Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the Carrizo Plain National Monument Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, 18547-18548 [2010-8434]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Notices
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
minimize the burden on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Agencies must also estimate the nonhour cost burdens to respondents or
recordkeepers resulting from the
collection of information. Therefore, if
you have costs to generate, maintain,
and disclose this information, you
should comment and provide your total
capital and startup cost components or
annual operation, maintenance, and
purchase of service components. You
should describe the methods you use to
estimate major cost factors, including
system and technology acquisition,
expected useful life of capital
equipment, discount rate(s), and the
period over which you incur costs.
Capital and startup costs include,
among other items, computers and
software you purchase to prepare for
collecting information, monitoring, and
record storage facilities. You should not
include estimates for equipment or
services purchased: (i) Before October 1,
1995; (ii) to comply with requirements
not associated with the information
collection; (iii) for reasons other than to
provide information or keep records for
the Government; or (iv) as part of
customary and usual business or private
practices.
We will summarize written responses
to this notice and address them in our
submission for OMB approval. As a
result of your comments, we will make
any necessary adjustments to the burden
in our submission to OMB.
Public Comment Procedures: Before
including your address, phone number,
e-mail 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.
MMS Information Collection
Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202)
208–7744.
Dated: April 6, 2010.
William S. Hauser,
Acting Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010–8195 Filed 4–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:58 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLCAC06900.L17100000.DR0000]
Notice of Availability of the Record of
Decision for the Carrizo Plain National
Monument Resource Management
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) announces the
availability of the Record of Decision
(ROD)/Approved Resource Management
Plan (RMP) for the Carrizo Plain
National Monument (CPNM), located in
San Luis Obispo and Kern counties in
Central California. The California State
Director signed the ROD on April 10,
2010, which constitutes the final
decision of the BLM and makes the
Approved RMP effective immediately.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD/
Approved RMP are available upon
request from the Field Manager,
Bakersfield Field Office, Bureau of Land
Management, 3801 Pegasus Drive,
Bakersfield, CA 93308 or via the
Internet at https://www.ca.blm.gov/
bakersfield. Copies of the ROD/
Approved RMP are available for public
inspection at the above location and at
the BLM California State Office, 2800
Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further information contact Johna Hurl,
CPNM Manager, telephone (661) 391–
6093; address Bakersfield Field Office,
Bureau of Land Management, 3801
Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93308; email johna_hurl@ca.blm.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
CPNM encompasses 206,635 acres of
BLM-administered public lands. This
Approved RMP provides for the
protection of the significant natural and
cultural resources identified in the
Presidential Proclamation establishing
the CPNM. The decisions promulgated
in the RMP only apply to the BLMadministered public lands and mineral
estate within the Approved RMP’s
planning area. The RMP was developed
in cooperation with the BLM’s
managing partners (The Nature
Conservancy and California Department
of Fish and Game), the CPNM Advisory
Committee, and the public. The RMP
process considered four alternatives
including a no-action alternative. The
primary issues addressed include but
are not limited to recreation, protection
of sensitive natural and cultural
resources, livestock grazing, energy and
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18547
mineral development, and motorized
vehicle routes.
The Preferred Alternative in the Draft
RMP/Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), published January 23,
2009, was revised to address comments
received during the 90-day public
comment period. The resultant
alternative became the Proposed Plan in
the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, published
on November 13, 2009, and has been
carried forward as the Approved RMP.
Changes made from the Draft RMP to
the Final RMP in response to public
comments include: An additional
13,181 acres to be managed for
wilderness characteristics, in addition
to the 54,464 acres proposed in the Draft
RMP preferred alternative; a
requirement that only street-legal
vehicles, no off-highway vehicles, be
allowed on designated routes; and
provisions to provide access for vehicles
operated by people with physical
handicaps. Finally, language was
clarified regarding grazing and mineral
rights.
Three protests were received during
the 30-day protest period following the
release of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS,
each of which was dismissed or denied
by the BLM Director. Minor
clarifications and changes to the text
were made between the Proposed RMP/
Final EIS and the ROD/Approved RMP,
including clarifications to the protection
of the CPNM’s vernal pool and sag pond
habitats, and the application of the
mitigation measures listed in
Appendices O and P, as appropriate (to
be performed in subsequent site-specific
NEPA processes).
The California Governor’s Office did
not identify any inconsistencies
between the Proposed RMP/Final EIS
and State or local plans, policies, and
programs following the 60-day
Governor’s Consistency Review
(initiated November 13, 2009) in
accordance with planning regulations at
43 CFR, Part 1610.3–2(e).
The BLM has determined that this
ROD/Approved RMP provides for longterm protection of the CPNM’s values,
while allowing for authorized uses,
recreation activities, scientific studies,
and interpretive facilities.
The ROD/Approved RMP contains
decisions that identify initial
management treatments in particular
habitats and vegetative communities,
identify wildland fire objectives and
appropriate response levels, limit use on
routes located in areas managed for
wilderness characteristics, require
permits for aerial sports (e.g., hang
gliding, skydiving, hobby aircraft),
provide for guided tours at Painted
Rock, and define the priority,
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
18548
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 69 / Monday, April 12, 2010 / Notices
framework, and evaluation/approval
process for research projects within the
CPNM. These decisions, which are
contained in Attachment C of the ROD/
Approved RMP, are implementation
decisions and are appealable under 43
CFR part 4.
Any party adversely affected by an
implementation decision may appeal
within 30 days of publication of this
Notice of Availability pursuant to 43
CFR, part 4, subpart E. The appeal must
be filed with the Bakersfield Field
Manager at the above listed address.
Please consult the appropriate
regulations (43 CFR, part 4, subpart E)
for further appeal requirements.
Timothy Z. Smith,
Field Manager, Bakersfield Field Office.
Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6.
[FR Doc. 2010–8434 Filed 4–8–10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310–40–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[Investigation No. 337–TA–568]
In the Matter of Certain Products and
Pharmaceutical Compositions
Containing Recombinant Human
Erythropoietin;
Notice of Commission Decision to
Grant Amgen Inc.’s Motion for Partial
Termination; Notice of Request for
Written Submissions Relating to
Summary Determination and to
Remedy, the Public Interest, and
Bonding
AGENCY: U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has determined to grant
Amgen Inc.’s motion for partial
termination of the above-referenced
investigation and that the Commission
is requesting briefing on issues relating
to summary determination and to
remedy, the public interest, and
bonding.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle Walters Klancnik, Office of the
General Counsel, U.S. International
Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202)
708–5468. Copies of non-confidential
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,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:58 Apr 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
telephone (202) 205–2000. General
information concerning the Commission
may also be obtained by accessing its
Internet server at https://www.usitc.gov.
The public record for this investigation
may be viewed on the Commission’s
electronic docket (EDIS) at https://
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: On May
12, 2006, the Commission instituted an
investigation under section 337 of the
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337)
based on a complaint filed by Amgen,
Inc. (‘‘Amgen’’) of Thousand Oaks,
California. 71 FR 27742 (May 12, 2006).
The complaint asserted a violation of
section 337 in the importation into the
United States, sale for importation, or
sale within the United States after
importation of certain products and
pharmaceutical compositions
containing recombinant human
erythropoietin by reason of infringement
of claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No.
5,441,868 (‘‘the ’868 patent’’), claims 3,
4, 5, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 5,547,933
(‘‘the ’933 patent’’), claims 4–9 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,618,698 (‘‘the ’698 patent’’),
claims 4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No.
5,621,080 (‘‘the ’080 patent’’), claim 7 of
U.S. Patent No. 5,756,349 (‘‘the ’349
patent’’), and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.
5,955,422 (‘‘the ’422 patent’’). The notice
of investigation named Roche Holding
Ltd. of Basel, Switzerland; F. HoffmanLa Roche, Ltd. of Basel, Switzerland;
Roche Diagnostics GmbH of Mannheim,
Germany; and Hoffman La Roche, Inc. of
Nutley, New Jersey (collectively,
‘‘Roche’’) as respondents.
On August 31, 2009, after a remand of
the original investigation from the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, Amgen moved for
summary determination that Roche
violated section 337 by importing and
using a pegylated erythropoietin
product, which according to Amgen
infringes claims 1 and 2 of the ’868
patent, claim 3 of the ’933 patent, claims
6–9 of the ’698 patent, and claim 1 of
the ’422 patent. Amgen also requested a
limited exclusion order that would
preclude importation of Roche’s product
regardless of the party seeking to import
such product. Roche does not oppose
Amgen’s motion for purposes of this
investigation. The Commission
investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) also does
not oppose Amgen’s motion, but
indicated that the motion does not
resolve asserted claim 7 of the ’349
patent or asserted claims 4, 5, and 11 of
the ’933 patent.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
On December 22, 2009, Amgen moved
to terminate the investigation with
respect to claims 4, 5, and 11 of the ‘933
patent, claims 4 and 6 of the ‘080 patent,
and claims 4 and 5 of the ‘698 patent.
In addition, on December 31, 2009,
Amgen filed a supplemental motion for
summary determination with respect to
claim 7 of the ‘349 patent. Roche does
not oppose these motions. The IA also
does not oppose Amgen’s motion to
terminate the investigation in part, but
does oppose Amgen’s supplemental
motion for summary determination.
The Commission has determined to
grant Amgen’s motion to terminate the
investigation with respect to claims 4, 5,
and 11 of the ‘933 patent, claims 4 and
6 of the ‘080 patent, and claims 4 and
5 of the ‘698 patent. The Commission
has determined that further briefing is
necessary to decide the motion for
summary determination.
The parties are requested to brief their
positions on the following issues with
reference to the applicable law and
evidence:
1. How does the United States Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s
decision in Amgen Inc. v. F. HoffmanLa Roche Ltd, 580 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir.
2009), vacating certain aspects of the
decision by the United States District
Court of Massachusetts in Amgen Inc. v.
F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd., No. 05–
12237–WGY (D. Mass. Oct. 2, 2008),
affect Amgen’s original motion for
summary determination filed on August
31, 2009, for each asserted claim? Please
address the Commission’s February 3,
2009 opinion in Certain Semiconductor
Integrated Circuits Using Tungsten
Metallization and Products Containing
Same, Inv. No. 337–TA–648.
2. If the Commission can proceed
with respect to any claim(s), please
explain whether the Commission should
apply the principles of claim or issue
preclusion to the district court case and
what standard the Commission should
apply.
3. Can the Commission apply claim or
issue preclusion to the permanent
injunction order issued by the district
court on December 22, 2009, and if so,
to what effect? Does the stipulation,
which is signed by the parties and
which appears before the permanent
injunction, form part of the district
court’s judgment? If so, does Amgen rely
on the stipulation for claim or issue
preclusion? Please provide case law
supporting your positions.
4. If the Commission denies Amgen’s
motions for summary determination
with respect to any claims, how should
the Commission proceed with respect to
those claims?
E:\FR\FM\12APN1.SGM
12APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 69 (Monday, April 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18547-18548]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8434]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLCAC06900.L17100000.DR0000]
Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision for the Carrizo
Plain National Monument Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability
of the Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved Resource Management Plan (RMP)
for the Carrizo Plain National Monument (CPNM), located in San Luis
Obispo and Kern counties in Central California. The California State
Director signed the ROD on April 10, 2010, which constitutes the final
decision of the BLM and makes the Approved RMP effective immediately.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD/Approved RMP are available upon request
from the Field Manager, Bakersfield Field Office, Bureau of Land
Management, 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93308 or via the
Internet at https://www.ca.blm.gov/bakersfield. Copies of the ROD/
Approved RMP are available for public inspection at the above location
and at the BLM California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento,
CA 95825.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact Johna
Hurl, CPNM Manager, telephone (661) 391-6093; address Bakersfield Field
Office, Bureau of Land Management, 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA
93308; e-mail johna_hurl@ca.blm.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CPNM encompasses 206,635 acres of BLM-
administered public lands. This Approved RMP provides for the
protection of the significant natural and cultural resources identified
in the Presidential Proclamation establishing the CPNM. The decisions
promulgated in the RMP only apply to the BLM-administered public lands
and mineral estate within the Approved RMP's planning area. The RMP was
developed in cooperation with the BLM's managing partners (The Nature
Conservancy and California Department of Fish and Game), the CPNM
Advisory Committee, and the public. The RMP process considered four
alternatives including a no-action alternative. The primary issues
addressed include but are not limited to recreation, protection of
sensitive natural and cultural resources, livestock grazing, energy and
mineral development, and motorized vehicle routes.
The Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP/Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), published January 23, 2009, was revised to
address comments received during the 90-day public comment period. The
resultant alternative became the Proposed Plan in the Proposed RMP/
Final EIS, published on November 13, 2009, and has been carried forward
as the Approved RMP. Changes made from the Draft RMP to the Final RMP
in response to public comments include: An additional 13,181 acres to
be managed for wilderness characteristics, in addition to the 54,464
acres proposed in the Draft RMP preferred alternative; a requirement
that only street-legal vehicles, no off-highway vehicles, be allowed on
designated routes; and provisions to provide access for vehicles
operated by people with physical handicaps. Finally, language was
clarified regarding grazing and mineral rights.
Three protests were received during the 30-day protest period
following the release of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, each of which was
dismissed or denied by the BLM Director. Minor clarifications and
changes to the text were made between the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and
the ROD/Approved RMP, including clarifications to the protection of the
CPNM's vernal pool and sag pond habitats, and the application of the
mitigation measures listed in Appendices O and P, as appropriate (to be
performed in subsequent site-specific NEPA processes).
The California Governor's Office did not identify any
inconsistencies between the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and State or local
plans, policies, and programs following the 60-day Governor's
Consistency Review (initiated November 13, 2009) in accordance with
planning regulations at 43 CFR, Part 1610.3-2(e).
The BLM has determined that this ROD/Approved RMP provides for
long-term protection of the CPNM's values, while allowing for
authorized uses, recreation activities, scientific studies, and
interpretive facilities.
The ROD/Approved RMP contains decisions that identify initial
management treatments in particular habitats and vegetative
communities, identify wildland fire objectives and appropriate response
levels, limit use on routes located in areas managed for wilderness
characteristics, require permits for aerial sports (e.g., hang gliding,
skydiving, hobby aircraft), provide for guided tours at Painted Rock,
and define the priority,
[[Page 18548]]
framework, and evaluation/approval process for research projects within
the CPNM. These decisions, which are contained in Attachment C of the
ROD/Approved RMP, are implementation decisions and are appealable under
43 CFR part 4.
Any party adversely affected by an implementation decision may
appeal within 30 days of publication of this Notice of Availability
pursuant to 43 CFR, part 4, subpart E. The appeal must be filed with
the Bakersfield Field Manager at the above listed address. Please
consult the appropriate regulations (43 CFR, part 4, subpart E) for
further appeal requirements.
Timothy Z. Smith,
Field Manager, Bakersfield Field Office.
Authority: 40 CFR 1506.6.
[FR Doc. 2010-8434 Filed 4-8-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P