Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 58959

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in each Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries after 

1998. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2003 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from any Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2003 (report quantity data 

in short tons and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from each Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from each 

Subject Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from each Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in any Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2003 

(report quantity data in short tons and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in each Subject Country accounted for 

by your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from each Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

each Subject Country after 1998, and 

significant changes, if any, that are 

likely to occur within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. Supply conditions to 

consider include technology; 

production methods; development 

efforts; ability to increase production 

(including the shift of 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: September 23, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–22130 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Meeting of the Judicial Conference 

Advisory Committee on Rules of 

Evidence

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the 

United States, Advisory Committee on 

Rules of Evidence.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on 

Rules of Evidence will hold a one-day 

meeting. The meeting will be open to 

public observation but not participation.

DATES: January 15, 2005.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Clift Hotel, 495 Geary 

Street, San Francisco, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 

Support Office, Administrative Office of 

the United States Courts, Washington, 

DC 20544, telephone (202) 502–1820.

Dated: September 23, 2004. 

John K. Rabiej, 

Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.

[FR Doc. 04–22095 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 2210–55–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. 04–9] 

Gabriel Sagun Orzame, M.D. 

Revocation of Registration 

On October 7, 2003, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), issued an Order 

to Show Cause to Gabriel Sagun 

Orzame, M.D. (Respondent) notifying 

him of an opportunity to show cause as 

to why DEA should not revoke his DEA 

Certificate of Registration, AO1690367, 

under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3) and (a)(4), and 

deny any pending applications for 

renewal or modification of that 

registration. Specifically, the Order to 

Show Cause alleged in relevant part, the 

following: 

1. Effective November 17, 2002, the 

State of Michigan, Department of 

Consumer and Industry Services, Board 

of Medicine Disciplinary Subcommittee 

(Board), revoked the Respondent’s 

58960 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 

medical licensure privileges in that 

state. 

2. This revocation of license was 

based upon the Respondent’s conviction 

for altered records (one count of 

recklessly placing false information in 

the medical chart) in violation of MCL 

750.492(a)(I)(b), a misdemeanor. 

Appeals of the Board’s revocation order 

have been denied up through the 

Michigan Supreme Court. 

3. A criminal complaint from which 

the above charge stems is based upon a 

Michigan State Police investigation for 

which the Respondent was charged with 

one count of conspiracy, three counts of 

delivery and thirty-two counts of 

delivery of a controlled substance 

prescription form. Four undercover 

officers made undercover visits to the 

Respondent’s office and he never 

performed examinations on them. 

Nevertheless, the Respondent provided 

prescriptions for controlled substances 

for the undercover officers and for other 

persons who were not there. 

4. As a result of the actions taken by 

the Board, the Respondent is currently 

without authority to handle controlled 

substances in the State of Michigan, the 

state in which he is registered with 

DEA. 

By letter dated October 24, 2003, the 

Respondent, through his legal counsel, 

timely requested a hearing in this 

matter. As part of his hearing request, 

the Respondent further asserted that he 

‘‘* * * still has a license to practice 

medicine, and is licensed by the State 

of New York to prescribe medication.’’

On October 31, 2003, the presiding 

Administrative Law Judge Gail A. 

Randall (Judge Randall) issued to 

counsel for DEA as well as the 

Respondent an Order for Prehearing 

Statements. 

On November 19, 2003, counsel for 

DEA filed Government’s Prehearing 

Statement and Motion for Summary 

Disposition. In its motion, the 

Government recited, among other 

things, an allegation outlined in the 

Order to Show Cause regarding the 

November 17, 2002, revocation of the 

Respondent’s Michigan medical license. 

With regard to this allegation, the 

Government argued in relevant part that 

the Respondent is currently without 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in the State of Michigan. The 

Government further argued that the 

Respondent’s licensure status in New 

York is of no consequence since he is 

not registered with DEA in that state. 

Therefore, the Government requested 

that the Administrative Law Judge grant 

its Motion for Summary Disposition and 

recommend that Respondent’s DEA 

Certificate of Registration be revoked 

based on his lack of state authorization 

to handle controlled substances in 

Michigan. 

On December 11, 2003, the 

Respondent filed his Response to 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition. In his response, the 

Respondent argued that his medical 

license was suspended in the State of 

Michigan because of a mistaken guilty 

plea to a state misdemeanor charge 

related to the prohibition on health care 

providers placing inaccurate 

information in a patient file. The 

Respondent reiterated that he remains 

licensed to practice medicine in New 

York, and further requested that the 

DEA proceedings be stayed for 90 days 

so that he can establish professional 

residency in New York.

Following a Government response 

objecting to the Respondent’s request for 

stay, on February 4, 2004, Judge Randall 

issued her Opinion and Recommended 

Decision of the Administrative Law 

Judge (Opinion and Recommended 

Decision). As part of her recommended 

ruling, Judge Randall granted the 

Government’s Motion for Summary 

Disposition and found that the 

Respondent lacked authorization to 

handle controlled substances in 

Michigan, the jurisdiction in which he 

is registered with DEA. In granting the 

Government’s motion, Judge Randall 

also recommended that the 

Respondent’s DEA registration be 

revoked and any pending applications 

for modification or renewal be denied. 

No exceptions were filed by either party 

to Judge Randall’s Opinion and 

Recommended Decision, and on March 

15, 2004, the record of these 

proceedings was transmitted to the 

Office of the DEA Deputy Administer. 

The Deputy Administrator has 

considered the record in its entirety and 

pursuant to 21 CFR 1316.67, hereby 

issues her final order based upon 

findings of fact and conclusions of law 

as hereinafter set forth. The Deputy 

Administrator adopts, in full, the 

Opinion and Recommended Decision of 

the Administrative Law Judge. 

The Deputy Administrator finds that 

the Respondent currently possesses 

DEA Certificate of Registration 

AO1690367, and is registered to handle 

controlled substances at a location in 

Benton Harbor, Michigan. The Deputy 

Administrator further finds that 

effective November 17, 2002, the Board 

revoked Respondent’s license to 

practice medicine in Michigan. While 

the Respondent has presented evidence 

of his medical license in New York, 

there is no evidence before the Deputy 

Administrator that the Respondent has 

applied for, or has been granted 

resinstatement of his Michigan medical 

license, the state where he holds a DEA 

registration. Accordingly, the Deputy 

Administrator also finds it reasonable to 

infer that Respondent is also without 

authorization to handle controlled 

substances in that state. 

DEA does not have statutory authority 

under the Controlled Substances Act to 

issue or maintain a registration if the 

applicant or registrant is without state 

authority to handle controlled 

substances in the state in which he 

conducts business. See 21 U.S.C. 

802(21), 823(f) and 824(a)(3). This 

prerequisite has been consistently 

upheld. See Kanwaljit S. Serai, M.D., 68 

FR 48943 (2003); Dominick A. Ricci, 

M.D., 58 FR 51104 (1993); Bobby Watts, 

M.D., 53 FR 11919 (1988). 

Here, it is clear that the Respondent 

is not currently licensed to handle 

controlled substances in Michigan. 

Therefore, he is not entitled to maintain 

that registration. Because the 

Respondent is not entitled to a DEA 

registration in Michigan due to his lack 

of state authorization to handle 

controlled substances, the Deputy 

Administrator concludes that it is 

unnecessary to address whether his 

registration should be revoked based 

upon the other grounds asserted in the 

Order to Show Cause. See Cordell Clark, 

M.D., 68 FR 48942 (2003); NathanielAikens-Afful, M.D., FR 16871 (1997); 

Sam F. Moore, D.V.M., 58 FR 14428 

(1993). 

In further support of his continued 

registration with DEA, Respondent 

argues that consideration should be 

given to his state licensure to practice 

medicine in New York. The Deputy 

Administrator agrees with Judge Randall 

that the Respondent’s status as a 

practitioner is a state other than 

Michigan has no bearing on this matter. 

The Deputy Administrator also agrees 

with the argument forwarded by the 

Government that Respondent’s 

assertions regarding his licensure status 

in New York are without merit ‘‘and 

ultimately irrelevant’’ since 

Respondent’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration is for a Michigan address, 

and he is currently not authorized to 

handle controlled substances in that 

state, See, Layfe Robert Anthony, M.D.,

67 FR 35582 (2002). 

Accordingly, the Deputy 

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, pursuant to the 

authority vested in her by 21 U.S.C. 823 

and 824 and 28 CFR 0.100(b) and 0.104, 

hereby orders that DEA Certificate of 

Registration, AO1690367, issued to 

Gabriel Sagun Orzame, M.D., be, and it 

hereby is, revoked. The Deputy 

Administrator further orders that any 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2004 / Notices 58961

pending applications for renewal or 

modification of such registration be, and 

they hereby are, denied. This order is 

effective November 1, 2004.

Dated: September 8, 2004. 

Michele M. Leonhart, 

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–21964 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training 

Administration 

Supplemental Guidance for Labor 

Certification Process for Temporary 

Employment of Nonimmigrant Workers 

in the United States (H–2B Workers); 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2005

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA), Department of 

Labor (DOL).

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: On March 10, 2004, the 

United States Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (CIS) announced 

receiving sufficient H–2B petitions to 

reach the FY 2004 Congressionally 

mandated cap of 66,000. In light of CIS’

announcement, ETA published a 

Federal Register notice on May 13, 2004 

to provide guidance to the public 

regarding ETA’s processing of H–2B 

applications that will count against the 

FY 2005 cap. ETA is publishing this 

notice to provide additional guidance 

due to the number of inquiries and 

questions that have arisen. This notice 

is intended to minimize confusion and 

burden to employers who use the H–2B 

program.

DATES: This notice is effective October 

1, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Carlson, Chief, Division of 

Foreign Labor Certification, U.S. 

Department of Labor, Room C–4312, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210. Telephone: 202–693–3010 

(this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOL has 

continued to process alien labor 

certification applications since March 

10, 2004, and many employers are in 

possession of a valid labor certification 

that has not been accepted by CIS for 

processing. CIS has advised that their 

practice has been to accept the H–2B 

labor certifications with periods of 

employment that cross fiscal years so 

long as some portion of the employment 

period remains. Employers with a valid 

H–2B labor certification with a date of 

need prior to October 1, 2004, but that 

includes periods of planned 

employment after October 1, 2004, are 

encouraged to file H–2B labor 

certifications with CIS if some portion 

of the employment period remains. 

ETA will continue to process new H–

2B applications with dates of need 

within FY 2005 (that is, starting October 

1, 2004 or later). For these new 

applications, employers must continue 

to follow existing filing rules, including 

regarding the timing of filing with the 

State Workforce Agency (SWA). Thus, 

employers must file a new H–2B 

application with the appropriate SWA 

no earlier than 120 days before the date 

of need and at least 60 days before the 

date of need. 

The procedures described in this 

notice relate only to H–2B applications 

for nonimmigrant workers subject to the 

numerical limitation (cap) for FY 2005 

and who will be engaged in temporary 

work to commence on or after October 

1, 2004.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of 

September, 2004. 

Emily Stover DeRocco, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–22059 Filed 9–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–30–P

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment Standards Administration 

Wage and Hour Division 

Minimum Wages for Federal and 

Federally Assisted Construction; 

General Wage Determination Decisions 

General wage determination decisions 

of the Secretary of Labor are issued in 

accordance with applicable law and are 

based on the information obtained by 

the Department of Labor from its study 

of local wage conditions and data made 

available from other sources. They 

specify the basic hourly wage rates and 

fringe benefits which are determined to 

be prevailing for the described classes of 

laborers and mechanics employed on 

construction projects of a similar 

character and in the localities specified 

therein. 

The determinations in these decisions 

of prevailing rates and fringe benefits 

have been made in accordance with 29 

CFR part 1, by authority of the Secretary 

of Labor pursuant to the provisions of 

the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, 

as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 

40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal 

statutes referred to in 29 CFR part 1, 

Appendix, as well as such additional 

statutes as may from time to time be 

enacted containing provisions for the 

payment of wages determined to be 

prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in 

accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. 

The prevailing rates and fringe benefits 

determined in these decisions shall, in 

accordance with the provisions of the 

foregoing statutes, constitute the 

minimum wages payable on Federal and 

federally assisted construction projects 

to laborers and mechanics of the 

specified classes engaged on contract 

work of the character and in the 

localities described therein. 

Good cause is hereby found for not 

utilizing notice and public comment 

procedure thereon prior to the issuance 

of these determinations as prescribed in 

5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay 

in the effective date as prescribed in that 

section, because the necessity to issue 

current construction industry wage 

determinations frequently and in large 

volume causes procedures to be 

impractical and contrary to the public 

interest. 

General wage determination 

decisions, and modifications and 

supersedeas decisions thereto, contain 

no expiration dates and are effective 

from their date of notice in the Federal 

Register, or on the date written notice 

is received by the agency, whichever is 

earlier. These decisions are to be used 

in accordance with the provisions of 29 

CFR parts 1 and 5. Accordingly, the 

applicable decision, together with any 

modifications issued, must be made a 

part of every contract for performance of 

the described work within the 

geographic area indicated as required by 

an applicable Federal prevailing wage 

law and 29 CFR part 5. The wage rates 

and fringe benefits, notice of which is 

published herein, and which are 

contained in the Government Printing 

Office (GPO) document entitled 

‘‘General Wage Determinations Issued 

Under The Davis-Bacon and Related 

Acts,’’ shall be the minimum paid by 

contractors and subcontractors to 

laborers and mechanics. 

Any person, organization, or 

governmental agency having an interest 

in the rates determined as prevailing is 

encouraged to submit wage rate and 

fringe benefit information for 

consideration by the Department. 

Further information and selfexplanatory forms for the purpose of 

submitting this data may be obtained by 

writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, 

Employment Standards Administration, 

Wage and Hour Division, Division of 

Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room S–3014, 

Washington, DC 20210.