Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Notices 63161 

Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden 

Cost: None. 

III. Comments 

We invite comments concerning this 

information collection on: 

• Whether or not the collection of 

information is necessary, including 

whether or not the information will 

have practical utility; 

• The accuracy of our estimate of the 

burden for this collection of 

information; 

• Ways to enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

• Ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on 

respondents. 

Comments that you submit in 

response to this notice are a matter of 

public record. We will include or 

summarize each comment in our request 

to OMB to approve this IC. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

email 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. 

Dated: October 17, 2014. 

Tina A. Campbell, 

Chief, Division of Policy and Directives 

Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25108 Filed 10–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R5–R–2014–N172; BAC–4311–K9–S3] 

James River National Wildlife Refuge, 

Prince George County, VA; 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of a draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental 

assessment (CCP and EA) for James 

River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

for public review and comment. James 

River NWR is located in Prince George 

County, Virginia, and is administered by 

staff at Eastern Virginia Rivers NWR 

Complex. The draft CCP and EA 

describe our proposal for managing 

James River NWR for the next 15 years. 

Alternative B is identified as the 

Service-preferred alternative. Also 

available for public review and 

comment are the draft compatibility 

determinations, which are included as 

appendix B in the draft CCP and EA. 

DATES: To ensure consideration of your 

written comments, please send them by 

November 21, 2014. We will announce 

upcoming public meetings in local news 

media, via our project mailing list, and 

on the refuge planning Web site: http:// 

www.fws.gov/refuge/James_River/what_

we_do/conservation.html 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

or requests for copies or more 

information by any of the following 

methods. You may request hard copies 

or a CD–ROM of the documents. 

Email: EasternVirginiaRiversNWRC@

fws.gov. Please include ‘‘James River 

CCP’’ in the subject line of the message. 

Fax: Attention: Rebekah Martin, 804– 

333–3396. 

U.S. Mail: Rebekah Martin, Deputy 

Refuge Manager, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, P.O. Box 1030, Warsaw, VA 

22572. 

In-Person Drop-off, Viewing, or 

Pickup: Call Rebekah Martin at 804– 

333–1470, extension 113, or Andy 

Hofmann, Refuge Manager, at 804–333– 

1470, extension 112, during regular 

business hours to make an appointment 

to view the document. For more 

information on locations for viewing or 

obtaining documents, see ‘‘Public 

Availability of Documents’’ under 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebekah Martin, Deputy Refuge 

Manager, 804–333–1470, extension 113 

(phone) or 

EasternVirginiaRiversNWRC@fws.gov 

(email) (please put ‘‘James River NWR’’ 

in the subject line). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for James River NWR. We 

published our original notice of intent 

to prepare a CCP in the Federal Register 

on January 11, 2012 (77 FR 1716). 

The 4,324-acre James River NWR lies 

in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and is 

located along the James River in Prince 

George County, Virginia, approximately 

8 miles southeast of the city of 

Hopewell, and 30 miles southeast of 

Richmond, the State capital. The refuge 

was established under the authority of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 

U.S.C. 1534) in 1991, to protect 

nationally significant nesting and 

roosting habitat for the bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The refuge 

encompasses 4,324 acres of pinedominated hardwood and floodplain 

forests, freshwater marsh and shrub 

swamp, aquatic habitats, erosional 

bluffs, and non-forested upland. The 

refuge also has a rich cultural history, 

illuminated by numerous known 

archaeological and historical sites. 

Wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities at James River NWR 

include a 24-day deer hunt each fall, as 

well as wildlife observation, 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretive program 

opportunities by reservation. 

Background 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd–668ee) (Refuge Administration 

Act), as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997, requires us to develop a 

CCP for each national wildlife refuge. 

The purpose for developing a CCP is to 

provide refuge managers with a 15-year 

plan for achieving refuge purposes and 

contributing toward the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, 

consistent with sound principles of fish 

and wildlife management conservation, 

legal mandates, and our policies. In 

addition to outlining broad management 

direction on conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

available to the public, including 

opportunities for hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and 

interpretation. We will review and 

update the CCP at least every 15 years, 

in accordance with the Refuge 

Administration Act. 

