6452 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices 

a wide variety of incident management 

and emergency assistance activities. 

Included in these activities are Federal 

support to State, local, and tribal 

authorities; interaction with 

nongovernmental, private donor, and 

private-sector organizations; and the 

coordinated, direct exercise of Federal 

authorities, when appropriate. 

The plan was approved by the 

Homeland Security Council and signed 

by 32 Federal departments and agencies, 

and nongovernmental organizations. 

The signatories are the Department of 

Agriculture, Department of Commerce, 

Department of Defense, Department of 

Education, Department of Energy, 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Department of Homeland 

Security, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, Department of the 

Interior, Department of Justice, 

Department of Labor, Department of 

State, Department of Transportation, 

Department of the Treasury, Department 

of Veterans Affairs, Central Intelligence 

Agency, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

Federal Communications Commission, 

General Services Administration, 

National Aeronautic and Space 

Administration, National Transportation 

Safety Board, Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Office of Personnel 

Management, Small Business 

Administration, Social Security 

Administration, Tennessee Valley 

Authority, U.S. Agency for International 

Development, U.S. Postal Service, 

American Red Cross, Corporation for 

National and Community Service, and 

National Voluntary Organizations 

Active in Disaster. 

Implementation of the National 

Response Plan commenced on 

December 15, 2004 per a memorandum 

from the Secretary of Homeland 

Security. Implementation will occur in 

three phases over the period of one year. 

During the first 120 days of the 

implementation process, the Initial 

National Response Plan, the Federal 

Response Plan, the U.S. Government 

Domestic Terrorism Concept of 

Operations Plan, and the Federal 

Radiological Emergency Response Plan 

remain in effect. After April 14, 2005, 

these plans are superseded by the 

National Response Plan. Detailed 

implementation guidance and schedules 

are identified in the Letter of Instruction 

in the base plan of the document. 

This Notice informs the public of the 

release and availability of the National 

Response Plan. The National Response 

Plan is available on the Department of 

Homeland Security’s Web site at 

www.dhs.gov/nationalresponseplan. A 

hard copy or CD–ROM of the National 

Response Plan may be obtained by 

calling 800–480–2520.

Dated: January 28, 2005. 

Bob Stephan, 

Special Assistant to the Secretary, 

Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 05–2259 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–10–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

Open Meeting of the Federal 

Interagency Committee on Emergency 

Medical Services (FICEMS)

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), 

Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: FEMA announces the 

following open meeting. 

Name: Federal Interagency Committee 

on Emergency Medical Services 

(FICEMS). 

Date of Meeting: March 3, 2005. 

Place: Building J, Room 138, National 

Emergency Training Center (NETC), 

16825 South Seton Avenue, 

Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727. 

Times: 10:30 a.m.—Main FICEMS 

Meeting; 1 p.m.—FICEMS Ambulance 

Safety Subcommittee. 

Proposed Agenda: Review and 

submission for approval of previous 

FICEMS Committee Meeting Minutes 

and Ambulance Safety Subcommittee 

reports; Action Items review; 

presentation of member agency reports; 

and reports of other interested parties.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

meeting will be open to the public with 

limited seating available on a first-come, 

first-served basis. See the Response and 

Security Procedures below. 

Response Procedures: Committee 

Members and members of the general 

public who plan to attend the meeting 

should contact Ms. Lee Wren, on or 

before Tuesday, March 1, 2005, via mail 

at NETC, 16825 South Seton Avenue, 

Emmitsburg, Maryland 21727, or by 

telephone at (301) 447–1107, or via 

facsimile at (301) 447–1178, or via email at lee.wren@dhs.gov. This is 

necessary to be able to create and 

provide a current roster of visitors to 

NETC Security per directives. 

Security Procedures: Increased 

security controls and surveillance are in 

effect at the National Emergency 

Training Center. All visitors must have 

a valid picture identification card and 

their vehicles will be subject to search 

by Security personnel. All visitors will 

be issued a visitor pass which must be 

worn at all times while on campus. 

Please allow adequate time before the 

meeting to complete the security 

process. 

Conference Call Capabilities: If you 

are not able to attend in person, a toll 

free number has been set up for 

teleconferencing. The toll free number 

will be available from 10:30 a.m. until 

3 p.m. Members should call in around 

10:30 a.m. The number is 1–800–320–

4330. The FICEMS conference code is 

‘‘885721#.’’

FICEMS Meeting Minutes: Minutes of 

the meeting will be prepared and will be 

available upon request 30 days after 

they have been approved at the next 

FICEMS Committee Meeting on June 2, 

2005. The minutes will also be posted 

on the United States Fire 

Administration Web site at http://

www.usfa.fema.gov/fire-service/ems/

ficems.shtm within 30 days after their 

approval at the June 2, 2005, FICEMS 

Committee Meeting.

Dated: January 31, 2005. 

R. David Paulison, 

U.S. Fire Administrator.

[FR Doc. 05–2258 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–17–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Availability of an Environmental 

Assessment and Receipt of 

Applications for Incidental Take 

Permits for the Arnaudo Brothers, 

Wathen-Castanos, and River East 

Holding Sites in Merced County, CA

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability and 

receipt of applications. 

SUMMARY: The Arnaudo Brothers, 

Wathen-Castanos, and River East 

Holding Sites (Applicants) have applied 

to the Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) for incidental take permits 

pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 

Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, 

as amended. The Service is considering 

issuing 10-year permits to the 

Applicants that would authorize take of 

the endangered San Joaquin kit fox 

(Vulpes macrotis mutica, ‘‘kit fox’’) 

incidental to otherwise lawful activities 

associated with the residential and 

commercial development of four sites in 

Merced County, California. The projects 

would result in the incidental take of kit 

fox on the project sites through 

permanent removal of 182 acres of 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices 6453

habitat. Incidental take may also 

potentially occur during construction 

and ground disturbance activities, 

which may affect occupied dens and 

individual foxes. 

We request comments from the public 

on the permit applications and the 

Environmental Assessment, both of 

which are available for review. The 

permit applications include the 

proposed Habitat Conservation Plan 

(HCP) and associated Implementing 

Agreement. The HCP describes the 

proposed action and the measures that 

the Applicants will undertake to 

minimize and mitigate, to the maximum 

extent practicable, take of the kit fox.

DATES: We must receive your written 

comments on or before March 9, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Please address written 

comments to Ms. Lori Rinek, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, 

Room W–2605, Sacramento, California 

95825. You also may send comments by 

facsimile to (916) 414–6713.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Lori Rinek, Chief, Conservation 

Planning and Recovery Division, at 

(916) 414–6600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Documents 

You may obtain copies of these 

documents for review by contacting the 

above office [see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT]. Documents also 

will be available for public inspection, 

by appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address [see

ADDRESSES] and at the following Web 

site: http://www.harveyecology.com/. 

Background 

Section 9 of the Act and Federal 

regulations prohibit the ‘‘take’’ of fish 

and wildlife species listed as 

endangered or threatened. Take of 

federally-listed fish and wildlife is 

defined under the Act as including to 

‘‘harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

to attempt to engage in any such 

conduct.’’ The Service may, under 

limited circumstances, issue permits to 

authorize incidental take (i.e., take that 

is incidental to, and not the purpose of, 

the carrying out of an otherwise lawful 

activity). Regulations governing 

incidental take permits for threatened 

species are found in 50 CFR 17.32. 

The Applicants propose to develop 

182 acres on 4 sites in the 

unincorporated community of Santa 

Nella in western Merced County, 

California: Arnaudo 1, Arnaudo 2, 

Wathen-Castanos, and River East. The 

Arnaudo 1 and 2 and Wathen-Castanos 

sites are situated west and east of State 

Route 33 respectively, and north of State 

Route 152. The O’Neill Forebay State 

Wildlife Area lies west of the DeltaMendota Canal, which is located west of 

the project sites. To the south of the 

project sites, the Delta-Mendota Canal 

and California Aqueduct flow from west 

to east. The River East site, on which the 

proposed wastewater treatment facility 

would be located, is situated to the east 

of Interstate 5 and west of the Outside 

Canal. The proposed development 

would occur on undeveloped parcels 

within an area of existing residential 

and commercial development. The 

project sites contain, and are adjacent 

to, habitat suitable to support kit fox. 

Critical habitat for the kit fox has been 

neither designated nor proposed.

Kit foxes have historically been 

known to occur in the area of the 

proposed projects, and have been seen 

south and northwest of the project sites. 

At least 13 surveys for the kit fox have 

been conducted in the Santa Nella area, 

of which 5 determined kit fox to be 

present in the area. In 1992, a kit fox 

survey (conducted according to 1990 

California Department of Fish and Game 

recommendations) was undertaken for 

the Santa Nella community; however, 

no kit foxes were detected. Kit foxes are 

known to occur south of the State Route 

33/152 interchange. A female with pups 

was observed in 2004 along Billie 

Wright Road. Kit fox sightings and dens 

have also been reported in and around 

the proposed Los Banos Grandes 

Reservoir and the proposed Villages of 

Laguna San Luis project, both located 

south of the project sites. In the spring 

of 1998, a radio-collared kit fox was 

documented northwest of the Santa 

Nella community within the right-ofway along the Delta-Mendota Canal. 

Based on the results of these surveys 

and on other records, the Service has 

determined that the implementation of 

the proposed projects would likely 

result in take of kit fox through the 

permanent removal of 182 acres of 

habitat on the sites. 

To mitigate for any take of kit fox on 

the project sites, the Applicants propose 

to preserve, and manage in perpetuity, 

a total of 447.9 acres of kit fox habitat. 

Within the Santa Nella community, the 

Applicants would establish movement 

corridors consisting of 39.8 acres along 

the Delta-Mendota Canal and 27.1 acres 

along the west side of the Outside 

Canal. In addition, a 5-acre refugium 

would be created north of the San Luis 

Wasteway and east of the Delta-Mendota 

Canal. The Applicants also propose to 

preserve in perpetuity 376 acres of offsite habitat, which would provide 

breeding and foraging areas for source 

populations located to the north and 

south of the Santa Nella community. 

The combination of on-site and off-site 

habitat preservation is intended to 

achieve the goal of protecting and 

maintaining habitat to facilitate 

population interchange between the 

core population to the south and 

northern kit fox populations, and to 

help ensure the survival of source 

populations. 

In addition to habitat preservation 

and management, the Applicants 

propose to avoid and/or minimize the 

potential effect on kit foxes associated 

with pre-construction and construction 

activities through the adoption of 

various measures, including the 

Service’s standardized 

recommendations for protection of the 

kit fox prior to and during ground 

disturbance activities. Furthermore, the 

Applicants have identified measures to 

avoid and minimize any potential 

indirect effects on kit foxes using 

preserved corridors adjacent to the 

proposed development. Such measures 

include leash laws, signage and fencing, 

night lighting standards, and pesticide 

and rodenticide restrictions. 

The Service’s Environmental 

Assessment evaluates the environmental 

consequences of four alternatives, 

including: (1) The Proposed Project 

Alternative, which involves the of 

issuance of incidental take permits and 

implementation of the proposed HCP; 

(2) the Reduced Density Alternative, 

which is identical to the Proposed 

Project Alternative, except that 

residential housing construction within 

the project sites would occur at half the 

density as that planned under the 

Proposed Project Alternative; (3) the 

1999 Draft HCP Alternative, which 

involves the same level of development 

as the Proposed Project Alternative, but 

differs in the approaches proposed to 

address potential impacts to kit fox as 

a result of the development; and (4) the 

No Action Alternative, which presumes 

that no incidental take permits would be 

issued and that the proposed 

development would not proceed. 

Although the Reduced Density 

Alternative does not differ from the 

Proposed Project Alternative with 

respect to the establishment of corridors 

and preservation of other conservation 

lands, the reduction in housing density 

would potentially result in the creation 

of small habitat patches, which could 

further adversely affect kit foxes. The 

1999 Draft HCP Alternative, which 

proposes the preservation of off-site 

habitat only, would result in an inferior 

conservation outcome for kit fox than 

the Proposed Project Alternative 

because it would not lead to the 

permanent establishment of movement 

6454 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 24 / Monday, February 7, 2005 / Notices 

corridors through the Santa Nella 

community. The Service considers 

movement corridors, which would 

facilitate population interchange 

between northern and southern kit fox 

populations, to be of critical importance 

to the survival of the species. The No 

Action Alternative would not provide 

for the long-term conservation of kit fox 

in the area because conservation lands 

and movement corridors would not be 

permanently established. 

Pursuant to an order issued on June 

10, 2004, by the District Court for the 

District of Columbia in Spirit of the Sage 

Council v. Norton Civil Action No. 98–

1873 (D.D.C.), the Service is enjoined 

from issuing new section 10(a)(1)(B) 

permits or related documents containing 

‘‘No Surprises’’ assurances, as defined 

by the Service’s ‘‘No Surprises’’ rule 

published at 63 FR 8859 (February 23, 

1998), until such time as the Service 

adopts new permit revocation rules 

specifically applicable to section 

10(a)(1)(B) permits in compliance with 

the public notice and comment 

requirements of the Administrative 

Procedures Act. This notice concerns a 

step in the review and processing of a 

section 10(a)(1)(B) permit and any 

subsequent permit issuance will be in 

accordance with the Court’s order. Until 

such time as the June 10, 2004, order 

has been rescinded or the Service’s 

authority to issue permits with ‘‘No 

Surprises’’ assurances has been 

otherwise reinstated, the Service will 

not approve any incidental take permits 

or related documents that contain ‘‘No 

Surprises’’ assurances. 

This notice is provided pursuant to 

section 10(a) of the Act and the 

regulations of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969 (40 CFR 1506.6). All comments 

that we receive, including names and 

addresses, will become part of the 

official administrative record and may 

be made available to the public. We will 

evaluate the application, associated 

documents, and comments submitted 

thereon to determine whether the 

application meets the requirements of 

NEPA regulations and section 10(a) of 

the Act. If we determine that those 

requirements are met, we will issue a 

permit to the Applicant for the 

incidental take of the kit fox. We will 

make our final permit decision no 

sooner than 30 days from the date of 

this notice.

Dated: January 28, 2005. 

Mike Boylen, 

Deputy Manager, California/Nevada 

Operations Office, Sacramento, California.

[FR Doc. 05–2250 Filed 2–4–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–501] 

In the Matter of Certain Encapsulated 

Integrated Circuit Devices and 

Products Containing Same; Notice of 

Decision to Review in its Entirety a 

Final Initial Determination Finding No 

Violation of Section 337; Schedule for 

Filing Written Submissions; Extension 

of Target Date

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined (1) to 

review in its entirety a final initial 

determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by the 

presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) on November 18, 2004, finding 

no violation of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the 

above-captioned investigation; and (2) 

to extend the target date for completion 

in this investigation by thirty-seven (37) 

days, i.e., until March 31, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3115. Copies of the public version 

of the IDs and all 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. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that 

information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on (202) 

205–1810. 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) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 19, 2003, 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 

Amkor Technology, Inc. alleging a 

violation of section 337 in the 

importation, sale for importation, and 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain encapsulated 

integrated circuit devices and products 

containing same in connection with 

claims 1–4, 7, 17, 18 and 20–23 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,433,277 (‘‘the ‘277 patent’’); 

claims 1–4, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,630,728 (‘‘the ‘728 patent’’); and 

claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,455,356 (‘‘the ‘356 patent’’). 68 FR 

70836 (December 19, 2003). The 

complainant named Carsem (M) Sdn 

Bhd; Carsem Semiconductor Sdn Bhd; 

and Carsem, Inc. as respondents. 

The evidentiary hearing in this 

investigation was held from July 6 

through July 30, 2004, and August 9 

through August 11, 2004. On November 

18, 2004, the presiding ALJ issued a 

final ID finding no violation of section 

337. All of the parties to the 

investigation, including the Commission 

investigative attorney filed timely 

petitions for review of various portions 

of the final ID. Respondents designated 

their petition to be contingent upon the 

granting of any other petition for review 

or upon the Commission’s reviewing the 

ALJ’s ID on its own motion pursuant to 

19 CFR 210.44. All parties filed timely 

responses to the petitions for review. 

Having examined the record in this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID, the petitions for review, and the 

responses thereto, the Commission has 

determined to review the ID in its 

entirety. At this time the Commission 

requests briefing, based on the 

evidentiary record, that concerns only 

the issue of claim interpretation. Further 

briefing may be requested at a later date. 

The Commission is particularly 

interested in receiving answers to the 

following questions: 

1. Does the specification of the ‘277 

patent satisfy the ‘‘written description’’

requirement of 35 U.S.C.112, ¶ 1 with 

respect to the claim limitations ‘‘fully 

around a circumference of the die pad’’

found in claims 2, 3, and 4, and ‘‘fully 

around the die pad’’ found in claims 21, 

22, and 23? 

2. How should the following claim 

limitations be construed: 

(a) ‘‘Fully around a circumference of 

the die pad’’ (‘277 patent, claims 2, 3, 

and 4); 

(b) ‘‘fully around the die pad’’ (‘277 

patent, claims 21, 22, and 23); 

(c) ‘‘surrounding the second surface’’

(‘356 patent, claims 1 and 13); 

(d) ‘‘the side surface of the die pad 

includes a means around the 

circumference of the die pad for 

vertically locking,’’ (‘277 patent, claim 

17)? 

In particular, please address whether 

the claim limitations ‘‘fully around a 

circumference of the die pad’’ and 

‘‘fully around the die pad’’ are 

indefinite. 

3. How should the following claim 

terms of the ‘356 patent be construed: