Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 231 / Monday, December 3, 2007 / Notices 67965 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR § 207.2(f)). 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in each Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of 

whether you agree with the above 

definitions of the Domestic Like Product 

and Domestic Industry; if you disagree 

with either or both of these definitions, 

please explain why and provide 

alternative definitions. 

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.61 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 26, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–23226 Filed 11–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation Nos. 731–TA–929–931 

(Review)] 

Silicomanganese From India, 

Kazakhstan, and Venezuela 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year reviews, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (Commission) determines, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

orders on silicomanganese from India, 

Kazakhstan, and Venezuela would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to an 

industry in the United States within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. 

Background 

The Commission instituted these 

reviews on April 2, 2007 (72 FR 15726) 

and determined on July 6, 2007 that it 

would conduct expedited reviews (72 

FR 52581, September 14, 2007). 

The Commission transmitted its 

determinations in these reviews to the 

Secretary of Commerce on November 

28, 2007. The views of the Commission 

are contained in USITC Publication 

3963 (November 2007), entitled 

Silicomanganese From India, 

Kazakhstan, and Venezuela: 

Investigation Nos. 731–TA–929–931 

(Review). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 28, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–23353 Filed 11–30–07; 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—IMS Global Learning 

Consortium, Inc. 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

October 18, 2007, pursuant to section 

6(a) of the National Cooperative 

Research and Production Act of 1993, 

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

Global Learning Consortium, Inc. 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, Icodeon Ltd., Cambridge, 

UNITED KINGDOM; Korea Education & 

Research Information Service (KERIS), 

Seoul, REPUBLIC OF KOREA; National 

Association of College Stores (NACS), 

Oberlin, OH; TIDIA Ae FAPESP Project, 

Sao Paulo, BRAZIL; and UOC—

Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, 

Barcelona, SPAIN have been added as 

parties to this venture. Also, Apple 

Computer, Cupertino, CA has 

withdrawn as a party 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 IMS Global 

Learning Consortium, Inc. intends to file 

additional written notifications 

disclosing all changes in membership. 

On April 7, 2000, IMS Global 

Learning Consortium, Inc. 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 September 13, 2000 (65 FR 

55283). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on August 7, 2007. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the 

Act on September 11, 2007 (72 FR 

51840). 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 07–5898 Filed 11–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–11–M 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–62,243] 

Electric Mobility Corporation; Sewell, 

NJ; Notice of Affirmative Determination 

Regarding Application for 

Reconsideration 

By application dated November 19, 

2007, the petitioner requested 

administrative reconsideration of the 

Department of Labor’s Notice of 

Negative Determination Regarding 

Eligibility to Apply for Worker 

Adjustment Assistance, applicable to 

workers and former workers of the 

subject firm. The denial notice was 

signed on November 1, 2007 and 

published in the Federal Register on 

November 15, 2007 (72 FR 64247). 

The initial investigation resulted in a 

negative determination based on the 

finding that the subject firm did not 

separate or threaten to separate a 

significant number or proportion of 

workers as required by Section 222 of 

the Trade Act of 1974. 

In the request for reconsideration, the 

petitioner provided additional 

information regarding the subject firm’s 

employment. 

The Department has reviewed the 

workers’ request for reconsideration and 

the existing record, and has determined 

that an administrative review is 

appropriate. Therefore, the Department 

will conduct further investigation to 

determine if the workers meet the 

eligibility requirements of the Trade Act 

of 1974. 

Conclusion 

After careful review of the 

application, I conclude that the claim is 

of sufficient weight to justify 

reconsideration of the Department of 

Labor’s prior decision. The application 

is, therefore, granted. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES