Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Notices 81547 

advance for sign language interpreter 

services, assistive listening devices, 

language translation services, or other 

reasonable accommodations. We ask 

that you contact Mr. William Stewart 

(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this notice) at least seven (7) 

business days prior to the meeting to 

give the Department of the Interior 

sufficient time to process your request. 

All reasonable accommodation requests 

are managed on a case-by-case basis. 

Public Disclosure of Comments: Time 

will be allowed on both days for any 

individual or organization wishing to 

make extemporaneous and/or formal 

oral comments. Depending on the 

number of persons wishing to speak, 

and the time available, the time for 

individual comments may be limited. 

Interested parties should contact Mr. 

William Stewart (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) for placement on 

the public speaker list for this meeting. 

Members of the public may also choose 

to submit written comments by emailing 

them to wstewart@usbr.gov. Due to time 

constraints during the meeting, the 

AMWG is not able to read written 

public comments. All written comments 

will be made part of the public record 

and will be provided to the AMWG 

members. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. ch. 10. 

William Stewart, 

Adaptive Management Group Chief, Upper 

Colorado Basin—Interior Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23219 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4332–90–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1232 

(Enforcement)] 

Certain Chocolate Milk Powder and 

Packaging Thereof; Notice of a 

Commission Determination To Review 

an Initial Determination Granting a 

Motion for Summary Determination of 

Violation of the General Exclusion 

Order; Request for Briefing on the 

Issues Under Review and on Remedy, 

Public Interest, and Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has 

determined to review an initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 9) of 

the presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) granting a motion for summary 

determination of violation of the 

General Exclusion Order (‘‘GEO’’). The 

Commission has determined to review 

the ID’s findings that there have been 

violations of the GEO. The Commission 

requests written submissions from the 

parties on the issues under review and 

from the parties, interested government 

agencies, and other interested persons 

on the issues of remedy, the public 

interest, and bonding as to the asserted 

trademark, under the schedule set forth 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Lall, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, 

telephone (202) 205–2043. Copies of 

non-confidential documents filed in 

connection with this investigation may 

be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) at https://

edis.usitc.gov. For help accessing EDIS, 

please email EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server at https://

www.usitc.gov. 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: The 

Commission instituted the original 

investigation on December 1, 2020, 

based on a complaint filed on behalf of 

Meenaxi Enterprise Inc. (‘‘Meenaxi’’) of 

Edison, New Jersey. 85 FR 77237–38 

(Dec. 1, 2020). The complaint alleged 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon 

the importation into the United States, 

the sale for importation, and the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain chocolate milk 

powder and packaging thereof by reason 

of infringement of U.S. Trademark 

Registration No. 4,206,026 (‘‘the ’026 

mark’’). The Commission’s notice of 

investigation named several 

respondents, including but not limited 

to Bharat Bazar Inc. of Union City, 

California (‘‘Bharat Bazaar’’); Coconut 

Hill Inc. d/b/a Coconut Hill of 

Sunnyvale, California (‘‘Coconut Hill’’); 

Organic Food d/b/a Namaste Plaza 

Indian Super Market (‘‘Organic Food’’) 

of Fremont, California; and New India 

Bazar Inc. d/b/a New India Bazar of San 

Jose, California (‘‘New India’’). Id. at 

77237. The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) was also a party 

to the investigation. Id. 

In the underlying investigation, all 

respondents were found in default. See 

Order No. 6 (Feb. 10, 2021), unreviewed 

by Comm’n Notice (Mar. 2, 2021); Order 

No. 23 (May 19, 2022), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (Jun. 14, 2022). On May 

24, 2021, Meenaxi moved for summary 

determination of violation of section 

337 by the respondents found in default 

by Order No. 6 and requested a GEO. On 

December 1, 2021, the former chief 

administrative law judge (‘‘former 

CALJ’’) granted the motion as an initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) (Order No. 15), but 

noted discrepancies with respect to 

respondent Organic Food, calling into 

question whether that respondent was 

ever properly served with the complaint 

and notice of investigation and with the 

CALJ’s order to show cause why the 

respondents should not be found in 

default, Order No. 5 (Jan. 13, 2021). See 

Order No. 15 at 1, n.1. No petitions for 

review of the ID were filed. The 

Commission determined sua sponte to 

review Order No. 15 and ordered 

reconsideration of Order No. 6 as to 

Organic Food and/or any other 

respondents who may not have been 

properly served with documents in the 

underlying investigation. See Comm’n 

Notice at 3 (Jan. 18, 2022). The 

Commission remanded the investigation 

to an ALJ for further proceedings. Id. 

On remand, the current chief 

administrative law judge (‘‘CALJ’’) 

issued Order No. 18, granting Meenaxi’s 

unopposed motion for leave to amend 

the complaint and notice of 

investigation to (i) substitute Organic 

Food with proposed respondent Organic 

Ingredients Inc. d/b/a Namaste Plaza 

Indian Super Market (‘‘Organic 

Ingredients’’) of San Diego, California; 

(ii) correct the address of respondent 

New India; (iii) correct the address of 

respondent Bharat Bazar; and (iv) 

supplement the complaint with Exhibits 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
81548 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Notices 

9-a, 9-b, and 9-c, concerning Organic 

Food and/or Organic Ingredients. Order 

No. 18 at 1–5 (Mar. 11, 2022), 

unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Apr. 12, 

2022); see also 87 FR 22940–41 (Apr. 

18, 2022). Meenaxi also demonstrated 

that Bharat Bazar actually had been 

served with all of the documents in the 

investigation (prior to remand) despite 

incorrectly spelling Bharat Bazar’s 

address as being on ‘‘Niled Road’’ 

instead of ‘‘Niles Road.’’ See Order No. 

18 at 4. 

The CALJ conducted remand 

proceedings as to Organic Ingredients 

and New India to respond to the 

amended complaint and notice of 

investigation, and then ordered them to 

respond to an order to show cause why 

they should not be found in default. See 

Order No. 19 (Mar. 11, 2022); Order No. 

21 at 2–3 (May 3, 2022). On May 19, 

2022, the CALJ issued an ID finding 

Organic Ingredients and New India in 

default. Order No. 23 (May 19, 2022), 

unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (June 14, 

2022). Accordingly, the Commission 

found all respondents in default 

(collectively with the respondents 

previously found in default, the 

‘‘Defaulting Respondents’’). 

Subsequently, on June 15, 2022, 

following the remand determination of 

default, Meenaxi again moved for 

summary determination of violation by 

the Defaulting Respondents and 

requested a GEO. On July 6, 2022, OUII 

filed a response supporting the motion. 

On August 3, 2022, the CALJ issued 

a remand ID (‘‘RID’’) (Order No. 27), 

granting the second motion for summary 

determination and finding a violation of 

section 337 with respect to the ’026 

mark. The RID found that all Defaulting 

Respondents met the importation 

requirement and that Meenaxi satisfied 

the domestic industry requirement. See 

19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1–3). No party 

petitioned for review of the ID. 

On September 19, 2022, the 

Commission determined not to review 

the RID. See 87 FR 58130–32 (Sept. 23, 

2022). On November 15, 2022, the 

Commission issued a final 

determination finding a violation, 

issuing a GEO prohibiting the 

unlicensed importation of chocolate 

milk powder and packaging thereof that 

infringe the ’026 mark, and terminating 

the investigation. See 87 FR 70864–66 

(Nov. 21, 2022). The GEO prohibits the 

unlicensed importation of ‘‘chocolate 

milk powder in consumer-sized 

container with the Bournvita label.’’ Id. 

On the same day, the Commission 

issued an opinion explaining the basis 

for its final determination. 

On November 9, 2023, the 

Commission determined to institute an 

enforcement proceeding under 

Commission Rule 210.75 to investigate 

alleged violations of the GEO by four 

respondents: (1) Organic Ingredients; (2) 

New India; (3) Bharat Bazar; and (4) 

Coconut Hill (collectively the 

‘‘Enforcement Respondents’’). See 

Comm’n Notice, EDIS Doc. ID 808258 

(Nov. 9, 2023); see also 88 FR 78786–87 

(Nov. 16, 2023); 89 FR 15220 (Mar. 1, 

2024). OUII is also named as a party. Id. 

On January 10, 2024, the presiding 

ALJ issued an order directing the 

Enforcement Respondents to show 

cause why they should not be found in 

default and why judgment should not be 

rendered against them for failing to 

respond to the enforcement complaint 

and notice of investigation. See Order 

No. 6 (Jan. 10, 2024). Order No. 6 

directed the Enforcement Respondents 

to make any showing of good cause by 

no later than February 2, 2024. Id. at 3. 

