16892 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Notices 

moisture, 9.69 percent ash, 38.88 

percent volatile matter, 43.85 percent 

fixed carbon and 1.26 percent sulfur. 

In accordance with Federal coal 

management regulations 43 CFR 3422 

and 3425, the public meeting is being 

held on the proposed sale to allow 

public comment on and discussion of 

the potential effects of mining and 

proposed lease. The meeting is being 

advertised in the Richfield Reaper 

located in Richfield, Utah and the 

Emery County Progress located in Castle 

Dale, Utah. 43 CFR 3422 states that, no 

less than 30 days prior to the 

publication of the notice of the sale, the 

Secretary shall submit public comments 

on the Fair Market Value appraisal and 

the Maximum Economic Recovery and 

on factors that may affect these two 

determinations. 

Proprietary data marked as 

confidential may be submitted to the 

BLM in response to this solicitation of 

public comments. Data so marked shall 

be treated in accordance with the laws 

and regulations governing 

confidentiality of such information. A 

copy of the comments submitted by the 

public on fair market value and 

maximum economic recovery, except 

those portions identified as proprietary 

by the author and meeting exemptions 

stated in the Freedom of Information 

Act, will be available for public 

inspection at the Bureau of Land 

Management, Utah State Office during 

regular business hours (8 a.m.–4 p.m.) 

Monday through Friday. Comments on 

the Fair Market Value and Maximum 

Economic Recovery should be sent to 

the Bureau of Land Management and 

should address, but not necessarily be 

limited to the following information: 

1. The quality of the coal resource; 

2. The mining methods or methods 

which would achieve maximum 

economic recovery of the coal, 

including specifications of seams to be 

mined and the most desirable timing 

and rate of production; 

3. Whether this tract is likely to be 

mined as part of an existing mine and 

therefore should be evaluated on a 

realistic incremental basis, in relation to 

the existing mine to which it has the 

greatest value; 

4. Whether the tract should be 

evaluated as part of a potential larger 

mining unit and revaluated as a portion 

of a new potential mine (i.e., a tract 

which does not in itself form a logical 

mining unit); 

5. Restrictions to mining that may 

affect coal recovery; 

6. The price that the mined coal 

would bring when sold; 

7. Costs, including mining and 

reclamation, of producing the coal and 

the time of production; 

8. The percentage rate at which 

anticipated income streams should be 

discounted, either with inflation or in 

the absence of inflation, in which case 

the anticipated rate of inflation should 

be given; 

9. Depreciation, depletion, 

amortization and other tax accounting 

factors; 

10. The value of any surface estate 

where held privately; 

11. Documented information on the 

terms and conditions of recent and 

similar coal land transactions in the 

lease sale area; 

12. Any comparable sales data of 

similar coal lands; and coal quantities 

and the Fair Market Value of the coal 

developed by BLM may or may not 

change as a result of comments received 

from the public and changes in the 

market conditions between now and 

when final economic evaluations are 

completed. 

Dated: April 6, 2009. 

Selma Sierra, 

State Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–8355 Filed 4–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–DQ–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–625] 

In the Matter of Certain Self-Cleaning 

Litter Boxes and Components Thereof; 

Notice of Commission Final 

Determination of Violation of Section 

337; Issuance of Limited Exclusion 

Order and Cease and Desist Orders; 

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 that there 

is a violation of section 337 of the Tariff 

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

1337) by respondents Lucky Litter, LLC 

of Chicago, Illinois and OurPet’s 

Company of Fairport Harbor, Ohio in 

the above-captioned investigation. The 

Commission has issued a limited 

exclusion order, issued cease and desist 

orders against the two respondents, and 

terminated the investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark B. Rees, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3116. 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, 

telephone (202) 205–2000. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. 

The public record for this investigation 

may be viewed on the Commission’s 

electronic docket (EDIS) 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 December 28, 2007, based on the 

complaint of Applica Consumer 

Products, Inc. of Miramar, Florida 

(‘‘Applica’’) and Waters Research 

Company of West Dundee, Illinois 

(‘‘Waters’’). 72 FR 73884 (Dec. 28, 2007); 

73 FR 13566 (Mar. 13, 2008). The 

complaint alleges violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1337) in the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, and the 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain self-cleaning litter 

boxes and components thereof by reason 

of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 

RE36,847 (‘‘the ‘‘847 patent’’). The 

respondents are Lucky Litter, LLC of 

Chicago, Illinois (‘‘Lucky Litter’’) and 

OurPet’s Company of Fairport Harbor, 

Ohio (‘‘OurPet’s’’). 

On December 1, 2008, the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued 

his final initial determination (‘‘ID’’), 

finding that a violation of section 337 

has occurred in the importation, sale for 

importation, or sale after importation of 

certain self-cleaning litter boxes and 

components thereof by reason of 

infringement of claim 33 of the ‘847 

patent. His final ID also included his 

recommendation on remedy and 

bonding. Respondents Lucky Litter and 

OurPet’s, complainants Applica and 

Waters, and the Commission 

investigative attorney (‘‘IA’’) filed 

petitions (or contingent petitions) for 

review on December 16, 2008. All 

parties filed responses to the petitions 

on December 24, 2008. Complainants 

also filed a motion to strike on 

December 23, 2008, to which Lucky 

Litter and the IA filed oppositions on 

January 5, 2009. 

