5186 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Notices 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before May 11, 2004. 

A nonparty who has testimony that may 

aid the Commission’s deliberations may 

request permission to present a short 

statement at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on May 13, 2004, 

at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, 

and 207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

days prior to the date of the hearing. 

Written Submissions 

Each party to the reviews may submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.65 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is May 7, 2004. Parties may also 

file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in section 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.67 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is May 27, 

2004; witness testimony must be filed 

no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the reviews may submit a written 

statement of information pertinent to 

the subject of the reviews on or before 

May 27, 2004. On June 18, 2004, the 

Commission will make available to 

parties all information on which they 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before June 22, 2004, but such final 

comments must not contain new factual 

information and must otherwise comply 

with section 207.68 of the Commission’s 

rules. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of section 

201.8 of the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain 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 of 

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). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

reviews must be served on all other 

parties to the reviews (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.

Authority: These reviews are being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules.

Issued: January 28, 2004.

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–2099 Filed 2–2–04; 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—Telemanagement Forum 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

November 12, 2003, pursuant to section 

6(a) of the National Cooperative 

Research and Production Act of 1993, 

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

Telemanagement Forum (‘‘the Forum’’) 

has filed written notifications 

simultaneously with the Attorney 

General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing changes in its 

membership status. 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, Accudata Technologies, 

Allen, TX; Aktavara AB, Stockholm, 

SWEDEN; AsiaInfo Technologies, 

Beijing, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF 

CHINA; AUDITEC, Paris, FRANCE; 

AZURE SOLUTIONS, Ipswich, Suffolk, 

UNITED KINGDOM; BSB, Moscow, 

RUSSIA; Cape Clear Software, 

Donnybrook, Dublin, IRELAND; CDOT, 

Chanakya Puri, New Delhi, INDIA; 

Cominfo Consulting, Moscow, RUSSIA; 

Comstar Telecommunications, Moscow, 

RUSSIA; Creawor Beijing Technique 

Center, Zhuhai, Guangdong, PEOPLE’S 

REPUBLIC OF CHINA; DIATEM 

NETWORKS, Ottawa, Ontario, 

CANADA: Distocraft Oy, Helsinki, 

FINLAND; Dubai Internet City, Dubai, 

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES; EXA 

CORPORATION, Saiwai, Kawasaki, 

Kanagawa, JAPAN; Frost and Sullivan, 

Beijing, PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF 

CHINA; Fundacao CPqD, Campinas, 

BRAZIL; GIGA STREAM UMTS Tech. 

GmbH, Saarbruecken, GERMANY; IBS 

LTD, Moscow, RUSSIA; InteGreaT B.V., 

Bergen op Zoom, THE NETHERLANDS; 

IXI Mobile, Inc., Ra’anana, ISRAEL; Katz 

and Company, Imperial, PA; Keymile, 

Berne-Liebefeld, CH, SWITZERLAND; 

Mermarsat Limited, Harpenden, 

UNITED KINGDOM; MTN Nigeria 

Communications Ltd, Victoria Island, 

Lagos, NIGERIA; Murray Dunlop Ltd., 

Cam, Dursley, Gloucestershire, UNITED 

KINGDOM; Nakina Systems, Ottawa, 

Ontario, CANADA; NetProfits Limited, 

Erlangen, GERMANY; Neural 

Technologies, Petersfield, Hampshire, 

UNITED KINGDOM; Ovum Limited, 

London, UNITED KINGDOM; Operax 

AB, Luleaa, SWEDEN; PANDUIT 

CORPORATION, Tinley Park, IL: 

Partner Communications Co., Ltd., Rosh 

ha’ayin, ISRAEL; Pontis, Inc, Herzliya, 

Pituach, ISRAEL; PT ExcelComindo 

Pratama, Jakarta, INDONESIA; SAP AG, 

Newtown Square, PA; Saudi Telecom, 

Riyadh, Central, SAUDI ARABIA; SESA 

Software International, Rome, ITALY; 

SPIN aka Przedsiebiorstwo, Katowice, 

POLAND; TAZZ Networks, Plano, TX; 

THE OPEN GROUP, San Francisco, CA; 

TOT Corporation Public Company 

Limited, Thungsonghong, Laksi, 

Bangkok, THAILAND; University of 

Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UNITED 

KINGDOM; West Global, IFSC, Dublin, 

IRELAND; West Ridge Networks, 

Littleton, MA; Westel Mobile Company, 

Budapest, Pest, HUNGARY; DSET 

CORPORATION, Pleasanton, CA (from 

August 1994 to March 13, 2003); ITEC 

SOLUTIONS, INC., Ottawa, Ontario, 

CANADA; (from September 1995 to 

September 3, 2003); and WIND 

TELECOMICAZIONI SPA, Milano, 

ITALY (from April 2000 to March 31, 

2003) have been added as parties to this 

venture.

The following existing members have 

changed their names: Teleformance has 

changed its name to Telcoremance, 

Valbonne, FRANCE; Sykora GmbH has 

changed its name to TietoEnator Oyj, 

Buehl, GERMANY; 4C Telecom 

(formerly of Overland Park, KS) has 

changed its name to NetHarmonix, 

Burlington, VT; and Progress (formerly 

Excellon) has changed its name to Sonic 

Software, Bedford, MA. 

The following members have 

cancelled or have had their 

memberships cancelled: Aran 

Technologies, Blackrock, Co. Dublin, 

IRELAND; Arkipelago Svenska AB, 

Stockholm, SWEDEN; Astracon, Inc., 

Englewood, CO; Australian 

Communications Industry Ltd., 

(formerly of North Sydney) Milsons 

Point, New South Wales, AUSTRALIA; 

Chiaro Networks, Inc., Richardson, TX; 

Claudia Liliana Bucheli Enriquez, 

Bogota, COLUMBIA; Concept Wave 

Software, Mississauga, Ontario, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 22 / Tuesday, February 3, 2004 / Notices 5187

CANADA; Cplane, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA; 

Geoff Coleman, Sherwood Park, Alberta, 

CANADA; IGS, Inc., Boulder, CO; 

Imagine Broadband Ltd., London, 

UNITED KINGDOM; KTICOM, Seoul, 

REPUBLIC OF KOREA; Literate 

Technologies, San Carlos, CA; NTT 

Comware Corporation, Chiba-shi, Chiba, 

JAPAN; Parc Technologies Ltd., 

London, UNITED KINGDOM; Riversoft, 

San Francisco, CA; Schema, Yehud, 

Kiryat Savionim, ISRAEL; Shulist Group 

Inc. Bolton, Ontario, CANADA; 

SkyOptik, Red Bank, NJ; SupportSoft, 

Inc., Redwood City, CA; Swanson 

Consulting Inc., Mountainville, NY; Tim 

Peru S.A.C., La Victoria, Lima, PERU; 

and Virtual Access, Dublin, IRELAND. 

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 the Forum 

intends to file additional written 

notifications disclosing all changes in 

membership. 

On October 21, 1988, the Forum 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 December 8, 1988 (53 

FR 49615). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on May 30, 2003. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the 

Act on July 16, 2003 (68 FR 42132).

Dorothy B. Fountain, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust 

Division.

[FR Doc. 04–2148 Filed 2–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–11–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention 

[OJP (OJJDP) Docket No. 1392] 

Program Announcement for the 

Internet Crimes Against Children Task 

Force Program

AGENCY: Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, Office of 

Justice Programs, Justice.

ACTION: Notice of Solicitation.