No party responded to Order No. 6. See 

Order No. 8 at 1 (Feb. 13, 2024). 

On March 14, 2024, the Commission 

determined that the four Enforcement 

Respondents were in default. See Order 

No. 8 (Feb. 13, 2024), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (Mar. 14, 2024). On 

March 15, 2024, Meenaxi filed a motion 

requesting summary determination of 

violation of the GEO and the issuance of 

CDOs against the four Enforcement 

Respondents. See ID at 5. 

On August 16, 2024, the presiding 

ALJ issued the subject ID (Order No. 9), 

granting Meenaxi’s motion and 

recommending issuance of the 

requested CDOs. The ALJ concluded 

that ‘‘the unrebutted evidence 

summarized below demonstrates that 

the Enforcement Respondents have 

imported and/or sold after importation 

chocolate milk powder products bearing 

the ‘Bournvita’ label’’ in violation of the 

GEO. ID at 16. The ID noted that 

Meenaxi alleges that the Enforcement 

Respondents have violated the GEO by 

offering for sale, selling, advertising, 

and aiding and abetting the sale for 

Cadbury’s ‘‘BOURNVITA’’ products. Id. 

at 17–18. The ID explained that ‘‘[t]hese 

(or similar) products were found to 

infringe the ’026 Mark during the 

violation phase’’ of this investigation. 

Id. at 18. No party filed a petition 

seeking review of the ID. 

On August 19, 2024, the Commission 

issued a notice soliciting submissions 

on public interest issues raised by the 

recommended relief should the 

Commission find a violation of the GEO, 

specifically, CDOs against the four 

Enforcement Respondents: (1) Bharat 

Bazaar; (2) Coconut Hill; (3) Organic 

Ingredients; and (4) New India. 89 FR 

68203–04 (Aug. 23, 2024). No comments 

were received in response to the notice. 

Having reviewed the record of the 

investigation, including the enforcement 

complaint, the ID, and the parties’ 

submissions to the ALJ, the Commission 

has determined to review the ID’s 

findings that the Enforcement 

Respondents have violated the GEO. In 

connection with these findings, the 

Commission requests responses from 

the parties to the following questions: 

(1) Whether the sale of infringing 

products imported before the issuance 

of a GEO but sold in the United States 

after the issuance of that order 

constitutes a violation of the GEO? 

(2) Whether a complainant must 

provide evidence of importation of 

infringing products after the date on 

which the GEO issued in order to 

establish a violation of a GEO in an 

enforcement proceeding under 

Commission Rule 210.75 (19 CFR 

210.75), and whether such evidence was 

presented here? 

(3) Whether 19 U.S.C. 1337(g)(1) 

applies to allegations of a violation of a 

GEO in an enforcement proceeding 

involving defaulting Enforcement 

Respondents? 

Written Submissions: The parties are 

requested to file written submissions on 

the questions identified in this notice. 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this enforcement 

proceeding, the statute authorizes 

issuance of, inter alia, cease and desist 

orders in addition to the outstanding 

GEO, which could result in the 

respondents being required to cease and 

desist from engaging in unfair acts in 

the importation and sale of such 

articles. Accordingly, the Commission is 

interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the form of 

remedy, if any, that should be ordered. 

The statute requires the Commission 

to consider the effects of that remedy 

upon the public interest. The public 

interest factors the Commission will 

consider include the effect that 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 U.S. Trade 

Representative, as delegated by the 

President, has 60 days to approve, 

disapprove, or take no action on the 

Commission’s determination. See 

Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 8, 2024 / Notices 81549 

2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). 

During this period, the Enforcement 

Respondents would be entitled to 

continue the activities in the CDOs 

under bond, except to the extent they 

are prohibited by the outstanding GEO, 

in an amount determined by the 

Commission. The Commission is 

therefore interested in receiving 

submissions concerning the amount of 

the bond that should be imposed if a 

remedy is ordered. 

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 recommended 

determination by the ALJ on remedy 

and bonding. 

In its initial submission, Complainant 

is also requested to identify the remedy 

sought and Complainant and OUII are 

requested to submit proposed remedial 

orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. The initial written 

submissions and proposed remedial 

orders must be filed no later than close 

of business on October 16, 2024. Reply 

submissions must be filed no later than 

the close of business on October 23, 

2024. No further submissions on these 

issues will be permitted unless 

otherwise ordered by the Commission. 

Opening submissions are limited to 25 

pages. Reply submissions are limited to 

15 pages. No further submissions on any 

of these issues will be permitted unless 

otherwise ordered by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document 

electronically on or before the deadlines 

stated above. The Commission’s paper 

filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) 

are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar. 

19, 2020). Submissions should refer to 

the investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 

337–TA–1232 Enforcement’’) in a 

prominent place on the cover page and/ 

or the first page. (See Handbook for 

Electronic Filing Procedures, https://

www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_

on_filing_procedures.pdf). Persons with 

questions regarding filing should 

contact the Secretary, (202) 205–2000. 

Any person desiring to submit a 

document to the Commission in 

confidence must request confidential 

treatment by marking each document 

with a header indicating that the 

document contains confidential 

information. This marking will be 

deemed to satisfy the request procedure 

set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 

210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 

210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which 

confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. Any non-party 

wishing to submit comments containing 

confidential information must serve 

those comments on the parties to the 

investigation pursuant to the applicable 

Administrative Protective Order. A 

redacted non-confidential version of the 

document must also be filed with the 

Commission and served on any parties 

to the investigation within two business 

days of any confidential filing. All 

information, including confidential 

business information and documents for 

which confidential treatment is properly 

sought, submitted to the Commission for 

purposes of this investigation may be 

disclosed to and used: (i) by the 

Commission, its employees and Offices, 

and contract personnel (a) for 

developing or maintaining the records 

of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in 

internal investigations, audits, reviews, 

and evaluations relating to the 

programs, personnel, and operations of 

the Commission including under 5 

U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. 

government employees and contract 

personnel, solely for cybersecurity 

purposes. All contract personnel will 

sign appropriate nondisclosure 

agreements. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection on EDIS. 

The Commission’s vote on this 

determination took place on October 2, 

2024. 

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 part 

210 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 

210). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 2, 2024. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23208 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

JOINT BOARD FOR THE 

ENROLLMENT OF ACTUARIES 

Renewal of Charter of Advisory 

Committee on Actuarial Examinations 

AGENCY: Joint Board for the Enrollment 

of Actuaries. 

ACTION: Notice of renewal of advisory 

committee. 

SUMMARY: The Joint Board for the 

Enrollment of Actuaries announces the 

renewal of the charter of the Advisory 

Committee on Actuarial Examinations. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Van Osten, at 

Elizabeth.j.vanosten@irs.gov or 202– 

317–3648. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of the Advisory Committee on 

Actuarial Examinations (Advisory 

Committee) is to advise the Joint Board 

for the Enrollment of Actuaries (Joint 

Board) on examinations in actuarial 

mathematics and methodology. The 

Joint Board administers such 

examinations in discharging its 

statutory mandate to enroll individuals 

who wish to perform actuarial services 

with respect to pension plans subject to 

the Employee Retirement Income 

Security Act of 1974. The Advisory 

Committee’s functions include, but are 

not necessarily limited to, considering 

and recommending examination topics; 

developing examination questions; 

recommending proposed examinations; 

reviewing examination results and 

recommending pass marks; and as 

requested by the Joint Board, making 

recommendations relative to the 

examination program. 

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) 

Dated: October 2, 2024. 

Joleah M. White, 

Chair, Joint Board for the Enrollmentof 

Actuaries. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23165 Filed 10–7–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Merry Alice Troupe, N.P.; Decision and 

Order 

On February 14, 2024, the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA or 

Government) issued an Order to Show 

Cause (OSC) to Merry Alice Troupe, 

N.P., of Tucson, Arizona (Registrant). 

Request for Final Agency Action 

(RFAA), Exhibit (RFAAX) 1, at 1, 3. The 

OSC proposed the revocation of 

Registrant’s DEA Certificate of 

Registration No. MT3167384, alleging 

that Registrant’s registration should be 

revoked because Registrant is ‘‘currently 

without authority to handle controlled 

substances in Arizona, the state in 

which [she is] registered with DEA.’’ Id. 

at 2 (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3)). 

The OSC notified Registrant of her 

right to file with DEA a written request 

for hearing, and that if she failed to file 

such a request, she would be deemed to 

have waived her right to a hearing and 

be in default. Id. at 2 (citing 21 CFR 

1301.43). Here, Registrant did not 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1