Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Notices 82625 

Proposed RMP (Alternative E), the Final 

EIS analyzed Alternative A (the no 

action alternative) and three action 

alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D) 

from the Draft EIS. 

Alternative A, the no action 

alternative, represents current 

management from the 2008 CascadeSiskiyou National Monument Approved 

RMP, the 2016 Southwestern Oregon 

Approved RMP, and the 1993 Redding 

Approved RMP. In addition to the 

existing RMPs, there are several nondiscretionary designations established 

by Congress that apply to lands in the 

planning area and are not reflected in 

the current RMPs but are part of the no 

action alternative. 

Alternative B emphasizes flexibility 

in planning-level direction, promotes 

intensive, active management to protect 

monument resources, and maximizes 

the potential for an array of 

discretionary actions that are 

compatible with the protection of CSNM 

objects and values. 

Alternative C emphasizes flexibility 

in planning-level direction but promotes 

a moderate level of active management 

for protection, maintenance, and 

restoration of CSNM resources, and sets 

some limitations on management 

actions and tools available. 

Alternative D would rely primarily on 

natural ecosystem processes that would 

allow plant community dynamics to 

unfold without active intervention. 

Exceptions include the management of 

young conifer stands (plantations) that 

are a product of past timber harvest and 

thinning around legacy trees and along 

wildfire evacuation routes. 

Since the publication of the Draft 

RMP/EIS, the BLM has developed 

Alternative E, the Proposed RMP, based 

largely on Alternative C, the preferred 

alternative in the Draft RMP/EIS, and to 

a lesser extent components from the 

other alternatives. Similar to Alternative 

C, the Proposed RMP emphasizes 

flexibility in planning-level direction 

but promotes a moderate level of active 

management for protection, 

maintenance, and restoration of CSNM 

resources, and sets some limitations on 

management actions and tools available. 

The Proposed RMP would not carry 

forward any Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) or 

Research Natural Areas. The BLM 

determined that special management 

attention would be provided by 

management direction in the plan from 

other designations and management 

areas that apply monument-wide and 

would adequately protect the resource 

or value. The BLM determined that the 

entire monument holds historic, 

cultural, fish and wildlife, and scenic 

values that meet the relevance and 

importance criteria for an ACEC. The 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS are designed to 

protect the monument’s objects of 

scientific and historic interest outlined 

in Presidential Proclamations 7318 and 

9564, which would safeguard these 

resources or values. 

The Proposed RMP was developed 

based on the consideration of public 

comments, cooperating agency input, 

and Tribal consultation; updates to the 

best available science and information; 

and by combining elements of the 

alternatives analyzed in the Draft RMP/ 

EIS. Alternative E, the Proposed RMP, is 

within the range of alternatives 

considered in the Draft RMP/EIS. 

In addition to the analysis of 

Alternative E, the BLM made other 

changes that are summarized in 

Appendix T: Summary of Notable 

Changes. 

Protest of the Proposed RMP 

The BLM planning regulations state 

that any person who participated in the 

preparation of the RMP and has an 

interest that will or might be adversely 

affected by approval of the Proposed 

RMP may protest its approval to the 

BLM Director. Protest on the Proposed 

RMP constitutes the final opportunity 

for administrative review of the 

proposed land use planning decisions 

prior to the BLM adopting an approved 

RMP. Instructions for filing a protest 

regarding the Proposed RMP with the 

BLM Director may be found online at 

https://www.blm.gov/programs/ 

planning-and-nepa/publicparticipation/filing-a-plan-protest and 

at 43 CFR 1610.5–2. All protests must be 

in writing and mailed to the appropriate 

address, as set forth in the ADDRESSES

section earlier or submitted 

electronically through the BLM 

ePlanning project website as described 

previously. Protests submitted 

electronically by any means other than 

the ePlanning project website will be 

invalid unless a protest is also 

submitted as a hard copy. The BLM 

Director will render a written decision 

on each protest. The Director’s decision 

shall be the final decision of the 

Department of the Interior. Responses to 

valid protest issues will be compiled 

and documented in a Protest Resolution 

Report made available following the 

protest resolution online at: https://

www.blm.gov/programs/planning-andnepa/public-participation/protestresolution-reports. Upon resolution of 

protests, the BLM will issue a Record of 

Decision and Approved RMP. 