Public Outreach 

In August 2012, we distributed a 

planning newsletter to over 550 parties 

on our project mailing list. The 

newsletter informed people about the 

planning process and asked recipients 

to contact us about issues or concerns 

they would like us to address. We also 

posted the newsletter on our Web site 

for people to access electronically. In 

addition, we notified the general public 

of our planning project, and our interest 

in hearing about issues and concerns, by 

publishing news releases in local 

newspapers. We also held afternoon and 

evening public scoping meetings on 

September 12, 2012, in Prince George, 

Virginia. The purpose of the two 

meetings was to share information on 

the planning process and to solicit 

management issues and concerns. 

Throughout the process, refuge staff 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

63162 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Notices 

have conducted additional outreach via 

participation in community meetings, 

events, and other public forums. We 

have considered and evaluated all of the 

comments we received and addressed 

them in various ways in the alternatives 

presented in the draft CCP and EA. 

CCP Alternatives We Are Considering 

Several issues were raised by us, other 

governmental partners, and the public 

during the public scoping process. To 

address these issues, we developed and 

evaluated three alternatives in the draft 

CCP and EA. A full description of each 

alternative is in the draft CCP and EA. 

All alternatives include measures to 

control invasive species, protect cultural 

resources, improve inventory and 

monitoring programs, and maintain 

existing partnerships for habitat 

management and visitor services. All 

alternatives include measures to 

continue to share staff across the Eastern 

Virginia Rivers NWR Complex, require 

a permit for refuge access until adequate 

new infrastructure can support 

increased visitation, and maintain 

existing facilities. 

There are other actions that differ 

among the alternatives. The draft CCP 

and EA provide a full description of all 

alternatives and relate each to the issues 

and concerns that arose during the 

planning process. Below, we provide 

summaries for the three alternatives. 

Alternative A (Current Management) 

This alternative is the ‘‘no-action’’ 

alternative required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act. Alternative A 

defines our current management 

activities, including those planned, 

funded, or under way, and serves as the 

baseline against which to compare 

alternatives B and C. Under alternative 

A, we would continue to maintain the 

2,653 acres of pine-dominated forest on 

the refuge, with an emphasis on 

protecting this habitat for nesting and 

roosting bald eagles, as well as other 

native species that use this habitat. For 

other habitat types on the refuge, we 

would continue to maintain quality 

habitat for the benefit of native wildlife 

species by limiting disturbance, 

conducting wildlife surveys, monitoring 

invasive species presence, 

implementing best management 

practices, and collaborating with 

partners for wildlife habitat protection 

and population monitoring. 

Additionally, we would continue to 

accommodate public archery, 

muzzleloader, and shotgun deer hunting 

opportunities in the fall. We would 

continue to encourage visitors to 

participate in refuge- or partnersponsored wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation opportunities. 

Additional opportunities would be 

available to visitors on a by-request or 

case-by-case basis. 

Alternative B (Manage Forest Health 

With Pine-Dominated Component; New, 

Enhanced, and Focused Public Use 

Opportunities [Service-Preferred 

Alternative]) 

Alternative B is the Service-preferred 

alternative. It combines the actions we 

believe would best achieve the refuge’s 

purposes, vision, and goals, and 

respond to public issues. Under 

alternative B, we would emphasize the 

management of specific refuge habitats 

to support priority species whose 

habitat needs would benefit other 

species of conservation concern that are 

found in the area. We would promote 

the transition of 2,651 acres of former 

pine plantation toward mature pine 

savanna with understory for resident 

and breeding cavity-dwelling and 

ground-nesting species, including the 

brown-headed nuthatch, Chuck-will’swidow, red-headed woodpecker, and 

yellow-billed cuckoo. We would 

emphasize protecting and promoting 

bald eagle nesting habitat, as well as 

protecting the integrity of the refuge’s 

other habitats for native species, 

including migrating waterfowl, 

waterbirds, the federally endangered 

Atlantic sturgeon, and habitat suitable 

for the federally threatened sensitive 

joint-vetch. We would also expand our 

conservation, research, monitoring, and 

management partnerships to help 

restore and conserve the refuge. 

We would enhance our cultural 

resource protection to increase 

knowledge and appreciation for the 

refuge’s rich cultural history and 

heritage, as well as expand our visitor 

services programs to improve 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreation. Visitor service improvements 

would include expanding the on-refuge 

opportunities for wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation of natural and 

cultural resources in partnership with 

others. We would pursue Service 

administrative requirements to expand 

public deer hunting, open the refuge to 

spring and fall turkey hunting, open the 

refuge to limited waterfowl hunting by 

youth, promote youth involvement in 

all hunting opportunities, and open the 

refuge to fishing at two designated 

locations. 

Alternative C (Manage Forest Health 

With Hardwood Conversion Component; 

New and Expanded Public Use 

Opportunities) 

Under alternative C, we would 

emphasize the management of specific 

refuge habitats to support priority 

species whose habitat needs would 

benefit other species of conservation 

concern that are found in the area. We 

would promote the transition of 2,609 

acres of former pine plantation toward 

an oak/hickory/pine forest using 

selective cut forestry and best 

management practices to facilitate this 

transition in a phased manner while 

still protecting select trees for bald eagle 

use. We would protect the integrity of 

the refuge’s other habitats for native 

species, including maintenance of up to 

57 acres of non-forested upland for 

wildlife habitat and administrative 

purposes. 

We would enhance our cultural 

resource protection similar to 

alternative B. Our visitor services 

programs and opportunities would 

expand on those identified under 

alternative B, with modest increases in 

our hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation, and interpretation 

programs associated with providing 

access and infrastructure to additional 

areas of the refuge. 

Next Steps 

After this comment period ends, we 

will analyze the comments and address 

them in the form of a final CCP and 

finding of no significant impact. 

Public Availability of Documents 

In addition to any methods in 

ADDRESSES, you can view or obtain 

documents from the agency Web site at 

http://www.fws.gov/refuge/James_River/

what_we_do/conservation.html. 

Submitting Comments 

We consider comments substantive if 

they: 

• Question, with reasonable basis, the 

accuracy of the information in the 

document. 

• Question, with reasonable basis, the 

adequacy of the EA. 

• Present reasonable alternatives 

other than those presented in the EA. 

• Provide new or additional 

information relevant to the EA. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, email address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comments, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 204 / Wednesday, October 22, 2014 / Notices 63163 

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. 

Dated: September 23, 2014. 

Deborah Rocque, 

Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region. 

[FR Doc. 2014–25098 Filed 10–21–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–890] 

Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing 

Treatment Systems and Components 

Thereof; Commission Determination 

To Review In Part a Final Initial 

Determination Finding a Violation of 

Section 337; Schedule for Filing 

Written Submissions on the Issues 

Under Review and on Remedy, the 

Public Interest and Bonding 

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 the final initial determination 

(‘‘ID’’) issued by the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) on 

August 21, 2014, finding a violation of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), in this 

investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Panyin A. Hughes, Office of the General 

Counsel, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3042. 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 August 23, 2013, based on a 

complaint filed by ResMed Corporation 

of San Diego, California; ResMed 

Incorporated of San Diego, California; 

and ResMed Limited of New South 

Wales, Australia (collectively, 

‘‘ResMed’’). 78 FR 52564 (Aug. 23, 

2013). The complaint alleged 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 sleep-disordered breathing 

treatment systems and components 

thereof that infringe one or more of 

claims 32–37, 53, 79, 80, and 88 of U.S. 

Patent No. 7,997,267 (‘‘the ’267 patent’’); 

claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,614,398 

(‘‘the ’398 patent’’); claim 1 of U.S. 

Patent No. 7,938,116 (‘‘the ’116 patent’’); 

claims 30, 37, and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,341,060 (the ’060 patent); claims 1, 3, 

5, 11, 28, 30, 31, and 56 of U.S. Patent 

No. 8,312,883 (‘‘the ’883 patent’’); 

claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 29, 32, 35, 40, 42, 

45, 50, 51, 56, 59, 89, 92, 94, and 96 of 

U.S. Patent No. 7,178,527 (the ’527 

patent); claims 19–24, 26, 29–36, and 

39–41 of U.S. Patent No. 7,950,392 (the 

’392 patent); and claims 13, 15, 16, 26– 

28, 51, 52, and 55 of U.S. Patent No 

7,926,487 (‘‘the ’487 patent’’). The 

notice of investigation named the 

following respondents: BMC Medical 

Co., Ltd. of Beijing, China; 3B Medical, 

Inc. of Lake Wales, Florida; and 3B 

Products, L.L.C., of Lake Wales, Florida 

(collectively ‘‘Respondents’’). The Office 

of Unfair Import Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) 

is participating in the investigation. 

On January 9, 2014, the ALJ issued an 

ID granting a motion by ResMed to 

amend the complaint and notice of 

investigation to substitute U.S. Patent 

No. RE 44,453 (‘‘the ’453 patent’’) for the 

’398 patent and to terminate the 

investigation as to the ’398 patent. See 

Order No. 7 (Jan. 9, 2014). The 

Commission determined not to review 

the ID. See Notice of Commission 

Determination Not to Review an Initial 

Determination Granting the 

Complainants’ Motion to Amend the 

Complaint and Notice of Investigation 

(Feb. 10, 2014); 79 FR 9000–01 (Feb. 14, 

2014). 

On February 24, 2014, the ALJ issued 

an ID granting a motion by ResMed to 

withdraw its allegations with respect to 

the ’116 patent. See Order No. 11 (Feb. 

24, 2014). The Commission determined 

not to review the ID. See Notice of 

Commission Determination Not to 

Review an Initial Determination 

Granting the Complainants’ Motion to 

Partially Terminate the Investigation by 

Withdrawing Allegations with Respect 

to U.S. Patent No. 7,938,116 (March 11, 

2014). 

On March 18, 2014, the ALJ granted 

a motion by ResMed to terminate the 

investigation as to claims 26–28 of the 

’487 Patent. See Order No. 20 (Mar 18, 

2012). The Commission determined not 

to review the ID. See Notice of 

Commission Determination Not to 

Review an Initial Determination 

Granting Complainants’ Unopposed 

Motion for Partial Termination of the 

Investigation by Withdrawal of Claims 

26–28 of U.S. Patent No. 7,926,487 (Apr. 

29, 2014). 

On August 21, 2014, the ALJ issued 

his final ID, finding a violation of 

section 337 by Respondents with 

respect to certain asserted claims of the 

’392, ’267, ’060, ’883, ’527, and ’453 

patents. The ALJ found no violation of 

section 337 with respect to the asserted 

claims of the ’487 patent. Specifically, 

the ALJ found that the Commission has 

subject matter jurisdiction, in rem 

jurisdiction over the accused products, 

and in personam jurisdiction over the 

respondents. ID at 10–11. The parties 

stipulated to importation of the accused 

products and the ALJ found that the 

importation requirement of section 337 

(19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)) has been 

satisfied. Id. at 3. The ALJ found that the 

accused products infringe asserted 

claims 1, 9, 32, 89, and 92 of the ’527 

patent; asserted claims 19, 21, 29, 32, 

and 36 of the ’392 patent; asserted 

claims 32–34 and 53 of the ’267 patent; 

asserted claims 30, 37, and 38 of the 

’060 patent; asserted claims 1, 3, 5, 11, 

28, 30, 31, and 56 of the ’883 patent; and 

asserted claim 2 of the ’453 patent. See 

ID at 23, 46, 57–58, 71–78, 95, 99, and 

102. The ALJ found that Respondents 

failed to establish by clear and 

convincing evidence that the asserted 

claims of the ’392, ’267, ’060, ’883, ’527, 

or claim 2 of the ’453 patents were 

invalid in light of the cited prior art 

references. See id. at 25–45, 48–55, 96, 

and 100. The ALJ concluded that the 

accused products satisfy each limitation 

of claims 4 and 7 of the ’453 patent but 

found those claims invalid in view of 

the prior art. See id. at 103–139. The 

ALJ also found that the accused 

products satisfy each limitation of 

asserted claims 13, 51, 52, and 55 of the 

’487 patent, but found those claims 

invalid in view of the prior art. See id. 

at 78–92. The ALJ further found that 

ResMed established the existence of a 

domestic industry that practices the 

asserted patents under 19 U.S.C. 

1337(a)(2). See ID at 139–188. 

On September 3, 2014, Respondents 

and the Commission investigative 

attorney filed petitions for review of the 

ID. That same day, ResMed filed a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES