Members of the public may listen to these discussions. Committee meetings are available to the public through the above listed online registration link (audio/visual) or teleconference phone line (audio only). An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Closed captions will be provided. Indivudals requiring other accommodations may contact Corrine Sanders at csanders@usccr.gov 10 days prior to the meeting to make their request.

Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to csanders@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (202) 618-4158.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Pennsylvania Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email address.

Exceptional Circumstance: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150, the notice for this meeting is given less than 15 calendar days prior to the meeting because of the exceptional circumstance of the upcoming expiration of the current Committee appointment term and the resulting timeline under which the Committee must complete its next and final project.

This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Liliana Schiller, Support Services Specialist, at lschiller@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Kayla Fajota at kfajota@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at (312) 353-8311.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Wyoming Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at lschiller@usccr.gov.

The Economic Development Administration (EDA) leads the Federal economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy. Guided by the basic principle that sustainable economic development should be driven locally, EDA works directly with communities and regions to help them build the capacity for economic development based on local business conditions and needs. The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (PWEDA) (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. ) is EDA's organic authority and is the primary legal authority under which EDA awards financial assistance. Under PWEDA, EDA provides financial assistance to both rural and urban distressed communities by fostering entrepreneurship, innovation, and productivity through investments in infrastructure development, capacity building, and business development to attract private capital investments and new and better jobs to regions experiencing economic distress. Further information on EDA programs and financial assistance opportunities can be found at www.eda.gov .

To effectively administer and monitor its economic development assistance programs, EDA collects certain information from applications for, and recipients of, EDA investment assistance. The purpose of this notice is to seek comments from the public and other Federal agencies on a request for a revision to the information collected from recipients of awards under the EDA American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Good Jobs Challenge. This is aligned with ensuring that Federal workforce investments are evidence-based and data-driven, and accountable to participants and the public. The original data collection instrument was filed under OMB 0610-0109. This request is to revise an existing question and add a new question to the current data collection instrument. The revised question will ask grantees to report participants' training status instead of asking if they have completed training, this will provide further disaggregated data. The new question will be asked of training providers to provide the total number of participants that completed the training program and have no plans to re-enroll in further training.

Data will be collected electronically.

OMB Control Number: 0610-0109.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Number of Respondents: System Lead Entities: 32 respondents, responding semiannually; Training Providers: 200 respondents, responding quarterly; and Participants: 10,000 respondents, responding once. As the Good Jobs Challenge is a new program, EDA anticipates that these estimates will continue to be further refined based on data determined post-award.

Average Hours per Response: System Lead Entity: 2 hours; Training Providers: 45 minutes per provider; Participants: 5 minutes.

Burden Hours: 2,728 hours.

Affected Public: Recipients of ARPA Good Jobs Challenge awards, which may include a(n): District Organization; Indian Tribe or a consortium of Indian Tribes; State, county, city, or other political subdivision of a State, including a special purpose unit of a state or local government engaged in economic or infrastructure development activities or a consortium of political subdivisions; Institution of Higher Education or a consortium of institutions of higher education; or Public or private non-profit organization or association, including labor unions, acting in cooperation with officials of a political subdivision of a State. Additionally, training providers and participants in regional workforce training systems will be affected.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory for System Lead Entities and Training Providers.

Legal Authority: The Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121 et seq. ).

This information collection request may be viewed at www.reginfo.gov . Follow the instructions to view the Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain . Find this particular information collection by selecting “Currently under 30-day Review—Open for Public Comments” or by using the search function and entering either the title of the collection or the OMB Control Number 0610-0109.

The final results were determined by the United States Department of Commerce and were published in the Federal Register on January 10, 2024 (89 FR 1542). The USMCA Secretariat has assigned case number USA-CDA-2024-10.12-02 to this request.

Article 10.12 of Chapter 10 of USMCA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to review the trade remedy determination being challenged and issue a binding Panel Decision. There are established USMCA Rules of Procedure for Article 10.12 (Binational Panel Reviews), which were adopted by the three governments for panels requested pursuant to Article 10.12(2) of USMCA which requires Requests for Panel Review to be published in accordance with Rule 40. For the complete Rules, please see https://can-mex-usa-sec.org/secretariat/agreement-accord-acuerdo/usmca-aceum-tmec/rules-regles-reglas/article-article-articulo_10_12.aspx?lang=eng.