(Authority: 40 CFR 1501.9, 40 CFR 

1506.9, 43 CFR 1610.2, 43 CFR 1610.5) 

Barry R. Bushue, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23440 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4331–24–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1359] 

Certain Portable Battery Jump Starters 

and Components Thereof (II); Notice of 

a Commission Determination To 

Review in Part and, on Review, To 

Affirm a Final Initial Determination 

Finding No Violation; Termination of 

Investigation 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to review 

in part and, on review, to affirm a final 

initial determination (‘‘FID’’) of the 

presiding administrative law judge 

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

337. The investigation is terminated. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Namo Kim, Esq., Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3459. 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, telephone 

(202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on April 18, 2023, based on a complaint 

filed on behalf of the NOCO Company 

(‘‘NOCO’’) of Glenwillow, Ohio. 88 FR 

23686–87 (Apr. 18, 2023). The 

complaint, as amended, alleges 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

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

(‘‘section 337’’), based on the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and/or the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain portable battery 

jump starters and components thereof 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
82626 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Notices 

by reason of infringement of certain 

claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,770,992 

(‘‘the ’992 patent’’); 10,328,808 (‘‘the 

’808 patent’’); 10,981,452 (‘‘the ’452 

patent’’); 11,254,213 (‘‘the ’213 patent’’); 

and 11,447,023 (‘‘the ’023 patent’’), as 

well as common law trade dress 

infringement, false designation of origin, 

false advertising, and unfair 

competition, the threat or effect of 

which is to destroy or substantially 

injure an industry in the United States. 

Id. at 23686. The amended complaint 

further alleges that a domestic industry 

exists. Id. The Commission instituted 

two separate investigations and defined 

the scope of the present investigation as 

whether there is a violation of section 

337 based on the allegations of 

infringement of the asserted claims of 

the ’992, ’808, ’452, ’213, and ’023 

patents as to the accused products 

identified in the notice of investigation. 

The notice of investigation named 19 

respondents, and the Office of Unfair 

Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) is also 

named as a party. Id. at 23687. The 19 

respondents are organized into the 

following four groups: 

(1) Shenzhen Take Tools Co. Ltd. of 

Shenzhen, China; Shenzhenshi Dianjia 

Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a Yesper 

Direct (Hong Kong Haowei Technology 

Co. Ltd.) of Hong Kong, China; and 

Guangzhou Sihao Trading Co., Ltd., d/ 

b/a Snailhome (Audew) also d/b/a 

Shenzhen Xinshu Trading Co. Ltd. of 

Shenzhen, China (collectively, the 

‘‘Non-Appearing Respondents’’); 

(2) Shenzhen Winplus Shenzhen 

Pinwang Industrial Technology Co., Ltd. 

of Shenzhen, China; Winplus North 

America, Inc. of Costa Mesa, California; 

and Winplus NA, LLC of Costa Mesa, 

California (collectively, the ‘‘Stipulated 

Respondents’’); 

(3) Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Carku’’) of Shenzhen, China; 

Aukey Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘Aukey’’) 

of Shenzhen, China; Metasee LLC 

(‘‘Metasee’’) of Pearland, Texas; Ace 

Farmer LLC (‘‘Ace Farmer’’) of Houston, 

Texas; Shenzhen Gooloo E-Commerce 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Gooloo Ecommerce’’) of 

Shenzhen, China; Gooloo Technologies 

LLC (‘‘Gooloo Technologies’’) of 

Shenzhen, China; Shenzhen Konghui 

Trading Co., Ltd., d/b/a Hulkman Direct 

(‘‘Konghui’’) of Shenzhen, China; 

Hulkman LLC (‘‘Hulkman’’) of Santa 

Clara, California; Shenzhenshi 

Daosishangmao Youxiangongsi, d/b/a 

Fanttik Direct (‘‘Daosi’’) of Shenzhen, 

China; Shenzhenshi 

Xinmeitemuxiangbao 

Zhuangyouxiangongsi, d/b/a Thikpo 

(Spanarci) (‘‘Xinmeite’’) of Shenzhen, 

China; ChangShaHongMaoKai 

KeJiYouXianGongSi, d/b/a 

TopdonStarter (‘‘HongMaoKai’’) of 

Changsha, China; Shenzhenshi 

Shoudiankejiyouxiangongsi, d/b/a 

Solvtin (‘‘Shoudian’’) of Shenzhen, 

China (collectively, the ‘‘Carku 

Respondents’’); and 

(4) ADC Solutions Auto LLC, d/b/a 

Type S Auto (‘‘ADC’’) of Costa Mesa, 

California. Id. at 23686–87. 