The Commission determined to 

review certain issues of claim 

construction, as well as invalidity due 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 69 / Monday, April 13, 2009 / Notices 16893 

to anticipation, invalidity due to 

obviousness, and direct and 

contributory infringement on February 

9, 2009. 74 FR 7263 (Feb. 13, 2009). Per 

its notice, the Commission also 

determined to grant Complainants’ 

motion to strike, and set a schedule for 

the filing of written submissions on the 

issues under review, including certain 

questions posed by the Commission, 

and on remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. The parties have briefed, with 

initial and reply submissions, the issues 

under review and the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding. 

On review, the Commission has 

determined to (1) affirm the ALJ’s 

construction of ‘‘comb drive’’ (asserted 

claims 8, 13, 31–33), ‘‘comb drive 

means’’ (asserted claims 27, 41–42), 

‘‘drive means’’ (asserted claims 24–25), 

and ‘‘mode selector switch * * * 

moveable between a manual operation 

position * * * and an automatic 

operation position’’ (asserted claim 33); 

(2) modify the ALJ’s construction of 

‘‘discharge position adjacent the 

discharge end wall’’ (asserted claims 8, 

13) to ‘‘not distant, nearby,’’ thereby 

deleting the synonyms ‘‘adjoining, 

continguous, abutting, and coterminus;’’ 

and (3) construe ‘‘coupled to’’ in the 

limitation ‘‘comb * * * coupled to the 

comb drive’’ (asserted claims 31–33) as 

‘‘coupled or connected, directly or 

indirectly;’’ (4) affirm the ALJ’s finding 

of violation of § 337 as to Respondent 

Lucky Litter; (5) affirm the ALJ’s finding 

that the accused Lucky Litter products 

infringe claim 33 of the ‘847 patent; (6) 

affirm the ALJ’s finding of violation of 

§ 337 as to Respondent OurPet’s; (7) 

affirm the ALJ’s finding that the accused 

OurPet’s products infringe claim 33 of 

the ‘847 patent; (8) affirm the ALJ’s 

finding that infringed claim 33 is not 

invalid due to anticipation or 

obviousness; and (9) affirm the ID on 

any other findings under review except 

insofar as they are inconsistent with the 

opinion of the Commission. 

The Commission determined that the 

appropriate form of relief in this 

investigation is (1) a limited exclusion 

order prohibiting the unlicensed entry 

of self-cleaning litter boxes and 

components thereof, including 

cartridges, covered by claim 33 of U.S. 

Patent No. Re. 36,847 that are 

manufactured abroad by or on behalf of, 

or imported by or on behalf of, Lucky 

Litter and OurPet’s; and (2) cease and 

desist orders against Lucky Litter and 

OurPet’s. 

The Commission further determined 

that the public interest factors 

enumerated in section 337(d)(1) (19 

U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)) do not preclude 

issuance of the limited exclusion order. 

Finally, the Commission determined 

that the bond under the limited 

exclusion order during the Presidential 

review period shall be in the amount of 

100 percent of the entered value of the 

imported articles. The Commission’s 

orders were delivered to the President 

and the United States Trade 

Representative on the day of their 

issuance. 

The Commission has therefore 

terminated this investigation. 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 sections 

210.16(c) and 210.41–.42, 210.50 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure (19 CFR 210.16(c) and 

210.41–.42, 210.50). 

Issued: April 8, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–8315 Filed 4–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent 

Decree 

In accordance with Departmental 

Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby 

given that a proposed Consent Decree in 

United States of America v. The Port of 

Astoria, Oregon, CV 09–197 KI, was 

lodged with the United States District 

Court for the District of Oregon on 

March 20, 2009. 

This proposed Consent Decree 

concerns a complaint filed by the 

United States against The Port of Astoria 

pursuant to Section 301(a) of the Clean 

Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a), to obtain 

injunctive relief from and to impose 

civil penalties against the Port of Astoria 

for violating the Clean Water Act by 

discharging pollutants in violation of a 

permit into waters of the United States 

near Astoria, Oregon. The proposed 

Consent Decree resolves the allegations 

by requiring the Port of Astoria to pay 

a civil penalty and to hire and retain an 

environmental compliance officer. 

The Department of Justice will accept 

written comments relating to this 

proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) 

days from the date of publication of this 

Notice. Please address comments to Neil 

J. Evans, Assistant United States 

Attorney, 1000 SW. Third Ave., Suite 

600, Portland, Oregon, 97204–2902, and 

refer to United States of America v. The 

Port of Astoria, Oregon (D. Ore.), CV 09– 

198 KI. 

The proposed Consent Decree may be 

examined at the Clerk’s Office, United 

States District Court for the District of 

Oregon, Mark O. Hatfield U.S. 

Courthouse, 1000 SW. Third Avenue, 

Portland, OR 97204–2902. In addition, 

the proposed Consent Decree may be 

viewed at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. 

Russell Young, 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Defense 

Section, Environment & Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–8314 Filed 4–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–65,644] 

Rowe International Corporation, 

Belding, MI; Notice of Termination of 

Investigation 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade 

Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on March 20, 

2009 in response to a petition filed by 

a company official on behalf of the 

workers at Rowe International 

Corporation, Belding, Michigan. 

The petitioner has requested that the 

petition be withdrawn. Consequently, 

the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 24th day of 

March 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade 

Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E9–8272 Filed 4–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

[TA–W–65,197] 

Republic Doors and Frames, Inc., 

McKenzie, TN; Notice of Termination of 

Investigation 

In accordance with Section 221 of the 

Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 

investigation was initiated on February 

10, 2009 in response to a petition filed 

by a Tennessee State AFL–CIO 

representative on behalf of workers of 

Republic Doors and Frames, Inc., 

McKenzie, Tennessee. 

The petitioner has requested that the 

petition be withdrawn. Consequently, 

the investigation has been terminated.