Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Notices 26797 

APPENDIX—Continued 

[TAA petitions instituted between 4/19/10 and 4/23/10] 

TA–W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of 

institution 

Date of 

petition 

73965 ................ Angell Demmel North America (Workers) ............................ Dayton, OH ........................... 04/21/10 04/09/10 

73966 ................ Nortel Networks (Workers) ................................................... Research Triangle Park, NC 04/21/10 04/19/10 

73967 ................ Hewlett Packard (Workers) .................................................. Boise, ID ............................... 04/21/10 04/16/10 

73968 ................ Hospira, Inc. (Workers) ........................................................ Lake Forest, IL ...................... 04/21/10 04/19/10 

73969 ................ Cummins, Inc. (Company) .................................................... El Paso, TX ........................... 04/21/10 04/19/10 

73970 ................ CareFusion (Company) ........................................................ San Diego, CA ...................... 04/21/10 04/16/10 

73971 ................ Liz Palacios Design Ltd (Workers) ....................................... San Francisco, CA ................ 04/22/10 04/09/10 

73972 ................ St. Barnabas Heathcare System (Workers) ......................... Ocean Port, NJ ..................... 04/22/10 04/05/10 

73973 ................ Scientific Games International (Workers) ............................. South Barre, VT .................... 04/22/10 04/08/10 

73974 ................ Scientific Games International (Workers) ............................. Concord, NH ......................... 04/22/10 04/08/10 

73975 ................ Care Fusion (Workers) ......................................................... Middleton, WI ........................ 04/22/10 04/06/10 

73976 ................ Worthington Specialty Processing (Company) ..................... Canton, MI ............................ 04/22/10 04/18/10 

73977 ................ The Flint Journal (State/One-Stop) ...................................... Flint, MI ................................. 04/22/10 04/19/10 

73978 ................ Eastman Kodak (State/One-Stop) ........................................ Vancouver, WA ..................... 04/22/10 04/20/10 

73979 ................ Hagemeyer North America (Company) ................................ Chambersburg, PA ............... 04/22/10 04/21/10 

73980 ................ New Era Cap Company (Company) .................................... Buffalo, NY ............................ 04/22/10 04/19/10 

73981 ................ New Era Cap Company (State/One-Stop) ........................... Demopolis, AL ....................... 04/23/10 04/19/10 

73982 ................ Smith’s Medical PM, Inc. (Workers) ..................................... Waukesha, WI ....................... 04/23/10 04/02/10 

73983 ................ Apria Healthcare (State/One-Stop) ...................................... Redmond, WA ....................... 04/23/10 04/19/10 

73984 ................ Graphic Arts Center Publishing (Company) ......................... Portland, OR ......................... 04/23/10 04/21/10 

73985 ................ Graphic Arts Center (Company) ........................................... Santa Barbara, CA ................ 04/23/10 04/21/10 

73986 ................ AT&T (State/One-Stop) ........................................................ Bothell, WA ........................... 04/23/10 04/19/10 

73987 ................ Ford Motor Credit (Company) .............................................. Colorado Springs, CO ........... 04/23/10 04/22/10 

[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] 

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. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

26798 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 12, 2010 / Notices 

1Prior 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 

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. 

2The 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. 

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 http://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: 

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

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 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES