Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 55 / Thursday, March 22, 2007 / Notices 13529 

Dated: March 14, 2007. 

Ralph DiBattista, 

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7–5236 Filed 3–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–60,688] 

Lego Systems, Inc. Including Former 

On-Site Leased Workers of Adecco 

USA, Inc. Currently Employed With 

Staff Management, Enfield, CT; 

Amended Certification Regarding 

Eligibility To Apply for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

In accordance with Section 223 of the 

Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and 

Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 

U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the 

Department of Labor issued a 

Certification of Eligibility to Apply for 

Worker Adjustment Assistance and 

Alternative Trade Adjustment 

Assistance on January 16, 2007, 

applicable to workers of LEGO Systems, 

Inc., including on-site leased workers of 

Staff Management, Enfield, Connecticut. 

The notice was published in the Federal 

Register on February 7, 2007 (72 FR 

5748). 

At the request of the State agency, the 

Department reviewed the certification 

for workers of the subject firm. The 

workers were engaged in the assembly 

of LEGO toy model kits. 

New information shows that in 

February 2006, the leased workers of 

Adecco USA, Inc., employed on-site at 

the Enfield, Connecticut location of 

LEGO Systems, Inc., became employees 

of Staff Management due to a change in 

contracting firms. 

Accordingly, the Department is 

amending this certification to properly 

reflect this matter. 

The intent of the Department’s 

certification is to include all workers 

employed at LEGO Systems, Inc., 

Enfield, Connecticut who were 

adversely affected by a shift in 

production to Mexico. 

The amended notice applicable to 

TA–W–60,688 is hereby issued as 

follows: 

All workers of LEGO Systems, Inc., 

including former on-site leased workers of 

Adecco USA, Inc., currently employed with 

Staff Management, Enfield, Connecticut, who 

became totally or partially separated from 

employment on or after January 2, 2006, 

through January 16, 2009, are eligible to 

apply for adjustment assistance under 

Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are 

also eligible to apply for alternative trade 

adjustment assistance under Section 246 of 

the Trade Act of 1974. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of 

March 2007. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7–5238 Filed 3–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–60,078] 

Weyerhaeuser Company; Lebanon 

Lumber Division; Lebanon, OR; Notice 

of Negative Determination on 

Reconsideration 

On December 15, 2006, the 

Department issued an Affirmative 

Determination Regarding Application 

for Reconsideration for the workers and 

former workers of Weyerhaeuser 

Company, Lebanon Lumber Division, 

Lebanon, Oregon (the subject firm). The 

Department’s Notice of affirmative 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register on December 21, 2006 

(71 FR 76700). 

The initial denial of the workers’

eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment 

Assistance (TAA) and Alternative Trade 

Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) was 

based on the Department’s findings that 

the workers produce green softwood 

stud lumber; the subject firm neither 

imported green softwood stud lumber 

nor shifted production of green 

softwood stud lumber overseas during 

the relevant period; and the subject 

firm’s major declining customers had 

negligible imports of green softwood 

stud lumber during the surveyed 

periods. The Department’s Notice of 

determination was issued on October 

19, 2006 and published in the Federal 

Register on November 6, 2006 (71 FR 

65004). 

The request for reconsideration, filed 

by the United Brotherhood of 

Carpenters and Joiners of America, 

Carpenters Industrial Council, Local 

2791 (Union), alleges that Weyerhaeuser 

Company purchased a softwood lumber 

production facility in Canada, inferring 

that the subject firm has increased 

imports of lumber or articles like or 

directly competitive with lumber 

produced at the subject facility. 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department discussed 

the allegations with the Union, sought 

clarification from the subject firm 

regarding Weyerhaeuser Company’s 

Canadian lumber production facilities, 

and conducted a customer survey 

regarding imports of stud lumber and 

articles like or directly competitive with 

stud lumber produced at the subject 

firm during the relevant period. 

During the reconsideration 

investigation, the Department 

determined that kiln-dried lumber and 

engineered wood products are like or 

directly competitive with green stud 

lumber. As such, the Department 

conducted an expanded customer 

survey to determine whether the subject 

firm’s major declining customers had 

increased import purchases of green 

stud lumber and articles like or directly 

competitive with green stud lumber 

produced at the subject firm. The survey 

revealed no increased imports of green 

stud lumber or articles like or directly 

competitive with green stud lumber 

during the surveyed periods. 

The reconsideration investigation also 

revealed that, contrary to the Union’s 

allegation, Weyerhaeuser Company has 

not purchased any lumber production 

facilities in Canada during the relevant 

period. Further, an August 23, 2006 

Weyerhaeuser Company news release 

(attached to the petition) states that the 

subject firm was replaced by a new, 

‘‘world-class’’ sawmill in the Lebanon, 

Oregon area. 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

Union requested that the Department 

review the articles submitted with the 

petition and the findings by the U.S. 

International Trade Commission 

(USITC) regarding Investigation Nos. 

701–TA–414 and 731–TA–928. 

‘‘Increased imports means that 

imports have increased either absolutely 

or relative to domestic production 

compared to a representative base 

period. The representative base period 

shall be one year consisting of the four 

quarters immediately preceding the date 

which is twelve months prior to the date 

of the petition.’’ 29 CFR Section 90.2 

Because the petition is dated September 

13, 2006, the Department determines 

that the relevant period is September 

2005 through August 2006. 

While ‘‘News Release,’’

Weyerhaeuser, August 23, 2006, states 

that Weyerhaeuser Company ‘‘operates 

lumber mills in eight states and four 

provinces in Canada,’’ it does not infer 

any shift of production to Canada or 

increased imports from Canada. Further, 

the article explains that the new 

sawmill to which production is shifting 

is also in the Lebanon, Oregon area. 

While Weyerhaeuser Company’s 

‘‘Forward Looking Statement’’ (July 25, 

2006) acknowledges that Weyerhaeuser 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
13530 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 55 / Thursday, March 22, 2007 / Notices 

Company has concerns about its third 

quarter 2006 performance, it does not 

infer any shift of production to Canada 

or increased imports from Canada. 

Although ‘‘News Release,’’

Weyerhaeuser, July 25, 2006, states that 

second quarter 2006 earnings are lower 

than second quarter 2005 earnings, the 

article also states that costs 

Weyerhaeuser Company incurred on 

Canadian softwood lumber sold into the 

U.S. in the second quarter of 2006 were 

lower than first quarter 2006. 

‘‘Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports: 

WTO Again Rejects Canadian Attack on 

Softwood Lumber Duties,’’ Coalition for 

Fair Lumber Imports, April 13, 2006, 

states that the World Trade Organization 

Appellate Body’s decision to support an 

ITC determination (issued on November 

24, 2004) that U.S. lumber producers are 

threatened with material injury by 

imports of dumped and subsidized 

softwood lumber from Canada is correct. 

However, because the events relevant to 

the ITC’s determination occurred 

outside the relevant period, it cannot be 

a basis for the subject workers’

eligibility to apply for TAA. 

Similarly, because data in the 

International Trade Report, December 

2004, and the USITC determination 

(issued July 30, 2004) regarding 

Investigation Nos. 701–TA–414 and 

731–TA–928, fall outside the relevant 

time period, they cannot be a basis for 

the subject workers’ eligibility to apply 

for TAA. 

In order for the Department to issue 

a certification of eligibility to apply for 

ATAA, the subject worker group must 

be certified eligible to apply for TAA. 

Since the subject workers are denied 

eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers 

cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. 

Conclusion 

After careful reconsideration, I affirm 

the original notice of negative 

determination of eligibility to apply for 

worker adjustment assistance for 

workers and former workers of 

Weyerhaeuser Company, Lebanon 

Lumber Division, Lebanon, Oregon. 

Signed at Washington, DC this 14th day of 

March 2007 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E7–5237 Filed 3–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

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, 

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 

(PRA95) [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 Standards Administration 

is soliciting comments concerning the 

proposed collection: 29 CFR Part 825, 

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 

1993 (WH–380 and WH–381). A copy of 

the proposed information collection 

request can be obtained by contacting 

the office listed below in the ADDRESSES

section of this Notice. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted to the office listed in the 

ADDRESSES section below on or before 

May 21, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Ms. Hazel M. Bell, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Room S–3201, Washington, 

DC 20210, telephone (202) 693–0418, 

fax (202) 693–1451, e-mail 

bell.hazel@dol.gov. Please use only one 

method of transmission for comments 

(mail, fax, or e-mail). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 

1993 (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601, et seq., 

requires private sector employers of 50 

or more employees and public agencies 

to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid, 

job-protected leave during any 12- 

month period to ‘‘eligible’’ employees 

for certain family and medical reasons. 

Leave must be granted to ‘‘eligible’’

employees because of the birth of a 

child and to care for the newborn child, 

because of the placement of a child with 

the employee for adoption or foster care, 

because the employee is needed to care 

for a family member (child, spouse, or 

parent) with a serious health condition, 

or because the employee’s own serious 

health condition makes the employee 

unable to perform any of the essential 

functions of his or her job. This 

information collection contains 

recordkeeping and notification 

requirements associated with the Act 

and regulations. Implementing 

regulations are found at 29 CFR Part 

825. Two optional forms are included in 

this information collection request. The 

WH–380, Certification of Health Care 

Provider, may be used to certify a 

serious health condition under FMLA. 

The WH–381, Employer Response to 

Employee Request for Family or 

Medical Leave, may be used by an 

employer to respond to a leave request 

under FMLA. Both forms are third-party 

notifications and they are not submitted 

to the Department of Labor. This 

information collection is currently 

approved for use through August 31, 

2007. 

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 

The Department of Labor seeks 

approval for the extension of this 

information collection in order to 

ensure that both employers and 

employees are aware of and can exercise 

their rights and meet their respective 

obligations under FMLA, and in order 

for the Department of Labor to carry out 

its statutory obligation under FMLA to 

investigate and ensure employer 

compliance has been met. 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Agency: Employment Standards 

Administration. 

Title: 29 CFR, Part 825, The Family 

and Medical Leave Act of 1993. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES