findings for the

March 20 denial of TAA for workers of

Pride Companies, L.P., Abilene, Texas

producing refined petroleum products

showed that criteria (1) and (2) of the

group eligibility requirements of section

222 of the Trade Act were met;

employment, sales and production

decreased in January through September

1997 compared with the same time

period of the previous year. However,

the ‘‘contributed importantly’’

requirement of criterion (3) of section

222 was not met. The ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ test is generally

demonstrated through a survey of the

workers’ firm’s customers. A survey

conducted by the Department regarding

the subject firm’s loss of a portion of a

competitive bid for military jet fuel in

February 1997 revealed that the

remainder was awarded to domestic

suppliers, with the exception of a very

small percentage of the solicitation

awarded to a foreign source.

The petitioner asserts that layoffs at

the Abilene refinery were the result of

increased company purchases of

imported products supplied by the

Texaco Trading and Transportation Inc.

terminal in the Houston ship channel

area. The petitioner adds that Texaco

Trading and Transportation purchases

refined products on the open market

from various refineries and distribution

terminals.

The investigation findings showed

that Pride Companies, L.P. did not

purchase any refined petroleum

products from Texaco or any foreign

sources during the time period relevant

to the petition investigation.

Information obtained during the

investigation shows that Texaco Trading

and Transportation Inc. will supply

refined petroleum products to Pride, but

not until the completion of the

conversion of the Abilene refinery to a

products and crude oil terminal.

Information in Departmental trade

adjustment assistance files shows that

the primary functions of Texaco Trading

and Transportation, Inc. are marketing

of domestic crude oil, and

transportation of crude oil and products

by pipeline and truck.

With respect to the petitioners

assertion that U.S. domestic production

of refined petroleum is at a maximum

and cannot meet demand, U.S. imports

of these products declined absolutely

and relative to domestic shipment from

1996 to 1997.

Conclusion

After review of the application and

investigative findings, I conclude that

there has been no error or

misinterpretation of the law or of the

facts which would justify

reconsideration of the Department of

Labor’s prior decision. Accordingly, the

application is denied.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of

May 1998.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 98–13418 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–34,199]

Sangamon, Inc., Taylorville, Illinois;

Revised Determination on

Reconsideration

In response to a letter of March 26,

1998, from the United Paperworkers

International Union (UPIU) Local 637,

requesting administrative

reconsideration of the Department’s

denial of TAA for workers of the subject

firm, the Department reopened its

investigation for the former workers of

Sangamon, Incorporated.

The initial investigation resulted in a

negative determination issued on March

6, 1998, because the ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ test of the Group

Eligibility Requirements of the Trade

Act was not met for workers at the

subject firm producing everyday and

seasonal greeting cards. The denial

notice was published in the Federal

Register on April 3, 1998 (63 FR

16,574).

On reconsideration, the Department

conducted further survey analysis of the

major declining customer of Sangamon,

Incorporated. New survey information

shows that the major declining customer

has indirect import purchases of

greeting cards while reducing purchases

from the subject firm.

Statistics on greeting cards show

aggregate U.S. imports increased in both

quantity and value in 1996 and 1997.

Conclusion

After careful consideration of the new

facts obtained on reopening, it is

concluded that increased imports of

articles like or directly competitive with

greeting cards produced by the subject

firm contributed importantly to the

decline in sales and to the total or

partial separation of workers of the

subject firm. In accordance with the

provisions of the Trade Act of 1974, I
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 97 /Wednesday, May 20, 1998 / Notices 27751

make the following revised

determination:

All workers of Sangamon, Incorporated,

Taylorville, Illinois, who became totally or

partially separated from employment on or

after January 22, 1997 through two years from

the date of certification, are eligible to apply

for adjustment assistance under Section 223

of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 5th day of

May 1998.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 98–13415 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

ETA–5130 Benefit Appeals Report;

Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as

part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork and respondent burden,

conducts a preclearance consultation

program to provide the general public

and Federal agencies with an

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing collections of

information in accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program

helps to ensure that requested data can

be provided in the desired format,

reporting burden (time and financial

resources) is minimized, collection

instruments are clearly understood, and

the impact of collection requirements on

respondents can be properly assessed.

Currently, the Employment and

Training Administration is soliciting

comments concerning the proposed

extension collection of the ETA–5130

Benefit Appeals Report. A copy of the

proposed information collection request

can be obtained by contacting the office

listed below in the addressee section of

this notice.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted to the office listed in the

addressee section below on or before

July 20, 1998. The Department of Labor

is particularly interested in comments

which:

• evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submissions

of responses.

ADDRESSES: Jack Bright, Unemployment

Insurance Service, Employment and

training Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, Room S–4516, 200

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20210, telephone number (202) 219–

5340, ext. 177 (this is not a toll-free

number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The ETA–5130, Benefit Appeals

Report, contains information on the

number of unemployment insurance

appeals and the resultant decisions

classified by program, appeals level,

cases filed and disposed of (workflow),

and decisions by level, appellant and

issue. The data on this report is used by

both the Regional and National Office

Unemployment Insurance staff to

monitor the benefit appeals process in

the State Employment Security

Agencies (SESAs) and to develop any

needed plans for remedial action. The

data is also needed for workload

budgeting and to determine

administrative funding. If this

information were not available,

developing problems might not be

discovered early enough to prevent the

solutions from being extremely time

consuming and costly.

II. Current Actions

Continued collection of the ETA–5130

data will provide for continuous

monitoring of the SESAs appellate

processes and needed data for the

budgeting and administrative funding

activities. The data is collected monthly

so that developing backlogs of

undecided appeals can be detected as

early as possible.

Type of Review: Extension.

Agency: Employment and Training

Administration.

Title: Benefit Appeals Report.

OMB Number: 1205–0172.

Agency Number: ETA–9016.

Affected Public: State Governments.

Cite/Reference/Form: ETA 5130.

Total Respondents: 53.

Frequency: Monthly.

Total Responses: 636.

Average Time per Response: 2.5

hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 1620

hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): 0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintaining): $32,400.

Comments submitted in response to

this comment request will be

summarized and/or included in the

request for Office of Management and

Budget approval of the information

collection request; they will also

become a matter of public record.

Dated: May 14, 1998.

Grace A. Kilbane,

Director, Unemployment Insurance Service.

[FR Doc. 98–13414 Filed 5–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[NAFTA–02148]

Sangamon, Inc., Taylorville, Illinois;

Revised Determination on

Reconsideration

In response to a letter of March 26,

1998, from the United States

Paperworkers International Union

(UPIU) Local 637, requesting

administrative reconsideration of the

Department’s denial of NAFTA–TAA for

workers of the subject firm, the

Department reopened its investigation

for the former workers of Sangamon,

Incorporated. The workers produce

everyday and seasonal greeting cards.

The initial investigation resulted in a

negative determination issued on March

6, 1998, because criteria (3) and (4) of

paragraph (a)(1) of section 250 of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, were

not met. Sangamon, Incorporated did

not import greeting cards from sources

located in Mexico or Canada, nor was

there a shift in production of greeting

cards from the Taylorville plant to

Mexico or Canada. Furthermore, a

survey of the subject firm’s customers

revealed that none of the customers

reported any purchases of greeting cards

from Mexico or Canada in 1996 or 1997.

The denial notice was published in the

Federal Register on March 23, 1998 (63

FR 13879).

On reconsideration, the Department

conducted further survey analysis of the

major declining customer of Sangamon,

Incorporated. New survey information

shows that the major declining customer

has indirect import purchases of

greeting cards from Canada while

reducing purchases from the subject

firm.