The Rules provide that:

(a) A Party or interested person may challenge the final determination in whole or in part by filing a Complaint in accordance with Rule 44 no later than 30 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Complaint is March 11, 2024);

(b) A Party, an investigating authority or other interested person who does not file a Complaint but who intends to participate in the panel review shall file a Notice of Appearance in accordance with Rule 45 no later than 45 days after the filing of the first Request for Panel Review (the deadline for filing a Notice of Appearance is March 25, 2024);

(c) The panel review will be limited to the allegations of error of fact or law, including challenges to the jurisdiction of the investigating authority, that are set out in the Complaints filed in the panel review and to the procedural and substantive defenses raised in the panel review.

On August 20, 2021, Commerce published the AD and CVD orders on metal lockers from China. 1 On January 16, 2024, SA Consumer Products (SA) and Academy, Ltd. (doing business as Academy Sports + Outdoors) (Academy), requested, through a CCR request, that Commerce amend the scope of, and retroactively revoke the Orders, in part, pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 19 CFR 351.216, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii). 2 SA and Academy stated that they qualify as importers of certain metal safes currently subject to duties and, as such, are interested parties pursuant to section 771(9)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)(29)(ii). 3

On January 31, 2024, List Industries, Inc. (List) and Tennsco LLC (Tennsco) (collectively, petitioners), the petitioners in the original investigations leading to the Orders, filed comments in support of amending the scope of the Orders to exclude certain metal safes as defined in SA and Academy's proposed scope language. 4 The petitioners otherwise oppose any amendment to the safe exclusion beyond the language proposed by SA and Academy. 5 The Petitioners' Comments include additional letters of support from the domestic industry, 6 and furthermore, demonstrate that the existing support represents substantially all of the production of the domestic like product. 7

The scope of the Orders covers certain metal lockers, with or without doors, and parts thereof (metal lockers). The subject metal lockers are secure metal storage devices less than 27 inches wide and less than 27 inches deep, whether floor standing, installed onto a base or wall-mounted. In a multiple locker assembly (whether a welded locker unit, otherwise assembled locker unit or knocked down unit or kit), the width measurement shall be based on the width of an individual locker not the overall unit dimensions. All measurements in this scope are based on actual measurements taken on the outside dimensions of the single-locker unit. The height is the vertical measurement from the bottom to the top of the unit. The width is the horizontal (side to side) measurement of the front of the unit, and the front of the unit is the face with the door or doors or the opening for internal access of the unit if configured without a door. The depth is the measurement from the front to the back of the unit. The subject certain metal lockers typically include the bodies (back, side, shelf, top and bottom panels), door frames with or without doors which can be integrated into the sides or made separately, and doors.

The subject metal lockers typically are made of flat-rolled metal, metal mesh and/or expanded metal, which includes but is not limited to alloy or non-alloy steel (whether or not galvanized or otherwise metallically coated for corrosion resistance), stainless steel, or aluminum, but the doors may also include transparent polycarbonate, Plexiglas or similar transparent material or any combination thereof. Metal mesh refers to both wire mesh and expanded metal mesh. Wire mesh is a wire product in which the horizontal and transverse wires are welded at the cross-section in a grid pattern. Expanded metal mesh is made by slitting and stretching metal sheets to make a screen of diamond or other shaped openings.

Where the product has doors, the doors are typically configured with or for a handle or other device or other means that permit the use of a mechanical or electronic lock or locking mechanism, including, but not limited to: a combination lock, a padlock, a key lock, (including cylinder type key locks) lever or knob lock, electronic key pad, other electronic or and a wireless lock. The handle and locking mechanism, if included, need not be integrated into one another. The subject locker may or may not also enter with the lock or locking device included or installed. If entered with a lock, the lock itself is not in-scope merchandise. The doors or body panels may also include vents (including wire mesh or expanded metal mesh vents) or perforations. The bodies, body components and doors are typically powder coated, otherwise painted or epoxy coated or may be unpainted. The subject merchandise includes metal lockers imported either as welded or otherwise assembled units (ready for installation or use) or as knocked down units or kits (requiring assembly prior to installation or use).

