Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Notices 89041 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s website. 

2Commissioner David S. Johanson voted to 

conduct a full review. 

3The Commission has found the response 

submitted on behalf of M&B Metal Products 

Company, Inc. to be individually adequate. 

Comments from other interested parties will not be 

accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)). 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act 

(19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)).2

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this review and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B 

(19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the review has been 

placed in the nonpublic record, and will 

be made available to persons on the 

Administrative Protective Order service 

list for this review on December 23, 

2024. A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to § 207.62(d)(4) of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

§ 207.62(d) of the Commission’s rules, 

interested parties that are parties to the 

review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,3 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before January 

2, 2025 and may not contain new factual 

information. Any person that is neither 

a party to the five-year review nor an 

interested party may submit a brief 

written statement (which shall not 

contain any new factual information) 

pertinent to the review by January 2, 

2025. However, should the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘Commerce’’) extend the 

time limit for its completion of the final 

results of its review, the deadline for 

comments (which may not contain new 

factual information) on Commerce’s 

final results is three business days after 

the issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of §§ 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s Handbook on 

Filing Procedures, available on the 

Commission’s website at https://

www.usitc.gov/documents/handbook_

on_filing_procedures.pdf, elaborates 

upon the Commission’s procedures with 

respect to filings. 

In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 

207.3 of the rules, each document filed 

by a party to the review must be served 

on all other parties to the review (as 

identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service. 

Determination.—The Commission has 

determined this review is 

extraordinarily complicated and 

therefore has determined to exercise its 

authority to extend the review period by 

up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)(B). 

Authority: This review is being 

conducted under authority of title VII of 

the Act; this notice is published 

pursuant to § 207.62 of the 

Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 5, 2024. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26117 Filed 11–8–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–1368] 

Certain Vaporizer Devices, Cartridges 

Used Therewith, and Components 

Thereof; [Revised] Notice of 

Commission Determination To Review 

in Part a Final Initial Determination 

Finding a Violation of Section 337; 

Request for Written Submissions on 

the Issues Under Review and on 

Remedy, the Public Interest, and 

Bonding 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Commission has 

determined to review in part a final 

initial determination (‘‘ID’’) issued by 

the presiding administrative law judge 

(‘‘ALJ’’) in the above-captioned 

investigation finding a violation of 

section 337. The Commission requests 

written submissions from the parties on 

the issues under review and 

submissions from the parties, interested 

government agencies, and interested 

persons on the issues of remedy, the 

public interest, and bonding under the 

schedule set forth below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Richard P. Hadorn, Esq., Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

205–3179. Copies of non-confidential 

documents filed in connection with this 

investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at https://edis.usitc.gov. For help 

accessing EDIS, please email 

EDIS3Help@usitc.gov. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

internet server at https://www.usitc.gov. 

Hearing-impaired persons are advised 

that information on this matter can be 

obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal, telephone 

(202) 205–1810. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission instituted this investigation 

on August 7, 2023, based on a complaint 

filed by JUUL Labs, Inc. of Washington, 

DC and VMR Products LLC of San 

Francisco, California (together, ‘‘JLI’’). 

88 FR 52207 (Aug. 7, 2023). The 

complaint, as supplemented, alleges 

violations of section 337 of the Tariff 

Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 

(‘‘section 337’’), based on the 

importation into the United States, the 

sale for importation, and/or the sale 

within the United States after 

importation of certain vaporizer devices, 

cartridges used therewith, and 

components thereof by reason of 

infringement of certain claims of U.S. 

Patent Nos. RE49,114 (‘‘the ’114 

patent’’), 10,130,123 (‘‘the ’123 patent’’), 

10,709,173 (‘‘the ’173 patent’’), 

11,134,722 (‘‘the ’722 patent’’), and 

11,606,981 (‘‘the ’981 patent’’). Id. The 

complaint further alleges that a 

domestic industry (‘‘DI’’) exists. Id. The 

notice of investigation names five 

respondents: (1) NJOY, LLC of Phoenix, 

Arizona; (2) NJOY Holdings, Inc. of 

Scottsdale, Arizona; (3) Altria Group, 

Inc. of Richmond, Virginia; (4) Altria 

Group Distribution Company of 

Richmond, Virginia; and (5) Altria 

Client Services LLC of Richmond, 

Virginia (collectively, ‘‘NJOY’’). Id. The 

Office of Unfair Import Investigations 

(‘‘OUII’’) is also named as a party. Id. 

The Commission also directed the ALJ 

to take evidence on and provide factual 

findings and a recommended 

determination concerning the public 

interest. Id. 

On April 3, 2024, the Commission 

terminated the investigation as to the 

following asserted claims based on 

partial withdrawal of the complaint: (i) 

claims 1, 5–7, 29, 30, 36, 80, 89, and 93 

of the ’114 patent; (ii) claims 16, 18, 29, 

and 31 of the ’123 patent; (iii) claims 3, 

8, 14, and 17 of the ’722 patent; and (iv) 

claims 6, 9–11, 17, and 18 of the ’981 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
89042 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Notices 

patent. Order No. 18 (Mar. 6, 2024), 

unreviewed by Comm’n Notice (Apr. 3, 

2024). 

On April 26, 2024, the Commission 

terminated the investigation as to the 

following asserted claims based on 

partial withdrawal of the complaint: (i) 

claims 43, 44, 76, 77, 81, and 86 (all 

remaining claims) of the ’114 patent, 

thus terminating the ’114 patent in its 

entirety; (ii) claim 14 of the ’123 patent; 

(iii) claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 15, 16, 18–25, 28, 

and 30 of the ’173 patent; (iv) claims 5, 

7, 9–13, 16, and 18–21 of the ’722 

patent; and (v) claims 2, 5, and 13–16 

of the ’981 patent. Order No. 21 (Apr. 

2, 2024), unreviewed by Comm’n Notice 

(Apr. 26, 2024). 

On June 18, 2024, the Commission 

affirmed an initial determination 

granting summary determination that 

JLI has satisfied the economic prong of 

the DI requirement as to the remaining 

asserted patents, i.e., the ’123, ’173, 

’722, and ’981 patents. Order No. 22 

(Apr. 3, 2024), aff’d by Comm’n Notice 

(June 20, 2024). 

On August 23, 2024, the ALJ issued 

the final ID, which finds a violation of 

section 337 as to claims 27 and 32 of the 

’123 patent, claims 1 and 4 of the ’173 

patent, claims 1 and 15 of the ’722 

patent, and claims 1 and 8 of the ’981 

patent. The ID also includes the ALJ’s 

recommended determination (‘‘RD’’) on 

remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. The RD recommends that, 

should the Commission determine that 

a violation of section 337 has occurred, 

the Commission should: (i) issue a 

limited exclusion order against NJOY’s 

infringing products; (ii) issue cease and 

desist orders against each of the NJOY 

respondents; and (iii) impose no bond (0 

percent bond) for importations of 

infringing products during the period of 

Presidential review. The ALJ also found 

that the statutory public interest factors 

do not support denying or delaying the 

recommended relief set forth in the RD. 

On September 6, 2024, NJOY filed a 

petition seeking review of certain 

findings in the ID, including (i) claim 

construction and infringement of the 

asserted claims of the ’722 and ’981 

patents, (ii) claim construction, 

infringement, the technical and 

economic prongs of the DI requirement, 

and validity of the asserted claims of the 

’123 patent, and (iii) claim construction, 

infringement, and the technical prong of 

the DI requirement of the asserted 

claims of the ’173 patent. That same 

day, JLI filed a contingent petition 

seeking review of certain of the ID’s 

findings concerning (i) claim 

construction, infringement, and validity 

of the ’722 and ’981 patents, (ii) the 

technical prong of the DI requirement 

and validity of the ’123 patent, and (iii) 

validity of the ’173 patent. On 

September 16, 2024, JLI and NJOY each 

filed a response opposing the other’s 

petition. That same day, OUII filed a 

response addressing both petitions. 

On September 23, 2024, NJOY filed a 

motion for leave to file a reply in 

support of its petition for review, 

addressing certain positions taken by 

OUII in its response to NJOY’s petition. 

On September 25 and 27, 2024, OUII 

and JLI, respectively, filed a response 

opposing NJOY’s motion for leave. 

On September 24, 2024, JLI and NJOY 

each filed a submission on the public 

interest pursuant to Commission Rule 

210.50(a)(4) (19 CFR 210.50(a)(4)). The 

Commission did not receive any 

submissions on the public interest from 

members of the public or interested 

government agencies in response to the 

Commission’s Federal Register notice. 

See 89 FR 70668–69 (Aug. 30, 2024). 

Having reviewed the record of the 

investigation, including the final ID, the 

parties’ submissions to the ALJ, the 

petitions and the responses thereto, and 

NJOY’s motion for leave and the 

responses thereto, the Commission has 

determined to review the ID in part. 

Specifically, the Commission has 

determined to review the ID’s 

construction of the ‘‘pressure sensor’’ 

limitations (limitations 27[d] and 27[e]) 

recited in claim 27 of the ’123 patent. 

The Commission has also determined to 

review the ID’s findings that the NJOY 

ACE accused product, the asserted [ ] 

and JAGWAR iterations of the JUUL DI 

system, and the asserted JUUL2 DI 

system literally practice limitations 

27[d] and 27[e] of claim 27 of the ’123 

patent under the ID’s construction of 

those limitations. 

The Commission has further 

determined to review certain of the ID’s 

findings regarding claim construction 

and satisfaction of the technical prong 

of the DI requirement with respect to the 

’173 patent. In particular, the 

Commission has determined to review 

the ID’s construction of the claim terms 

‘‘mouthpiece’’ and ‘‘disposed within’’ 

recited in the asserted claims 1 and 4 of 

the ’173 patent. The Commission has 

further determined to review the ID’s 

finding that the JUUL2 DI system 

practices claims 1 and 4 of the ’173 

patent. 

In view of the parties’ submissions 

and the issues raised with regard to 

satisfaction of the technical prong of the 

DI requirement, the Commission has 

further determined to reconsider its 

previous finding that JLI has satisfied 

the economic prong of the DI 

requirement with respect to the ’123 

patent and the ’173 patent based on 

investments related to both the JUUL DI 

system and the JUUL2 DI system. 19 

CFR 210.47, .48. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the remaining findings in the 

ID, including the ID’s findings of a 

violation of section 337 as to the ’722 

and ’981 patents. The Commission has 

further determined to deny NJOY’s 

motion for leave to file a reply in 

support of its petition for review. 

In connection with its review, the 

Commission requests responses to the 

following questions. The parties are 

requested to brief their positions with 

reference to the applicable law and the 

existing evidentiary record. 

(1) Please explain whether the final ID 

correctly finds that ‘‘JLI does not rely on the 

[ ] iteration as a domestic industry 

product.’’ ID at 123 (citing Case Management 

Conf. Tr. at 8:16–24 (April 26, 2024) (EDIS 

Doc. ID 820002)). To the extent it is argued 

that the final ID errs in this finding and JLI 

asserted the [ ] iteration of the JUUL system 

to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic 

industry requirement with respect to the ’123 

patent, please identify where in the record 

JLI timely preserved this contention so as to 

avoid a finding of waiver. 

(2) Did JLI explicitly or implicitly waive its 

right to rely on the [ ] iteration of the JUUL 

system to satisfy the DI requirement with 

respect to the ’123 patent? 

(3) Can OUII, as a party to the 

investigation, assert that the [ ] iteration of 

the JUUL system satisfies the DI requirement 

with respect to the ’123 patent where the 

complainant did not allege that this product 

satisfies that requirement? See John 

Mezzalingua Assocs., Inc. v. ITC, 660 F.3d 

1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011); but see Certain 

Liquid Transfer Devices with an Integral Vial 

Adapter, Inv. No. 337–TA–1362, Comm’n 

Op. at 16–19 (July 26, 2024) (recognizing that 

OUII should have been allowed to raise an 

invalidity argument that was waived by 

respondents). 

(4) Do the asserted JAGWAR iteration of 

the JUUL DI system and the asserted JUUL2 

DI system practice (literally and/or under the 

doctrine of equivalents) limitations 27[d] and 

27[e] of claim 27 of the ’123 patent under a 

construction of those limitations requiring at 

least one ‘‘pressure sensor’’ that has both ‘‘a 

first side . . . exposed to a sealed air flow 

path’’ and ‘‘a second side . . . exposed to a 

device air path open to ambient pressure.’’ 

(5) Assuming that only the JAGWAR 

iteration of the JUUL DI system and the 

JUUL2 DI system can be relied upon to 

satisfy the technical prong of the DI 

requirement, is there any need to further 

consider the allocation of investments related 

to the economic prong findings as to the ’123 

patent in Order 22? In responding to this 

question, please address the ALJ’s finding in 

Order 26 that JLI ‘‘did not rely on its [ ] 

JUUL System for economic domestic industry 

for the ’123 patent’’ (Order 26 at 1) and the 

statement in NJOY’s petition for review that 

it had not opposed the summary 

determination that JLI has satisfied the 

economic prong of the domestic industry 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Notices 89043 

requirement ‘‘based on the understanding 

that JUUL Jagwar and JUUL 2 were the only 

domestic industry products for the ’123 

Patent.’’ NJOY Pet. at 29. 

(6) Assuming that only the JAGWAR 

iteration of the JUUL DI system and the 

JUUL2 DI system can be relied upon to 

satisfy the technical prong of the DI 

requirement, does the record in this 

investigation support an allocation of JLI’s 

investments to only one or both those DI 

products? 

(7) Please confirm that the investments 

asserted by JLI as to the ‘‘JUUL system’’ 

regarding the ’123 patent in Order 22 do not 

include investments relating to [ ]. If [ ] 

investments are included, what are the 

amounts specific only to JAGWAR and to 

JUUL2? Are these revised investments in 

JAGWAR and JUUL2 regarding the ’123 

patent significant under section 337(a)(3) (A) 

and (B)? 

(8) Please comment on whether remand is 

necessary to determine whether the domestic 

industry requirement is satisfied as to the 

’123 patent. 

The parties are invited to brief only 

the discrete issues requested above. The 

parties are not to brief other issues on 

review, which are adequately presented 

in the parties’ existing filings. 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

statute authorizes issuance of, inter alia, 

(1) an exclusion order that could result 

in the exclusion of the subject articles 

from entry into the United States; and/ 

or (2) cease and desist orders that could 

result in the respondents being required 

to cease and desist from engaging in 

unfair acts in the importation and sale 

of such articles. Accordingly, the 

Commission is interested in receiving 

written submissions that address the 

form of remedy, if any, that should be 

ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an 

article from entry into the United States 

for purposes other than entry for 

consumption, the party should so 

indicate and provide information 

establishing that activities involving 

other types of entry either are adversely 

affecting it or likely to do so. For 

background, see Certain Devices for 

Connecting Computers via Telephone 

Lines, Inv. No. 337–TA–360, USITC 

Pub. No. 2843, Comm’n Op. at 7–10 

(Dec. 1994). 

The statute requires the Commission 

to consider the effects of that remedy 

upon the public interest. The public 

interest factors the Commission will 

consider include the effect that an 

exclusion order and cease and desist 

orders would have on: (1) the public 

health and welfare, (2) competitive 

conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. 

production of articles that are like or 

directly competitive with those that are 

subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. 

consumers. The Commission is 

therefore interested in receiving written 

submissions that address the 

aforementioned public interest factors 

in the context of this investigation. 

If the Commission orders some form 

of remedy, the U.S. Trade 

Representative, as delegated by the 

President, has 60 days to approve, 

disapprove, or take no action on the 

Commission’s determination. See 

Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 

2005, 70 FR 43251 (July 26, 2005). 

During this period, the subject articles 

would be entitled to enter the United 

States under bond, in an amount 

determined by the Commission and 

prescribed by the Secretary of the 

Treasury. The Commission is therefore 

interested in receiving submissions 

concerning the amount of the bond that 

should be imposed if a remedy is 

ordered. 

Written Submissions: The parties to 

the investigation are requested to file 

written submissions on the issues 

identified in this notice. Parties to the 

investigation, interested government 

agencies, and any other interested 

parties are encouraged to file written 

submissions on the issues of remedy, 

the public interest, and bonding. Such 

submissions should address the 

recommended determination by the ALJ 

on remedy, the public interest, and 

bonding. 

In its initial written submission, JLI is 

also requested to identify the remedy 

sought and to submit proposed remedial 

orders for the Commission’s 

consideration. JLI is further requested to 

state the dates that the asserted patents 

expire, to provide the HTSUS 

subheadings under which the accused 

products are imported, and to supply 

the identification information for all 

known importers of the products at 

issue in this investigation. In its written 

submission, OUII is also requested to 

submit proposed remedial orders for the 

Commission’s consideration. 

The initial written submissions and 

proposed remedial orders from the 

parties must be filed no later than the 

close of business on November 7, 2024. 

Reply submissions from the parties 

must be filed no later than the close of 

business on November 14, 2024. Initial 

written submissions from interested 

government agencies, and any other 

interested parties must be filed no later 

than the close of business on November 

20, 2024. Reply submissions from the 

interested government agencies, and any 

other interested parties must be filed no 

later than the close of business on 

November 27, 2024. Opening 

submissions are limited to 60 pages. 

Reply submissions are limited to 40 

pages. No further submissions on any of 

these issues will be permitted unless 

otherwise ordered by the Commission. 

Persons filing written submissions 

must file the original document 

electronically on or before the deadlines 

stated above. The Commission’s paper 

filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) 

are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar. 

19, 2020). Submissions should refer to 

the investigation number (Inv. No. 337– 

TA–1368) in a prominent place on the 

cover page and/or the first page. (See 

Handbook for Electronic Filing 

Procedures, https://www.usitc.gov/ 

documents/handbook_on_filing_

procedures.pdf). Persons with questions 

regarding filing should contact the 

Secretary (202–205–2000). 

Any person desiring to submit a 

document to the Commission in 

confidence must request confidential 

treatment by marking each document 

with a header indicating that the 

document contains confidential 

information. This marking will be 

deemed to satisfy the request procedure 

set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 

210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 

210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which 

confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. Any non-party 

wishing to submit comments containing 

confidential information must serve 

those comments on the parties to the 

investigation pursuant to the applicable 

Administrative Protective Order. A 

redacted non-confidential version of the 

document must also be filed with the 

Commission and served on any parties 

to the investigation within two business 

days of any confidential filing. All 

information, including confidential 

business information and documents for 

which confidential treatment is properly 

sought, submitted to the Commission for 

purposes of this investigation may be 

disclosed to and used: (i) by the 

Commission, its employees and Offices, 

and contract personnel (a) for 

developing or maintaining the records 

of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in 

internal investigations, audits, reviews, 

and evaluations relating to the 

programs, personnel, and operations of 

the Commission including under 5 

U.S.C. appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. 

Government employees and contract 

personnel, solely for cybersecurity 

purposes. All contract personnel will 

sign appropriate nondisclosure 

agreements. All nonconfidential written 

submissions will be available for public 

inspection on EDIS. 

The Commission vote for this 

determination took place on October 24, 

2024. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES
89044 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 218 / Tuesday, November 12, 2024 / Notices 

337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 

210 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 

210). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: November 6, 2024. 

Lisa Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26161 Filed 11–8–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1123–0NEW] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection 

eComments Requested; New 

Collection; Title—COP Community 

Policing Advancement Performance 

Report 

AGENCY: Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, Department of Justice. 

ACTION: 60-Day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, Department 

of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the 

following information collection request 

to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for 60 days until 

January 13, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have additional comments 

especially on the estimated public 

burden or associated response time, 

suggestions, or need a copy of the 

proposed information collection 

instrument with instructions or 

additional information, please contact 

Dave Neely, Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, 145 N St. NW, Washington, DC 

20530, -1584 -avid.neely2@usdoj.gov 

(202) 514–8553. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written 

comments and suggestions from the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

the proposed collection of information 

are encouraged. Your comments should 

address one or more of the following 

four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Evaluate whether and if so how the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected can be 

enhanced; and 

—Minimize the burden of the collection 

of information on those who are to 

respond, including through the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms 

of information technology, e.g., 

permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Abstract: Under the Gambling Devices 

Act of 1962 (15 U.S.C. 1171–1178) 

mandates that the Department of Justice 

register all entities that participate in 

the interstate commerce of gambling 

devices. Registration involves the 

collection of certain information from 

the respondent, as specified in the Act. 

Overview of This Information 

Collection 

1. Type of Information Collection: 

New collection. 

2. The Title of the Form/Collection: 

COPS Community Policing 

Advancement Performance Report. 

3. The agency form number, if any, 

and the applicable component of the 

Department sponsoring the collection: 

None. U.S. Department of Justice Office 

of Community Oriented Policing 

Services. 

4. Affected public who will be asked 

or required to respond, as well as the 

obligation to respond: Affected Public 

Primary: Law enforcement agencies and 

other public and private entities that 

respond to a bi-annual performance 

report. 

5. An estimate of the total number of 

respondents and the amount of time 

estimated for an average respondent to 

respond: It is estimated that 430 

respondents will complete the form on 

a bi-annual basis taking an estimated 20 

minutes per report twice a year. 

6. An estimate of the total annual 

burden (in hours) associated with the 

collection: There are an estimated 287 

total annual burden hours associated 

with this collection. 

TOTAL BURDEN HOURS

Activity Number of 

respondents 

Frequency 

(biannual) 

Total 

annual 

responses 

Time per 

response 

(mins) 

Total 

annual 

burden 

(hours) 

Form ....................................................................................................... 430 2 430 20 287 

Unduplicated Totals ........................................................................ 430 2 430 20 287 

If additional information is required 

contact: Darwin Arceo, Department 

Clearance Officer, United States 

Department of Justice, Justice 

Management Division, Policy and 

Planning Staff, Two Constitution 

Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W–218, 

Washington, DC. 

Dated: November 6, 2024. 

Darwin Arceo, 

Department Clearance Officer for PRA, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2024–26133 Filed 11–8–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–AT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1123–0010] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed eCollection 

eComments Requested; Extension of a 

Previously Approved Collection; 

Request for Registration Under the 

Gambling Devices Act of 1962 

AGENCY: Criminal Division, Department 

of Justice. 

ACTION: 60-Day notice. 

SUMMARY: The Criminal Division, 

Department of Justice (DOJ), will be 

submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Comments are encouraged and 

will be accepted for 60 days until 

January 13, 2025. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have additional comments 

especially on the estimated public 

burden or associated response time, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with NOTICES