Cummins Power Generation, Including On-Site Leased Workers of Adecco USA, Inc., Aerotek, Inc., the Bartech Group, Back Diamonds Networks, Entegee, Inc., DBA Midstates Technical, Manpower, Inc., Robert Half International, Summit Technical Services, Inc., and Universal Engineering Services, Inc. Fridley, MN; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration, 26797-26798 [2010-11274]

Download as PDF 26797 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Notices APPENDIX—Continued [TAA petitions instituted between 4/19/10 and 4/23/10] TA–W 73965 73966 73967 73968 73969 73970 73971 73972 73973 73974 73975 73976 73977 73978 73979 73980 73981 73982 73983 73984 73985 73986 73987 ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ ................ Location Angell Demmel North America (Workers) ............................ Nortel Networks (Workers) ................................................... Hewlett Packard (Workers) .................................................. Hospira, Inc. (Workers) ........................................................ Cummins, Inc. (Company) .................................................... CareFusion (Company) ........................................................ Liz Palacios Design Ltd (Workers) ....................................... St. Barnabas Heathcare System (Workers) ......................... Scientific Games International (Workers) ............................. Scientific Games International (Workers) ............................. Care Fusion (Workers) ......................................................... Worthington Specialty Processing (Company) ..................... The Flint Journal (State/One-Stop) ...................................... Eastman Kodak (State/One-Stop) ........................................ Hagemeyer North America (Company) ................................ New Era Cap Company (Company) .................................... New Era Cap Company (State/One-Stop) ........................... Smith’s Medical PM, Inc. (Workers) ..................................... Apria Healthcare (State/One-Stop) ...................................... Graphic Arts Center Publishing (Company) ......................... Graphic Arts Center (Company) ........................................... AT&T (State/One-Stop) ........................................................ Ford Motor Credit (Company) .............................................. Dayton, OH ........................... Research Triangle Park, NC Boise, ID ............................... Lake Forest, IL ...................... El Paso, TX ........................... San Diego, CA ...................... San Francisco, CA ................ Ocean Port, NJ ..................... South Barre, VT .................... Concord, NH ......................... Middleton, WI ........................ Canton, MI ............................ Flint, MI ................................. Vancouver, WA ..................... Chambersburg, PA ............... Buffalo, NY ............................ Demopolis, AL ....................... Waukesha, WI ....................... Redmond, WA ....................... Portland, OR ......................... Santa Barbara, CA ................ Bothell, WA ........................... Colorado Springs, CO ........... [FR Doc. 2010–11271 Filed 5–11–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA–W–70,501] WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES Cummins Power Generation, Including On-Site Leased Workers of Adecco USA, Inc., Aerotek, Inc., the Bartech Group, Back Diamonds Networks, Entegee, Inc., DBA Midstates Technical, Manpower, Inc., Robert Half International, Summit Technical Services, Inc., and Universal Engineering Services, Inc. Fridley, MN; Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration By application dated March 22, 2010, a representative of the State of Minnesota requested administrative reconsideration of the Department’s negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on February 4, 2010, and published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2010 (75 FR 11925). 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 Date of institution Subject firm (petitioners) 15:00 May 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 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 misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of the decision. The negative determination of the TAA petition filed on behalf of workers at Cummins Power Generation, Fridley, Minnesota, was based on the finding that the subject firm did not import articles like or directly competitive with the generators and transfer switches produced at the subject firm during 2007, 2008 or during January through May 2009, nor did it shift production of those articles abroad during the same period. The investigation also revealed that, during the relevant period, none of the major declining customers of the subject firm increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with generators and transfer switches produced at the subject firm while decreasing purchases from the subject firm. The investigation also revealed that the workers did not supply a component part that was used by a firm that employed a worker group currently eligible to apply for TAA. The request for reconsideration included documents intended to ‘‘illustrate how a former employee [of the subject firm] * * * was adversely affected by trade activities and lost her position.’’ The ‘‘trade activities’’ referred PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 04/21/10 04/21/10 04/21/10 04/21/10 04/21/10 04/21/10 04/22/10 04/22/10 04/22/10 04/22/10 04/22/10 04/22/10 04/22/10 04/22/10 04/22/10 04/22/10 04/23/10 04/23/10 04/23/10 04/23/10 04/23/10 04/23/10 04/23/10 Date of petition 04/09/10 04/19/10 04/16/10 04/19/10 04/19/10 04/16/10 04/09/10 04/05/10 04/08/10 04/08/10 04/06/10 04/18/10 04/19/10 04/20/10 04/21/10 04/19/10 04/19/10 04/02/10 04/19/10 04/21/10 04/21/10 04/19/10 04/22/10 to are the subject firm’s use of H1B visas. This argument errs in confusing the entry of foreign workers into the United States to produce articles at the subject firm with the importation of articles that are like or directly competitive with the articles produced by the subject firm. It is the importation of like or directly competitive articles (and not the entry of foreign workers to produce such articles) that can serve as the basis for a TAA certification. The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered or provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered, or (2) a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration of the initial determination. After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met. 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. E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM 12MYN1 26798 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Notices Signed in Washington, DC, this 26th day of April, 2010. Del Min Amy Chen, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. 2010–11274 Filed 5–11–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Royalty Board [Docket No. 2008–2 CRB CD 2000–2003] Distribution of the 2000–2003 Cable Royalty Funds AGENCY: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress. ACTION: Distribution order. SUMMARY: The Copyright Royalty Judges are announcing the final Phase I distribution of cable royalty funds for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. DATES: Effective May 12, 2010. ADDRESSES: The final distribution order also is posted on the Copyright Royalty Board Web site at https://www.loc.gov/ crb/proceedings/2008–2/finaldistribution-order.pdf. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Strasser, Senior Attorney, or Gina Giuffreda, Attorney Advisor, by telephone at (202) 707–7658 or by email at crb@loc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES I. Subject of the Proceeding In 1976, Congress enacted a statutory license for cable television operators to enable them to clear the copyrights to over-the-air television and radio broadcast programming which they retransmit to their subscribers. Codified at 17 U.S.C. 111, the cable license requires cable operators to submit semiannual royalty payments, along with accompanying statements of account, to the Copyright Office for subsequent distribution to copyright owners of the broadcast programming retransmitted by those cable operators. In order to determine how the collected royalties are to be distributed amongst the many copyright owners filing claims for them, the Copyright Royalty Judges (‘‘Judges’’) conduct a distribution proceeding in accordance with chapter 8 of the Copyright Act. This order is the culmination of one of those proceedings.1 1 Prior to the enactment of the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004, which established the Copyright Royalty Judges, final determinations as to the distribution of royalties collected under the Section 111 license were made by two other bodies. The first was the Copyright VerDate Mar<15>2010 15:00 May 11, 2010 Jkt 220001 Proceedings for determining the distribution of the cable license royalties are conducted in two phases. In Phase I, the royalties are divided among programming categories. The claimants to the royalties have organized themselves into eight categories of programming retransmitted by cable systems: movies and syndicated television programming; sports programming; commercial broadcast programming; religious broadcast programming; noncommercial television broadcast programming; Canadian broadcast programming; noncommercial radio broadcast programming; and music contained on all broadcast programming. In Phase II, the royalties allotted to each category at Phase I are subdivided among the various copyright holders within that category. This proceeding is a Phase I proceeding for royalties collected from cable operators for the years 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. The royalty payment scheme of the cable license involves several considerations. The license places cable systems into three classes based upon the amount of money they receive from their subscribers for the retransmission of over-the-air broadcast signals. Smalland medium-sized systems pay a flat fee. Large cable systems—whose royalty payments comprise the lion’s share of the royalties distributed in this proceeding—pay a percentage of the gross receipts they receive from their subscribers for each distant over-the-air broadcast station they retransmit.2 How much they pay for each broadcast station depends upon how the carriage of that station would have been regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (‘‘FCC’’) in 1976, the year in which the current Copyright Act was enacted. Distant signals are principally determined in accordance with two sets of FCC regulations: the mandatory carriage rules in effect on April 15, 1976, and Royalty Tribunal, which made distributions beginning with the 1978 royalty year, the first year in which cable royalties were collected under the 1976 Copyright Act. The Tribunal was eliminated in 1993 and replaced by the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (‘‘CARP’’) system. Under this regime, the Librarian of Congress appointed a CARP, consisting of three arbitrators, who made a recommendation to the Librarian as to how the royalties should be distributed. Final distribution authority, however, rested with the Librarian. As noted above, the CARP system ended in 2004. 2 The cable license is premised upon the Congressional judgment that large cable systems should only pay royalties for the distant broadcast stations they bring to their subscribers and not for the local broadcast stations they provide. However, cable systems which carry only local stations and no distant ones are still required to submit a statement of account and pay a basic minimum fee. See infra n.6. PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 their associated rulings and determinations; and the current FCC regulations defining television markets, and their associated rulings and determinations. The royalty scheme for large cable systems employs a statutory device known as the distant signal equivalent (‘‘DSE’’). The systems, other than those paying the minimum fee, pay royalties based upon the number of DSEs they incur. The statute defines a DSE as ‘‘the value assigned to the secondary transmission of any nonnetwork television programming carried by a cable system in whole or in part beyond the local service area of the primary transmitter of such programming.’’ 17 U.S.C. 111(f). A DSE is computed by assigning a value of one to distant independent broadcast stations and a value of one-quarter to distant noncommercial educational and network stations, which do have a certain amount of nonnetwork programming during a typical broadcast day. The systems pay royalties based upon a sliding scale of percentages of their gross receipts depending upon the number of DSEs they incur. The greater the number of DSEs, the greater the total percentage of gross receipts and, consequently, the larger the total royalty payment. The monies collected under this payment scheme are received by the Copyright Office and identified as the ‘‘Basic Fund.’’ The complexity of the royalty payment mechanism does not, however, end with the Basic Fund. As noted above, the operation of the cable license is intricately linked with how the FCC regulated the cable industry in 1976. The FCC restricted the number of distant signals that cable systems could carry (‘‘the distant signal carriage rules’’) and required them to black-out programming contained on a distant signal where the local broadcaster had purchased the exclusive right to that programming (‘‘the syndicated exclusivity rules’’). However, in 1980, the FCC took a decidedly deregulatory stance towards the cable industry and eliminated these sets of rules. See, Malrite T.V. v. FCC, 652 F.2d 1140 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied sub. nom., National Football League, Inc. v. FCC, 454 U.S. 1143 (1982). Cable systems were now free to import as many distant signals as they desired without worry of communications law restrictions. Pursuant to its statutory authority and in reaction to the FCC’s action, the Copyright Royalty Tribunal (‘‘Tribunal’’) initiated a rate adjustment proceeding for the cable license to compensate copyright owners for royalties lost as a result of repeal of the distant signal E:\FR\FM\12MYN1.SGM 12MYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26797-26798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11274]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,501]


Cummins Power Generation, Including On-Site Leased Workers of 
Adecco USA, Inc., Aerotek, Inc., the Bartech Group, Back Diamonds 
Networks, Entegee, Inc., DBA Midstates Technical, Manpower, Inc., 
Robert Half International, Summit Technical Services, Inc., and 
Universal Engineering Services, Inc. Fridley, MN; Notice of Negative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated March 22, 2010, a representative of the State 
of Minnesota requested administrative reconsideration of the 
Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former 
workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on February 
4, 2010, and published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2010 (75 FR 
11925).
    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 
misinterpretation of facts or of the law justified reconsideration of 
the decision.
    The negative determination of the TAA petition filed on behalf of 
workers at Cummins Power Generation, Fridley, Minnesota, was based on 
the finding that the subject firm did not import articles like or 
directly competitive with the generators and transfer switches produced 
at the subject firm during 2007, 2008 or during January through May 
2009, nor did it shift production of those articles abroad during the 
same period. The investigation also revealed that, during the relevant 
period, none of the major declining customers of the subject firm 
increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with 
generators and transfer switches produced at the subject firm while 
decreasing purchases from the subject firm. The investigation also 
revealed that the workers did not supply a component part that was used 
by a firm that employed a worker group currently eligible to apply for 
TAA.
    The request for reconsideration included documents intended to 
``illustrate how a former employee [of the subject firm] * * * was 
adversely affected by trade activities and lost her position.'' The 
``trade activities'' referred to are the subject firm's use of H1B 
visas.
    This argument errs in confusing the entry of foreign workers into 
the United States to produce articles at the subject firm with the 
importation of articles that are like or directly competitive with the 
articles produced by the subject firm. It is the importation of like or 
directly competitive articles (and not the entry of foreign workers to 
produce such articles) that can serve as the basis for a TAA 
certification.
    The petitioner did not supply facts not previously considered or 
provide additional documentation indicating that there was either (1) a 
mistake in the determination of facts not previously considered, or (2) 
a misinterpretation of facts or of the law justifying reconsideration 
of the initial determination.
    After careful review of the request for reconsideration, the 
Department determines that 29 CFR 90.18(c) has not been met.

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.


[[Page 26798]]


    Signed in Washington, DC, this 26th day of April, 2010.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-11274 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.