The subject lockers may be shipped as individual or multiple locker units preassembled, welded, or combined into banks or tiers for ease of installation or as sets of component parts, bulk packed ( i.e., all backs in one package, crate, rack, carton or container and sides in another package, crate, rack, carton or container) or any combination thereof. The knocked down lockers are shipped unassembled requiring a supplier, contractor or end-user to assemble the individual lockers and locker banks prior to installation.

The scope also includes all parts and components of lockers made from flat-rolled metal or expanded metal ( e.g., doors, frames, shelves, tops, bottoms, backs, side panels, etc.) as well as accessories that are attached to the lockers when installed (including, but not limited to, slope tops, bases, expansion filler panels, dividers, recess trim, decorative end panels, and end caps) that may be imported together with lockers or other locker components or on their own. The particular accessories listed for illustrative purposes are defined as follows:

a. Slope tops: Slope tops are slanted metal panels or units that fit on the tops of the lockers and that slope from back to front to prevent the accumulation of dust and debris on top of the locker and to discourage the use of the tops of lockers as storage areas. Slope tops come in various configurations including, but not limited to, unit slope tops (in place of flat tops), slope hoods made of a back, top and end pieces which fit over multiple units and convert flat tops to a sloping tops, and slope top kits that convert flat tops to sloping tops and include tops, backs and ends.

b. Bases: Locker bases are panels made from flat-rolled metal that either conceal the legs of the locker unit, or for lockers without legs, provide a toe space in the front of the locker and conceal the flanges for floor anchoring.

c. Expansion filler panel: Expansion filler panels or fillers are metal panels that attach to locker units to cover columns, pipes or other obstacles in a row of lockers or fill in gaps between the locker and the wall. Fillers may also include metal panels that are used on the sides or the top of the lockers to fill gaps.

d. Dividers: Dividers are metal panels that divide the space within a locker unit into different storage areas.

e. Recess trim: Recess trim is a narrow metal trim that bridges the gap between lockers and walls or soffits when lockers are recessed into a wall.

f. Decorative end panels: End panels fit onto the exposed ends of locker units to cover holes, bolts, nuts, screws and other fasteners. They typically are painted to match the lockers.

g. End caps: End caps fit onto the exposed ends of locker units to cover holes, bolts, nuts, screws and other fasteners.

The scope also includes all hardware for assembly and installation of the lockers and locker banks that are imported with or shipped, invoiced, or sold with the imported locker or locker system except the lock.

Excluded from the scope are wire mesh lockers. Wire mesh lockers are those with each of the following characteristics:

(1) at least three sides, including the door, made from wire mesh;

(2) the width and depth each exceed 25 inches; and

(3) the height exceeds 90 inches.

Also excluded are lockers with bodies made entirely of plastic, wood or any nonmetallic material.

Also excluded are exchange lockers with multiple individual locking doors mounted on one master locking door to access multiple units. Excluded exchange lockers have multiple individual storage spaces, typically arranged in tiers, with access doors for each of the multiple individual storage space mounted on a single frame that can be swung open to allow access to all of the individual storage spaces at once. For example, uniform or garment exchange lockers are designed for the distinct function of securely and hygienically exchanging clean and soiled uniforms. Thus, excluded exchange lockers are a multi-access point locker whereas covered lockers are a single access point locker for personal storage. The excluded exchange lockers include assembled exchange lockers and those that enter in `knock down' form in which all of the parts and components to assemble a completed exchange locker unit are packaged together. Parts of exchange lockers are not excluded.

Also excluded are metal lockers that are imported with an installed electronic, internet-enabled locking device that permits communication or connection between the locker's locking device and other internet connected devices.

Also excluded are locks and hardware and accessories for assembly and installation of the lockers, locker banks and storage systems that are separately imported in bulk and are not incorporated into a locker, locker system or knocked down kit at the time of importation. Such excluded hardware and accessories include but are not limited to locks and bulk imported rivets, nuts, bolts, hinges, door handles, door/frame latching components, and coat hooks. Accessories of sheet metal, including but not limited to end panels, bases, dividers and sloping tops, are not excluded accessories.

Mobile tool chest attachments that meet the physical description above are covered by the scope of the Order, unless such attachments are covered by the scope of the ongoing proceedings on certain tool chests and cabinets from China. If the proceedings on certain tool chests and cabinets from China are terminated, the mobile tool chest attachments from China will be covered by the scope of this proceeding.

The scope also excludes metal safes with each of the following characteristics: (1) pry resistant, concealed hinges; (2) body walls and doors of steel that are at least 17 gauge (0.05625 inch or 1.42874 mm thick); and (3) an integrated locking mechanism that includes at least two round steel bolts 0.75 inch (19 mm) or larger in diameter; or three bolts 0.70 inch (17.78 mm) or more in diameter; or four or more bolts at least 0.60 inch (15.24 mm) or more in diameter, that project from the door into the body or frame of the safe when in the locked position.

The scope also excludes gun safes meeting each of the following requirements:

(1) Shall be able to fully contain firearms and provide for their secure storage.

(2) Shall have a locking system consisting of at minimum a mechanical or electronic combination lock. The mechanical or electronic combination lock utilized by the safe shall have at least 10,000 possible combinations consisting of a minimum three numbers, letters, or symbols. The lock shall be protected by a casehardened (Rc 60+) drill-resistant steel plate, or drill-resistant material of equivalent strength.

(3) Boltwork shall consist of a minimum of three steel locking bolts of at least 1/2-inch thickness that intrude from the door of the safe into the body of the safe or from the body of the safe into the door of the safe, which are operated by a separate handle and secured by the lock.

(4) The exterior walls shall be constructed of a minimum 12-gauge thick steel for a single-walled safe, or the sum of the steel walls shall add up to at least 0.100 inches for safes with walls made from two pieces of flat-rolled steel.

(5) Doors shall be constructed of a minimum one layer of 7-gauge steel plate reinforced construction or at least two layers of a minimum 12-gauge steel compound construction.

(6) Door hinges shall be protected to prevent the removal of the door. Protective features include, but are not limited to: hinges not exposed to the outside, interlocking door designs, dead bars, jeweler's lugs and active or inactive locking bolts.

The scope also excludes gun safes meeting each of the following requirements:

(1) Shall be able to fully contain firearms and provide for their secure storage.

(2) Shall have a locking system consisting of at minimum a mechanical or electronic combination lock with a lock body that is integrated into the door of the safe. The mechanical or electronic combination lock utilized by the safe shall have at least 10,000 possible combinations consisting of a minimum three numbers, letters, or symbols.

(3) Bolt work shall consist of a minimum of three steel locking bolts of at least 1/2-inch diameter that intrude from the door of the safe into the body of the safe or from the body of the safe into the door of the safe, which are operated by a separate handle and secured by the lock.

(4) The exterior walls (inclusive of the floor and top) shall be constructed of a minimum 14-gauge thick steel and shall be lined with one or more layers of fire-retardant gypsum board bonded, affixed with brackets or otherwise securely attached to the exterior walls. The fire retardant gypsum board shall be at least 15 mm in thickness for a single layer or shall sum to at least 19 mm in thickness where multiple layers are combined together.

(5) Doors shall be constructed of a minimum of one layer of 14-gauge steel lined with a minimum of one layer of 15 mm thick, fire-retardant gypsum board bonded, affixed with brackets or otherwise securely attached to the door. The doors shall fit into jambs equipped with a fire seal fitted completely around the door frame consisting of a hydrated sodium silicate encapsulated in a plastic film or sleeve that, when heat-activated by temperatures of over 210 degrees, expands to cover the space between the jambs and door, providing a barrier to prevent the intrusion of flames, gas, or smoke into the safe.

(6) Door hinges shall be protected to prevent the removal of the door. Protective features include but are not limited to: hinges not exposed to the outside, interlocking door designs, dead bars, jeweler's lugs and active or inactive locking bolts.

(7) The excluded safe must be imported in the fully assembled condition.

The scope also excludes metal storage devices that (1) have two or more exterior exposed drawers regardless of the height of the unit, or (2) are no more than 30 inches tall and have at least one exterior exposed drawer.

Also excluded from the scope are free standing metal cabinets less than 30 inches tall with a single opening, single door and an installed tabletop.

The scope also excludes metal storage devices less than 27 inches wide and deep that: (1) have two doors hinged on the right and left side of the door frame respectively covering a single opening and that open from the middle toward the outer frame; or (2) are free standing or wall-mounted, single-opening units 20 inches or less high with a single door.

The subject certain metal lockers are classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 9403.20.0078. Parts of subject certain metal lockers are classified under HTSUS subheading 9403.90.8041. In addition, subject certain metal lockers may also enter under HTSUS subheading 9403.20.0050. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this Order is dispositive.

SA and Academy requested that the Orders be revoked, in part, and retroactively, 8 with respect to certain metal safes, specifically requesting that exclusion language be added to the scope, independent from the existing metal safe exclusion to further exclude other metal safes. 9 Furthermore, SA and Academy requested that Commerce conduct an expedited CCR. 10 SA/Academy's CCR Request does not seek to amend or replace the existing exclusion for metal safes, 11 but instead proposes that Commerce adopt new exclusion language to be added to the scope of the Orders as follows:  12

For a complete description of the proposed scope of these Orders, see the appendix to this notice.

Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act, Commerce will conduct a CCR upon receipt of a request from an interested party that shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the Orders. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(d), Commerce determines that the information submitted by SA and Academy, along with substantially all of the domestic industry's support, shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the Orders.

Section 782(h)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) provide that Commerce may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the order, in whole or in part. In its administrative practice, Commerce has interpreted “substantially all” to mean producers accounting for at least 85 percent of the total U.S. production of the domestic like product covered by the order. 13

Furthermore, section 751(b)(4)(B) of the Act states that, “in the absence of good cause shown,” the Secretary of Commerce may not review a final determination less than 24 months after the date of publication of the notice of final determination or notice of suspension of an investigation. The final determinations in the less-than-fair-value investigation and CVD investigation of metal lockers from China published on July 7, 2021. 14 Therefore, because we are initiating this review more than 24 months after July 7, 2021, it is not necessary to establish good cause for conducting this review.

Section 351.221(c)(3)(ii) of Commerce's regulations permits Commerce to combine the notice of initiation of a CCR and the notice of preliminary results if Commerce concludes that expedited action is warranted. 15 In this instance, because the record contains information necessary to make a preliminary finding, we find that expedited action is warranted and have combined the notice of initiation and the notice of preliminary results. 16

Pursuant to section 751(d)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.222(g), Commerce may revoke an AD or CVD order, in whole or in part, based on a review under section 751(b) of the Act ( i.e., a CCR). Section 751(b)(1) of the Act requires a CCR to be conducted upon receipt of a request which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. Section 782(h)(2) of the Act gives Commerce the authority to revoke an order if producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the order. Section 351.222(g) of Commerce's regulations provides that Commerce will conduct a CCR of an AD or CVD order under 19 CFR 351.216, and may revoke an order (in whole or in part), if it concludes that: (i) producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which the order pertains have expressed a lack of interest in the relief provided by the order, in whole or in part; or (ii) if other changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation exist. Thus, both the Act and Commerce's regulations require that “substantially all” domestic producers express a lack of interest in the order for Commerce to revoke the order, in whole or in part. 17 In its administrative practice, Commerce has interpreted “substantially all” to represent producers accounting for at least 85 percent of U.S. production of the domestic like product. 18

As explained above, domestic locker producers accounting for greater than 85 percent of the domestic industry have expressed support for SA and Academy's CCR Request, which includes support from the original petitioners and other domestic locker producers. 19 Substantially all of the domestic industry supports the request for the CCRs, or the addition of the specific exclusion language proposed by SA and Academy. 20 Furthermore, substantially all the domestic industry supported the application of the proposed exclusion language with retroactivity to December 1, 2021. 21

In addition to attestations of support from substantially all the domestic industry, 22 List and Tennsco state their support, explaining “that the scope of the order may be changed to add the new proposed safe exclusion language offered by SA and Academy to the scope,”  23 further stating that they support “the new metal safe scope exclusion retroactive to December 1, 2021.”  24 In addition, in the Petitioners' Comments, the petitioners explain that they support the proposed metal safe exclusion language in addition to the existing metal safe exclusion, and not instead of it. 25 The petitioners request that SA and Academy's proposed exclusion language be inserted to the existing scope after the current metal safe exclusion, and before the existing gun safe exclusion language. 26

In light of the domestic producers' statements of support of modifying the Orders, in part, with respect to the addition of exclusion language for certain metal safes as described by SA and Academy, and in the absence of any other interested party comments addressing the issue of domestic industry support, we preliminarily conclude that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product to which the Orders pertain lack interest in the relief provided by the Orders with respect to certain metal safes that are the subject of SA and Academy's new proposed safe exclusion language. Thus, we preliminarily determine that changed circumstances warrant revocation of the Orders, in part, with respect to such metal safes as described in SA and Academy's new proposed exclusion language, with retroactivity of the revocation back to December 1, 2021. Accordingly, we are notifying the public of our intent to revoke the Orders, in part, with respect to certain metal safes described in the “Proposed Revocation of the Orders, in Part” section above, with retroactivity of the revocation applying back to December 1, 2021.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. 27 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than five days after the due date for case briefs. 28

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this CCR, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 29 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this CCR. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 30 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the day on which it is due.

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register . 31 Hearing requests should contain the following information: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. 32 If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm the date and the time of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

Unless extended, consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), Commerce intends to issue the final results of this CCR no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated or 45 days if all parties agree to the outcome of the review.

This initiation notice and preliminary results are published in accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii).

The following listed species are covered in this notice:

Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ): Threatened Lower Columbia River (LCR); threatened Puget Sound (PS); threatened Snake River (SnkR) spring/summer-run (spr/sum); threatened SnkR fall-run; endangered Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring-run; threatened Upper Willamette River (UWR), threatened Central Valley spring-run (CVS); endangered Sacramento River (SacR) winter-run; threatened California Coastal (CC).

Steelhead ( O. mykiss ): Threatened PS; Threatened LCR; threatened Middle Columbia River (MCR); threatened SnkR; threatened UCR; threatened UWR; threatened Northern California (NC); threatened California Central Valley (CCV).

Chum salmon ( O. keta ): Threatened Hood Canal Summer-run (HCS); threatened Columbia River (CR).

Coho salmon ( O. kisutch ): Threatened LCR; threatened Oregon Coast (OC); threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC).

Sockeye salmon ( O. nerka ): Endangered SnkR.

Eulachon ( Thaleichthys pacificus ): Threatened southern Distinct Population Segment (SDPS).

Green sturgeon ( Acipenser medirostris ): Threatened SDPS.

Rockfish ( Sebastes spp. ): Endangered Puget Sound/Georgia Basin (PS/GB) bocaccio ( Sebastes paucispinis ); threatened PS/GB yelloweye rockfish ( S. ruberrimus ).

Scientific research permits and permits to enhance propagation or survival are issued in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) and regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR 222-226). NMFS issues permits based on findings that such permits: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) if granted and exercised, would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species that are the subject of the permit; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policy of section 2 of the ESA. The authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits.

Anyone requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see ADDRESSES ). Such hearings are held at the discretion of the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NMFS.

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes are seeking to renew a permit that for nearly three decades has allowed them to annually take listed SR steelhead and spr/sum Chinook salmon while conducting research designed to (1) monitor adult and juvenile fish in key upper SnkR subbasin watersheds; (2) assess the utility of hatchery Chinook salmon in increasing natural populations in the Salmon River; and (3) evaluate the genetic and ecological impacts hatchery Chinook salmon may have on natural populations. The fish would primarily benefit from the research in two ways. First, the research would broadly be used to help guide restoration and recovery efforts throughout the SnkR basin. Second, the research would be used to determine how hatchery supplementation can be used as a tool for salmon recovery. The research would also help the Tribes re-establish traditional fishing opportunities and connect with and protect cultural, ecological, and social values and rights.

The researchers would use screw traps, weirs, electrofishing, and hook-and-line angling gear to capture the listed fish. Once captured, the fish would undergo various sampling, tagging, and handling regimes; they would then be allowed to recover and released. Some tissue samples would be taken from adult fish carcasses, and the researchers would conduct some snorkeling surveys and redd counts. In all cases, trained crews would conduct the operations, no adult salmonids would be electrofished, and all activities would take place in the Salmon River subbasin. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the fish they capture, but some may die as an unintended result of the research.

