Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Notices 33539

Continental Gypsum Company, that now

appears to be the case

In the past 45 days we have had extreme

pressure to lower pricing levels to

distributors in our prime market area. While

the pricing at our outer sales regions i.e.,

Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, western

Pennsylvania, have been relatively strong,

the New Jersey and Metropolitan New York

are off significantly. In each and every case,

we find we must meet a Georgia Pacific price

to maintain a reasonable level of business.

Continental Gypsum is clearly being targeted

by Georgia Pacific. Further, it is our opinion

that Georgia Pacific has been caused to such

action by reason of the Final Judgment

mandate that they maintain a level of

business that totally ignores consideration

that a new competitor (Continental Gypsum)

is now in the market.

The allegations that are made here can be

documented and will be documented at your

request.

Again, I would request that you give

consideration to our recommendation to

amend the Final Judgment as proposed in our

April 30, letter. For Continental Gypsum to

remain viable we must have some relief from

this matter.

Respectfully,

Morgan A. Chivers,

Chairman of the Board & C.O.O.

Rhyne Simpson, Jr.,

President.

April 30, 1996.

Mr. J. Robert Kramer,

Litigation II Section, Antitrust Division, U.S.

Department of Justice, 1401 H St., N.W.,

Suite 3000, Washington, D.C. 20530.

Re: U.S.A. v. Georgia Pacific Corporation

Civil Action No.: 96–164.

Dear Mr. Kramer: The following are the

comments of Continental Gypsum Company

relating to the above referenced case:

Background

Continental Gypsum Company is the only

small independent manufacturer of gypsum

wallboard in the United States. The Company

was formed January 26, 1995 to lease the

former Atlantic Gypsum Company facility

located at Port Newark, New Jersey. The

plant had been idled for approximately six

years as a result of bankruptcy and

foreclosure proceedings. The founders of

Continental Gypsum are Morgan A. Chivers

and Rhyne Simpson, Jr. both of whom are its

major stockholders. About thirty (30) percent

of the outstanding stock is owned by

wallboard distributors and applicators from

the region. After a rather lengthy negotiation

with the Port Authority of NY&NJ,

Continental Gypsum gained occupancy of the

facility on June 1, 1995. Production

commenced on August 23, 1995 and the

gypsum wallboard is marketed in the region

under the trade name MoreRock. Because of

numerous engineering deficiencies with the

plant equipment and the unusually harsh

winter, the plant did not obtain expected

levels of production and sales until late April

1996. (see attached shipping report)

Comments

Continental Gypsum finds two major

mandates in the Final Judgment that are

onerous and do in fact threaten the viability

of this new company. They are as follows:

IX. PRESERVATION OF ASSETS—page 14

paragraph B ‘‘Defendant shall use all

reasonable efforts to maintain and increase

sales of gypsum board produced at its

Buchanan and Wilmington plants, and

defendant shall maintain at 1995 or

previously approved levels, whichever are

higher,’’ * * * This mandate obviously

ignores the additional capacity that

Continental Gypsum has brought to the

region. It is not possible that Continental

could bring at least 270,000 MSF of supply

into the market without competitors giving

up a portion of their market share. The

Buchanan and Wilmington plants are in fact

situated in the heart of Continentals prime

market. The mandate that they maintain sales

at 1995 levels, or higher, basically implies

that there is no room in the market for

Continental.

IV. DIVESTITURES—page 5, paragraph A.

sub. (iii) ‘‘at the option of the purchaser or

purchasers, enter into a supply contract for

gypsum rock (which may or may not include

transportation) and/or gypsum linerboard

paper sufficient to meet all or part of the

capacity requirements of the Buchanan and

Wilmington plants over a period up to (10)

years; ‘* * * Continental currently

purchases some of its linerboard paper from

Georgia Pacific’s Delair, N.J. papermill.

Additionally, Georgia Pacific is considered to

be a primary source of gypsum ore and in fact

did quote on our ore requirements for the

1996 calendar year. The mandate that

Georgia Pacific provide the purchaser(s) with

supply contracts for the gypsum rock and

gypsum linerpaper will seriously restrict

Continentals ability to source these vital raw

materials both in in the present and in the

future.

Summation

The overall thrust of the Final Judgment

appears to be concerning the concentration of

supply with only a few manufactures within

the region. While the concentration of supply

should be of concern, the far more important

factor influencing competitive pricing is the

fundamental law of supply relative to

demand. This is clearly evidenced by the fact

that prices eroded up to $15.00/MSF within

the first three months of Continental’s entry

into the market. In fact, Continental Gypsum

is the only player that brings new supply into

the region. The divestiture of Buchanan and

Wilmington does nothing towards creating

more supply. A more compelling case can be

made that if Continental Gypsum is forced

into closure that the consumer would be

damaged far more than the creation of change

of ownership of two plants.

It is further our concern that the Final

Judgment gives Georgia Pacific license to

become predatory against Continental and if

Continental is forced to closure, then the

Buchanan and Wilmington plants will have

more value as a result of the divestiture

mandate.

In conclusion, for the aforementioned

reasons, we believe that the Final Judgment

be amended by:

(1) Rescinding the mandate that Georgia

Pacific maintain 1995 levels of sales (or

higher) during the 150 day divestiture period.

The only mandate should be that Georgia

Pacific should not be allowed to transfer any

sales from Buchanan and Wilmington to their

other plants, namely Camden, N.J. and the

Newington, N.H.

(2) Continental Gypsum should be afforded

the same opportunity to negotiate supply

agreements with Georgia Pacific for the

purchase of gypsum ore and gypsum

linerpaper on an equal basis of the

purchaser(s) of the Buchanan and

Wilmington plants.

Thank you very much for your

consideration in this matter.

Respectfully,

Morgan A. Chivers,

Chairman of the Board & C.O.O.

Rhyne Simpson, Jr.,

President.

Justin M. Dempsey.

The attached document was not able to be

published in the Federal Register. A copy

can be obtained from the U.S. Department of

Justice, Legal Procedures Office at 325 7th

Street, N.W., Room 215, Washington, D.C.

20530 (telephone: 202–514–2481).

[FR Doc. 96–16445 Filed 6–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Secretary

Submission for OMB Review;

Comment Request

June 21, 1996.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has

submitted the following public

information collection request (ICR) 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

individual ICR, with applicable

supporting documentation, may be

obtained by calling the Department of

Labor Acting Departmental Clearance

Officer, Theresa M. O’Malley ([202]

219–5095). Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TTY/TDD) may call [202] 219–4720

between 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern

time, Monday through Friday.

Comments should be sent to Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for

Departmental Management, 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
33540 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 125 / Thursday, June 27, 1996 / Notices

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.

Agency: Departmental Management—

Chief Financial Officer.

Title: Disclosure of Information to

Credit Reporting Agencies;

Administrative Offset, Interest, Penalties

and Administrative Costs.

OMB Number: 1225–0030.

Affected Public: Individuals or

households; Business or other for-profit;

Not-for-profit institutions; Farms;

Federal Government.

Cite/reference Total respondents Frequency *Total responses Average time per response Burden

29 CFR 20.7 ...................................... 2,000 On occasion .............. 2,000 (×2) .................. 1.75 hours ................. 7,000 hours.

29 CFR 20.25 .................................... 500 On occasion .............. 500 (×2) ..................... 1.75 hours ................. 1,750 hours.

29 CFR 20.61 .................................... 1,000 On occasion .............. 1,000 (×2) .................. 1.75 hours ................. 3,500 hours.

Totals ....................................... 3,500 .................................... 3,500 (×2) .................. .................................... 12,250 hours.

Total Annualized capital/startup

costs: 0.

Total annual costs (operating/

maintaining systems or purchasing

services): 0.

Description: This information is

collected from debtors to assist in

determining whether an individual or

organization is actually indebted to the

Department of Labor, and if so indebted,

to evaluate the individual’s or

organization’s ability to repay the debt.

Theresa M. O‘Malley,

Acting Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 96–16456 Filed 6–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–23–M

Employment and Training

Administration

Labor Surplus Area Classification

Under Executive Orders 12073 and

10582; Notice to Addition to the Annual

List of Labor Surplus Areas

AGENCY: Employment and Training

Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

DATES: This addition to the annual list

of labor surplus area is effective June 1,

1996.

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is

to announce an addition to the annual

list of surplus areas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William J. McGarrity, Labor Economist,

USES, Employment and Training

Administration 200 Constitution

Avenue, NW., Room N–4470, Attention:

TEESS, Washington, DC 20210.

Telephone: 202–219–5185, ext. 129.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive

Order 12073 requires executive agencies

to emphasize procurement set-asides in

labor surplus areas. The Secretary of

Labor is responsible under that Order

for classifying and designating areas as

labor surplus areas. Executive agencies

should refer to Federal Acquisition

Regulation Part 20 (48 CFR Part 20) in

order to assess the impact of the labor

surplus area program on particular

procurements.

Under Executive Order 10582

executive agencies may reject bids or

offers of foreign materials in favor of the

lowest offer by a domestic supplier,

provided that the domestic supplier

undertakes to produce substantially all

of the materials in areas of substantial

unemployment as defined by the

Secretary of Labor. The preference given

to domestic suppliers under Executive

Order 10582 has been modified by

Executive Order 12260. Federal

Acquisition Regulation Part 25 (48 Part

25) implements Executive Order 12260.

Executive agencies should refer to

Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 25

in procurements involving foreign

businesses or products in order to assess

its impact on the particular

procurements.

The Department of Labor regulations

implementing Executive Orders 12073

and 10582 are set forth at 20 CFR Part

654, Subparts A and B. Subpart A

requires the Assistant Secretary of Labor

to classify jurisdictions as labor surplus

areas pursuant to the criteria specified

in the regulations and to publish

annually a list of labor surplus areas.

Pursuant to those regulations the

Assistant Secretary of Labor published

the annual list of labor surplus areas on

October 12, 1995, (60 FR 53208).

Subpart B of Part 654 states that an

area of substantial unemployment for

purposes of Executive Order 10582 is

any area classified as a labor surplus

area under Subpart A. Thus, labor

surplus areas under Executive Order

12073 are also areas of substantial

unemployment under Executive Order

10582.

The area described below has been

classified by the Assistant Secretary as

a labor surplus area pursuant to 20 CFR

654.5(b) (48 FR 165615 April 12, 1983)

and is effective June 1, 1996.

The list of labor surplus areas is

published for the use of all Federal

agencies in directing procurement

activities and locating new plants or

facilities.

ADDITION TO THE ANNUAL LIST OF LABOR

SURPLUS AREAS

[June 1, 1996]

Labor surplus areas

Civil jurisdictions

included

Washington:

Richland-Kennewick-Pasco Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA).Benton

County.

Franklin

County.

Signed at Washington, DC on June 20,

1996.

Timothy M. Barnicle,

Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–16457 Filed 6–26–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

Employment Standards Administration

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as

part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork and respondent burden,