Notices. Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U

9,807 words·~45 min read·/register/2006/09/06/06-7429

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4310-MA-M INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-581] In the Matter of Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof; Notice of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 1, 2006, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company of Palo Alto, California.

An amendment to the complaint was filed on August 18, 2006. The complaint as amended alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain inkjet ink supplies and components thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,387, U.S. Patent No. 6,793,329, U.S. Patent No. 6,074,042, U.S. Patent No. 6,588,880, U.S. Patent No. 6,364,472, U.S. Patent No. 6,089,687, and U.S.

Patent No. 6,264,301. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a permanent limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders. ADDRESSES: The complaint as amended, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at *http://www.usitc.gov* .

The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://www.edis.usitc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David O. Lloyd, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-205-2576. Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2006). *Scope of Investigation:* Having considered the complaint as amended, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on August 29, 2006, *ordered that* —

(1)Pursuant to subsection

(b)of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain inkjet ink supplies or components thereof by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4, 7-9, 22, 24, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 5,825,387; claims 1-9 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,793,329; claims 8-10, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,074,042; claims 1-6 and 19-29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,588,880; claims 1-7 and 11-18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,364,472; claims 6, 7, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,089,687; and claims 1-3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,264,301, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

(2)For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

(a)The complainant is—Hewlett-Packard Company, 3000 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, California 94304.

(b)The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served: Ninestar Technology Co. Ltd., No. 63 Mingzhubei Road, Xiangzhou District, Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; Ninestar Technology Company Ltd., 4620 Mission Boulevard, Montclair, California 91763; Aurora Eshop, Inc. d/b/a *butterflyinkjet.com* , 2274 29th Avenue, San Francisco, California 94116; IowaInk, LLC d/b/a *iowaink.com* , 1001 Office Park Rd., Suite 108, West Des Moines, Iowa 50265; L2 Commerce, Inc. d/b/a *PrintMicro.com* , 718 Old San Francisco Rd., Sunnyvale, California 94086; All Media Outlet Corp. d/b/a *Inkandbeyond.com* , 18545 E. Gale Ave., City of Industry, California 91748.

(c)The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is David O. Lloyd, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

(3)For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Sidney Harris is designated as the presiding administrative law judge. Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown. Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of a limited exclusion order or cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent. Issued: August 31, 2006. By order of the Commission. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-14711 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-582] In the Matter of Certain Hydraulic Excavators and Components Thereof; Notice of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 1, 2006, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Caterpillar, Inc. of Peoria, Illinois. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on August 23, 2006. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain hydraulic excavators and components thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,140,606, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,421,077, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,140,605, and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,448,848. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order. ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at *http://www.usitc.gov* . The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://www.edis.usitc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rett Snotherly, Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone

(202)205-2599. Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2006). *Scope of Investigation:* Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on August 29, 2006, *ordered that* —

(1)Pursuant to subsection

(b)of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(C) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain hydraulic excavators or components thereof by reason of infringement of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,140,606, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,421,077, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,140,605, or U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,448,848, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

(2)For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

(a)The complainant is— Caterpillar, Inc., 100 N.E. Adams Street, Peoria, Illinois 61629-7310.