SUMMARY: Based on the availability of 

appropriations, notice is hereby given 

that the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is 

requesting applications from State and 

local law enforcement agencies 

interested in participating in the 

Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) 

Task Force Program. In an effort to 

expand ICAC Regional Task Force 

coverage to areas that do not currently 

have an ICAC Regional Task Force 

presence, this solicitation is limited to 

State and local law enforcement 

agencies in the following States and 

localities: Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, 

Oregon, West Virginia, and the Northern 

Virginia/Washington, DC, metropolitan 

area (excluding Maryland). (For the 

purpose of this solicitation, the 

Northern Virginia/Washington, DC, 

metropolitan area is defined as the cities 

of Washington, DC; Alexandria, VA; and 

Falls Church, VA; and all cities and 

towns in Virginia within and including 

Arlington County, Fairfax County, 

Loudoun County, Prince William 

County, and Stafford County.) Only one 

grant will be awarded per State/locality 

listed above. This program encourages 

communities to develop regional 

multidisciplinary, multijurisdictional 

task forces to prevent, interdict, and 

investigate sexual exploitation offenses 

committed by offenders who use online 

technology to victimize children.

DATES: Applications must be received 

by March 19, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Holloway, ICAC Program 

Manager, Child Protection Division, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, at (202) 305–

9838 or holloway@ojp.usdoj.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose 

The purpose of this program is to help 

State and local law enforcement 

agencies enhance their investigative 

response to offenders who use the 

Internet, online communication 

systems, or other computer technologies 

to sexually exploit children. Throughout 

this program announcement, ‘‘Internet 

crimes against children’’ refers to the 

sexual exploitation of children that is 

facilitated by computers and includes 

crimes of child pornography and online 

solicitation for sexual purposes. 

Background 

Unlike some adults who view the 

benefits of the Information Age 

dubiously, children and teenagers have 

seized the Internet’s educational and 

recreational opportunities with 

astonishing speed. Adapting 

information technology to meet 

everyday needs, young people are 

increasingly going online to meet 

friends, get information, purchase goods 

and services, and complete school 

assignments. Currently, more than 28 

million children and teenagers have 

access to the Internet; industry experts 

predict that they will be joined by 

another 50 million globally by 2005. 

Although the Internet gives children 

and teenagers access to valuable 

resources, it also increases their risk of 

being sexually exploited or victimized.

Cloaked in the anonymity of 

cyberspace, sex offenders can capitalize 

on the natural curiosity of children and 

seek victims with little risk of detection. 

Preferential sex offenders no longer 

need to lurk in parks and malls. Instead, 

they can roam from chat room to chat 

room, trolling for children susceptible to 

victimization. This alarming activity has 

grave implications for parents, teachers, 

and law enforcement officers because it 

circumvents conventional safeguards 

and provides sex offenders with 

virtually unlimited opportunities for 

unsupervised contact with children. 

Today’s Internet is also rapidly 

becoming the new marketplace for 

offenders seeking to acquire material for 

their child pornography collections. 

More insidious than sexually explicit 

adult pornography, child pornography 

depicts the sexual assault of children 

and is often used by child molesters to 

recruit, seduce, and control their 

victims. Child pornography is used to 

break down inhibitions, validate sex 

between children and adults as normal, 

and control victims throughout their 

molestation. When offenders lose 

interest in their victims, child 

pornography is often used as blackmail 

to ensure the child’s silence. When 

posted on the Internet, pornography 

becomes an enduring and irretrievable 

record of victimization and a relentless 

violation of that child’s privacy. 

OJJDP recognizes that the increasing 

online presence of children, the lure of 

predators searching for unsupervised 

contact with underage victims, and the 

proliferation of child pornography 

present a significant threat to the health 

and safety of children and a formidable 

challenge to law enforcement today and 

into the foreseeable future. Three main 

factors complicate law enforcement’s 

response to these challenges. 

First, conventional definitions of 

jurisdiction are practically meaningless 

in the electronic universe of cyberspace; 

very few investigations begin and end 

within the same geographical area. 

Because they involve multiple 

jurisdictions, most investigations 

require close coordination and 

cooperation between Federal, State, and 

local law enforcement agencies. 

Second, evidence collection in ICAC 

investigations typically requires 

specialized expertise and equipment. 

Because preferential sex offenders tend 

to be avid recordkeepers, their 

computers, magnetic media, and related