Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 203 / Friday, October 21, 2005 / Notices 61309 

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

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff did not 

participate in this determination. 

Philips County 

Pleasant Ridge Church, 381 E. Buffalo Rd., 

Phillipsburg, 05001204 

Rooks County 

St. Joseph Catholic Church, 105 N. Oak St., 

Damar, 05001203 

[FR Doc. 05–21035 Filed 10–20–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–51–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–545] 

In the Matter of Certain Laminated 

Floor Panels; Notice of a Commission 

Determination Not To Review an Initial 

Determination Amending the 

Complaint and Notice of Investigation 

AGENCY: International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) of 

the presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) granting the motion of 

complainants to amend the complaint 

and notice of investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael K. Haldenstein, Esq., Office of 

the General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3041. Copies of the public version 

of the ALJ’s ID and all other 

nonconfidential 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–

ON–LINE) at http://edis.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 this investigation 

on August 3, 2005, based on a complaint 

filed by Unilin Beheer B.V. of the 

Netherlands, Flooring Industries Ltd. of 

Ireland, and Unilin Flooring N.C. LLC of 

Thomasville, North Carolina, 70 FR 

44694 (2005). 

The complaint alleged 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 laminated 

floor panels by reason of infringement of 

one or more of claims 1, 14, 17, 19, 20, 

21, 37, 52, 65, and 66 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,006,486, claims 1, 2, 10, 13, 18, 19, 22, 

23, 24, and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,490,836, and claims 1–6 of U.S. Patent 

No. 6,874,292. The complaint further 

alleged that an industry in the United 

States exists as required by subsection 

(a)(2) of section 337. The complainants 

requested that the Commission issue a 

general exclusion order and cease and 

desist orders. The Commission named 

as respondents 30 companies located in 

Canada, China, Malaysia, and the 

United States. Id. The ALJ has set 

October 3, 2006, as the target date for 

completion of the investigation. 

The ALJ issued the subject ID on 

September 19, 2005. The ID grants 

complainants’ motion to add two 

respondents, Jiangsu Qianfeng 

Decoration Materials Co. Ltd. (QDM), of 

Jiangsu, China, and Hansol Homedeco 

(Hansol), of Seoul, South Korea. The ID 

also grants complainants’ motion to add 

infringement of claims 1, 5, 13, 17, 27 

and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 6,928,779 (the 

‘779 patent). The ‘779 patent was issued 

on August 16, 2005. The ID also permits 

the complainants to add information 

concerning the existence of a domestic 

industry to the complaint. The ALJ 

states in the ID that ‘‘good cause’’ exists 

to permit these amendments to the 

complaint and notice of investigation 

because additional information was 

obtained by complainants after the 

complaint was filed. 

The Commission investigative 

attorney supported the motion. No party 

opposed the motion. No petitions for 

review were filed. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, 

and Commission rule 210.42, 19 CFR 

210.42. 

Issued: October 17, 2005. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–21110 Filed 10–20–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–841 (Review)] 

Non-Frozen Concentrated Apple Juice 

From China 

Determination 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject five-year review, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (Commission) determines,2

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the 

Act), that revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on non-frozen concentrated 

apple juice from China would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to an industry in the 

United States within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. 

Background 

The Commission instituted this 

review on May 2, 2005 (70 FR 22694) 

and determined on August 5, 2005 that 

it would conduct an expedited review 

(70 FR 51365, August 30, 2005). 

The Commission transmitted its 

determination in this review to the 

Secretary of Commerce on September 

28, 2005. The views of the Commission 

are contained in USITC Publication 

3799 (September 2005), entitled NonFrozen Concentrated Apple Juice from 

China: Investigation No. 731–TA–841 

(Review). 

Issued: October 18, 2005. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–21109 Filed 10–20–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–536] 

In the Matter of Certain Pool Cues With 

Self-Aligning Joint Assemblies and 

Components Thereof; Notice of 

Commission Decision to Review in 

Part an Initial Determination Finding 

No Violation of Section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930; Termination of 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

61310 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 203 / Friday, October 21, 2005 / Notices 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to review 

in part an initial determination (‘‘ID’’) of 

the presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) finding no violation of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, in the above-captioned 

investigation. The Commission 

determined on review to decline to 

reach the issue of whether one claim 

term was met by the accused pool cues. 

The Commission has determined not to 

review the ALJ’s determination that one 

other limitation of the claims at issue is 

not met by the accused products. The 

investigation is therefore terminated 

with a finding of no violation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael K. Haldenstein, Esq., Office of 

the General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3041. Copies of the public version 

of the ALJ’s ID and all other 

nonconfidential 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 (EDISON-LINE) at http://edis.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 abovereferenced investigation under section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on April 

4, 2005, based on a complaint filed by 

J. Pechauer Custom Cues, Inc. 

(‘‘Pechauer’’) of Green Bay, Wisconsin. 

70 FR 7112. The complaint alleged 

infringement of U.S. Patent No. 

6,582,317 (the ‘317 patent), in the 

importation, sale for importation, and 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain pool cues covered 

by all 29 claims of the ‘317 patent. The 

Commission named the following 

companies as respondents in the 

investigation: Kaokao Industrial Co. 

LTD., aka Kaokao (Zhang Zhou) Sports 

(‘‘Kao Kao’’) Equipment Co. Ltd. of 

Taiwan; CueStix International of 

Lafayette, Colorado; Sterling Gaming of 

Matthews, North Carolina; CueSight of 

Matthews, North Carolina; Imperial 

International of Hasbrouck Heights, 

New Jersey; Sigel’s Unlimited Cues & 

Accessories of Winter Garden, Florida; 

Nick Varner Cues and Cases of 

Owensboro, Kentucky; J–S Sales Co. Inc. 

of Elmsford, New York; and GLD 

Products of Muskego, Wisconsin. 

On September 1, 2005, the ALJ issued 

an ID (Order No. 5) granting Kao Kao’s 

motion for summary determination of 

noninfringement and finding that Kao 

Kao’s accused pool cues do not satisfy 

two limitations of the two independent 

claims of the ‘317 patent. On September 

7, 2005, complainant Pechauer filed a 

petition for review of the ALJ’s ID, and 

on September 19, 2005, the Commission 

Investigative Attorney and Kao Kao filed 

oppositions to Pechauer’s petition for 

review. On September 22, 2005, the 

Commission extended the time for 

deciding whether to review the ID until 

October 17, 2005. 

Having examined the record in this 

investigation, including the ID, the 

petition for review, and the responses 

thereto, the Commission has determined 

not to review the portion of the ID 

concerning the ‘‘slightly threaded 

anterior portion’’ limitation. The 

Commission has determined to review, 

and on review, to decline to reach the 

issue of whether the accused pool cues 

meet the ‘‘closed posterior end’’

limitation. Accordingly, the 

investigation is terminated with a 

finding of no violation. 

This action is taken under the 

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), 

and in sections 210.42 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.42). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 18, 2005. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 05–21108 Filed 10–20–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Drug Enforcement Administration 

[Docket No. DEA–270P] 

Controlled Substances: Proposed 

Aggregate Production Quotas for 2006 

AGENCY: Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed year 2006 

aggregate production quotas. 

SUMMARY: This notice proposes initial 

year 2006 aggregate production quotas 

for controlled substances in Schedules I 

and II of the Controlled Substances Act 

(CSA). 

DATES: Comments or objections must be 

received on or before November 14, 

2005. 

ADDRESSES: To ensure proper handling 

of comments, please reference ‘‘Docket 

No. DEA–270P’’ on all written and 

electronic correspondence. Written 

comments being sent via regular mail 

should be sent to the Deputy Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Diversion 

Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Washington, DC 20537, 

Attention: DEA Federal Register 

Representative/ODL. Written comments 

sent via express mail should be sent to 

DEA Headquarters, Attention: DEA 

Federal Register Representative/ODL, 

2401 Jefferson-Davis Highway, 

Alexandria, VA 22301. Comments may 

be directly sent to DEA electronically by 

sending an electronic message to 

dea.diversion.policy@usdoj.gov. 

Comments may also be sent 

electronically through http:// 

www.regulations.gov using the 

electronic comment form provided on 

that site. An electronic copy of this 

document is also available at the 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site. 

DEA will accept attachments to 

electronic comments in Microsoft Word, 

WordPerfect, Adobe PDF, or Excel file 

formats only. DEA will not accept any 

file format other than those specifically 

listed here. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christine A. Sannerud, Ph.D., Chief, 

Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, 

Drug Enforcement Administration, 

Washington, DC 20537, Telephone: 

(202) 307–7183. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

306 of the CSA (21 U.S.C. 826) requires 

that the Attorney General establish 

aggregate production quotas for each 

basic class of controlled substance listed 

in Schedules I and II. This 

responsibility has been delegated to the 

Administrator of the DEA by section 

0.100 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. The Administrator, in turn, 

has redelegated this function to the 

Deputy Administrator, pursuant to 

section 0.104 of Title 28 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. 

The proposed year 2006 aggregate 

production quotas represent those 

quantities of controlled substances that 

may be produced in the United States in 

2006 to provide adequate supplies of 

each substance for: The estimated 

medical, scientific, research, and 

industrial needs of the United States; 

lawful export requirements; and the 

establishment and maintenance of 

reserve stocks. These quotas do not