(b)The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served: Alex Lyon & Son Sales Managers and Auctioneers, Inc., 5100 Highbridge Road, Fayetteville, NY 13066. Barkley Industries, LLC, 13309 West Palo Verde Dr., PO Box 579, Litchfield Park, AZ 85340. Deanco Auction Company of Mississippi, Inc., 1042 Holland Avenue, PO Box 1248, Philadelphia, MS 39350. Dom-Ex, Inc., 109 Grant Street, Hibbing, MN 55746. Frontera Equipment Sales, 2300 East Expressway 83 N, Donna, TX 78537. Hoss Equipment Co., Inc., 3131 N. Hwy. 161, Irving, TX 78537. Key Equipment, LLC (subsidiary of) C.W. Purpero, Inc. 5770 South 13th St., Milwaukee, WI 53221. Kuhn Equipment Sales Co., Inc., 1050 Drop Off Drive, Summerville, SC 29483. MMS Equipment Sales L.L.C., 31 North Madison Drive, Three Way, TN 38343. Musselman Construction Co., dba, Musselman Rentals and Sales, 16915 Hatwai Bypass, Lewistown, Idaho 83501. Pacific Rim Machinery, Inc., 3023 17th Avenue Ct., NW., Gig Harbor, WA 98335. Petrowsky Auctioneers, Inc., 275 Route 32, North Franklin, CT 06254. Prima International Trading, 7000 Highbridge Road, Fayetteville, NY 13066. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers Inc., 6500 River Road, Richmond, BC V6X 4G5, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers (America) Inc., 3901 Faulkner Drive, P.O. Box 6429, Lincoln, NE 68506-0429. Southwestern Machinery of Florida, Inc., 645 SW Palmetto Cove, P.O. Box 880037, Port St. Lucie, FL 34986. Tractorland Equipment Company, Inc., 21921 Alessandro Blvd., Moreno Valley, CA 92553. United Equipment Company, Inc., 600 W. Glenwood, Turlock, CA 95380-6232. World Tractor & Equipment Company, LLC, 10600 Nations Ford Road, Charlotte, NC 28273. Worldwide Machinery, Inc., 16031 I-10 East Freeway, Houston, TX 77530. Yoder & Frey Auctioneers, 1670 Commerce Rd., Holland, OH 43528.

(c)The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is Rett Snotherly, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

(3)For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Robert L. Barton, Jr. is designated as the presiding administrative law judge. Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown. Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of a limited exclusion order or cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent. By order of the Commission. Issued: August 31, 2006. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-14714 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-580] In the Matter of Certain Peripheral Devices and Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on August 1, 2006, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Washington. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain peripheral devices and components thereof and products containing the same by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,460,094 and U.S. Patent No. 6,795,949. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order. ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at *http://www.usitc.gov* . The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://www.edis.usitc.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T. Spence Chubb, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone

(202)205-2575. Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2006). *Scope of Investigation:* Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on August 29, 2006, *ordered that—*

(1)Pursuant to subsection

(2)For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

(a)The complainant is—Microsoft Corporation, 1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052.

(b)The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served: Belkin Corporation, 501 W. Walnut Street, Compton, California 90220.

(c)The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is T. Spence Chubb, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

(3)For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Paul J. Luckern is designated as the presiding administrative law judge. Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown. Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of a limited exclusion order or cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent. By order of the Commission. Issued: August 30, 2006. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-14715 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-568] In the Matter of Certain Products and Pharmaceutical Compositions Containing Recombinant Human Erythropoietin; Notice of Commission Decision Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting Respondents' Motion for Summary Determination That There is No Violation of Section 337 AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the initial determination (“ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting respondents” motion for summary determination that there is no violation of section 337 in the above-captioned investigation. The investigation is terminated. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christal A. Sheppard, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone

(202)708-2301. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone

(202)205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server ( *http://www.usitc.gov* ). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/edis.htm* . Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on

(202)205-1810. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 12, 2006, the Commission instituted an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based on a complaint filed by Amgen, Inc. (“Amgen”) of Thousand Oaks, California. 71 FR 27742 (May 12, 2006). The complaint asserted a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale within the United States after importation of certain products and pharmaceutical compositions containing recombinant human erythropoietin by reason of infringement of claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 5,441,868, claims 3, 4, 5, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 5,547,933, claims 4-9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,618,698, claims 4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,621,080, claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 5,756,349, and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,955,422. The notice of investigation named Roche Holding Ltd. of Basel, Switzerland, F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. of Basel, Switzerland, Roche Diagnostics GmbH of Mannheim, Germany, and Hoffman La Roche, Inc. of Nutley, New Jersey (collectively, “Roche”) as respondents. On May 19, 2006, Roche moved for summary determination of no violation of section 337, stating that its activities fell within the safe harbor created by 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1) which provides that “[i]t shall not be an act of infringement to make, use, offer to sell, or sell within the United States or import into the United States a patented invention . . . solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information under a Federal law which regulates the manufacture, use, or sale of drugs or veterinary biological products.” Amgen opposed the motion. The Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) supported the motion. On July 7, 2006, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 6) granting Roche's motion. Amgen filed a petition for review of the ID. Respondents and the IA filed oppositions to the petition for review. Amgen also filed a motion for leave to reply to the oppositions to its petition for review. Having considered the petition for review, the oppositions thereto, and the relevant portions of the record, the Commission has determined not to review the ID and to deny Amgen's motion for leave. This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and section 210.42(h) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.42(h). By order of the Commission. Issued: August 31, 2006. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-14743 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Inv. No. 337-TA-583] In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same; Notice of Investigation AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission. ACTION: Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337. SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on July 31, 2006, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Ericsson Inc. of Plano, Texas and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of Stockholm, Sweden. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain wireless communication devices, components thereof, and products containing the same by reason of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,758,295, U.S. Patent No. 5,783,926, U.S. Patent No. 5,864,765, U.S. Patent No. 6,009,319, U.S. Patent No. 6,029,052, U.S. Patent No. 6,198,405, U.S. Patent No. 6,387,027, U.S. Patent No. 6,839,549, and U.S. Patent No. 6,975,686. The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a permanent exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order. ADDRESSES: The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at *http://www.usitc.gov.* The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket

(EDIS)at *http://www.edis.usitc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan F. Moore, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone

(202)205-2767. Authority: The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in § 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in § 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2006). *Scope of Investigation:* Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on August 30, 2006, *Ordered That* :

(1)Pursuant to subsection

(b)of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain wireless communication devices, components thereof, or products containing the same by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-4, 6-8, 10, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 5,758,295; claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,783,926; claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,864,765; claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 18, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 6,009,319; claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,029,052; claims 1, 5, 11, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,198,405; claims 10 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,387,027; claims 1, 14, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,839,549; and claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,975,686; and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;

(2)For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

(a)The complainants are— Ericsson Inc., 6300 Legacy Drive, Plano, TX 75024. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Torshamsgatan 23, Kista, 164 83 Stockholm Sweden.

(b)The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served: Samsung Telecommunications America LLP, 1301 East Lookout Drive, Richardson, TX 75082. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 105 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Main Building, 250, Taepyung-ro 2-ka, Chung-ku, Seoul. 1 00-742 Korea.

(c)The Commission investigative attorney, party to this investigation, is Bryan F. Moore, Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

(3)For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Charles E. Bullock is designated as the presiding administrative law judge. Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown. Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of a limited exclusion order or cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent. By order of the Commission. Issued: August 31, 2006. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-14742 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [OMB Notice 1140-0080] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested ACTION: 30-day notice of information collection under review: notification of change of mailing or premise address. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

(ATF)has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** Volume 71, Number 71, page 24864 on April 27, 2006, allowing for a 60 day comment period. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until October 6, 2006. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to

(202)395-5806. Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points: —Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; —Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; —Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and —Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, *e.g.* , permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of This Information Collection

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of a currently approved collection.

(2)* Title of the Form/Collection:* Notification of Change of Mailing or Premise Address.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection:* Form Number: None. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* Primary: Not-for-profit Institutions. Other: Business or other for-profit. Abstract: Licensees and permittees whose mailing address will change must notify the Chief, Federal Explosives Licensing Center, at least 10 days before the change. The information is used by ATF to identify correct locations of explosives licensees/permittees and location of storage of explosive materials for purposes of inspection, as well as to notify permittee/licensees of any change in regulations or laws that may affect their business activities.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* There will be an estimated 1,000 respondents, who will take 10 minutes to respond via letter to the Federal Explosives Licensing Center.

(6)*An estimate of the total burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* There are an estimated 170 total burden hours associated with this collection. *If additional information is required contact:* Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1600, Patrick Henry Building, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: August 30, 2006. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E6-14675 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [OMB Number 1140-0077] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Requested ACTION: 30-day notice of information collection under review: report of lost or stolen ATF F 5400.30, intrastate purchase of explosives coupon. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

(ATF)has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the **Federal Register** Volume 71, Number 81, pages 24862-24863 on April 27, 2006, allowing for a 60 day comment period. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until October 6, 2006. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to

(1)*Type of Information Collection:* Extension of a currently approved collection.

(2)*Title of the Form/Collection:* Report of Stolen or Lost ATF F 5400.30, Intrastate Purchase of Explosives Coupon.

(3)*Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number:* ATF F 5400.30. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

(4)*Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:* Primary: Business or other for-profit. Other: Individuals or households. Abstract: When any Intrastate Purchase of Explosives Coupon is stolen, lost or destroyed, the person losing possession will, upon discovery of the theft, loss or destruction, immediately, but in all cases before 24 hours have elapsed since discovery, report the matter to the Director, Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives.

(5)*An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond:* There will be an estimated 800 respondents will complete a 20 minute form.

(6)*An estimate of the total burden (in hours) associated with the collection:* There are an estimated 264 total burden hours associated with this collection. *If additional information is required contact:* Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1600, Patrick Henry Building, 601 D Street NW., Washington, DC 20530. Dated: August 30, 2006. Lynn Bryant, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice. [FR Doc. E6-14676 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-FY-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,552] Admiral Foundry, Formerly The Admiral Machine Company, Wadsworth, OH; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration On August 9, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers and former workers of the subject firm. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the **Federal Register** on August 16, 2006 (71 FR 47249). The initial investigation revealed that, during the relevant period, the subject firm neither shifted production abroad nor imported cast aluminum tire molds from a foreign country. The investigation also revealed that the “contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The “contributed importantly” test is generally demonstrated through a survey of customers of the subject workers' firm. The survey revealed that none of the respondents increased their imports of cast aluminum tire molds during the relevant period. In the request for reconsideration, the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Region 2-B (the Union) stated that the subject firm produced both molds and casts used on the tire industry and inferred that the scope of the initial investigation was too limited because it only addressed cast aluminum tire molds. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department sought clarification from the subject firm regarding the article(s) produced at the Wadsworth, Ohio facility during the relevant period. The company official stated that the Wadsworth, Ohio facility produced aluminum tread castings (a component part for tire molds) and did not produce complete tire molds. On reconsideration, the Department also investigated whether the subject workers are eligible to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance

(TAA)as workers of a secondarily-affected firm (supplied component parts for articles produced by a firm with a currently TAA-certified worker group). For certification on the basis of the workers' firm being a secondary upstream supplier, the subject firm must have customers with a worker group that is currently TAA-certified, and the subject firm must produce a component part of the product that was the basis for the customers' certification. In addition, either the TAA-certified customer must represent at least twenty percent of the subject firm's business or a loss of business with the TAA-certified customer contributed importantly to the subject workers' separation at the subject firm. During the reconsideration investigation, the Department determined that none of the subject firm's declining customers are currently certified for TAA based on increased imports of tire molds. Thus the subject firm workers are not eligible under secondary impact. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA), the subject worker group must be certified eligible to apply for TAA. Since the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. 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. Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of August 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-14730 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance

(ATAA)by (TA-W) number issued during the period of August 14 through August 18, 2006. In order for an affirmative determination to be made for workers of a primary firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following 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; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following 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. there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. the country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. the country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made for secondarily affected workers of a firm and a certification issued regarding eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222(b) of the Act must be met.

(1)Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2)the workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and

(3)either-

(A)the workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph

(2)accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or

(B)a loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph

(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issued a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. 1. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older. 2. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable. 3. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse). Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-59,823; Ericsson, Inc., Enterprise Div., Brea, CA: July 28, 2005.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued. The date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(A) (increased imports) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-59,739; Michael Feldman. Inc., Long Island City, NY: July 17, 2005.* *TA-W-59,758; Fulflex of Vermont, Brattleboro, VT: July 19, 2005.* *TA-W-59,758A; George C. Moore Co., Edenton, NC: July 19, 2005.* *TA-W-59,338; International Paper, Cantonment, FL: May 5, 2005.* *TA-W-59,592; Border Apparel Laundry, Ltd., El Paso, TX: June 19, 2005.* *TA-W-59,742; United Panel, Inc., Mt. Bethel, PA: July 17, 2005.* *TA-W-59,752; Tarkett Wood, Inc., Brookneal, VA: July 12, 2005.* *TA-W-59,824; Jim Jam Sportswear, Bethlehem, PA: July 28, 2005.* *TA-W-59,757; Bravo Romeo, Inc., Emporia, VA: July 12, 2005.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(a)(2)(B) (shift in production) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-59,437; American Specialty Cars, Inc. (ASC), Gibraltar, MI: May 22, 2005.* *TA-W-59,646; Aircast, New Providence, NJ: June 24, 2005.* *TA-W-59,646A; Aircast, LLC, Summit, NJ: June 24, 2005.* *TA-W-59,746; Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Green Bay, WI: August 13, 2006.* *TA-W-59,798; Kwikset Corporation, Denison, TX: July 26, 2005.* *TA-W-59,815; Suntron Northeast Operations, Lawrence, MA: July 25, 2005.* *TA-W-59,832; Rosemount Analytical, Inc., Irvine, CA: August 1, 2005.* *TA-W-59,838; Sara Lee Intimates, Statesville, NC: August 1, 2005.* *TA-W-59,848; Cooper Tools, Cullman, AL: August 4, 2005.* *TA-W-59,868; Global Accessories, Inc., Fremont, OH: August 8, 2005.* *TA-W-59,915; Hospira, Ashland, OH: August 16, 2005.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (supplier to a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *TA-W-59,599; Griffco Quality Solutions, St. Louis, MO: June 19, 2005.* *TA-W-59,675; Midwest Plastic Components, Inc., St. Louis Park, MN: July 6, 2005.* *TA-W-59,737; Collins & Aikman, Nashville, TN: July 17, 2005.* *TA-W-59,777; Clarion Technologies, Inc., Greenville, MI: July 5, 2005.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of Section 222(b) (downstream producer for a firm whose workers are certified eligible to apply for TAA based on increased imports from or a shift in production to Mexico or Canada) and Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act have been met. *None.* Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified. The Department as determined that criterion

(1)of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm are 50 years of age or older. *None.* The Department as determined that criterion

(2)of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable. *TA-W-59,823; Ericsson, Inc., Enterprise Div., Brea, CA.* The Department as determined that criterion

(3)of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse. *None.* Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the eligibility criteria for worker adjustment assistance have not been met for the reasons specified. Since the workers of the firm are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A.) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A.) (employment decline) have not been met. *TA-W-59,704; South Park Pleating, Inc., Oakland, CA. * *TA-W-59,769; Chapin International, Batavia, NY. * *TA-W-59,799; J.D. Phillips Corporation, Alpena, MI. * *TA-W-59,860; Project Service, Inc., Park Falls, WI.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-59,783; Rodman Industries, Marinette, WI* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B.) (shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-59,545; Getronics Wang Co. LLC, Liberty Lake, WA. * *TA-W-59,607; American Truetzschler Inc., Charlotte, NC. * *TA-W-59,695; Newell Rubbermaid Home Products, Centerville, IA. * *TA-W-59,759; Uniwave, Inc., Farmingdale, NY. * *TA-W-59,857; Culpepper Plastics Corporation, Clinton, AR:* The investigation revealed that the predominate cause of worker separations is unrelated to criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.C) (shift in production to a foreign country). *TA-W-59,690; Thomson Micron, LLC, Ronkonkoma, NY. * *TA-W-59,865; L.A. Dreyfus Company, Edison, NJ.* The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. *TA-W-59,664; Federated Logistics and Operations, Milwaukee, OR. * *TA-W-59,677; Ray C. Smith, Beulaville, NC. * *TA-W-59,729; Sanyo Energy

(USA)Corporation, San Diego, CA.* The investigation revealed that criteria of Section 222(b)(2) has not been met. The workers' firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier to or a downstream producer for a firm whose workers were certified eligible to apply for TAA. *None.* I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the month of August 14 through August 18, 2006. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address. Dated: August 28, 2006. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-14728 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-59,227] The York Group Metal Casket Assembly Matthews Casket Division, a Subsidiary of Matthews International, Marshfield, MO; Notice of Negative Determination on Reconsideration On July 12, 2006, the Department issued an Affirmative Determination Regarding Application on Reconsideration applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on July 25, 2006 (71 FR 42128). The Department initially denied Trade Adjustment Assistance to workers of The York Group Metal Casket Assembly, Matthews Casket Division, a subsidiary of Matthews International, Marshfield, Missouri, based on criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A) of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, not being met: 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. The workers at the subject firm are engaged in employment related to the production of metal caskets. The petitioner indicated that the Department of Labor did not consider the loss of wages and hours of the worker group in the initial investigation. The petitioner also indicated that the Department should request the Affirmative Action Plan for 2004, 2005, and 2006, thus far, from the company for the subject firm, specifying weekly production numbers and weekly hours. The petitioner believes this Plan will reveal that five percent of the workforce was affected by layoffs and decreased hours. The Department, upon the request of the petitioner, acquired additional information as it pertains to workers' hours and wages during the relevant period. That data was not requested during the initial investigation. The Department also revisited the subject firm's employment numbers for the relevant period. The additional data obtained from the company revealed 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. The petitioner's statement regarding loss of hours and wages does not meet the definition of partial separations, defined as the worker's hours of work have been reduced to 80 percent or less of the worker's average weekly hours at the firm or appropriate subdivision thereof, and the worker's wages have been reduced to 80 percent or less of the worker's average weekly wage at the firm or appropriate subdivisions thereof, as set forth by the trade regulations. The company official provided information showing that the average wage rate, not considering average overtime, has increased during the relevant period. Additionally, as it pertains to hours, no workers were placed on a reduced, less than 40 hours per week for more than two consecutive weeks, work schedule during the relevant period. Furthermore, employment as the subject firm still revealed an insignificant percentage of separations, as defined by the criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.A) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A), during the scope of the initial investigation; therefore, the group eligibility requirement was not met. If conditions change, the petitioners may reapply for Trade Adjustment Assistance group eligibility. 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 The York Group Metal Casket Assembly, Matthews Casket Division, a subsidiary of Matthews International, Marshfield, Missouri. Signed at Washington, DC this 28th day of August 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-14725 Filed 9-5-06; 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 September 18, 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 September 18, 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 30th day of August 2006. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [TAA petitions instituted between 8/21/06 and 8/25/06] TA-W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution Date of petition 59927 Toshiba (State) Irvine, CA 08/21/06 08/18/06 59928 Diversco, Inc.

(Wkrs)Spartanburg, SC 08/21/06 08/16/06 59929 Cochrane Furniture Company

(Comp)Lincolnton, NC 08/21/06 08/18/06 59930 Shaw Mudge and Company (State) Shelton, CT 08/21/06 08/18/06 59931 Flex-o-Lite, Inc.

(Comp)Paris, TX 08/21/06 08/15/06 59932 Dun and Bradstreet

(Wkrs)Bethlehem, PA 08/21/06 08/15/06 59933 Reliable Knitting Works

(Comp)Milwaukee, WI 08/21/06 08/19/06 59934 Florida Tile, Inc.

(Comp)Shannon, GA 08/21/06 08/21/06 59935 Moll Industries (State) Tucson, AZ 08/21/06 08/18/06 59936 C-Tech Industries, Inc.

(Comp)Calumet, MI 08/22/06 08/15/06 59937 Stronglite, Inc.

(Comp)Cottage Grove, OR 08/22/06 08/21/06 59938 Lear Corporation (Union) Atlanta, GA 08/22/06 08/22/06 59939 Newco, Inc.

(Wkrs)Newton, NJ 08/22/06 08/11/06 59940 Liberty Throwing Co., Inc. (Union) Kingston, PA 08/22/06 08/22/06 59941 Caraustar Mill Group

(USW)Rittman, OH 08/23/06 08/17/06 59942 Distinctive Designs Furniture USA (State) Granite Falls, NC 08/23/06 08/22/06 59943 Lee's Shipping

(Wkrs)Thayer, MO 08/23/06 08/22/06 59944 US Airways, Inc.

(Wkrs)Winston-Salem, NC 08/23/06 08/21/06 59945 Sheaffer Manufacturing Co., LLC

(Comp)Fort Madison, IA 08/23/06 08/23/06 59946 International Textile Group

(Comp)New York, NY 08/23/06 08/16/06 59947 Hamrick's, Inc.

(Comp)Gaffney, SC 08/24/06 08/01/06 59948 Dolphin Cove, LLC

(Comp)Soddy Daisy, TN 08/24/06 08/23/06 59949 Thermo Electron (State) Franklin, MA 08/24/06 08/23/06 59950 Stanley-Bostitch, Inc. (State) Clinton, CT 08/24/06 08/23/06 59951 Northern Hardwoods (State) South Range, MI 08/24/06 08/16/06 59952 Schott North America, Inc.

(Comp)Duryea, PA 08/25/06 08/17/06 59953 Corinthian, Inc.

(Wkrs)Corinth, MS 08/25/06 08/24/06 59954 Saturn Customer Assistance Ctr.

(Wkrs)Springhill, TN 08/25/06 08/24/06 59955 Lawrence Hardware, LLC

(Comp)Rock Falls, IL 08/25/06 08/23/06 59956 International Textile Group

(Comp)Greensboro, NC 08/25/06 08/16/06 59957 Jonette Jewelry Co.

(Comp)E. Providence, RI 08/25/06 08/25/06 59958 Stanley Fastening Systems, LP

(Comp)East Greenwich, RI 08/25/06 08/24/06 59959 Toombs Apparel, Inc.

(Comp)Lyons, GA 08/25/06 08/22/06 [FR Doc. E6-14729 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)for the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope

(ATST)at the Haleakala High Altitude Observatory

(HO)Site, Haleakala , Island of Maui, Hawai'i AGENCY: National Science Foundation. ACTION: Notice—Draft Environmental Impact Statement. SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation

(NSF)has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)for the proposed Advanced Technology Solar Telescope

(ATST)Project. This joint DEIS is prepared in compliance with the Federal National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)and the State of Hawai'i Chapter 343, Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS). The NSF, through an award to the National Solar Observatory (NSO), plans to fund construction of the proposed ATST at the University of Hawai'i Institute for Astronomy (IfA), Haleakala High Altitude Observatory

(HO)site, on the Island of Maui, Hawai'i. An extensive campaign of worldwide site testing has identified Haleakala Observatory as the optimal location for this next-generation solar observing facility. The telescope enclosure and a support facility would be placed at one of two identified sites within the existing observatory boundaries. The DEIS addresses the multi-year selection process of these sites and the potential environmental impacts of on-site construction, installation, and operation of this proposed new solar telescope. With its unprecedented 4.2-m (165-inch) aperture, advanced optical technology, and state-of-the-art instrumentation, the proposed ATST would be an indispensable tool for exploring and understanding physical processes on the sun that ultimately affect Earth. The DEIS addresses, among other things, the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts associated with the proposed Advanced Technology Solar Telescope project. *Written comments may be forwarded to:* ADDRESSES: Dr. Craig B. Foltz, Program Manager, National Science Foundation, Division of Astronomical Sciences, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1045, Washington DC 22230, telephone:

(703)292-4909, fax:

(730)292-9034, e-mail: *cfoltz@nsf.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: *Proposed alternatives to be considered include, but are not limited to the following:*

(1)*Alternative 1 (Proposed Action):* Undeveloped site East of Mees Observatory.

(2)*Alternative 2:* Former radio telescope site known as Reber Circle.

(3)*Alternative 3:* No-Action. The National Science Foundation will not construct the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope on Maui. Publication of the DEIS does not foreclose consideration of any courses of action or possible decisions addressed by the National Science Foundation in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). No final decisions will be made regarding construction of the ATST prior to completion and signature of the Record of Decision for the Proposed Action. *Public Comment Period:* The NSF welcomes and invites Federal, State, and local agencies, and the public to participate in the 45-day comment period for the completion of this EIS. The 45-day public comment period begins September 8, 2006, and ends on October 23, 2006. Public comment meetings will take place on the island of Maui, Hawai'i, with notification of the times and locations published in the local newspapers, as follows: 1. Cameron Center Auditorium, September 27, 2006, Wednesday, 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. 2. Hannibal Tavares Community Center, Multi-purpose Room, September 28, 2006, Thursday, 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. 3. Kula Community Center, September 29, 2006, Friday, 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. Written comments may be submitted to Dr. Craig B. Foltz at the address above. Dated: August 23, 2006. Craig B. Foltz, ATST Program Officer. [FR Doc. 06-7429 Filed 9-5-06; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 7

Traces to 7 documents

U.S. Code

CFR

1 reference not yet in our index