Weyerhaeuser Company Lebanon Lumber Division Lebanon, OR; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 76700-76701 [E6-21792]

Download as PDF sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES 76700 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Notices published in the Federal Register on October 31, 2006 (71 FR 63800). 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 mis-interpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Short Bark Industries, Tellico Plains, Tennessee engaged in production of cut pieces for camouflage clothing was denied because the ‘‘contributed importantly’’ group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 was not met. The ‘‘contributed importantly’’ test is generally demonstrated through a survey of the workers’ firm’s customers. The survey revealed no imports of cut pieces for camouflage clothing in 2004, 2005 and January through August of 2006 when compared with the same period in 2005. The subject firm did not import cut pieces for camouflage clothing in the relevant period nor did it shift production to a foreign country. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleges that the layoffs at the subject firm are attributable to a shift in production to Honduras and Puerto Rico. Two company officials were contacted regarding the above allegations. The company officials stated that the subject firm did not shift production from the subject facility to Honduras. The officials stated that the subject firm exported cut pieces for camouflage clothing abroad to a customer with the foreign facility for further production. This ceased its business with the subject firm in order to perform all the cutting abroad. The Short Bark Industries decided not to pursue the cutting business any longer and sold some of the machinery from the subject firm to the customer. Both of the officials confirmed that there is no affiliation between Short Bark Industries, Tellico Plains, Tennessee and its major customer. Contact with an official of the subject firm’s customer confirmed that all production for this customer was exclusively for export purposes. As trade adjustment assistance is concerned exclusively with whether imports impact layoffs of petitioning worker groups, the above-mentioned VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:01 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 allegations regarding agreements between the subject firm and their foreign customer base are irrelevant. The official also confirmed that some of the production was shifted from the subject facility to a plant in Puerto Rico during the relevant time period. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner seems to imply that a shift of production to Puerto Rico on the part of the company constitutes a shift of production to a country included in Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act. The petitioner seems to conclude that this shift to Puerto Rico is responsible for separations at the subject facility. Puerto Rico is a U.S. Territory and therefore any movement of production to this region would not constitute a shift of production to a foreign source. The petitioner provided the name of the former supervisor who according to the petitioner is currently in Honduras training workers. The official confirmed this statement and added that this supervisor in question is now employed by subject firm’s customer and is working in Honduras on behalf of this customer. The petitioner also provided a name of the subject firm’s employee who is allegedly currently making patterns for the Honduras plant. The Department contacted this employee to verify the above information. The employee stated that he is still employed by Short Bark Industries and that he does not make markers or patterns for the Honduras plant. The petitioner attached an article, with no reference to the source or the date of the article. The article is a short biography on the founder of Short Bark Industries, and refers to the activities of the subject firm from 1991 to 2003. In its investigation, the Department considers events and facts that occurred within a year prior to the date of the petition. Thus, the period between 1991 and 2003 is outside of the relevant period as established by the current petition date of November 9, 2006. The officials of the subject firm confirmed directly that Short Bark Industries did not shift production from the subject firm to any facility abroad in the relevant period. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of December, 2006 Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment, Assistance. [FR Doc. E6–21791 Filed 12–20–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–60,306] United Auto Workers, Local 969 Columbus, OH; Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at United Auto Workers, Local 969, Columbus, Ohio. The application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued. TA–W–60,306; United Auto Workers, Local 969 Columbus, Ohio (December 8, 2006) Signed at Washington, DC this 13th day of December 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment, Assistance. [FR Doc. E6–21794 Filed 12–20–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–60,078] Weyerhaeuser Company Lebanon Lumber Division Lebanon, OR; Notice of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated November 27, 2006, the Carpenter’s Industrial Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (Union), requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor’s Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers of the subject firm. The Department’s determination was issued on October 19, 2006. The Department’s E:\FR\FM\21DEN1.SGM 21DEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 2006 / Notices Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on November 6, 2006 (71 FR 65004). The denial was based on the Department’s findings that, during the relevant period, the subject company did not import lumber studs or shift production of lumber studs overseas and that the subject company’s major declining customers had negligible imports of green df studs during the surveyed periods. The Union alleges that the Weyerhaeuser Company purchased a softwood lumber production facility in Canada, inferring that the firm has increased imports of lumber or articles like or directly competitive with lumber produced at the subject facility. The Department has carefully reviewed the Union’s request for reconsideration and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation. Conclusion After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor’s prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted. Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of December 2006. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6–21792 Filed 12–20–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–30–P Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546–0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Mr. Walter Kit, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., JE000, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–1350, Walter.Kit1@nasa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract In response to NASA’s change in mission, i.e., to explore the solar system, NASA is reexamining approaches to structuring, sizing, and managing its programs by benchmarking best practices in select successful programs in corporate America. II. Method of Collection Approximately 50% of the data collection will be electronic. III. Data Title: NASA Benchmarking of Program Office Size, Structure, and Performance. OMB Number: 2700–XXXX. Type of Review: New collection. Affected Public: For-profit and notfor-profit institutions. Number of Respondents: 30 Corporations. Responses per Respondent: 1. Annual Responses: 30. Hours per Request: 124. Annual Burden Hours: 3720. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice: 06–093] Notice of Information Collection National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of information collection. AGENCY: SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: All comments should be submitted within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Desk Officer for NASA; Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs; Office of Management and Budget; Room 10236; New Executive Office Building; Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Mr. Walter Kit, NASA PRA Officer, NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street, SW., JE000, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358–1350, Walter.Kit1@nasa.gov. IV. Request for Comments NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [06–089] Notice of Information Collection National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). ACTION: Notice of information collection. sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES AGENCY: SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). DATES: All comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication. ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Mr. Walter Kit, National VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:01 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 211001 76701 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NASA, including whether the information collected has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of NASA’s estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection. They will also become a matter of public record. I. Abstract Gary L. Cox, Deputy Chief Information Officer (Acting). [FR Doc. E6–21774 Filed 12–20–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510–13–P PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 209, applicants for a license under a patent or patent application must submit information in support of their request for a license. NASA uses the submitted information to grant the license. II. Method of Collection The current paper-based system is used to collect the information. It is deemed not cost effect to collect the information using a Web site form since the applications submitted vary significantly in format and volume. III. Data Title: Application for Patent License. OMB Number: 2700–0039. Type of Review: Extension of currently approved collection. Affected Public: Business or other forprofit, and individuals or households. Number of Respondents: 60. Responses per Respondent: 1. Annual Responses: 60. Hours per Request: 10 hours. E:\FR\FM\21DEN1.SGM 21DEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 245 (Thursday, December 21, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76700-76701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21792]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-60,078]


Weyerhaeuser Company Lebanon Lumber Division Lebanon, OR; Notice 
of Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated November 27, 2006, the Carpenter's Industrial 
Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America 
(Union), requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply 
for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers of the subject 
firm. The Department's determination was issued on October 19, 2006. 
The Department's

[[Page 76701]]

Notice of determination was published in the Federal Register on 
November 6, 2006 (71 FR 65004).
    The denial was based on the Department's findings that, during the 
relevant period, the subject company did not import lumber studs or 
shift production of lumber studs overseas and that the subject 
company's major declining customers had negligible imports of green df 
studs during the surveyed periods.
    The Union alleges that the Weyerhaeuser Company purchased a 
softwood lumber production facility in Canada, inferring that the firm 
has increased imports of lumber or articles like or directly 
competitive with lumber produced at the subject facility.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the Union's request for 
reconsideration and has determined that the Department will conduct 
further investigation.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of 
Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of December 2006.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E6-21792 Filed 12-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P