Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Notices 51161

adversely affected by imports from

Mexico.

The amended notice applicable to

NAFTA–01068 is hereby issued as

follows:

All workers of Hickory Hills Industries,

Incorporated, Savannah Manufacturing

Company, Savannah, Tennessee (NAFTA–

01068) and Hickory Hills Industries,

Incorporated, New York, New York (NAFTA–

01068C) who became totally or partially

separated from employment on or after June

7, 1995 are eligible to apply for NAFTA–TAA

under Section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 12th day

of September 1997.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–25873 Filed 9–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

[NAFTA–01548 and TA–W–33,336]

Inland Paperboard and Packaging,

Erie, PA; Notice of Negative

Determination on Reconsideration

On July 31, 1997, the Department

issued an Affirmative Determination

Regarding Application for

Reconsideration for the workers and

former workers of the subject firm. The

United Paperworkers International

Union (UPIU) asserted that production

of boxes in Mexico will increase when

the Erie plant closes. The notice was

published in the Federal Register on

August 13, 1997 (62 FR 43354).

The Department initially denied

NAFTA–TAA to workers of Inland

Paperboard and Packaging, Inc. because

criteria (3) and (4) of the group

eligibility requirements in paragraph

(a)(1) of Section 250 of the Trade Act,

as amended, were not met. There were

no company imports of corrugated

shipping boxes from Mexico or Canada,

nor was there a shift in production from

the workers’ firm to Mexico or Canada.

The layoffs were attributable to

company’s decision to close the Erie

plant and open a new production

facility in Ohio.

The Department initially denied TAA

to workers of Inland Paperboard and

Packaging, Inc. because the ‘‘contributed

importantly’’ group eligibility

requirement of Section 222(3) of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not

met. The investigation revealed that the

company decided to close the Erie plant

and open a new production facility in

Ohio. The parent company retained the

Erie customer base.

The UPIU request for reconsideration

asserts that Inland is exporting boxes to

Mexico where they are loaded with

Mexican products and returned to the

United States. Inland’s exports of

corrugated shipping containers to

Mexico or any other country is not a

basis for a worker group certification.

The Department is required examine

import impact of articles like or directly

competitive with the product produced

at the worker’s firm. Shipping

containers filled with articles produced

in foreign countries and shipped to the

United States cannot be considered like

or directly competitive with the articles

produced at the Erie plant.

The UPIU also asserts that Inland

Paperboard and Packaging, Inc. is

increasing production at their Mexican

corrugated box factory, and is building

production capacity abroad. The Erie

workers could be certified only if the

company or customers of the subject

firm were increasing imports of

corrugated shipping containers. The

company reported no imports of

shipping containers.

Investigation on reconsideration

shows that there was no corporate-wide

decline in sales or production of

corrugated shipping containers at Inland

Paperboard and Packaging. New

information provided by the company

reveals that production at the Erie plant

served a regional market. Customer

accounts serviced by Erie are being

handled by other Inland facilities in the

region. Since there was no decline in

sales, a customer survey was not

conducted.

Conclusion

After reconsideration, I affirm the

original notice of negative

determination of eligibility to apply for

worker adjustment assistance for

workers and former workers of Inland

Paperboard and Packaging, Erie,

Pennsylvania, under Section 250 and

Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day

of September 1997.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–25878 Filed 9–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training

Administration

Amended Certification Regarding

Eligibility To Apply for NAFTA

Transitional Adjustment Assistance

Levi Strauss and Company;

NAFTA—01807; Goodyear Cutting Facility

and El Paso Field Headquarters; 1440

Goodyear El Paso, Texas;

NAFTA—01807W; Kastrin Street Plant 1000

Kastrin Street El Paso, Texas

In accordance with Section 250(a),

Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the

Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19

U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor

issued a Certification of Eligibility to

Apply for NAFTA Transitional

Adjustment Assistance of August 7,

1997, applicable to workers of Levi

Strauss and Company, in El Paso, Texas.

The notice will be published soon in the

Federal Register.

At the request of the company, the

Department reviewed the certification

for workers of the subject firm. The

findings show that worker separations

have occurred at the Kastrin street Plant

and at the El Paso Field Headquarters,

El Paso, Texas locations of Levi Strauss

and Company. The Kastrin Street Plant

is a sewing facility for Levi’s

manufacturing plants. The El Paso Filed

Headquarters at 1440 Goodyear, in El

Paso, Texas, is an administrative office

servicing the western regional

manufacturing facilities of Levi Strauss.

The 1440 Goodyear location is also a

cutting facility. The workers are engaged

in employment related to the

production of men’s, women’s and

youth’s denim jeans and jackets. Based

on this new information, the

Department is amending the

certification to cover workers at the

subject firm’s Kastrin Street Plant and

the El Paso Field Headquarters, El Paso,

Texas.

The intent of the Department’s

certification is to include all workers of

Levi Strauss and Company who were

adversely affected by imparts from

Mexico.

The amended notice applicable to

NAFTA–01807 is hereby issued as

follows:

‘‘All workers of Levi Strauss and Company,

Goodyear Cutting Facility and El Paso Field

Headquarters, El Paso, Texas (NAFTA–

01807) and Kastrin Street Plant, El Paso,

Texas (NAFTA–01807) who were engaged in

employment related to cutting, sewing, or

finishing or men’s, women’s and/or youth’s

denim jeans or jackets who became totally or

partially separated from employment on or

after July 9, 1996 are eligible to apply for
51162 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday, September 30, 1997 / Notices

NAFTA–TAA under Section 250 of the Trade

Act of 1974.’’

Signed at Washington, D.C. this 14th day

of September, 1997.

Grant D. Beale,

Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment

Assistance.

[FR Doc. 97–25866 Filed 9–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–30–M

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

[Docket No. 94–3 CARP CD 90–92]

Determination of the Distribution of the

1991 Cable Royalties in the Music

Claimants Category

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of

Congress.

ACTION: Announcement of the schedule

for the proceeding.

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the

Library of Congress is announcing the

schedule for the 180 day arbitration

period for the Copyright Arbitration

Royalty Panel (CARP) proceeding that

shall determine the distribution of the

cable royalty fees in the Music

Claimants category which were

collected for secondary transmissions of

broadcast signals during 1991 pursuant

to a compulsory license.

DATES: Filings must be submitted

according to the announced schedule,

except as otherwise provided by order

of the Copyright Arbitration Royalty

Panel.

ADDRESSES: Parties shall deliver an

original and five copies of all written

filings concerning this proceeding to:

Office of the Copyright General Counsel,

James Madison Memorial Building,

Room 403, First and Independence

Avenue, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20540.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Roberts, Senior Attorney, or

Tanya Sandros, Attorney Advisor, at:

Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel

(CARP), P.O. Box 70977, Southwest

Station, Washington, D.C. 20024.

Telephone: (202) 707–8380. Telefax:

(202) 707–8366.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

On February 15, 1996, the Library of

Congress published a notice requesting

interested parties to comment on the

existence of Phase II controversies for

the distribution of the 1990, 1991, and

1992 cable royalty funds. 61 FR 6040

(February 15, 1996). The parties who

filed comments and Notices of Intent to

Participate identified two unsettled

categories that would require resolution

before a CARP. The first controversy,

between James Cannings and Broadcast

Music, Inc., the American Society of

Composers, Authors and Publishers,

and SESAC, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘the

Music Claimants’’), concerns the

distribution of the 1991 royalty funds in

the Music Claimants category and is the

subject of the current proceeding. The

second controversy, however, between

the National Association of Broadcasters

(NAB) and the Public Broadcasting

Service (PBS), has been resolved

through further negotiation. On June 3,

1997, NAB and PBS notified the

Copyright Office that they had reached

settlement concerning all matters

related to their Phase II dispute over the

distribution of the 1990–1992 royalty

funds, leaving a single dispute for

resolution by a CARP.

The parties in the remaining

controversy conducted precontroversy

discovery according to the schedule

which the Register of Copyrights

established by order for this 45-day

period. See Order in Docket No. 94–3

CRP CD 90–92 (February 14, 1997),

vacated and reset at the request of the

Music Claimants, Order in Docket No.

94–3 CARP CD 90–92 (May 21, 1997).

Then, on August 28, 1997, the Copyright

Office published a notice initiating the

180 day period for this proceeding. 62

FR 45687 (August 28, 1997). In this

notice, the Office also announced

September 4, 1997, as the date of the

first meeting between the arbitration

panel and the parties. However, due to

scheduling conflicts, the parties agreed

to reschedule the meeting for September

10, 1997. The Office further announced

that it would publish a schedule of the

proceedings, as required by 37 CFR

251.11(b), when it became available.

Section 251.11(b) of the regulations

governing the Copyright Arbitration

Royalty Panels, 37 CFR subchapter B,

provides that:

At the beginning of each proceeding, the

CARP shall develop the original schedule of

the proceeding which shall be published in

the Federal Register at least seven calendar

days in advance of the first meeting. Such

announcement shall state the times, dates,

and places of the meetings, the testimony to

be heard, whether any of the meetings, or any

portion of a meeting, is to be closed, and if

so, which ones, and the name and telephone

number of the person to contact for further

information.

This notice fulfills those requirements

of § 251.11(b) for the proceeding to

determine the distribution of the 1991

cable royalty fees in the Music

Claimants category.

B. The Schedule

On September 10, 1997, the parties to

this proceeding met with the arbitrators

for the purpose of setting a schedule and

discussing the procedural aspects of this

proceeding. A key procedural issue

before the panel which required action

by the panel at the outset of the

proceeding was consideration of the

issue designated to the CARP by the

Register of Copyrights of whether to

suspend formal hearings and make the

determination as to the distribution of

the 1991 cable royalty fees on the

written pleadings. See Order in Docket

No. CARP CD 90–92 (August 15, 1997).

After hearing argument from all parties,

the panel announced its decision to

waive the requirement of oral

evidentiary hearings and proceed upon

the written record alone. The panel

stated its reasons for this decision and

the specifics of the agreed upon

schedule for the proceeding in a written

order, as follows:

Upon consideration of the issue designated

to the CARP by the Register of Copyrights of

whether to suspend formal hearings and

decide the controversy as to the Phase II

distribution of the 1991 cable royalty fund on

the written pleadings, and after hearing the

arguments of all parties, the Panel has

determined that for good cause shown it is

in the public interest to waive the

requirement of an oral evidentiary hearing

and to proceed on the written pleadings

along, provided that those pleadings are

supplemented by written rebuttal cases,

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of

law, and reply findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

Accordingly, and with the consent of all

parties, the following procedural schedule is

hereby established:

1. Mr. Cannings will provide to BMI by

September 17, 1997, his request for a sample

of WWOR–TV music cue sheets for 1991, as

granted by Ruling No. 3 in the Register’s

Order dated August 15, 1997.

2. BMI will make such sample cue sheets

available to Mr. Cannings for inspection and

copying on or before October 1, 1997.

3. Written rebuttal cases are to be filed on

October 30, 1997. Any study or analysis shall

be accompanied by the information specified

in Rule § 251.48 (e) and (f), and all

underlying data and tabulations shall be

made available as discovery that same date

to opposing parties. No other discovery will

be allowed.

4. Any motions addressed to rebuttal cases

shall be filed on November 7, 1997.

Responses shall be filed on November 19,

1997, and any replies on November 26, 1997.

5. Proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law are to be filed December

5, 1997.

6. Reply findings of fact and conclusions

of law are to be filed December 19, 1997.

Order, Docket No 94–3 CARP CD 90–92

(September 16, 1997).