On June 23, 2023, the Commission 

amended the complaint and notice of 

investigation to add infringement 

allegations as to claims 1–13, 15–30, 32, 

33, 35–44, and 46–57 of U.S. Patent No. 

11,584,243 (‘‘the ’243 patent’’). Order 

No. 5 (May 26, 2023), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (June 26, 2023). 

On December 21, 2023, the 

Commission terminated the 

investigation as to the following 

asserted claims: (i) claims 2, 4–9, 11–13, 

and 15–21 of the ’992 patent; (ii) claims 

2–10, 12–15, and 17 of the ’808 patent; 

(iii) claims 2–16 of the ’452 patent; (iv) 

claims 2–16 of the ’213 patent; (v) 

claims 2–4, 6–18, 20–23, 25–28, 31, 33, 

35–38, and 41–53 of the ’023 patent; (vi) 

claims 3–9, 15–17, 19–25, 29, 30, 32, 33, 

35–44, 46–49, 51–53, and 55–57 of the 

’243 patent. Order No. 18 (Nov. 27, 

2023), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice 

(Dec. 21, 2023). 

On February 7, 2024, the Commission 

terminated the investigation as to the 

’452 patent and the ’213 patent. Order 

No. 24 (Jan. 9, 2024), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (Feb. 7, 2024). 

On March 11, 2024, the Commission 

terminated the investigation as to 

asserted claims 5, 24, 29–30, and 40 of 

the ’023 patent and asserted claims 10– 

13, 26–28, and 50 of the ’243 patent, and 

as to the Non-Appearing Respondents 

and the Stipulated Respondents. Order 

No. 26 (Feb. 9, 2024), unreviewed by 

Comm’n Notice (March 11, 2024). 

On February 26 to March 1, 2024, the 

ALJ held an evidentiary hearing, with 

an additional hearing on March 14, 

2024. The ’023, ’243, ’992 and ’808 

patents remained asserted in the 

investigation as of the evidentiary 

hearing. 

On July 5, 2024, the ALJ issued the 

FID finding no violation of section 337 

with respect to the remaining asserted 

patents. Specifically, the FID finds that 

all asserted claims of the four patents 

are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 

103. The FID finds that certain accused 

products infringe the asserted claims of 

the ’023 and ’243 patents, none of the 

accused products infringe the ’992 and 

’808 patent, and none of the adjudicated 

redesigns put forth by the Carku 

Respondents and ADC (collectively, 

‘‘Respondents’’) infringe any of the four 

asserted patents. The FID also finds that 

the asserted claims of the ’023 and ’243 

patents have not been shown to be 

invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112 based on 

lack of written description or lack of 

enablement and have not been shown to 

be unenforceable. The FID does not 

address invalidity under 35 U.S.C. 112 

or unenforceability for the ’992 and ’808 

patents because the parties did not raise 

these issues. Lastly, the FID finds that 

the domestic industry requirement, both 

the technical prong and the economic 

prong, is satisfied for all four asserted 

patents. 

On July 19, 2024, the ALJ issued a 

Recommended Determination (‘‘RD’’) 

recommending, should the Commission 

find a violation of section 337, that the 

Commission issue: (1) a limited 

exclusion order against Respondents 

(i.e., the remaining respondents); and (2) 

cease-and-desist orders against the 

following respondents: ADC, Metasee, 

Gooloo, Konghui, Xinmeite, Shoudian, 

HongMaoKai, and Daosi. The RD further 

recommends that the Commission set a 

100 percent bond during the period of 

Presidential review. 

