Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2004 / Notices 63177

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

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)).

2Commissioner Hillman did not participate in 

this investigation.

3Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Miller 

dissented, having determined that there is a 

reasonable indication that an industry in the United 

States is materially injured by reason of allegedly 

LTFV imports of polyvinyl alcohol from Taiwan.

to terminate the investigation was 

granted. 

With respect to respondent Lentek, 

section 337(g)(1), 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1), 

and Commission Rule 210.16(c), 19 CFR 

210.16(c), authorizes the Commission to 

order limited relief against a respondent 

found in default unless, after 

consideration of public interest factors, 

it finds that such relief should not issue. 

In this investigation, the ALJ found 

respondent Lentek in default and this 

decision was not reviewed by the 

Commission. As a result, ABC requested 

issuance of (a) a permanent exclusion 

order excluding from entry into the 

United States all of Lentek’s ‘‘Mosquito 

Trap’’ products that infringe the claims 

of the asserted patents; and (b) a 

permanent cease and desist order 

prohibiting the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation 

or sale within the United States after 

importation of all of Lentek’s ‘‘Mosquito 

Trap’’ products that infringe the claims 

of the asserted patents. 

The Commission may issue an order 

that could result in the exclusion of 

Lentek’s ‘‘Mosquito Trap’’ products 

from entry into the United States, and/

or issue one or more cease and desist 

orders that could result in Lentek being 

required to cease and desist from 

engaging in unfair acts in the 

importation and sale of ‘‘Mosquito 

Trap’’ products. Accordingly, the 

Commission is interested in receiving 

written submissions that address the 

form of remedy, if any, that should be 

ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an 

article from entry into the United States 

for purposes other than entry for 

consumption, the party should so 

indicate and provide information 

establishing that activities involving 

other types of entry either are adversely 

affecting it or are likely to do so. For 

background, see In the Matter of Certain 

Devices for Connecting Computers via 

Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, 

USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December 1994) 

(Commission Opinion). 

If the Commission contemplates some 

form of remedy, it must consider the 

effects of that remedy upon the public 

interest. The factors the Commission 

will consider include the effect that an 

exclusion order and/or cease and desist 

orders would have on (1) The public 

health and welfare, (2) competitive 

conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. 

production of articles that are like or 

directly competitive with those that are 

subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 

consumers. The Commission is 

therefore interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the 

aforementioned public interest factors 

in the context of this investigation.

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the President has 60 days to 

approve or disapprove the 

Commission’s action. During this 

period, the subject articles would be 

entitled to enter the United States under 

bond, in an amount determined by the 

Commission and prescribed by the 

Secretary of the Treasury. The 

Commission is therefore interested in 

receiving submissions concerning the 

amount of the bond that should be 

imposed. 

Written Submissions: The parties to 

the investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding. Such 

submissions should address the 

September 24, 2004, recommended 

determination by the ALJ on remedy 

and bonding. Complainants and the 

Commission investigative attorney are 

also requested to submit proposed 

remedial orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. The written submissions 

and proposed remedial orders must be 

filed no later than close of business on 

November 8, 2004. Reply submissions 

must be filed no later than the close of 

business on November 15, 2004. No 

further submissions on these issues will 

be permitted unless otherwise ordered 

by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document and 12 

true copies thereof on or before the 

deadlines stated above with the Office 

of the Secretary. Any person desiring to 

submit a document (or portion thereof) 

to the Commission in confidence must 

request confidential treatment unless 

the information has already been 

granted such treatment during the 

proceedings. All such requests should 

be directed to the Secretary of the 

Commission and must include a full 

statement of the reasons why the 

Commission should grant such 

treatment. See section 201.6 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for 

which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is sought will be treated 

accordingly. All non-confidential 

written submissions will be available for 

public inspection at the Office of the 

Secretary. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in 

sections 210.16(c) and 210.21 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.16(c) and 

210.21).

By order of the Commission.

Issued: October 25, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–24206 Filed 10–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1088 

(Preliminary)] 

Polyvinyl Alcohol From Taiwan 

Determination 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigation, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determines, pursuant to 

section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there 

is no reasonable indication that an 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured or threatened with 

material injury, or that the 

establishment of an industry in the 

United States is materially retarded, by 

reason of imports from Taiwan of 

polyvinyl alcohol, provided for in 

subheading 3905.30.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States, that are alleged to be sold 

in the United States at less than fair 

value (LTFV).2 3

Background 

On September 7, 2004, a petition was 

filed with the Commission and 

Commerce by Celanese Chemicals Ltd., 

Dallas, TX, alleging that an industry in 

the United States is materially injured 

and threatened with further material 

injury by reason of LTFV imports of 

polyvinyl alcohol from Taiwan. 

Accordingly, effective September 7, 

2004, the Commission instituted 

antidumping duty investigation No. 

731–TA–1088 (Preliminary). 

Notice of the institution of the 

Commission’s investigation and of a 

public conference to be held in 

connection therewith was given by 

posting copies of the notice in the Office 

of the Secretary, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, Washington, DC, 

and by publishing the notice in the 

Federal Register of September 15, 2004 

(69 FR 55653). The conference was held 

in Washington, DC, on September 28, 

63178 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 209 / Friday, October 29, 2004 / Notices 

2004, and all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determination in this investigation to 

the Secretary of Commerce on October 

22, 2004. The views of the Commission 

are contained in USITC Publication 

3732 (October 2004), entitled Polyvinyl 

Alcohol from Taiwan: Investigation No. 

731–TA–1088 (Preliminary).

By order of the Commission.

Issued: October 25, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–24205 Filed 10–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[EOIR No. 149] 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review; Notice Extending Period To 

File Motions To Reopen Under the 

Barahona-Gomez v. Ashcroft

Settlement

AGENCY: Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (‘‘EOIR’’), Justice.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice is to inform all 

parties that the motion to reopen period 

as defined in section (II)(B)(4) of the 

settlement agreement in BarahonaGomez v. Ashcroft, 243 F. Supp. 2d 

1029 (N.D. Cal. 2002), was extended to 

March 20, 2005. The full settlement 

agreement can be found at 243 F. Supp. 

2d 1029 (N.D. Cal. 2002), and also is 

reproduced on the EOIR Web site at 

http://www.usdoj.gov/eoir. The 

settlement agreement initially provided 

that the motion to reopen period was for 

eighteen (18) months from the date the 

Advisory Statement was published in 

the Federal Register. The Advisory 

Statement providing notice of the 

settlement was published in the Federal 

Register on March 20, 2003. See 68 FR 

13727. The motion to reopen period was 

to close on September 20, 2004. Under 

section (II)(B)(4) of the settlement 

agreement, if any eligible class member 

filed a motion to reopen proceedings 

under the settlement agreement within 

six months prior to September 20, 2004, 

the motion to reopen period is extended 

for an additional 180 days. This notice 

acknowledges that the deadline date 

was extended to March 20, 2005.

DATES: The deadline for filing motions 

to reopen under the settlement 

agreement was extended to March 20, 

2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

MaryBeth Keller, General Counsel, 

Office of the General Counsel, Executive 

Office for Immigration Review, 5107 

Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, 

VA 22041, telephone (703) 305–0470.

Dated: October 15, 2004. 

Kevin D. Rooney, 

Director, Executive Office for Immigration 

Review.

[FR Doc. 04–24208 Filed 10–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–30–M

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Manufacturer of Controlled 

Substances; Notice of Application 

Pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is 

notice that on May 25, 2004, Cambrex 

North Brunswick Inc., Technology 

Centre of New Jersey, 661 Highway One, 

North Brunswick, New Jersey 08902, 

made application by renewal and on 

June 11, 2004 by letter to the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) for 

registration as a bulk manufacturer of 

the basic classes of controlled 

substances listed:

Drug Schedule 

N-Ethylamphetamine (1475) ........ I 

Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) ..... I 

2,5-Dimethoxyamphetamine 

(7396).

I 

3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine 

(7400).

I 

4-Methoxyamphetamine (7411) ... I 

Amphetamine (1100) .................... II 

Methamphetamine (1105) ............ II 

Methylphenidate (1724) ................ II 

Codeine (9050) ............................. II 

Hydromorphone (9150) ................ II 

Hydrocodone (9193) ..................... II 

Methadone (9250) ........................ II 

Methadone Intermediate (9254) ... II 

Morphine (9300) ........................... II 

Sufentanil (9740) .......................... II 

Fentanyl (9801) ............................ II 

The company plans to manufacture 

the listed controlled substances in bulk 

for distribution to its customers. 

Any other such applicant and any 

person who is presently registered with 

DEA to manufacture such a substance 

may file comments or objections to the 

issuance of the proposed registration 

pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). 

Any such comments or objections 

may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to 

the Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Diversion Control, Drug 

Enforcement Administration, United 

States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA 

Federal Register Representative (ODLR) 

and must be filed no later than 

December 28, 2004.

Dated: October 1, 2004. 

William J. Walker, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–24154 Filed 10–28–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

EZRX, LLC Revocation of Registration 

On May 17, 2004, the Deputy 

Administrator of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) issued an Order 

to Show Cause and Immediate 

Suspension of Registration to EXRX, 

LLC (EZRX) of Union, New Jersey. 

EZRX was notified of an opportunity to 

show cause as to why DEA should not 

revoke its DEA Certificate of 

Registration, BE8488783, as a retail 

pharmacy, and deny any pending 

applications for renewal or modification 

of such registration pursuant to 21 

U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a)(4) for reason 

that its continued registration would be 

inconsistent with the public interest. 

EZRX was further notified that its DEA 

registration was immediately suspended 

as an imminent danger to the public 

health and safety pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 

824(d). 

The Order to Show Cause and 

Immediate Suspension alleged in sum, 

that EZRX was engaged in illegally 

dispensing controlled substances as part 

of a scheme in which controlled 

substances were dispensed by EZRX 

based on Internet orders placed by 

customers and approved by associated 

physicians, based solely on their review 

of Internet questionnaires and without 

personal contact, examination or bona 

fide physician/patient relationships. 

Such prescriptions were not issued ‘‘in 

the usual course of professional 

treatment’’ and violated 21 CFR 1306.04 

and 21 U.S.C. 841(a). This action was 

part of a nationwide enforcement 

operation by DEA titled Operation 

Pharmnet, which targeted online 

suppliers of prescription drugs, 

including owners, operators, 

pharmacists and doctors, who have 

illegally and unethically been marketing 

controlled substances via the Internet. 

According to the investigative file on 

May 26, 2004, the Order to Show Cause 

and Immediate Suspension of 

Registration was personally served by 

Special Agents and Diversion 

Investigators of the DEA at EZRX’s 

registered premises in Union, New 

Jersey. More than thirty days have 

passed since the Order to Show Cause