10404 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Notices 

Investigation because the certification of 

TA–W–72,851 (issued on June 23, 2010) 

did not include workers of Hewlett 

Packard, and began an investigation to 

determine whether workers and former 

workers of Hewlett Packard, Global 

Product Development, working on-site 

at General Motors Corporation, Milford, 

Michigan, are eligible to apply for TAA. 

Information obtained by the 

Department revealed that Hewlett 

Packard’s Global Product Development 

unit consists of three separately 

identifiable worker groups: The NonInformation Technology Business 

Development Team, the Engineering 

Application Support Team, and the 

Engineering Workstation Refresh Team. 

On February 2, 2011, the Department 

issued an amended certification of TA– 

W–72,851 that included workers of 

Hewlett Packard, Global Product 

Development, Non-Information 

Technology Business Development 

Team and Engineering Application 

Support Team, working on-site at 

General Motors Corporation, Milford, 

Michigan. Because workers of Hewlett 

Packard, Global Product Development, 

Engineering Workstation Refresh Team 

(HP–EWRT) are not covered by the 

amendment, the Department continued 

with the investigation. 

The Department has determined that 

the workers of HP–EWRT, who are 

engaged in employment related to the 

supply of information technology (IT) 

services, meet the criteria as Suppliers 

for secondary worker certification. 

Criterion I has been met because a 

significant number or proportion of the 

workers of HP–EWRT has become 

totally or partially separated, or are 

threatened with separation. 

Criterion II has been met because 

workers of HP–EWRT supplied services 

to a firm that employed a worker group 

eligible to apply for TAA and the 

services supplied are related to the 

article or service that was the basis for 

the TAA certification. 

Criterion III has been met because the 

loss of business by HP–EWRT with the 

aforementioned firm, with respect to IT 

services supplied to the firm, 

contributed importantly to subject 

worker separations at HP–EWRT, 

Milford, Michigan. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the additional 

facts obtained on reconsideration, I 

determine that workers of Hewlett 

Packard, Global Product Development, 

Engineering Workstation Refresh Team, 

Milford, Michigan, who are engaged in 

employment related to the supply of 

information technology (IT) services, 

meet the worker group certification 

criteria under Section 222(c) of the Act, 

19 U.S.C. 2272(c). In accordance with 

Section 223 of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 2273, 

I make the following certification: 

‘‘All workers of Hewlett Packard, Global 

Product Development, Engineering 

Workstation Refresh Team, working on-site at 

General Motors Corporation, Milford, 

Michigan, who became totally or partially 

separated from employment on or after 

February 9, 2009, through two years from the 

date of this revised certification, and all 

workers in the group threatened with total or 

partial separation from employment on date 

of certification through two years from the 

date of certification, are eligible to apply for 

adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of 

Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as 

amended.’’ 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 4th day of 

February, 2011. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4096 Filed 2–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–70,261] 

Stimson Lumber Company Clatskanie, 

OR; Notice of Revised Determination 

on Remand 

On November 15, 2010, the United 

States Court of International Trade 

(USCIT) granted the Department of 

Labor’s request for voluntary remand to 

conduct further investigation in Former 

Employees of Stimson Lumber Company 

v. United States Secretary of Labor, 

Court No. 10–00278. 

On May 18, 2009, the International 

Association of Machinists and 

Woodworkers, Local Lodge W–536 

(Union) filed a petition for Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (TAA) with the 

Department of Labor (Department) on 

behalf of workers and former workers of 

Stimson Lumber Company, Clatskanie, 

Oregon (subject firm). Workers at the 

subject firm (subject worker group) are 

engaged in the production of softwood 

lumber products. The worker group 

does not include on-site leased workers. 

On February 19, 2010, the Department 

issued a Negative Determination 

regarding eligibility to apply for TAA 

applicable to workers and former 

workers of the subject firm. The 

Department’s Notice of determination 

was published in the Federal Register 

on March 12, 2010 (75 FR 11925). 

