Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Notices 74559 

450 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). On 

October 13, 2006, the CIT issued an 

order remanding the case to the 

Commission to comply with the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Caribbean Ispat 

and giving the Commission until 

January 12, 2007, to issue its remand 

determination. The Commission is 

seeking an extension of that deadline in 

order to allow the Commission to send 

out additional questionnaires to obtain 

further data relevant to the remand 

instructions. In the meantime, the 

Commission is proceeding based on the 

existing deadline, in accordance with 

the schedule set out below. 

In order to assist it in making its 

determination on remand, the 

Commission is reopening the record on 

remand in this investigation to include 

additional information on the role of 

non-subject imports of carbon and 

certain alloy steel wire rod in the U.S. 

market during the original period of 

investigation. The record in this 

proceeding will encompass the material 

from the record of the original 

investigation and additional information 

placed by Commission staff on the 

record during this remand proceeding. 

Participation in the Proceeding 

Only those persons who were 

interested parties in the original 

administrative proceeding and are 

parties to the ongoing litigation (i.e., 

persons listed on the Commission 

Secretary’s service list and parties to 

Caribbean Ispat Ltd. v. U.S., Court No. 

05–1400) may participate as interested 

parties in this remand proceeding. 

Nature of the Remand Proceeding 

On December 15, 2006, the 

Commission will make available to 

parties who participate in the remand 

proceeding information that has been 

gathered by the Commission as part of 

this remand proceeding. Parties that are 

participating in the remand proceeding 

may file comments on or before 

December 22, 2006, addressing the 

record facts as they relate to the 

question raised in the CIT’s remand 

instructions. Such comments shall not 

exceed 25 double-spaced pages. 

In addition, all written submissions 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules; 

any submissions that contain business 

proprietary information (BPI) must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (November 8, 2002). Even 

where electronic filing of a document is 

permitted, certain documents must also 

be filed in paper form, as specified in II 

(C) of the Commission’s Handbook on 

Electronic Filing Procedures, 67 FR 

68168, 68173 (November 8, 2002). Each 

document filed by a party participating 

in the remand investigation must be 

served on all other parties who may 

participate in the remand investigation 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. Parties are also 

advised to consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subpart A (19 CFR 

part 207), for provisions of general 

applicability concerning written 

submissions to the Commission. 

At this time, the Commission’s 

remand determination is due to be 

submitted to the CIT on January 12, 

2007. On December 4, 2006, the 

Commission filed a motion with that 

Court to extend the time to file its 

remand determination until March 12, 

2006. In the event the CIT grants the 

motion, or otherwise modifies the date 

on which the Commission’s remand 

determination is due to the Court, the 

Commission intends to issue an 

amended notice and schedule. 

Limited Disclosure of Business 

Proprietary Information (BPI) Under an 

Administrative Protective Order (APO) 

and BPI Service List 

Information obtained during the 

remand investigation will be released to 

the referenced parties, as appropriate, 

under the administrative protective 

order (APO) in effect in the original 

investigation. A separate service list will 

be maintained by the Secretary for those 

parties authorized to receive BPI under 

the APO in this remand investigation. 

Authority: This action is taken under the 

authority of the Tariff Act of 1930, title VII. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: December 7, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–21119 Filed 12–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Open Systemic Initiative 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

November 13, 2006, pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the National Cooperative 

Research and Production Act of 1993, 

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), Open 

SystemC Initiative (‘‘OSCI’’) has filed 

written notifications simultaneously 

with the Attorney General and the 

Federal Trade Commission disclosing 

changes in its membership. The 

notifications were filed for the purpose 

of extending the Act’s provisions 

limiting the recovery of antitrust 

plaintiffs to actual damages under 

specified circumstances. Specifically, 

Actis Design, LLC, Portland, OR; 

Broadcom Corporation, Bristol, United 

Kingdom; Denali Software, Inc., Palo 

Alto, CA; Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., 

Herzelia, Israel; NEC Corporation, 

Kawasaki, Japan; SpringSoft, Inc., 

Hsinchu, Taiwan; and Vast Systems, 

Inc., Sunnyvale, CA have been added as 

parties to this venture. 

No other changes have been made in 

either the membership or planned 

activity of the group research project. 

Membership in this group research 

project remains open, and OSCI intends 

to file additional written notifications 

disclosing all changes in membership. 

On October 9, 2001, OSCI filed its 

original notification pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the Act. The Department of 

Justice published a notice in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on January 3, 2002 (67 FR 350). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on February 27, 2006. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on March 27, 2006 (71 FR 15218). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 06–9645 Filed 12–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Power Tool Institute 

Table Saw Guarding Joint Venture 

Project 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

november 2, 2006, pursuant to Section 

6(a) of the national Cooperative 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
74560 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Notices 

Research and Production Act of 1993, 

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), 

Power Tool Institute Table Saw 

Guarding Joint Venture Project has filed 

written notifications simultaneously 

with the Attorney General and the 

Federal Trade Commission disclosing 

(1) The identities of the parties to the 

venture and (2) the nature and 

objectives of the venture. The 

notifications were filed for the purpose 

of invoking the Act’s provisions limiting 

the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 

actual damages under specified 

circumstances. 

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, 

the identities of the parties to the 

venture are: The Black & Decker Corp., 

Towson, MD; Makita USA, Inc., La 

Mirada, CA; Robert Bosch Tool 

Corporation, mount Prospect, IL; and 

Techtronic Industries—North America, 

Anderson, SC. The general area of 

Power Tool Institute Table Saw 

Guarding Joint Venture Project’s 

planned activity is the evaluation, 

investigation, research and/or 

development of mechanical blade 

guarding systems that are technically 

viable for table saws and provide 

improved and consistent safety 

performance. 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 06–9644 Filed 12–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–59,788] 

Ace Products, LLC, Newport, TN; 

Notice of Revised Determination on 

Reconsideration 

On November 8, 2006, the Department 

issued an Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application on 

Reconsideration applicable to workers 

and former workers of the subject firm. 

The notice will soon be published in the 

Federal Register. 

The previous investigation initiated 

on July 25, 2006, resulted in a negative 

determination issued on September 14, 

2006, based on the finding that imports 

of semi pneumatic and solid rubber tires 

did not contribute importantly to 

worker separations at the subject firm 

and no shift of production to a foreign 

source occurred. The denial notice was 

published in the Federal Register on 

September 26, 2006 (71 FR 56172). 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioner provided additional 

information regarding the subject firm’s 

declining customers. 

The Department requested additional 

list of customers from the subject firm 

and conducted a survey of these 

customers regarding their purchases of 

like or directly competitive products to 

semi pneumatic and solid rubber tires. 

It was revealed that several declining 

customers increased their reliance on 

imports of tires while decreasing their 

purchases from the subject firm during 

the relevant period. The increases in 

imports accounted for a meaningful 

portion of the subject plant’s lost sales. 

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 additional 

facts obtained on reconsideration, I 

conclude that increased imports of 

articles like or directly competitive with 

those produced at Ace Products, LLC, 

Newport, Tennessee, contributed 

importantly to the declines in sales or 

production and to the total or partial 

separation of workers at the subject 

firm. In accordance with the provisions 

of the Act, I make the following 

certification: 

All workers of Ace Products, LLC, Newport, 

Tennessee, who became totally or partially 

separated from employment on or after July 

19, 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 in Washington, DC this 5th day of 

December 2006. 

Elliott S. Kushner, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E6–21106 Filed 12–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Investigations Regarding Certifications 

of Eligibility To Apply for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 

Trade Adjustment Assistance 

Petitions have been filed with the 

Secretary of Labor under Section 221 (a) 

of the Trade Act of 1974 (‘‘the Act’’) and 

are identified in the Appendix to this 

notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, 

the Director of the Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance, Employment 

and Training Administration, has 

instituted investigations pursuant to 

Section 221 (a) of the Act. 

The purpose of each of the 

investigations is to determine whether 

the workers are eligible to apply for 

adjustment assistance under Title II, 

Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations 

will further relate, as appropriate, to the 

determination of the date on which total 

or partial separations began or 

threatened to begin and the subdivision 

of the firm involved. 

The petitioners or any other persons 

showing a substantial interest in the 

subject matter of the investigations may 

request a public hearing, provided such 

request is filed in writing with the 

Director, Division of Trade Adjustment 

Assistance, at the address shown below, 

not later than December 22, 2006. 

Interested persons are invited to 

submit written comments regarding the 

subject matter of the investigations to 

the Director, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance, at the address 

shown below, not later than December 

22, 2006. 

The petitions filed in this case are 

available for inspection at the Office of 

the Director, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance, Employment 

and Training Administration, U.S. 

Department of Labor, Room C–5311, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of 

December 2006. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES