Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 30319 

relates to surface operations on lands 

within national forests west of the 100th 

meridian. Neither of those exceptions 

applies to the request now under 

consideration. 

The introductory paragraph of section 

522(e) also provides two general 

exceptions to the prohibitions on 

surface coal mining operations in that 

section. Those exceptions apply to 

operations in existence on the date of 

enactment of the Act (August 3, 1977) 

and to land for which a person has VER. 

SMCRA does not define VER. We 

subsequently adopted regulations 

defining VER and clarifying that, for 

lands that come under the protection of 

30 CFR 761.11 and section 522(e) after 

the date of enactment of SMCRA, the 

applicable date is the date that the lands 

came under protection, not August 3, 

1977. 

On December 17, 1999 (64 FR 70766– 

70838), we adopted a revised definition 

of VER, established a process for 

submission and review of requests for 

VER determinations, and otherwise 

modified the regulations implementing 

section 522(e). At 30 CFR 761.16(a), we 

published a table clarifying which 

agency (OSM or the State regulatory 

authority) is responsible for making VER 

determinations and which definition 

(State or Federal) will apply. That table 

specifies that OSM is responsible for 

VER determinations for Federal lands 

within national forests and that the 

Federal VER definition in 30 CFR 761.5 

applies to those determinations. 

At 30 CFR 761.16(b) we published the 

information needed for OSM to make a 

determination of VER, which includes 

information required to demonstrate the 

‘‘good faith/all permits’’ standard in 

accordance with 30 CFR 761.16(b)(2) or 

the ‘‘needed for and adjacent’’ standard 

in accordance with 761.16(b)(3). 

III. What Information Is Available 

Relevant to the Basis for the Request? 

The request included a Property 

Rights Demonstration, as required by 30 

CFR 761.16 (b)(1) pursuant to the 

definition at 30 CFR 761.5. Included 

were two deed conveyances referenced 

in the Property Rights Demonstration, 

containing a legal description of the 

land owned by the petitioner that is the 

subject of the request, and the 

subsequent severance of the surface and 

mineral estates. 

IV. How We Processed the Request 

We received the request on July 18, 

2008, through a letter dated July 15, 

2008, submitted by David Altizer on 

behalf of Jack Smith et al. The request 

did not include all of the information 

required for the ‘‘good faith/all permits’’ 

standard in accordance with 30 CFR 

761.16(b)(2) or the ‘‘needed for and 

adjacent’’ standard in accordance with 

30 CFR 761.16(b)(3). Therefore, we 

determined that the request was not 

administratively complete. Because the 

request was not administratively 

complete, our review did not include an 

assessment of the technical or legal 

adequacy of the materials submitted 

with the request. 

In a letter dated August 13, 2008, we 

informed the requester that the 

information submitted was incomplete. 

As required by 30 CFR 761.16(c)(2), we 

provided an additional 30 days within 

which to submit the required 

information. No additional information 

was submitted by the requester. 

V. How We Made Our Decision 

Because we did not receive any 

further information in support of the 

request, and we did not receive a 

request for an extension of time within 

which to submit additional information, 

the request remains incomplete and 

cannot be processed. In such a situation, 

our regulations at 30 CFR 761.16(e)(4) 

require us to issue a determination that 

an applicant has not demonstrated VER. 

This determination is made without 

prejudice therefore the requester may 

submit a revised request with the 

appropriate information at any time. 

VI. How Can I Appeal the 

Determination? 

Our determination that the applicant 

has not demonstrated VER is subject to 

administrative and judicial review 

under the Federal regulations at 30 CFR 

775.11 and 775.13. 

VII. Where Are the Records of This 

Determination Available? 

Our records on this determination are 

available for your inspection at the 

Lexington Field Office at the location 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Dated: April 23, 2009. 

Thomas D. Shope, 

Regional Director, Appalachian Region. 

[FR Doc. E9–15000 Filed 6–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Temporary Vehicle Restriction on U. S. 

Route 209 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Delaware Water Gap, National 

Recreation Area. 

ACTION: Temporary Vehicle Restriction 

on U.S. Route 209. 

SUMMARY: The National Park Service 

(NPS), Delaware Water Gap National 

Recreation Area, in conjunction with 

the Federal Highway Administration, is 

repairing and reconstructing the 

Bushkill Creek Bridge along U.S. Route 

209. During the repair and 

reconstruction period, Bushkill Creek 

Bridge will be closed. A detour route is 

available, but can only accommodate 

vehicles with a gross vehicle weight 

rating (GVWR) less than 15 tons. For 

this reason, NPS is instituting a 

temporary restriction of vehicles with a 

GVWR in excess of 15 tons (30,000 lbs 

GVWR) along U.S. Route 209 in the 

park. This temporary restriction will be 

in effect starting July 9, 2009 at 1800 

hours and will remain in effect 24 hours 

a day until July 27, 2009 at 1800 hours. 

DATES: July 9, 2009 at 1800 through July 

27, 2009 at 1800. 

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of, and 

written comments on U.S. Route 209 

closure should be sent to John J. 

Donahue, Superintendent, Delaware 

Water Gap, National Recreation Area, 

River Road, Bushkill, PA 18324. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

J. Donahue at (570) 426–2418. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The main 

problems to be corrected on the Bushkill 

Creek Bridge are moderate spalling 

throughout the north pier bearing area 

on both sides, which has partially 

undermined several bearing plates. 

Other problems being corrected are 

deterioration of the wearing surface, 

paint deterioration throughout the steel 

beams, and rusting of the bearing 

devices. Additionally, repairs are being 

made to several large vertical cracks in 

the abutment breastwalls, and large 

quantities of gravel and debris in the 

channel at the structure site. In the fall 

of 2008, Delaware Water Gap National 

Recreation Area maintenance employees 

performed and completed the gravel 

removal operation. In order to repair the 

wearing surface, milling and removal of 

2′′ of the bridge deck is required and 

needs to be replaced with new latex 

concrete. The process for milling, 

removal, and pouring of new latex 

concrete is 4 days with an additional 14 

days for the curing of the new latex 

concrete, thus requiring the closure of 

the bridge for 18 consecutive days. 

During this time, vehicles with a GVWR 

less than 15 tons may use the identified 

detour route. Vehicles with a GVWR 

greater than 15 tons will not be able to 

use U.S. Route 209 in the park. 

Public Availability of Comments: John 

J. Donahue, Superintendent, Delaware 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
30320 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 121 / Thursday, June 25, 2009 / Notices 

Water Gap, National Recreation Area, 

River Road, Bushkill, PA 18324. 

Dated: May 5, 2009. 

John J. Donahue, 

Superintendent, Delaware Water Gap, 

National Recreation Area. 

[FR Doc. E9–15021 Filed 6–24–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–J6–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Inv. No. 337–TA–565] 

In the Matter of Certain Ink Cartridges 

and Components Thereof 

Consolidated Enforcement Proceeding 

and Enforcement Proceeding II; Notice 

of a Commission Determination Not To 

Review an Enforcement Initial 

Determination Finding a Violation of 

Cease and Desist Orders and a 

Consent Order; Schedule for Filing 

Written Submissions on Civil Penalties 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined not to 

review an enforcement initial 

determination (‘‘EID’’) of the presiding 

administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) in the 

above-captioned proceeding finding a 

violation of cease and desist orders and 

a consent order. The Commission is 

requesting briefing on the amount of 

civil penalties for violation of the 

orders. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Haldenstein, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3041. Copies of 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. 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/. Hearing-impaired 

persons are advised that information on 

the matter can be obtained by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted the underlying 

investigation in this matter on March 

23, 2006, based on a complaint filed by 

Epson Portland, Inc. of Oregon; Epson 

America, Inc. of California; and Seiko 

Epson Corporation of Japan 

(collectively, ‘‘Epson’’). 71 FR 14720 

(March 23, 2006). The complaint, as 

amended, alleged violations of section 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘section 

337’’) in the importation into the United 

States, the sale for importation, and the 

sale within the United States after 

importation of certain ink cartridges and 

components thereof by reason of 

infringement of claim 7 of U.S. Patent 

No. 5,615,957; claims 18, 81, 93, 149, 

164, and 165 of U.S. Patent No. 

