Ford Motor Company Product Development and Engineering Center, Dearborn, MI; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration, 46515-46516 [E7-16283]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 160 / Monday, August 20, 2007 / Notices
Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of
August 2007.
Ralph Dibattista,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment
Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–16282 Filed 8–17–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–60,859]
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Eaton Corporation Aerospace Division
Including Workers Whose Wages Are
Reported Under FEID Number for
Perkin Elmer Including On-Site Leased
Workers From Aerotek, Kelly Services,
Otterbase, and Adecco Phelps, New
York and TA–W–60,859A Eaton
Corporation, Aerospace Division
Employee of Phelps, New York
Working Out of Beltsville, Maryland;
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 Regarding Eligibility to
Apply for Worker Adjustment
Assistance and Alternative Trade
Adjustment Assistance on February 28,
2007, applicable to workers at Eaton
Corporation, Aerospace Division, in
Phelps, New York. The notice was
published in the Federal Register on
March 14, 2007 (72 FR 11904).
At the request of a company official,
the Department reviewed the
certification for workers of the subject
firm. The workers are engaged in the
production of solenoid valves.
The company official reports that Ms.
Susan Whitledge was an employee of
the Eaton Corporation, Aerospace
Division in Phelps, New York, and
worked off-site at the company’s
Beltsville, Maryland facility. Ms.
Whitledge was among the workers of the
firm’s Aerospace Division in Phelps,
New York, who were separated from
employment based on a shift in
production of solenoid valves to
Mexico.
The intent of the Department’s
certification is to include all workers of
Eaton Corporation, Aerospace Division,
in Phelps, New York, who were
adversely affected by the shift in
production to Mexico.
Accordingly, the Department is
amending the certification to include
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 Aug 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
Ms. Whitledge, an employee of the
Eaton Corporation, Aerospace Division
in Phelps, New York, working out of
Beltsville, Maryland.
The amended notice applicable to
TA–W–60,859 is hereby issued as
follows:
All workers of Eaton Corporation,
Aerospace Division, including workers
whose wages were reported under FEID
number for Perkin Elmer, including on-site
leased workers from Aerotek, Kelly Services,
Otterbase, and Adecco, Phelps, New York
(TA–W–60,859), and an employee of Eaton
Corporation Aerospace Division, Phelps,
New York working out of Beltsville,
Maryland (TA–W–60,859A), who became
totally or partially separated from
employment on or after January 30, 2006
through February 28, 2009, are eligible to
apply for adjustment assistance under
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974; and
I further determine that all workers of
Eaton Corporation, Aerospace Division,
including workers whose wages were
reported under FEID number for Perkin
Elmer, including on-site leased workers from
Aerotek, Kelly Services, Otterbase, and
Adecco, Phelps, New York (TA–W–60,859),
and an employee of Eaton Corporation
Aerospace Division, Phelps, New York
working out of Beltsville, Maryland (TA–W–
60,859A), are denied eligibility to apply for
alternative trade adjustment assistance under
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed in Washington, DC, this 8th day of
August 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–16284 Filed 8–17–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
[TA–W–60,086]
Ford Motor Company Product
Development and Engineering Center,
Dearborn, MI; Notice of Revised
Determination on Reconsideration
On May 24, 2007, the Department
issued an Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application on
Reconsideration applicable to workers
and former workers of the subject firm.
The notice was published in the Federal
Register on May 30, 2007 (72 FR 30030).
The previous investigation initiated
on September 14, 2006, resulted in a
negative determination issued on March
15, 2007, was based on the finding that
the subject worker group did not
directly support production at the
subject firm. The denial notice was
published in the Federal Register on
March 30, 2007 (72 FR 15168).
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46515
In the request for reconsideration the
petitioners allege that the petitioning
group of workers was in direct support
of manufacturing and assembly of Ford
automobiles at various Ford Motor
Company manufacturing facilities.
A company official was contacted to
verify whether workers at the subject
facility were supporting production at
Ford Motor Company manufacturing
facilities. The company official stated
that workers of the subject facilities
were in direct support of production at
Ford Motor Company Atlanta Assembly
Plant, Hapeville, Georgia (TA–W–
59017), Ford Motor Company Norfolk
Assembly Plant, Norfolk, Virginia (TA–
W–60,367), Ford Motor Company Twin
Cities Assembly Plant, St. Paul,
Minnesota (TA–W–60,435), and Ford
Motor Company St. Louis Assembly
Plant, Hazelwood, Missouri, (TA–W–
60,478) during the relevant period. All
of the above mentioned production
facilities were certified eligible for
adjustment assistance during April
through December 2006.
The investigation further revealed that
employment at the subject firm declined
during the relevant period.
In accordance with section 246 the
Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as
amended, the Department of Labor
herein presents the results of its
investigation regarding certification of
eligibility to apply for alternative trade
adjustment assistance (ATAA) for older
workers.
In order for the Department to issue
a certification of eligibility to apply for
ATAA, the group eligibility
requirements of section 246 of the Trade
Act must be met. The Department has
determined in this case that the
requirements of section 246 have been
met.
A significant number of workers at the
firm are age 50 or over and possess
skills that are not easily transferable.
Competitive conditions within the
industry are adverse.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts
obtained in the investigation, I
determine that increases of imports of
articles like or directly competitive with
articles produced by Ford Motor
Company contributed importantly to the
total or partial separation of workers at
the subject firm and to the decline in
sales or production at that firm or
subdivision. In accordance with the
provisions of the Act, I make the
following certification:
All workers of Ford Motor Company,
Product Development and Engineering
Center, Dearborn, Michigan, who became
totally or partially separated from
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
46516
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 160 / Monday, August 20, 2007 / Notices
employment on or after September 14, 2005,
through two years from the date of this
certification, are eligible to apply for
adjustment assistance under Section 223 of
the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to
apply for alternative trade adjustment
assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act
of 1974.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of
August 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7–16283 Filed 8–17–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Copyright Royalty Board
Docket No. 2005–4 CRB CD 2003]
Distribution of the 2003 Cable Royalty
Fund
Copyright Royalty Board,
Library of Congress.
ACTION: Notice announcing partial Phase
I settlement and soliciting comments on
motion for further distribution.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges
are announcing a partial Phase I
settlement in connection with the 2003
cable royalty fund. The Judges are also
soliciting comments on a motion for
further distribution in connection with
that fund.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
September 19, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent
electronically to crb@loc.gov. In the
alternative, send an original, five copies,
and an electronic copy on a CD either
by mail or hand-delivery. Please do not
use multiple means of transmission.
Comments may not be delivered by an
overnight delivery service other than the
U.S. Postal Service Express Mail. If by
mail (including overnight delivery),
comments must be addressed to:
Copyright Royalty Board, P.O. Box
70977, Washington, DC 20024–0977. If
hand delivered by a private party,
comments must be brought to the
Library of Congress, James Madison
Memorial Building, LM–401, 101
Independence Ave., SE., Washington,
DC 20559–6000. If delivered by a
commercial courier, comments must be
delivered to the Congressional Courier
Acceptance Site located at 2nd and D
Street, NE., Washington, DC. The
envelope must be addressed to:
Copyright Royalty Board, Library of
Congress, James Madison Memorial
Building, LM–403, 101 Independence
Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20559–6000.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:53 Aug 17, 2007
Jkt 211001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Strasser, Senior Attorney, or
Gina Giuffreda, Attorney Advisor, by
telephone at (202) 707–7658 or e-mail at
crb@loc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Each year, semiannually, cable
systems must submit royalty payments
to the Register of Copyrights as required
by the statutory license set forth in
section 111 of the Copyright Act for the
retransmission to cable subscribers of
over-the-air television and radio
broadcast signals. See 17 U.S.C. 111(d).
These royalties are then distributed to
copyright owners whose works were
included in a qualifying retransmission
and who timely filed a claim for
royalties. Allocation of the royalties
collected occurs in one of two ways. In
the first instance, these funds will be
distributed through a negotiated
settlement among the parties. 17 U.S.C.
111(d)(4)(A). If the claimants do not
reach an agreement with respect to the
royalties, the Copyright Royalty Judges
(‘‘Judges’’) must conduct a proceeding to
determine the distribution of any
royalties that remain in controversy. 17
U.S.C. 111(d)(4)(B).
August 2005 Motion for Partial
Distribution
On August 31, 2005, a group of
claimants filed a motion with the
Copyright Royalty Board (‘‘CRB’’),
requesting a partial distribution of 50%
of the 2003 cable royalty fund (‘‘2003
Fund’’). Motion of Phase I Claimants for
Partial Distribution. On September 13,
2005, the proposal was published in the
Federal Register. Docket No. 2005–4
CRB CD 2003, 70 FR 53973. In the
notice, the CRB sought comment on
whether any controversy exists that
would preclude the distribution of 50%
of the 2003 cable royalty funds to the
Phase I claimants.1 The CRB also sought
1 Historically, cable royalty proceedings have
occurred in two phases. In Phase I, royalties have
been divided among the categories of broadcast
programming represented in the proceeding. The
categories into which copyright owners have
divided themselves in Phase I have remained
largely unchanged over time. See Distribution of
1998 and 1999 Cable Royalty Funds, Docket No.
2001–8 CARP CD 98–99, 69 FR 3606, 3607 (Jan. 26,
2004) ((1) movies and syndicated television
programs (known as ‘‘Program Suppliers’’ and
represented by the Motion Picture Association of
America, Inc. (‘‘MPAA’’)); (2) sports programming
(referred to as ‘‘Joint Sports Claimants’’ and
includes sports programming belonging to the
National Football League, National Hockey League,
National Basketball Association, and National
Collegiate Athletic Association); (3) commercial
broadcast programming (consists of copyright
owners of commercial radio and television
programming and represented by the National
Association of Broadcasters, Inc. (‘‘NAB’’)); (4)
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
comment on the existence of any
controversies to the 2003 cable royalty
funds, either at Phase I or Phase II, with
respect to the 50% of those funds that
would remain if the partial distribution
were granted. 70 FR at 53973–53974.
The CRB received eleven comments
in response to the notice, one of which
was from the Independent Producers
Group (‘‘IPG’’).2 In its comment, IPG
notified the CRB that it maintains
claims on behalf of certain unnamed
producers and distributors of devotional
programming and that a controversy
exists with respect to the 2003 cable
royalty fund. IPG stated: ‘‘The extent of
the controversy is not known at this
time, however, the reservation of at least
2% of the cable proceedings funds as
relates to claims on behalf of devotional
programming, together with Phase I
Claimants’ pledges to return any
amounts finally awarded in excess of
sums partially released, is deemed
sufficient to protect the interests of
devotional programming claimants.’’ Id.
IPG also stated that it maintains
claims on behalf of certain unnamed
producers and distributors of syndicated
programming (which IPG refers to as
‘‘program suppliers’’) and asserted that
a controversy exists with respect to that
category of funds. With respect to
religious broadcast programming (referred to as
‘‘Devotional Claimants’’ and consists of various
copyright owners of religious programming); (5)
public television broadcast programming (referred
to as ‘‘PBS’’ and consists of various copyright
owners of television programs broadcast by the
Public Broadcasting Service)); (6) Canadian
broadcast programming (referred to as ‘‘Canadian
Claimants’’ and consists of various Canadian
copyright owners whose programs are retransmitted
by cable systems located near the U.S./Canada
border); (7) public radio broadcast programming
(referred to as ‘‘NPR’’ and consists of various
copyright owners of radio programs transmitted by
National Public Radio); and (8) music (referred to
as ‘‘Music Claimants’’ and consists of copyrighted
programming belonging to songwriters and music
publishers and represented by the American
Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
(‘‘ASCAP’’), Broadcast Music, Inc. (‘‘BMI’’) and
SESAC, Inc.). See also 1989 Cable Royalty
Distribution Proceeding, Docket No. CRT 91–2–
89CD, 57 FR 15286, 15287 (April 27, 1992) ((1)
Program Suppliers; (2) Sports; (3) U.S.
Noncommercial Television (PBS); (4) U.S.
Commercial Television (NAB); (5) Music; (6)
Devotional Claimants; (7) Canadian Claimants; (8)
Non-Commercial Radio (NPR); and (9) Commercial
Radio).
In Phase II, royalties are divided among claimants
within a particular category. See Distribution Order
in Docket No. 94–3 CARP CD–90–92, 61 FR 55653,
55655 (Oct. 28, 1996).
2 IPG Comment, dated October 25, 2005. On
October 25, 2005, IPG filed a motion with the CRB
requesting that the CRB accept its late-filed
comment. See Independent Producers Group’s
Motion to Accept Late-Filed Comments on the
Existence of Controversies and Notice of Intent to
Participate in Phase I and Phase II Hearings.
The CRB also received a comment from claimants
representing program suppliers. This comment is
discussed below.
E:\FR\FM\20AUN1.SGM
20AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 160 (Monday, August 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46515-46516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16283]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-60,086]
Ford Motor Company Product Development and Engineering Center,
Dearborn, MI; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration
On May 24, 2007, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination
Regarding Application on Reconsideration applicable to workers and
former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the
Federal Register on May 30, 2007 (72 FR 30030).
The previous investigation initiated on September 14, 2006,
resulted in a negative determination issued on March 15, 2007, was
based on the finding that the subject worker group did not directly
support production at the subject firm. The denial notice was published
in the Federal Register on March 30, 2007 (72 FR 15168).
In the request for reconsideration the petitioners allege that the
petitioning group of workers was in direct support of manufacturing and
assembly of Ford automobiles at various Ford Motor Company
manufacturing facilities.
A company official was contacted to verify whether workers at the
subject facility were supporting production at Ford Motor Company
manufacturing facilities. The company official stated that workers of
the subject facilities were in direct support of production at Ford
Motor Company Atlanta Assembly Plant, Hapeville, Georgia (TA-W-59017),
Ford Motor Company Norfolk Assembly Plant, Norfolk, Virginia (TA-W-
60,367), Ford Motor Company Twin Cities Assembly Plant, St. Paul,
Minnesota (TA-W-60,435), and Ford Motor Company St. Louis Assembly
Plant, Hazelwood, Missouri, (TA-W-60,478) during the relevant period.
All of the above mentioned production facilities were certified
eligible for adjustment assistance during April through December 2006.
The investigation further revealed that employment at the subject
firm declined during the relevant period.
In accordance with section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C.
2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the results
of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply
for alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) for older workers.
In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility
to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of section 246 of
the Trade Act must be met. The Department has determined in this case
that the requirements of section 246 have been met.
A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and
possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions
within the industry are adverse.
Conclusion
After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I
determine that increases of imports of articles like or directly
competitive with articles produced by Ford Motor Company contributed
importantly to the total or partial separation of workers at the
subject firm and to the decline in sales or production at that firm or
subdivision. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the
following certification:
All workers of Ford Motor Company, Product Development and
Engineering Center, Dearborn, Michigan, who became totally or
partially separated from
[[Page 46516]]
employment on or after September 14, 2005, through two years from
the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are
eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of August 2007.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-16283 Filed 8-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
