24566 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 

Number of Respondents: 1,669 

responses per year. 

Avg. Hours per Response: It is 

estimated to take between 30 minutes 

(0.5 hours) and 4.0 hours for the public 

to gather, prepare and submit the 

various petitions in this collection. 

Needs and Uses: In the interest of 

national security, patent laws and rules 

place certain limitations on the 

disclosure of information contained in 

patents and patent applications and on 

the filing of applications for patents in 

foreign countries. When an invention is 

determined to be detrimental to national 

security, the Director of the USPTO 

must issue a secrecy order and withhold 

the grant of a patent for such period as 

the national interest requires. The 

USPTO collects information to 

determine whether the patent laws and 

rules have been complied with, and to 

grant or revoke licenses to file abroad 

when appropriate. This collection is 

required by 35 U.S.C. 181–188 and 

administered through 37 CFR 5.1–5.33. 

There are no forms associated with this 

collection of information. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; business or other for-profit; 

and not-for-profit institutions. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain benefits. 

OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, 

(202) 395–3897. 

Copies of the above information 

collection proposal can be obtained by 

any of the following: 

<bullet≤ E-mail: 

Susan.Fawcett@uspto.gov. Include 

‘‘0651–0034 copy request’’ in the subject 

line of the message. 

<bullet≤ Fax: 571–273–0112, marked 

to the attention of Susan K. Fawcett. 

<bullet≤ Mail: Susan K. Fawcett, 

Records Officer, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer, Customer 

Information Services Group, Public 

Information Services Division, U.S. 

Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 

1450, Alexandria, VA 22313–1450. 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent on 

or before June 4, 2007 to David Rostker, 

OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503. 

Dated: April 26, 2007. 

Susan K. Fawcett, 

Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer, Customer Information 

Services Group, Public Information Services 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E7–8456 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

[Docket No. PTO–C–2007–0018] 

Request for Comments on 

International Efforts To Harmonize 

Substantive Requirements of Patent 

Laws 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of request for public 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking 

comments to obtain the views of the 

public on international efforts to 

harmonize substantive requirements of 

patent laws, and any potential 

subsequent changes to United States law 

and practice. Comments may be offered 

on any aspect of these efforts. 

DATES: Comments will be accepted on a 

continuous basis until June 22, 2007. 

See discussion of ‘‘Text’’ in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below. 

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to offer 

written comments by mail should 

address those comments to the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office, 

Office of International Relations, 

Madison West Building, Tenth Floor, 

600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 

22313, marked to the attention of Mr. 

Jon P. Santamauro. Comments may also 

be submitted to Mr. Santamauro by 

facsimile transmission to (571) 273– 

0085 or by electronic mail through the 

Internet at plharmonization@uspto.gov. 

The comments will be available for 

public inspection via the USPTO’s 

Internet Web site (address: http:// 

www.uspto.gov). Because comments will 

be made available for public inspection, 

information that is not desired to be 

made public, such as an address or 

phone number, should not be included 

in the comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Jon P. Santamauro by telephone at (571) 

272–9300, by fax at (571) 273–0085 or 

by mail marked to his attention and 

addressed to United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Office of 

International Relations, 600 Dulany 

Street, Madison West Building, Tenth 

Floor, Alexandria, VA 22313. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Background 

The United States has been involved 

in efforts to harmonize the substantive 

patent laws in the different countries of 

the world for many years. Recent efforts 

have been made to streamline this 

process by limiting the number of topics 

for consideration in this exercise with 

the aim of achieving a meaningful nearterm agreement. These efforts were 

initiated in proposals before the 

Standing Committee on the Law of 

Patents (SCP), meeting under the 

auspices of the World Intellectual 

Property Organization (WIPO), but more 

recently consensus has not been reached 

on a particular work plan in that body. 

Since early 2005, a group of countries, 

sometimes referred to as the 

‘‘Alexandria Process’’ or the ‘‘Group 

B+,’’ has been meeting informally to 

advance discussions on patent law 

harmonization in WIPO in the 

categories of: (1) Definition of prior art, 

(2) grace period, (3) novelty, and (4) 

inventive step or non-obviousness. Each 

of these items relates to applicability of 

‘‘prior art.’’ These four categories are 

commonly referred to as the ‘‘limited 

package.’’ These are core elements in 

patent examination in countries around 

the world. The ‘‘B+’’ countries include 

the United States, Canada, Japan, 

Australia, New Zealand, Norway, the 

Members of the European Union and the 

Members of the European Patent 

Convention. It has been recognized that 

the items under discussion provide the 

best chance for achieving a meaningful 

near-term agreement on patent law 

harmonization. 

Upon conclusion, an agreement on 

these elements would provide a 

harmonized system on global 

applicability of these prior art-related 

principles. This would allow for more 

uniform treatment of patent applications 

and patent grants, improve patent 

quality and reduce costs for patent 

owners in obtaining and preserving 

their rights for inventions in many 

countries of the world. Meetings of 

‘‘Group B+’’ and consultations relating 

to the WIPO SCP are expected to be 

convened in 2007. The USPTO is 

interested in obtaining comprehensive 

comments regarding these efforts. 

2. Issues for Public Comment 

The purpose of this notice is to 

identify and briefly outline important 

issues that have arisen and are likely to 

arise during meetings of the ‘‘Group B+’’ 

and WIPO SCP on patent law 

harmonization. A brief summary of 

some of these issues is provided below. 

Any comments provided with regard to 

the particular items identified below 

should be numbered in correspondence 

with the numbering of these items as 

shown. Comments on any aspects of 

these topics are welcome. This would 

include comments relating to what 

practices described may constitute ‘‘best 

practices’’ in an internationally 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 24567 

harmonized system, as well as any other 

matter relating to the topics identified. 

The listing of topics is not meant to be 

exhaustive. Comments offered on other 

topics relating to efforts on patent law 

harmonization or to the four ‘‘limitedpackage’’ categories of defining prior art, 

grace period, novelty or inventive step, 

that have not been specifically recited 

below should be provided under the 

heading ’’Other Comments.’’ 

(1) Priority of Invention. The United 

States currently adheres to what is 

usually called the ‘‘first-to-invent 

system’’ with respect to priority contests 

between independent inventors who are 

claiming rights to the same invention. In 

the context of current U.S. patent law, 

this entails the establishment of (1) 

conception of the invention and (2) 

reduction to practice of the invention by 

a particular date. Under certain 

circumstances, the U.S. system permits 

the party that has reduced the invention 

to practice later than another to prove 

that it was the first-to-invent, and 

thereby entitled to the patent, by 

establishing a prior date of conception 

of the invention. The remainder of the 

world uses what is referred to as a ‘‘firstinventor-to-file’’ (or more widely 

referred to as ‘‘first-to-file’’) rule in 

determining the right to a patent. 

Generally speaking, this practice 

determines contests between two parties 

that have independently invented the 

same invention, and awards the patent 

to the inventor that files his or her 

application first in time with the patent 

authorities in the relevant national or 

regional patent system. While this topic 

itself is not one of the four categories of 

the limited package noted above, this 

issue would need to be resolved to 

achieve an agreement on those issues, 

and has been raised in that context. 

(2) Prior Art Effective Date of 

Published U.S. Patent Applications. 

United States patent law provides that 

published patent applications and 

grants are considered prior art with 

respect to a second patent application 

provided the application is earlier filed 

in the United States and is published or 

granted as required by 35 U.S.C. 102(e). 

In other words, the prior art effective 

date of a published application or 

granted patent is its date of filing in the 

United States. The Paris Convention 

provides that applicants may file first in 

their country of origin and then have a 

twelve-month period in which to file in 

foreign markets without harming their 

ability to obtain protection in those 

foreign markets. According to U.S. 

patent law, applications from foreign 

applicants who rely on the Paris 

Convention priority date obtain a 

patent-defeating prior art effect only 

from the date of filing in the United 

States. See In re Hilmer, 359 F.2d 859 

(CCPA 1966) and 35 U.S.C. 102(e). In 

other patent systems in the world, 

applicants (including U.S. origin 

applicants) obtain prior art effect from 

the date of their first filing under the 

Paris Convention, usually 12 months 

prior to the filing in the country where 

protection is sought. However, current 

United States patent law does provide 

that international application 

publications under the Patent 

Cooperation Treaty are available as prior 

art as of their international filing date, 

if the international application was filed 

on or after November 29, 2000, 

designated the United States, and 

published in English under the rules of 

that Treaty. See 35 U.S.C. 102(e). 

(3) Scope of Prior Art Effect of 

Published Patent Applications. As noted 

above, United States patent law 

provides that published patent 

applications and grants are considered 

prior art for the purposes of both 

novelty and non-obviousness provided 

the application is earlier filed and is 

published or granted as required by 35 

U.S.C. 102(e). Hazeltine Research v. 

Brenner, 382 U.S. 252, 147 USPQ 429 

(1965). This practice helps to prevent 

grant of overlapping patent rights and to 

prevent third parties from being 

threatened by multiple patent 

infringement lawsuits for substantially 

the same acts. Other patent systems 

apply this type of prior art only with 

respect to novelty, due to concerns of 

the effect of what may be considered 

‘‘secret’’ prior art against a second-intime inventor who was not aware that 

any prior art was in existence when its 

second-in-time patent application was 

filed. This prior art is considered 

‘‘secret’’ in these jurisdictions because 

this type of prior art has a patentdefeating effect as of its filing date 

which is prior to its publication. Such 

a novelty-only system, however, may 

allow for the granting of multiple 

patents directed to obvious variations of 

the same invention. 

(4) Grace Period. Through operation 

of the prior art definitions of 35 U.S.C. 

102, United States patent law provides 

a ‘‘grace period’’ of one year prior to the 

date of application in the United States. 

Disclosures by the inventor during the 

‘‘grace period’’ do not have a patentdefeating effect. During this period, only 

disclosures ‘‘by another’’ have patent 

defeating effect. See 35 U.S.C. 102. The 

‘‘grace period’’ is considered by many to 

be necessary to allow inventors to 

disclose their invention without the 

penalty of extinguishing any patent 

rights for that invention. This is 

generally raised in the context of those 

applicants that either have strong 

incentives to publish early in their 

fields or, as in the case of independent 

inventors or small entities, those 

applicants that are not well versed in 

the patent system and may 

inadvertently extinguish their rights 

through publication. Some other 

systems, including that in the European 

Patent Convention (EPC), have an 

‘‘absolute novelty’’ requirement such 

that any disclosures, including those by 

an inventor himself, made prior to the 

date a patent application is filed, are 

considered prior art. Proponents of the 

‘‘absolute novelty’’ standard generally 

view this standard as providing 

increased legal certainty in that any 

publication will constitute prior art 

against a later filed patent application, 

regardless of the author. 

An issue raised in this context is the 

appropriate length of the ‘‘grace period’’ 

if introduced globally. Consistent with 

existing practice, the United States has 

argued for a twelve-month grace period 

to ensure optimal utility for applicants, 

and that the grace period should arise 

solely by operation of law. Some 

countries have raised the issue of 

providing for procedural mechanisms, 

such as a requirement for the patent 

applicant to make a declaration of intent 

to invoke the ‘‘grace period,’’ that would 

require a patent applicant to list any 

disclosure that the applicant has made 

in the past twelve months in order to be 

considered to fall within the grace 

period. However, others have argued 

that such a procedural mechanism, 

which currently does not exist in United 

States practice, would vitiate the 

benefits of such a grace period and harm 

those parties most likely to benefit from 

such a grace period, e.g., small entities 

or other applicants less familiar with the 

patent system. 

There are discussions ongoing as well 

as to the scope of any such grace period. 

Some have advocated for a broader 

grace period that would include any 

information disclosed by or on behalf of 

an inventor. Others have advocated the 

view that published patent applications 

should be excluded from the grace 

period on the grounds that applying a 

grace period to patent applications 

published at eighteen months would 

unduly extend, by an additional twelve 

months, the amount of time for 

applicants to file multiple patent 

applications on the same invention. 

Further, it is argued that the equities are 

not the same in this situation as the 

application has already knowingly 

applied for patent protection on the 

same or related subject matter. 

(5) Geographical Limitations in the 

Definition of Prior Art. Recent 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

24568 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 

discussions at the international level 

have indicated a willingness on the part 

of states to eliminate any geographical 

restrictions that limit the definition of 

prior art. Currently, United States prior 

art requirements limit certain types of 

non-written disclosures to acts within 

the United States, see 35 U.S.C. 102(a) 

and 102(b). Some have argued that these 

restrictions discriminate against 

countries, in particular certain 

developing countries where there are 

traditions of non-written disclosures 

that should be patent defeating if 

adequately established. It has also been 

argued that concerns about the 

reliability of oral or other non-written 

disclosures can be more adequately 

addressed through evidentiary 

provisions rather than through the 

substantive patent law. 

(6) ‘‘Loss of Right’’ Provisions. Current 

U.S. patent law, 35 U.S.C. 102(b), bars 

the grant of a patent when the invention 

was ‘‘in public use or on sale’’ more 

than one year prior to filing in the 

United States. The ‘‘on sale’’ provision 

may bar patenting in this instance, even 

where the invention has not been 

disclosed to the public, if it remains ‘‘on 

sale.’’ Secret commercial use by the 

inventor is also covered by the bar in 

order to prevent the preservation of 

patent rights when, although an 

invention has remained secret, there has 

been successful commercial exploitation 

of the invention by its inventor beyond 

one year before filing. See, e.g., 

Metallizing Engineering Co. v. Kenyon 

Bearing & Auto Parts, 153 F.2d 516 

(CCPA 1946). These provisions are 

generally considered to promote early 

disclosure of inventions through patents 

and to prevent unjustified extensions of 

the term of exclusive protection by 

requiring early filing of patent 

applications in these circumstances. 

Most other patent systems do not have 

such provisions. Advocates of 

eliminating such requirements argue 

that such requirements are not objective 

in nature and therefore add uncertainty 

and complexity to the patent system. 

(7) ‘‘Experimental Use’’ Exception to 

Prior Art. United States patent law 

provides that a public use or sale by the 

inventor may be exempt from the prior 

art if that use or sale was experimental. 

The courts have considered a use or sale 

to be experimental if ‘‘it represents a 

bona fide effort to perfect the invention 

or to ascertain whether it will answer its 

intended purpose. * * * If any 

commercial exploitation does occur, it 

must be merely incidental to the 

primary purpose of the experimentation 

to perfect the invention.’’ LaBounty Mfg. 

v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 

958 F.2d 1066, 1071, 22 USPQ2d 1025, 

1028 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Pennwalt 

Corp. v. Akzona Inc., 740 F.2d 1573, 

1581, 222 USPQ 833, 838 (Fed. Cir. 

1984)). Contrary to the grace period, this 

exemption from the prior art is not time 

limited but is considered on a case-bycase basis. Most other systems do not 

contain such a limitation on prior art. If 

prior public uses are made, these items 

constitute prior art, subject to a timelimited grace period in some 

jurisdictions, regardless of whether the 

uses are experimental in nature, unless 

the use is not sufficiently informing to 

the public. 

(8) Prior User Rights. While the issue 

is also not one of those expressly 

included in the four limited-package 

categories, this matter has been raised 

by numerous delegations in the context 

of patent law harmonization 

discussions. The United States currently 

has a defense to infringement with 

respect to a person, acting in good faith, 

who had actually reduced the subject 

matter of an invention to practice at 

least one year before the effective filing 

date of a patent application for that 

invention by another. See 35 U.S.C. 273. 

This defense is limited in many 

respects, most notably that it can only 

be asserted if the invention for which 

the defense is asserted is a method, 

defined as a method of doing or 

conducting business, and further that it 

may not be asserted if the subject matter 

on which the defense is asserted is 

derived from the patentee or persons in 

privity with the patentee. These types of 

infringement defenses are generally 

referred to as ‘‘prior user rights.’’ Other 

countries have varying practices, but 

more generally apply such defense to 

both products and processes and to 

persons that, in good faith, either use 

the invention or make effective and 

serious preparations for such use prior 

to the effective filing date for the patent 

application. Further, there is a split 

between jurisdictions that provide prior 

user rights. Some apply these rights 

more broadly to those parties that have 

derived their use from information from 

the patentee, including publications by 

the patentee or inventor prior to the 

filing date of the later application. Other 

jurisdictions take a narrower approach 

that limits prior user rights to those 

persons who, in good faith, 

independently developed the later 

patented product or process. Comments 

on any aspects of prior user rights, 

including whether this element should 

be included with the current talks on 

prior-art related matters, are welcome. 

(9) Assignee Filing. United States 

patent law now requires that a patent 

application be made, or authorized to be 

made, by the inventor or inventors. 

However, some systems allow for direct 

filing of patent applications by 

assignees. These systems generally 

require that the inventor be named in 

the application and the entitlement to 

the patent must derive from the inventor 

or his successor in title, such as an 

assignee. 

(10) Eighteen-Month Publication of 

Patent Applications. Most countries 

publish all patent applications at 

eighteen months after the application’s 

filing date (or priority date) and prior to 

grant of the patent. This is sometimes 

referred to as ‘‘pre-grant publication.’’ 

This publication requirement is 

considered by many to be an important 

transparency mechanism for the patent 

system and to prevent the occurrence of 

so-called ‘‘submarine’’ patents that may 

be pending in the patent office for an 

extended period of time and then are 

granted, potentially affecting good faith 

actors in the relevant field. It should be 

noted that if the patent application is 

withdrawn or abandoned by an 

applicant prior to the eighteen-month 

date in these jurisdictions, the 

application is not published. The 

United States currently provides 

eighteen-month publication for the large 

majority of patent applications filed in 

the United States. However, U.S. patent 

applications may not be published if an 

applicant requests at the time of filing 

of an application that the application 

not be published and the request 

certifies that the invention disclosed in 

the application has not and will not be 

the subject of a patent application in 

another country or under a multilateral 

international agreement that requires 

eighteen-month publication. See 35 

U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B). Most other systems 

do not have this type of ‘‘opt-out’’ 

option. Advocates of eliminating this 

type of ‘‘opt-out’’ procedure generally 

consider this type of provision to 

undermine the transparency and legal 

certainty provided by publication. 

3. Further Reference 

Comments on any issues regarding the 

topics listed above, other matters 

relating to the four ‘‘limited-package’’ 

categories of (1) definition or prior art, 

(2) grace period, (3) novelty, and (4) 

non-obviousness, or any other aspects 

relating to substantive patent law 

harmonization are welcome. To 

facilitate final preparations for the 

future meetings, comments will be 

accepted until June 22, 2007. Interested 

members of the public are also 

reminded that USPTO previously 

requested public comments on a wider 

range of issues relating to patent law 

harmonization in March 2001. The 

responses to that request for comments 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 85 / Thursday, May 3, 2007 / Notices 24569 

are available on the Internet Web site of 

the USPTO at http://www.uspto.gov/ 

web/offices/dcom/olia/harmonization/. 

Dated: April 26, 2007. 

Jon W. Dudas, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. E7–8416 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[No. DOD–2007–OS–0037] 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Defense Finance and 

Accounting Service, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 

3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense 

Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) 

announces the proposed extension of a 

public information collection and seeks 

public comments on the provisions 

thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the proposed 

information collection; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility and clarity 

of the information to be collected; and 

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the 

information collection on respondents, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

DATES: Consideration will be given to all 

comments received by July 2, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

<bullet≤ Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

<bullet≤ Mail: Federal Docket 

Management System Office, 1160 

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–1160. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name, docket 

number and title for this Federal 

Register document. The general policy 

for comments and other submissions 

from members of the public is to make 

these submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request more information on this 

proposed information collection or to 

obtain a copy of the proposal and 

associated collection instrument, please 

write to the Defense Finance and 

Accounting Service—Denver, DFAS– 

JES/DE, ATTN: Sue Debevec, 6760 East 

Irvington Place, Denver, CO 80279– 

3000, or call Sue Debevec at 303–676– 

5050. 

Title, Associated Form, and OMB 

Number: Request for Information 

Regarding Deceased Debtor; DD Form 

2840; OMB Number 0730–0015. 

Needs and Uses: This form is used to 

obtain information on deceased debtors 

from probate courts. Probate courts 

review their records to see if an estate 

was established. They provide the name 

and address of the executor or lawyer 

handling the estate. From the 

information obtained, DFAS submits a 

claim against the estate for the amount 

due the United States. 

Affected Public: Clerks of Probate 

Courts. 

Annual Burden Hours: 167 hours. 

Number of Respondents: 2,000. 

Responses per Respondent: 1. 

Average Burden Per Response: 5 

minutes. 

Frequency: On Occasion. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Summary of Information Collection 

DFAS maintains updated debt 

accounts and initiates debt collection 

action for separated military members, 

out-of-service civilian employees, and 

other individuals not on an active 

federal government payroll system. 

When notice is received that an 

individual is deceased, an effort is made 

to ascertain whether the decedent left an 

estate by contacting clerks of probate 

courts. If it’s determined that an estate 

was established, attempts are made to 

collect the debt from the estate. If no 

estate appears to have been established, 

the debt is written off as uncollectible. 

Dated: April 23, 2007. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 07–2141 Filed 5–2–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[No. DoD–2007–HA–0023] 

Proposed Collection, Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, 

DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

In accordance with Section 3506(c) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

the Office of the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Health Affairs announces 

the proposed extension of a public 

information collection and seeks public 

comment on the provisions thereof. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed extension of collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the information 

collection; (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

information collection on respondents, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

DATES: Considerations will be given to 

all comments received on or before July 

2, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

<bullet≤ Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www/regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

<bullet≤ Mail: Federal Docket 

Management System Office, 1160 

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–1160. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name, docket 

number and title for this Federal 

Register document. The general policy 

for comments and other submissions 

from members of the public is to make 

these submissions available for public 

viewing on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov as they are 

received, without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request more information on this 

proposed information collection, please 

write to the TRICARE Management 

Activity—Aurora, Appeals, Hearings 

and Claims Collection Division, 16401 

E. Centretech Pkwy, Attn: Donald F. 

Wagner, Aurora, CO 80011–9066, or 

mmaher on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with $$_JOB