5,622,439; claims 83 and 84 of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,158,377; claims 19 and 20 

of U.S. Patent No. 5,221,148; claims 29, 

31, 34, and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 

5,156,472; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 

5,488,401; claims 1–3 and 9 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,502,917; claims 1, 31, and 

34 of U.S. Patent No. 6,550,902; claims 

1, 10, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 

6,955,422; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 

7,008,053; and claims 21, 45, 53, and 54 

of U.S. Patent No. 7,011,397. The 

complaint further alleged that an 

industry in the United States exists as 

required by subsection (a)(2) of section 

337. The complainants requested that 

the Commission issue a general 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders. The Commission named as 

respondents 24 companies located in 

China, Germany, Hong Kong, Korea, and 

the United States. Several respondents 

were terminated from the investigation 

on the basis of settlement agreements or 

consent orders or were found in default. 

On October 19, 2007, after review of 

the ALJ’s final ID, the Commission made 

its final determination in the 

investigation, finding a violation of 

section 337. The Commission issued a 

general exclusion order, a limited 

exclusion order, and cease and desist 

orders directed to several domestic 

respondents. The Commission also 

determined that the public interest 

factors enumerated in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d), 

(f), and (g) did not preclude issuance of 

the aforementioned remedial orders, 

and that the bond during the 

Presidential period of review would be 

$13.60 per cartridge for covered ink 

cartridges. Certain respondents 

appealed the Commission’s final 

determination to the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘Federal Circuit’’). On January 13, 

2009, the Federal Circuit affirmed the 

Commission’s final determination 

without opinion pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 

36. Ninestar Technology Co. et al. v. 

International Trade Commission, 

Appeal No. 2008–1201. 

On February 8, 2008, Epson filed two 

complaints for enforcement of the 

Commission’s orders pursuant to 

Commission rule 210.75. Epson 

proposed that the Commission name 

five respondents as enforcement 

respondents. On May 1, 2008, the 

Commission determined that the criteria 

for institution of enforcement 

proceedings were satisfied and 

instituted consolidated enforcement 

proceedings, naming the five following 

proposed respondents as enforcement 

respondents: Ninestar Technology Co., 

Ltd.; Ninestar Technology Company, 

Ltd.; Town Sky Inc. (collectively, the 

‘‘Ninestar Respondents’’), as well as 

Mipo America Ltd. (‘‘Mipo America’’) 

and Mipo International, Ltd 

(collectively, the ‘‘Mipo Respondents’’). 

On March 18, 2008, Epson filed a third 

enforcement complaint against two 

proposed respondents: Ribbon Tree 

USA, Inc. (dba Cana-Pacific Ribbons) 

and Apex Distributing Inc. (collectively, 

the ‘‘Apex Respondents’’). On June 23, 

2008, the Commission determined that 

the criteria for institution of 

enforcement proceedings were satisfied 

and instituted another formal 

enforcement proceeding and named the 

two proposed respondents as the 

enforcement respondents. On 

September 18, 2008, the ALJ issued 

Order No. 37, consolidating the two 

proceedings. 

On April 17, 2009, the ALJ issued his 

Enforcement Initial Determination (EID) 

in which he determined that there have 

been violations of the Commission’s 

cease and desist orders and a consent 

order and recommended that the 

Commission impose civil penalties for 

such violations. 

On April 29, 2009, the Ninestar 

Respondents filed a petition for review 

of the EID. On May 7, 2009, Epson and 

the Commission investigative attorney 

filed responses to the petition for 

review. 

Having considered the EID, the 

petition for review, the responses 

thereto, and other relevant portions of 

the record, the Commission has 

determined not to review the EID. The 

Commission may levy civil penalties for 

violation of the cease and desist orders 

and consent order. 

Written Submissions: Parties to the 

investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the amount of civil 

penalties to be imposed. Such 

submissions should address the April 

17, 2009, recommended determination 

by the ALJ on civil penalties. The 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES