65698 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 

Type of response Number of 

responses 

Hours per 

response 

Total time 

(Column B × 

Column C) 

A. B. C. D. 

Exploration Plan—43 CFR 3931.41 ............................................................................................ 1 24 24 

Modification of Approved Exploration Plan or Plan of Development—43 CFR 3931.50 ............ 1 24 24 

Production Maps and Production Reports—43 CFR 3931.70 .................................................... 1 16 16 

Records of Core or Test Hole Samples and Cuttings—43 CFR 3931.80 .................................. 1 16 16 

Application for Modification of Lease Size—43 CFR 3932.10, 3930.20, and 3932.30 .............. 1 12 12 

Request for Approval of Assignment of Record Title or Sublease or Notice of Overriding Royalty Interest Assignment—43 CFR subpart 3933 .................................................................... 2 10 20 

Relinquishment of Lease or Exploration License—43 CFR 3934.10 ......................................... 1 18 18 

Production and Sale Records—43 CFR 3935.10 ....................................................................... 1 16 16 

Totals .................................................................................................................................... 24 ........................ 1,795 

Jean Sonneman, 

Bureau of Land Management, Information 

Collection Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26327 Filed 11–4–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 337–TA–884] 

Certain Consumer Electronics with 

Display and Processing Capabilities; 

Commission Decision to Review In 

Part a Final Initial Determination 

Finding a Violation of Section 337; 

Request for Written Submissions; 

Extension of Target Date 

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

the U.S. International Trade 

Commission has determined to review 

in part the presiding administrative law 

judge’s (‘‘ALJ’’) final initial 

determination (‘‘final ID’’) issued on 

August 29, 2014, finding a violation of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (‘‘section 

337’’), and to extend the target date in 

the above-captioned investigation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan M. Valentine, Office of the 

General Counsel, U.S. International 

Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 

708–2301. 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 June 25, 2013, based on a complaint 

filed by Graphics Properties Holdings, 

Inc. of New Rochelle, New York 

(‘‘GPH’’). 78 FR 38072–73 (June 25, 

2013). The complaint alleged violations 

of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended, 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 consumer electronics with 

display and processing capabilities by 

reason of infringement of certain claims 

of United States Patent Nos. 6,650,327 

(‘‘the ’327 patent’’); 8,144,158 (‘‘the ’158 

patent’’); and 5,717,881 (‘‘the ’881 

patent’’). The notice of investigation 

named as respondents Panasonic 

Corporation of Osaka, Japan and 

Panasonic Corporation of North 

America of Secaucus, New Jersey 

(collectively ‘‘Panasonic’’); Toshiba 

Corporation of Tokyo, Japan and 

Toshiba America Information Systems, 

Inc. of Irvine, California (collectively 

‘‘Toshiba’’); Toshiba America, Inc. of 

New York, New York (‘‘Toshiba 

America’’); Vizio, Inc. of Irvine, 

California (‘‘Vizio’’); AmTran Logistics, 

Inc. of Irvine, California and AmTran 

Technology Co., Ltd. of New Taipei 

City, Taiwan (collectively ‘‘AmTran’’); 

and ZTE Corporation of Shenzhen, 

China, ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, 

Texas, and ZTE Solutions of 

Richardson, Texas (collectively, ‘‘ZTE’’). 

The Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations (‘‘OUII’’) is a party to the 

investigation. The Commission later 

terminated the investigation with 

respect to Panasonic, Vizio, AmTran, 

and ZTE. 

On March 31, 2014, the Commission 

determined not to review an ID granting 

respondents’ motion for summary 

determination that claim 1 of the ’881 

patent is invalid for indefiniteness, thus 

terminating the ’881 patent from the 

investigation. Notice (Mar. 31, 2014); 

Order Nos. 53 (Feb. 27, 2014), 60 (Mar. 

11, 2014, correcting Order No. 53). 

On August 29, 2014, the ALJ issued 

his final ID, finding a violation of 

section 337 with respect to Toshiba. 

Specifically, the ALJ found that all of 

the accused products literally infringe 

claims 2, 3, 7, 25, and 26 of the ’327 

patent and claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 of the 

’158 patent (‘‘the asserted claims’’). The 

ALJ also found that none of the asserted 

claims of the ’327 patent are invalid as 

anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 or as 

obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103. The ALJ 

further found that none of the asserted 

claims of the ’158 patent are invalid as 

anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102, as 

obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103, or for lack 

of written description under 35 U.S.C. 

112. The ALJ also found that the 

respondents did not establish that any 

of the asserted patents are unenforceable 

due to estoppel based on GPH’s 

obligation to license the asserted patents 

under reasonable and 

nondiscriminatory (‘‘RAND’’) terms or 

that license exhaustion applies with 

respect to any of the asserted patents. 

The ALJ further found that a domestic 

industry exists with respect to the ’327 

and ’158 patents. 

The ALJ found, however, that no 

violation of section 337 exists as to 

respondent Toshiba America with 

respect to the asserted claims of the ’327 

and ’158 patents because GPH failed to 

satisfy the importation or sale 

requirement of section 337 establishing 

subject matter jurisdiction as to Toshiba 

America. No party petitioned for review 

of this finding. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 65699 

The final ID also includes the ALJ’s 

recommended determination (‘‘RD’’) on 

remedy and bonding. The ALJ 

recommends that the Commission issue 

a limited exclusion order barring entry 

of Toshiba’s consumer electronics with 

display and processing capabilities that 

infringe the asserted claims of the ’327 

and ’158 patents in the event it finds a 

violation of section 337. The ALJ also 

recommends issuance of a cease and 

desist order against Toshiba, and 

recommends the imposition of a zero 

percent bond during the period of 

Presidential review because GPH failed 

to support its bond proposals. 

On September 15, 2014, Toshiba filed 

a petition for review of the final ID’s 

finding of violation. In particular, 

Toshiba requested review of the final 

ID’s findings concerning claim 

construction, invalidity, infringement, 

the economic prong of the domestic 

industry, Toshiba’s license defense, and 

Toshiba’s RAND defense. Also on 

September 15, 2014, GPH filed a 

contingent petition for review 

concerning the ALJ’s lack of findings 

with respect to whether GPH 

additionally satisfied the economic 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement based on the domestic 

activities of its licensees pursuant to 19 

U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(A) and (B). 

On September 23, 2014, GPH filed a 

response to Toshiba’s petition for 

review, and Toshiba filed a response to 

GPH’s contingent petition for review. 

Also on September 23, 2014, the 

Commission investigative attorney filed 

a joint response to the private parties’ 

petitions. 

On September 30, 2014, Toshiba filed 

a post-RD statement on the public 

interest pursuant to Commission Rule 

210.50(a)(4). On October 1, 2014, GPH 

filed its post-RD public interest 

statement pursant to the Commission 

Rule 210.50(a)(4). No responses were 

filed by the public in response to the 

post-RD Commission Notice issued on 

September 3, 2014. See Notice of 

Request for Statements on the Public 

Interest (Sept. 3, 2014). 

Having examined the record of this 

investigation, including the ALJ’s final 

ID, the petitions for review, and the 

responses thereto, the Commission has 

determined to review the final ID in 

part. 

Specifically, the Commission has 

determined to review the ALJ’s 

construction of the limitation ‘‘frame 

buffer’’ in claims 2, 3, and 7 of the ’327 

patent and claims 1, 7, and 8 of the ’158 

patents, and the claim limitations ‘‘scan 

converter’’ and ‘‘scan convert data’’ 

recited in claim 1 of the ’158 patent. In 

addition, the Commission has 

determined to review the final ID’s 

finding that claim 1 of the ’158 patent 

is not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112 for 

failure to satisfy the written description 

requirement. 

The Commission has also determined 

to review the final ID’s finding that the 

reference Martin, P. et al., ‘‘Turbo VRX: 

A High-Performance Graphics 

Workstation Architecture’’ (‘‘the Martin 

publication’’) does not anticipate claim 

2 of the ’327 patent and claims 1, 4, 7, 

and 10 of the ’158 patent. The 

Commission has further determined to 

review the final ID’s finding that 

Toshiba failed to show by clear and 

convincing evidence that the asserted 

claims of the ’327 and ’158 patents are 

obvious in view of Martin, U.S. Patent 

No. 5,977,983 to Einkauf (‘‘Einkauf’’), 

and AT&T’s Pixel Machine (‘‘Pixel 

Machine’’), alone or in combination 

with other asserted prior art. 

Because the Commission has 

determined to review the ALJ’s 

constructions of the limitations ‘‘frame 

buffer,’’ ‘‘scan converter,’’ and ‘‘scan 

convert data,’’ the Commission has also 

determined to review the final ID’s 

finding of infringement with respect to 

all of the accused graphics processing 

units, including those for which 

Toshiba did not petition for review. 

The Commission has determined to 

review the final ID’s finding that GPH 

has satisfied the economic prong of the 

domestic industry requirement. 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

determined to review the final ID’s 

finding that GPH’s motion for summary 

determination that it satisfied the 

economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement through its 

licensees’ activities under 337(a)(3)(A) 

and (B) for expenditures in labor, 

capital, plant, and equipment with 

respect to its licensees’ research and 

development activities is moot. 

Furthermore, because the Commission 

has determined to review the ALJ’s 

constructions of the limitations ‘‘frame 

buffer,’’ ‘‘scan converter,’’ and ‘‘scan 

convert data,’’ the Commission has 

determined to review the final ID’s 

finding that GPH satisfied the technical 

prong of the domestic industry 

requirement. 

The Commission has further 

determined to review the final ID’s 

finding that the defense of license 

exhaustion does not apply to certain of 

Toshiba’s accused products by virtue of 

a license agreement concerning 

Toshiba’s display panel manufacturers. 

The Commission has also determined to 

review the final ID’s finding that the 

’327 patent is not subject to RAND 

encumbrances. 

The Commission has determined not 

to review the remaining issues decided 

in the final ID. 

The parties are requested to brief their 

positions on the issues under review 

with reference to the applicable law and 

the evidentiary record. In connection 

with its review, the Commission is 

particularly interested in responses to 

the following questions: 

1. Does the correct construction of the 

‘‘frame buffer’’ limitation require that the 

claimed ‘‘frame buffer’’ must store ‘‘floating 

point color values’’ but need not store a ‘‘full 

frame of fragment or pixel data after 

rasterization is complete but immediately 

prior to the values being scanned out to the 

display?’’ Please discuss the correct 

construction of these terms in reference to 

the intrinsic evidence and Silicon Graphics, 

Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc., 607 F.3d 784, 

792 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

2. Please discuss whether the claimed 

‘‘scan converter’’ is capable of operating on 

an entirely floating point basis while 

receiving and outputting data that is not in 

floating point format. Please address how this 

affects the proper construction of the claim 

limitations ‘‘scan converter’’ and ‘‘scan 

convert data’’ and whether claim 1 of the 

’158 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112 for 

failure to satisfy the written description 

requirement. 

3. Please discuss whether the Martin 

publication by itself is enabling prior art. In 

addition, please address whether GPH’s 

reliance on the reference ‘‘High Speed High 

Quality Antialiased Vector Generation’’ by A. 

Barkans to discredit the Martin publication is 

legally permissible in the context of assessing 

whether the Martin publication is enabled. 

4. Please discuss whether, if the Martin 

publication is enabled, the Martin 

publication itself reads on every limitation of 

claim 2 of the ’327 patent and claims 1, 4, 

7, and 10 of the ’158 patent. 

5. Please discuss whether, if the Martin 

publication is enabled, Martin alone or in 

combination with other prior art renders 

obvious the asserted claims of the ’327 and 

’158 patents with respect to the claim 

limitations ‘‘frame buffer,’’ ‘‘s10e5 format,’’ 

‘‘scan converter,’’ and ‘‘scan convert data.’’ 

6. Please discuss whether Einkauf, alone or 

in combination with other prior art, renders 

obvious the asserted claims of the ’327 and 

’158 patents with respect to the claim 

limitations ‘‘frame buffer,’’ ‘‘s10e5 format,’’ 

‘‘scan converter,’’ and ‘‘scan convert data.’’ 

7. Please discuss whether Pixel Machine, 

alone or in combination with other prior art, 

renders obvious the asserted claims of the 

’327 and ’158 patents with respect to the 

claim limitations ‘‘frame buffer,’’ ‘‘texture 

circuit,’’ ‘‘s10e5 format,’’ ‘‘scan converter,’’ 

and ‘‘scan convert data.’’ In particular, please 

address if the question of whether Pixel 

Machine renders obvious the ‘‘texture 

circuit’’ limitation in claim 4 of the ’158 

patent remains at issue. 

8. In light of the Commission’s 

determination to review the ALJ’s 

construction of the claim limitations ‘‘frame 

buffer,’’ ‘‘scan converter,’’ and ‘‘scan convert 

data,’’ please discuss whether any of the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

65700 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 

accused products infringe the asserted claims 

of the ’327 and ’158 patents. Also, please 

address whether the source code upon which 

GPH’s expert relied with respect to his 

opinion that the accused Toshiba products 

infringe the asserted claims of the ’327 and 

’158 patents accurately reflects the operation 

of those products. 

9. Please discuss, based on record 

evidence, the extent to which GPH’s 

purported licensing-based domestic industry 

will be ongoing following the termination of 

this investigation. 

10. Please discuss whether GPH has 

satisfied the economic prong of the domestic 

industry requirement through its licensees’ 

activities under 337(a)(3)(A) and (B) for 

expenditures in labor, capital, plant, and 

equipment with respect to its licensees’ 

research and development activities. 

11. In light of the Commission’s 

determination to review the ALJ’s 

construction of the claim limitations ‘‘frame 

buffer,’’ ‘‘scan converter,’’ and ‘‘scan convert 

data,’’ please discuss whether GPH has 

satisfied the technical prong of the domestic 

industry requirement. 

12. Please explain the scope of licensed 

products recited in the license agreement 

concerning certain of Toshiba’s display panel 

manufacturers in accordance with the laws of 

the state of New York. Please discuss 

whether Toshiba is a sublicensee pursuant to 

this license agreement. 

13. Please discuss whether GPH incurred a 

RAND obligation as to the ’327 and/or ’158 

patent by reason of GPH’s or SGI’s conduct 

(1) before any of the standards committees 

with which GPH or SGI was involved, or (2) 

in negotiations with potential licensees. In 

particular, please address: (1) The legal 

significance of SGI’s purported statement to 

the OpenGL Architecture Review Board and 

the Khronos Group Board of Promoters that, 

as to the ’327 patent, it will discuss licensing 

on RAND terms; (2) whether the ’327 patent 

is incorporated into an optional extension; 

(3) if the ’327 patent is incorporated into an 

optional extension, is it considered part of 

the Ratified Specification; and (4) whether 

the asserted claims of the ’327 and/or ’158 

patent are ‘‘Necessary Claims’’ or ‘‘Necessary 

Patent Claims.’’ 

14. Please discuss the course of conduct 

between Toshiba and GPH regarding 

negotiations on RAND licensing terms. 

15. Please discuss whether GPH ever 

submitted an IP Disclosure Certificate in 

connection with its participation with the 

Open GL standard under the Khronos Group 

Membership Agreement. 

In connection with the final 

disposition of this investigation, the 

Commission may (1) issue an order that 

could result in the exclusion of the 

subject articles from entry into the 

United States, and/or (2) issue one or 

more cease and desist orders that could 

result in the respondent(s) 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 (December 1994) 

(Commission Opinion). 

If the Commission contemplates some 

form of remedy, it must consider the 

effects of that remedy upon the public 

interest. The factors the Commission 

will consider include the effect that an 

exclusion order and/or 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 or 

disapprove the Commission’s action. 

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, including OUII, are 

requested to file written submissions on 

the issues identified in this notice. 

Parties to the investigation, including 

OUII, 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 

and bonding. Complainant is also 

requested to submit proposed remedial 

orders for the Commission’s 

consideration and to provide 

identification information for all 

importers of the subject articles. 

Complainant and OUII are also 

requested to state the dates that the 

patents expire and the HTSUS numbers 

under which the accused products are 

imported. The written submissions and 

proposed remedial orders must be filed 

no later than close of business on 

November 21, 2014. Initial submissions 

are limited to 125 pages, not including 

any attachments or exhibits related to 

discussion of the public interest. Reply 

submissions must be filed no later than 

the close of business on December 5, 

2014. Reply submissions are limited to 

75 pages, not including any attachments 

or exhibits related to discussion of the 

public interest. The parties may not 

incorporate by reference their filings 

before the ALJ. No further submissions 

on 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 and submit 8 true paper 

copies to the Office of the Secretary by 

noon the next day pursuant to section 

210.4(f) of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure (19 C...210.4(f)). 

Submissions should refer to the 

investigation number (‘‘Inv. No. 337– 

TA–884’’) in a prominent place on the 

cover page and/or the first page. (See 

Handbook for Electronic Filing 

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

secretary/fed_reg_notices/rules/

handbook_on_electronic_filing.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. All such requests should be 

directed to the Secretary to the 

Commission and must include a full 

statement of the reasons why the 

Commission should grant such 

treatment. See 19 CFR 01.6. Documents 

for which confidential treatment by the 

Commission is properly sought will be 

treated accordingly. A redacted nonconfidential version of the document 

must also be filed simultaneously with 

the any confidential filing. All nonconfidential written submissions will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Secretary and on EDIS. 

The target date for completion of the 

investigation is extended to January 16, 

2015. 

The authority for the Commission’s 

determination is contained in section 

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). 

Issued: October 30, 2014. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 2014 / Notices 65701 

By order of the Commission. 

Lisa R. Barton, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–26246 Filed 11–4–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

[OMB Number 1110-New] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities Proposed eCollection 

eComments Requests 60-Day Notice 

Template for Extension of Generic 

Clearance for the Collection of 

Qualitative Feedback on Agency 

Service Delivery—New Collection 

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork and 

respondent burden, invites the general 

public to take this opportunity to 

comment on the ‘‘Generic Clearance for 

the Collection of Qualitative Feedback 

on Agency Service Delivery ’’ for 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et. 

seq.). This collection was developed as 

part of a Federal Government-wide 

effort to streamline the process for 

seeking feedback from the public on 

service delivery, this notice announces 

our intent to submit this collection to 

OMB for approval and solicits 

comments on specific aspects for the 

proposed information collection. 

DATES: Consideration will be given to all 

comments received by January 5, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by one of 

the following methods: 

• Web site: www.regulations.gov. 

• Email: oira_submission@

omb.eop.gov 

• Fax: (202) 395–5806 

Comments submitted in response to 

this notice may be made available to the 

public by contacting John Kane at 1 

(304) 625–3568. For this reason, please 

do not include in your comments 

information of a confidential nature, 

such as sensitive personal information 

or proprietary information. If you send 

an email comment, your email address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the public docket and made 

available on the Internet. Please note 

that responses to this public comment 

request containing any routine notice 

about the confidentiality of the 

communication will be treated as public 

comments that may be made available to 

the public notwithstanding the 

inclusion of the routine notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have 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 John Kane, National Data 

Exchange (N–DEx) Program Office, 

FBI—Criminal Justice Information 

Services (CJIS) Division, at 1 (304) 625– 

3568, or email john.kane@ic.fbi.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Title: Generic Clearance for the 

Collection of Qualitative Feedback on 

Agency Service Delivery. 

Abstract: The proposed information 

collection activity provides a means to 

garner qualitative customer and 

stakeholder feedback in an efficient, 

timely manner, in accordance with the 

Administration’s commitment to 

improving service delivery. By 

qualitative feedback we mean 

information that provides useful 

insights on perceptions and opinions, 

but are not statistical surveys that yield 

quantitative results that can be 

generalized to the population of study. 

This feedback will provide insights into 

customer or stakeholder perceptions, 

experiences and expectations, provide 

an early warning of issues with service, 

or focus attention on areas where 

communication, training or changes in 

operations might improve delivery of 

products or services. These collections 

will allow for ongoing, collaborative and 

actionable communications between the 

Agency and its customers and 

stakeholders. It will also allow feedback 

to contribute directly to the 

improvement of program management. 

The solicitation of feedback will target 

areas such as: timeliness, 

appropriateness, accuracy of 

information, courtesy, efficiency of 

service delivery, and resolution of 

issues with service delivery. Responses 

will be assessed to plan and inform 

efforts to improve or maintain the 

quality of service offered to the public. 

If this information is not collected, vital 

feedback from customers and 

stakeholders on the Agency’s services 

will be unavailable. 

The Agency will only submit a 

collection for approval under this 

generic clearance if it meets the 

following conditions: 

• The collections are voluntary; 

• The collections are low-burden for 

respondents (based on considerations of 

total burden hours, total number of 

respondents, or burden-hours per 

respondent) and are low-cost for both 

the respondents and the Federal 

Government; 

• The collections are noncontroversial and do not raise issues of 

concern to other Federal agencies; 

• Any collection is targeted to the 

solicitation of opinions from 

respondents who have experience with 

the program or may have experience 

with the program in the near future; 

• Personally identifiable information 

(PII) is collected only to the extent 

necessary and is not retained; 

• Information gathered will be used 

only internally for general service 

improvement and program management 

purposes and is not intended for release 

outside of the agency; 

• Information gathered will not be 

used for the purpose of substantially 

informing influential policy decisions; 

and 

• Information gathered will yield 

qualitative information; the collections 

will not be designed or expected to 

yield statistically reliable results or used 

as though the results are generalizable to 

the population of study. 

Feedback collected under this generic 

clearance provides useful information, 

but it does not yield data that can be 

generalized to the overall population. 

This type of generic clearance for 

qualitative information will not be used 

for quantitative information collections 

that are designed to yield reliably 

actionable results, such as monitoring 

trends over time or documenting 

program performance. Such data uses 

require more rigorous designs that 

address: the target population to which 

generalizations will be made, the 

sampling frame, the sample design 

(including stratification and clustering), 

the precision requirements or power 

calculations that justify the proposed 

sample size, the expected response rate, 

methods for assessing potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data 

collection, and any testing procedures 

that were or will be undertaken prior to 

fielding the study. Depending on the 

degree of influence the results are likely 

to have, such collections may still be 

eligible for submission for other generic 

mechanisms that are designed to yield 

quantitative results. 

As a general matter, information 

collections will not result in any new 

system of records containing privacy 

information and will not ask questions 

of a sensitive nature, such as sexual 

behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, 

and other matters that are commonly 

considered private. 

Current Actions: New Information 

Collection Request 

Type of Review: New Collection 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES