### 10405 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Notices

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


### 10406 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 37 / Thursday, February 24, 2011 / Notices

and five copies of a comment or reply comment should be brought to the Library of Congress, U.S. Copyright Office, Room LM–401, James Madison Building, 101 Independence Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20559, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office.

If delivered by a commercial courier, an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment must be delivered to the Congressional Courier Acceptance Site (‘‘CCAS ’’ ) located at 2nd and D Streets, SE., Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope should be addressed as follows: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office, LM–403, James Madison Building, 101 Independence Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20559. Please note that CCAS will not accept delivery by means of overnight delivery services such as Federal Express, United Parcel Service or DHL.

If sent by mail (including overnight delivery using U.S. Postal Service Express Mail), an original and five copies of a comment or reply comment should be addressed to U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  David O. Carson, General Counsel, or Chris Weston, Attorney Advisor, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Telefax: (202) 707–

8366.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  To assist in the preparation of its study on federal protection for pre-1972 sound recordings, the Office published a Notice of Inquiry seeking comments on many detailed questions regarding various aspects of the study. See 75 FR 67777 (November 3, 2010). Initial comments, which were due on January 31, 2011, have been received and are posted on the Copyright Office Web site

at http://www.copyright.gov/docs/ sound/comments/initial/. Reply comments were due to be filed by March 2, 2011.

The Copyright Office has received a request from the Association of Recorded Sound Collections (ARSC) to extend the reply comment period by 42 days in order to allow sufficient time to provide the Office with comprehensive comments on issues relating to copyright law, licensing, and the marketing of sound recordings raised by the initial comments. ARSC points out that at the request of another commenter, the deadline for initial comments was extended by 42 days, and that the initial comments raised ‘‘ [m]any complex issues relating to copyright law, licensing, and the marketing of sound recordings. ’’ ARSC states that a 42-day extension of the deadline for submission of reply comments would assure that all parties have ample time to craft responses.

Given the complexity of the issues addressed by the initial comments, and in the interest in developing a thorough record, the Office has decided to extend the deadline for filing reply comments by a period of 42 days, making reply comments due by April 13, 2011.

The Office received one initial comment after the January 31 deadline. Because of the extension of the deadline for reply comments, the Office has decided to accept that comment, which has been posted on the Copyright Office Web site at http://www.copyright.gov/ docs/sound/comments/initial/ as Comment Number 59.

Dated: February 18, 2011. Maria Pallante, Acting Register of Copyrights.

[FR Doc. 2011–4126 Filed 2–23–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 1410–30–P**

**NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION** 

**Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB**  **Review; Comment Request**

**AGENCY :**  National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  NARA is giving public notice that the agency has submitted to OMB for approval the information collection described in this notice. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

**DATES :**  Written comments must be submitted to OMB at the address below on or before March 28, 2011 to be assured of consideration.

**ADDRESSES :**  Send comments to Mr. Nicholas A. Fraser, Desk Officer for NARA, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202–395– 5167; or electronically mailed to Nicholas

_ A.

_Fraser@omb.eop.gov.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information collection and supporting statement should be directed to Tamee Fechhelm at telephone number 301–713–1694 or fax number 301–713–7409.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), NARA invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. NARA published a notice of proposed collection for this information collection on November 12, 2010 (75 FR 69474). No comments were received. NARA has submitted the described information collection to OMB for approval. In response to this notice, comments and suggestions should address one or more of the following points: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of NARA; (b) the accuracy of NARA’s estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of information technology; and (e) whether small businesses are affected by this collection. In this notice, NARA is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

Title: Application and Permit for Use of Space in Presidential Library and Grounds.

OMB number: 3095–0024. Agency form number: NA Form
16011.

Type of review: Regular. Affected public: Private organizations. Estimated number of respondents: 1,000.

Estimated time per response: 20 minutes.

Frequency of response: On occasion. Estimated total annual burden hours: 333 hours.

Abstract: The information collection is prescribed by 36 CFR 1280.94. The application is submitted to a Presidential library to request the use of space in the library for a privately sponsored activity. NARA uses the information to determine whether use will meet the criteria in 36 CFR 1280.94 and to schedule the date.

Dated: February 17, 2011. Charles K. Piercy, Acting Assistant Archivist for Information Services.

[FR Doc. 2011–4256 Filed 2–23–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 7515–01–P**

**NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION** 

**Records Schedules; Availability and Request for Comments** 

**AGENCY :**  National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).