Also on July 19, 2024, NOCO 

petitioned for Commission review of the 

FID’s findings on the ’023 and ’243 

patents concerning: (1) construction of 

the claim terms ‘‘USB input circuit,’’ 

‘‘USB charge circuit,’’ and ‘‘USB input 

connector’’ (collectively, ‘‘the USB 

terms’’); (2) non-infringement with 

respect to the accused Carku and ADC 

products; and (3) invalidity. On the 

same day, Respondents contingently 

petitioned for Commission review of the 

FID’s findings on the ’023 and ’243 

patents concerning: (1) infringement 

with respect to the accused Carku and 

ADC products; (2) validity under § 112; 

and (3) NOCO’s satisfaction of the 

domestic industry requirement. Further 

on the same day, OUII contingently 

petitioned for Commission review of the 

FID’s findings on the ’023 and ’243 

patents concerning: (1) infringement 

with respect to the accused ADC 

products and (2) additional noninfringement grounds concerning the 

accused Carku products. No party 

petitioned for review of the issues on 

non-infringement and invalidity as to 

the ’992 and ’808 patents, and 

enforceability as to the ’023 and ’243 

patents. 

On July 25, 2024, the Commission 

published its post-RD Federal Register 

notice seeking submissions on public 

interest issues raised by the relief 

recommended by the ALJ should the 

Commission find a violation. 89 FR 

60451–52 (July 25, 2024). No responses 

from the public were filed. Similarly, no 

parties have submitted a statement on 

the public interest pursuant to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 198 / Friday, October 11, 2024 / Notices 82627 

Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4), 19 CFR 

210.50(a)(4). 

On July 29, 2024, NOCO responded to 

Respondents’ and OUII’s contingent 

petitions for review of the FID. On the 

same day, Respondents responded to 

NOCO’s petition (but did not respond to 

OUII’s contingent petition), and OUII 

responded to NOCO’s and Respondents’ 

petitions. 

The Commission, having reviewed the 

record in this investigation, including 

the FID and the parties’ petitions and 

responses thereto, has determined to 

review in part and, on review, to affirm 

the FID’s finding of no violation. In 

particular, the Commission has 

determined to review and, on review, to 

clarify the FID’s jurisdictional findings 

by explaining that the Commission’s 

investigative authority is statutory and 

that the terms ‘‘subject matter 

jurisdiction,’’ ‘‘personal jurisdiction,’’ 

and ‘‘in rem jurisdiction’’ are not 

relevant to the Commission’s 

investigative authority under section 

337. The Commission has also 

determined to review and, on review, to 

affirm with supplemental analysis the 

FID’s construction of the USB terms 

recited in the ’023 and ’243 patents. The 

Commission has further determined to 

review and, on review, to affirm with 

supplemental analysis the FID’s 

findings that the asserted claims of the 

’023 and the ’243 patents are invalid 

under 35 U.S.C. 103 and are not invalid 

under 35 U.S.C. 112. Lastly, the 

Commission has determined to review 

and, on review, to take no position with 

respect to the economic prong of the 

domestic industry requirement. The 

Commission has determined not to 

review the remainder of the FID. 

The Commission issues its opinion 

herewith setting forth its determinations 

on certain issues. The investigation is 

terminated. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on October 7, 

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 7, 2024. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23548 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—Training & Readiness 

Accelerator II 

Notice is hereby given that, on 

September 4, 2024, pursuant to section 

6(a) of the National Cooperative 

Research and Production Act of 1993, 

15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), 

Training & Readiness Accelerator II 

(‘‘TReX II’’) has filed written 

notifications simultaneously with the 

Attorney General and the Federal Trade 

Commission disclosing changes in its 

membership. The notifications were 

filed for the purpose of extending the 

Act’s provisions limiting the recovery of 

antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages 

under specified circumstances. 

Specifically, Agile Decision Sciences, 

LLC, Huntsville, AL; AI Strategy Corp, 

Babylon, NY; Air-Quality RemoteSensing Consulting, LLC, Madison, AL; 

Alaka’i Services Group, Inc., Honolulu, 

HI; Amazon Web Services, Inc., Seattle, 

WA; Augustine Consulting, Inc., 

Hamilton, NJ; Auriga Space, Inc., San 

Francisco, CA; Avarint, LLC, Buffalo, 

NY; Bishop Ascendant, Inc., Caldwell, 

NJ; CALIBRE Systems, Inc., Alexandria, 

VA; CLogic Defense LLC, Jacksonville, 

FL; Core4ce LLC, Reston, VA; 

Crowdbotics Corp., Berkeley, CA; 

Davidson Technologies, Inc., Huntsville, 

AL; Deep Analytics, LLC, Montpelier, 

VT; Design West Technologies, Inc., 

Tustin, CA; DICE Defense LLC, Orlando, 

FL; DRS Sustainment Systems, Inc., 

Bridgeton, MO; Dynepic, Inc., Reno, NV; 

Echodyne Corp., Kirkland, WA; Edge 

Case Research, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA; 

Ernst and Young, LLP, New York, NY; 

Gigantor Technologies, Inc., Melbourne 

Beach, FL; HAVIK Solutions, LLC, San 

Diego, CA; HyperBlox Inc., Nashua, NH; 

IEC Infrared Systems, LLC, Middleburg 

Heights, OH; Integrated Consultants, 

Inc., San Diego, CA; Integris 

Composites, Inc., Goleta, CA; Intelligent 

Decision Systems, Inc., dba IDSI, 

Chantilly, VA; International Business 

Machines Corp., Bethesda, MD; 

JackTech, LLC, Washington, DC; 

JIRACOR LLC, Orlando, FL; LMI 

Consulting, LLC, Tysons, VA; Meroxa, 

Inc., San Jose, CA; MetroStar Systems, 

LLC, Reston, VA; Nautilus Defense, 

LLC, Pawtucket, RI; Nebula Compute, 

Inc., Wilkes Barre, PA; Open Source 

Systems, LLC, Suwanee, GA; 

Programmed Response, LLC, Huntsville, 

AL; Public Spend Forum LLC, 

Washington, DC; Quantum 

Improvements Consulting, LLC, 

Orlando, FL; Quoherent, Inc., 

Huntsville, AL; Response AI Solutions 

LLC, Arlington, VA; RoGO Fire, LLC, 

dba RoGO Communications, 

Westminster, CO; Safire Technology 

Group, Inc., Tysons, VA; Shearwater 

Technology, Inc., Washington, IL; 

Siemens Government Technologies, 

Inc., Reston, VA; Snowflake Inc., 

Bozeman, MT; SPARC Research, LLC, 

Warrenton, VA; Sterling Computers 

Corp., North Sioux City, SD; 

Symbiosis.io, LLC, Smyrna, GA; Terida, 

LLC, Pinehurst, NC; Third Coast 

Federal, Inc., South Bend, IN; Treble 

One, LLC, Dayton, OH; Trenchant 

Analytics, LLC, Great Falls, VA; Trex 

Enterprises Corp., El Cajon, CA; Via 

Science, Inc., Somerville, MA; 

VicForms, LLC, Frackville, PA; and 

Enquire AI, Inc., Washington, DC, have 

been added as parties to this venture. 

Also, Solid State Scientific Corp., 

Hollis, NH, has withdrawn as a party to 

this venture. 

No other changes have been made in 

either the membership or planned 

activity of the group research project. 

Membership in this group research 

project remains open, and TReX II 

intends to file additional written 

notifications disclosing all changes in 

membership. 

On February 17, 2023, TReX II filed 

its original notification pursuant to 

section 6(a) of the Act. The Department 

of Justice published a notice in the 

Federal Register pursuant to section 

6(b) of the Act on June 13, 2023 (88 FR 

38536). 

The last notification was filed with 

the Department on April 19, 2024. A 

notice was published in the Federal 

Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the 

Act on June 28, 2024 (89 FR 54045). 

Suzanne Morris, 

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement 

Operations, Antitrust Division. 

[FR Doc. 2024–23627 Filed 10–10–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

Notice Pursuant to the National 

Cooperative Research and Production 

Act of 1993—1EdTech Consortium, Inc. 

Notice is hereby given that, on July 

16, 2024, pursuant to section 6(a) of the 

National Cooperative Research and 

Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 

et seq. (‘‘the Act’’), 1EdTech 

Consortium, Inc. (‘‘1EdTech 

Consortium’’) has filed written 

notifications simultaneously with the 

Attorney General and the Federal Trade 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1