The Department’s initial findings 

revealed that the subject firm did not 

import articles like or directly 

competitive with those produced by the 

workers, shift the production of these 

articles abroad, or acquire these articles 

from a foreign country during the period 

under investigation. The survey 

conducted of the subject firm’s major 

declining customers revealed a decline 

in imports when compared to purchases 

made from the subject firm. 

The Department had also reviewed 

aggregate data that confirmed that U.S. 

imports of softwood lumber products 

like or directly competitive with those 

produced by the subject worker group 

declined when compared to domestic 

production. Consequently, the 

Department determined that the group 

eligibility requirements under Section 

222 of the Trade Act, as amended, had 

not been met. 

By application dated March 11, 2010, 

the Union requested administrative 

reconsideration on the Department’s 

negative determination. The request for 

reconsideration stated that the worker 

separations in the subject worker group 

were a result of competition with 

Canadian imports. The Union also 

alleged that because Hampton Lumber 

Mills-Washington, Inc., Morton 

Division, Morton, Washington, whose 

workers are eligible to apply for TAA as 

primary workers under TA–W–72,129, 

is an upstream supplier of Stimson 

Lumber Company, workers at the 

subject firm are eligible to apply for 

TAA as adversely affected secondary 

workers. 

Section 222(d) of the Act, 19 U.S.C. 

2272(d), defines the term ‘‘Supplier’’ as 

‘‘a firm that produces and supplies 

directly to another firm component 

parts for articles, or services used in the 

production of articles or in the supply 

of services, as the case may be, that were 

the basis for a certification of eligibility 

under subsection (a) [of Section 222 of 

the Act] of a group of workers employed 

by such other firm.’’ 

During the investigation regarding the 

application for reconsideration, the 

Department confirmed that the subject 

worker group did not qualify as 

secondarily affected workers because 

the products manufactured at the 

subject firm were not used as a 

component part in the production of 

lumber that was the basis of the primary 

certification that is applicable to 

workers at Hampton Lumber MillsWashington, Inc., Morton Division, 

Morton, Washington. 

Because the petitioner did not provide 

information that had not been 

previously considered, the Department 

issued a Negative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration applicable to workers 

at the subject firm on July 8, 2010. The 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Notices 10405 

Department’s Notice was published in 

the Federal Register on July 16, 2010 

(75 FR 41529). 

In the complaint to the USCIT, dated 

August 4, 2010, the Plaintiffs claimed 

that workers at the subject firm were 

impacted by Canadian imports of 

articles like or directly competitive with 

those produced by the subject firm. The 

Plaintiffs also claimed that ‘‘the main 

competitors of the Stimson Mill are 

TAA certified because of foreign 

competition from the Canadian 

softwood dimensional lumber imports.’’ 

On November 8, 2010, the Department 

requested voluntary remand to conduct 

further investigation to address the 

allegations made by the Plaintiffs, to 

determine whether the subject worker 

group is eligible to apply for TAA, and 

to issue an appropriate determination. 

On November 15, 2010, the USCIT 

granted the Department’s Motion for 

voluntary remand. 

For a worker group to be certified 

eligible to apply for TAA based on 

increased imports, all of the following 

criteria must be satisfied: 

A. A significant number or proportion of 

the workers in such workers’ firm, or an 

appropriate subdivision of the firm, have 

become totally or partially separated, or are 

threatened to become totally or partially 

separated; 

B. The sales or production, or both, of such 

firm or subdivision have decreased 

absolutely; and 

C. Increased imports of articles like or 

directly competitive with articles produced 

by such firm or subdivision have contributed 

importantly to such workers’ separation or 

threat of separation and to the decline in 

sales or production of such firm or 

subdivision. 

During the remand investigation, the 

Department carefully reviewed 

previously submitted information, 

obtained additional information from 

the subject firm, solicited input from the 

Plaintiffs, collected and reviewed 

additional U.S. import aggregate data on 

softwood lumber, and conducted an 

extensive customer survey. 

The Department’s findings on remand 

confirmed that the subject firm did not 

shift to a foreign country the production 

of articles like or directly competitive 

with those produced by the subject 

worker group, acquire these products 

from foreign sources, or import these 

articles or articles like or directly 

competitive with those produced by the 

subject worker group during the 

relevant time period. 

During the remand investigation, the 

Department surveyed a significant 

proportion of the subject firm’s 

declining customers regarding import 

purchases of large wood products, such 

as timbers, cross arms, and crane mats 

and like or directly competitive articles 

with those produced at the subject firm 

during 2008, 2009, and 2010. The 

Department also considered in 

conducting the survey any overlapping 

customers between the subject firm and 

firms that produce like or directly 

competitive products that, according to 

the Plaintiffs, are competitors of the 

subject firm. 

The expanded customer survey 

revealed that imports of articles like or 

directly competitive with the softwood 

lumber articles produced at the subject 

firm declined in the first period under 

investigation. However, customers’ 

purchases made from the subject firm 

also declined during the same time 

period but at a faster rate. During the 

second period under investigation, 

customers’ import purchases increased 

significantly compared to purchases 

made from the subject firm. Overall, the 

surveyed customers displayed an 

increased reliance on import purchases 

of articles like or directly competitive 

with the softwood lumber products 

manufactured by the subject worker 

group relative to purchases made from 

the subject firm during the period under 

investigation. 

Based on the new information 

obtained during the remand 

investigation, the Department 

determines that an increased reliance on 

imports by customers of the subject 

firm, of articles like or directly 

competitive with softwood lumber 

products manufactured by the subject 

firm, contributed importantly to the 

separations in the subject worker group 

and to the decline in subject firm sales 

and production. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the 

information obtained during the remand 

investigation, I determine that increased 

imports of articles like or directly 

competitive with softwood lumber 

products manufactured by the subject 

firm contributed importantly to the total 

separation of a significant number or 

proportion of workers at the subject 

firm. In accordance with the provisions 

of the Act, I make the following 

certification: 

All workers of Stimson Lumber Company, 

Clatskanie, Oregon, who became totally or 

partially separated from employment on or 

after May 18, 2008, through two years from 

the date of this revised certification, and all 

workers in the group threatened with total or 

partial separation from employment on date 

of certification through two years from the 

date of certification, are eligible to apply for 

adjustment assistance under Chapter 2 of 

Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of 

February, 2011. 

Del Min Amy Chen, 

Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4092 Filed 2–23–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

[Docket No. 2010–4] 

Federal Copyright Protection of Sound 

Recordings Fixed Before February 15, 

1972 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry: Extension of 

reply comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the 

Library of Congress is extending the 

deadline for filing reply comments in 

response to its Notice of Inquiry 

requesting public input on the 

desirability and means of bringing 

sound recordings fixed before February 

15, 1972 under federal jurisdiction. 

Initial comments are available for 

review on the Copyright Office Web site. 

DATES: Reply comments must be 

received in the Office of the General 

Counsel of the Copyright Office no later 

than April 13, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: The Copyright Office 

strongly prefers that comments be 

submitted electronically. A comment 

page containing a comment form is 

posted on the Copyright Office Web site 

at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/ 

sound/comments/comment-submissionindex.html. The Web site interface 

requires submitters to complete a form 

specifying name and organization, as 

applicable, and to upload comments as 

an attachment via a browse button. To 

meet accessibility standards, each 

comment must be uploaded in a single 

file in either the Adobe Portable 

Document File (PDF) format that 

contains searchable, accessible text (not 

an image); Microsoft Word; 

WordPerfect; Rich Text Format (RTF); or 

ASCII text file format (not a scanned 

document). The maximum file size is 6 

megabytes (MB). The name of the 

submitter and organization should 

appear on both the form and the face of 

the comments. All comments will be 

posted on the Copyright Office Web site, 

along with names and organizations. 

If electronic submission of comments 

is not feasible, comments may be 

delivered in hard copy. If hand 

delivered by a private party, an original 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES