Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2001 / Notices 28927

Form Number of

respondents

Responses

per year

Total

responses

Hours per

response

Total burden

hours

Annual Plan .......................................................................... 54 1 54 40 2,160

Progress Report ................................................................... 54 1 54 16 864

Totals ............................................................................ ........................ 2 108 ........................ 3,024

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):

$0.

Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintaining): $0.

Description: ETA seeks approval of an

annual plan narrative and one annual

progress report as requirements for reemployment services allotments. In

Program Year 2001 budget for WagnerPeyser Act, State Employment Service

Agencies (SESA) were allocated

additional funds for re-employment

services to Unemployment Insurance

(UI) claimants. The annual plan and

progress report will provide necessary

information to assist the Secretary in

determining if the proposed SESA reemployment services are acceptable and

whether or not the purpose of the funds

was achieved. Specific reporting is

necessary to adequately track this

activity separately from regular

operations and record keeping. While

this collection sets up new

requirements, SESA staff can existing

frameworks and systems to prepare the

plan and collect any new information.

Ira Mills,

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–13177 Filed 5–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

May 18, 2001.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has

submitted the following public

information collection requests (ICRs) to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review and approval in

accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13,

44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of this

ICR, with applicable supporting

documentation, may be obtained by

calling the Department of Labor. To

obtain documentation contact Darrin

King at (202) 693–4129 or E-Mail KingDarrin@dol.gov.

Comments should be sent to Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office

of Management and Budget, Room

10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202)

395–7316), within 30 days from the date

of this publication in the Federal

Register.

The OMB 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 submission of

responses.

Type of Review: Extension of a

currently approved collection.

Agency: Employment and Training

Administration (ETA).

Title: Benefit Rights and Experience

Report.

OMB Number: 1205–0177.

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal

Government.

Frequency: Quarterly.

Number of Respondents: 53.

Number of Annual Responses: 216.

Estimated Time Per Response: 30

minutes.

Total Burden Hours: 108.

Total Annualized Capital/Startup

Costs: $0.

Total Annual Costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services): $0.

Description: The ETA Form 218

provides information used in solvency

studies, in budgeting projections and for

evaluation of adequacy of benefit

formulas to analyze the effects of

proposed changes in state law.

Ira L. Mills,

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–13286 Filed 5–24–01; 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 May, 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 thereof, have become totally

or partially separated,

(2) That sales or production, or both,

of the firm of 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–39,070 & A; Eagle Knitting Mills,

Shawano, WI & Kenosha, WI

TA–W–38,788; Cabinet Works LLC,

Distinctive Woodworks LLC,

Jefferson City, TN

TA–W–39,877; Standard Forged

Products, Inc., Johnstown, PA

In the following cases, the

investigation revealed that the criteria

for eligibility have not been met for the

reasons specified.

28928 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2001 / Notices

Increased imports did not contribute

importantly to worker separations at the

firm.

TA–W–38,921; Glenshaw Glass Co., Inc.,

Glenshaw, PA

TA–W–38,865 ; I and H Engineered

Systems, Inc., Gaylord, MI

TA–W–39,151; Oxford Automotive, Inc.,

Alma, MI

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

TA–W–39,080; Aur Resources (USA),

Inc., Sparks, NV

TA–W–38,708; AAA Action Roofing,

Torrance, CA

TA–W–38,853; Kasle Steel Dearborn

Processing, Inc., Auto Press Product

Div., Dearborn, MI

TA–W–38,878; Richard Leeds

International, Scotland Neck, NC

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–39,148; Access Electronics, Inc.,

Gurnee, IL

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–38,931; I.C. Isaacs & Co., Inc.,

Baltimore, MD: March 16, 2000.

TA–W–39,092; Fontaine International,

Fontaine Fifth Wheel, Rocky Mount,

NC: April 5, 2000.

TA–W–38,810; Truform Rubber

Products, Hudson, OH: February 28,

2000.

TA–W–38,778; Capitol Manufacturing

Co., Fayetteville, NC: February 19,

2000.

TA–W–38,847; Racewear Designs, Inc.,

El Cajon, CA: March 4, 2000.

TA–W–39,190 & A, B; Wright’s LLC,

Allentown, PA, Orwigsburg, PA and

Auburn, PA: April 19, 2000.

TA–W–39,010; Intel Puerto Rico, LTD,

Las Piedras, PR: March 28, 2000.

TA–W–39,169; Red Cap-VF Workwear,

VF Imagewear, Mathiston, MS:

April 23, 2000.

TA–W–38,898; LTV Steel Mining Co.,

Hoyt Lakes, MN: March 5, 2000.

TA–W–38,783; O–Z/Gedney, Pitston,

PA: February 21, 2000.

TA–W–38,946; Maxi Switch, Inc.,

Tucson, AZ: March 13, 2000.

TA–W–38,930; Harvest Time, Inc., New

York, NY: March 14, 2000.

TA–W–38,802; Inman Mills, Inman, SC:

February 23, 2000.

TA–W–39,066; Scimed Life Systems,

Inc., A Div. of Boston Scientific

Corp., Maple Grove, MN: March 30,

2000.

TA–W–39,064; Quadion Corp.,

Minnesota Rubber Div.,

Minneapolis, MN: April 5, 2000.

TA–W–39,132; Nypro Alabama, Inc.,

Dothan, AL: April 10, 2000.

TA–W–39,004 & A; AgriFrozen Foods,

Grandview, WA and Walla Walla,

WA: March 23, 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 May, 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 of 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 or

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–04840; Newport Steel

Corp., Newport, KY

NAFTA–TAA–04588; Capitol

Manufacturing Co.,Fayetteville, NC

NAFTA–TAA–04581; & A; Eagle

Knitting Mills, Inc., Shawano, WI

and Kenosha, WI

NAFTA–TAA–04841; Allied Textiles

USA, LLC, Charlotte, NC

NAFTA–TAA–04658; Racewear Designs,

Inc., El Cajon, CA

NAFTA–TAA–04723; Taylor Lumber

and Treating, Sheridan, OR

NAFTA–TAA–04794 & A, B; Wright’s

LLC, Allentown, PA, Orwigsburg,

PA and Auburn, PA

NAFTA–TAA–04517 & A; Mirro Co.,

Div. of Newell-Rubbermaid, Mirro/

Foley Plant 20, Chilton, WI and

Mirro/Foley Plant 10, Manitowoc,

WI

NAFTA–TAA–04760; Oxford

Automotive, Inc., Alma, MI

The investigation revealed that the

criteria for eligibility have not been met

for the reasons specified.

The workers firm does not produce an

article as required for certification under

Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.

NAFTA–TAA–04558; Modus Media

International, Freemont Div.,

Freemont, CA

NAFTA–TAA–04659; Kasle Steel

Dearborn Processing, Inc., Auto

Press Products Div., Dearborn, MI

Affirmative Determinations NAFTA–

TAA

NAFTA–TAA–04806; Nypro Alabama,

Inc., Dothan, AL: April 26, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04831; Avery Dennison,

Spartan International Div., Holt, MI:

March 2, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04733; Scimed Life

Systems, Inc., A Div. of Boston

Scientific Corp., Maple Grove, MN:

April 4, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04719; Wolverine Roof

Truss, Inc., Milan, MI: March 21,

2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04807; Cooper Wiring

Devices, Div. of Cooper Industries,

a/k/a Eagle Electronic

Manufacturing Co, Long Island City,

NY: April 2, 2000.

NAFTA–TAA–04519; Mallinckrodt, Inc.,

Plymouth, MN: January 22, 2000.

I hereby certify that the

aforementioned determinations were

issued during the month of May, 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 102 / Friday, May 25, 2001 / Notices 28929

Dated: May 18, 2001.

Edward A. Tomchick,

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–13227 Filed 5–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–38,768]

Loogootee Manufacturing, Loogootee,

IN; Notice of Termination of

Investigation

Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade

Act of 1974, an investigation was

initiated on March 5, 2001 in response

to a petition filed on behalf of workers

at Loogootee Manufacturing, Loogootee,

Indiana.

The petitioner has requested that the

petition be withdrawn. Consequently,

further investigation in this case would

serve no purpose, and the investigation

has been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 10th day of

May, 2001.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–13225 Filed 5–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[TA–W–38,766]

SPEC Cast, Dyersville, IA; Notice of

Termination of Investigation

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade

Act of 1974, an investigation was

initiated on March 5, 2001, in response

to a worker petition which was filed on

behalf of workers at Spec Cast,

Dyersville, Iowa.

An active certification covering the

petitioning group of workers at the

subject firm remains in effect (TA–W–

38,714). Consequently, further

investigation in this case would serve

no purpose, and the investigation has

been terminated.

Signed in Washington, DC this 16th day of

May, 2001.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade

Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01–13222 Filed 5–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Benefits, Timeliness and Quality Data

Collection System; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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 a

provision of the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 at 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 of

the Benefits, Timeliness and Quality

(BTQ) data collection system.

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 24, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Delores A. Mackall, U.S.

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Room S–4231,

Washington, DC 20210, 202–693–3183

(this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Secretary of Labor under the

Social Security Act, Title III, Section

302 (42 U.S.C. 502), funds the necessary

cost of proper and efficient

administration of each State

Unemployment Insurance (UI) law. The

BTQ program collects information and

analyses data to do this. The BTQ

measures, which have been

implemented, look at timeliness and

quality of States’ performance, various

administrative actions and

administrative decisions concerning UI

benefit operations.

II. Review Focus

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.

III. Current Actions

Continued collection of data under

the BTQ system will provide for a

comprehensive evaluation of the overall

UI program. The BTQ program has been,

and will continue to be, one of the

primary means used by UI Regional and

National Office staff to assess

performance levels of individual States

and, as a basis for oversight, to

discharge the Secretary of Labor’s

responsibility for determining proper

and efficient administration. The SESAs

also use the BTQ measures for their

internal program assessment.

Type of Review: Extension.

Agency: Employment and Training

Administration.

Title: Benefits, Timeliness and

Quality Review.

OMB Number: 1205–0359.

Affected Public: State Government.

Total Respondents: 53.

Frequency: Monthly and Quarterly.

Total Responses: 54,908.

Average Time per Response: 0.7

hours.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 38,486

hours.

Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintaining): 0.

Dated: May 17, 2001.

Grace A. Kilbane,

Administrator, Office of Workforce Security.

[FR Doc. 01–13221 Filed 5–24–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P