The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) is seeking to renew a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile and adult CC, CVS, LCR, PS, SacR, SnkR fall-run, SnkR spr/sum, UCR, and UWR Chinook salmon; CR chum salmon; LCR, OC, and SONCC coho salmon; SnkR sockeye salmon; and LCR, MCR, SnkR, UCR, and UWR steelhead while conducting a study of the Columbia River plume and the surrounding ocean environment off the coasts of Oregon and Washington. The NWFSC research may also cause them to take SDPS eulachon, a species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. This renewal would also allow the researchers to lethally sample a subset of adult salmon to allow for tissue and otolith collection. The purposes of the research are to (1) determine the abundance, distribution, growth, and condition of juvenile Columbia River salmonids in the river's plume and characterize its physical and biological features as they relate to salmonid survival; (2) determine the impact that predators and food supply have on survival among juvenile Columbia River Chinook and coho salmon as they migrate through the Columbia River estuary and plume; and (3) synthesize the early ocean ecology of juvenile Columbia River salmonids, test mechanisms that control salmonid growth and survival, and produce ecological indices that forecast salmonid survival.

The research would benefit the affected species by (1) providing data to improve understanding of how the ocean and Columbia River plume conditions affect juvenile salmonids; (2) helping predict how changing ocean conditions would affect salmonid growth and survival; and (3) helping improve salmon management actions in relation to river, plume, and ocean conditions. Information on adults would also help researchers better understand the relationship between older salmon individuals and predators such as Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKWs). The NWFSC proposes to capture fish using a surface trawl, which can cause lethally crush and descale juvenile salmonids and eulachon. Juvenile salmonids would be identified to species, measured for length, and frozen for further analysis ( i.e., weight, growth, genetics, diet (stomach contents), parasites, pathogens, and physiological condition). All juvenile salmon are lethally sampled, and a subset of adult salmon will be lethally sampled for tissue analyses including otoliths and stomach contents. The remaining adult salmonids that are not lethally sampled would be held in an aerated livewell, identified to species, measured for length, checked for tags and marks, and released. Eulachon would either be returned to the capture location or retained for further scientific research activities at the NWFSC.

The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently authorizes them to take juvenile CR chum salmon, LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, and LCR and MCR steelhead in WDNR-managed forests in Washington State. The purpose of the study is to survey stream reaches above natural barriers to determine if fish are present. This information is needed to determine appropriate widths of riparian buffers to leave intact during timber harvest. This study would benefit listed species by documenting the need for increased riparian buffers, which better protect aquatic and riparian habitat where fish are present. In addition, data on the distribution of fish gained from this study would be used to inform land management decisions and thereby better protect listed species.

The WDNR proposes to capture juvenile fish using single-pass backpack electrofishing. The researchers would turn off the electricity as soon as a fish is seen. Fish would be identified regardless of whether they are netted; if fish are netted they would be held in the water only long enough to identify them and then released at the site of capture. The WDNR does not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended consequence of the proposed activities.

The King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks (KCDNRP) is seeking to renew for 5 years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead. Sampling sites would be in four Puget Sound (Washington) sub-basins—Snoqualmie, Lake Washington, Duwamish, and Puyallup—and intertidal nearshore areas in the Puget Sound (King County, Washington). The purposes of the study are to (1) evaluate the effectiveness of restoration actions through biological monitoring; (2) understand how juvenile salmonids use specific riverine habitats in order to prioritize restoration projects and guide project design; (3) assess salmonid habitat status and trends in small streams with varying degrees of land use while monitoring current stream conditions; and (4) assess contaminant levels in various freshwater fish. The research would benefit the affected species by determining how restoration and recovery actions are contributing to listed species recovery, providing information on the extent of juvenile salmonid rearing in off-channel areas, guiding future restoration projects based upon monitoring results, providing information on habitat use by yearling fall-run Chinook salmon, and contributing to our knowledge of Chinook salmon life histories.

The KCDNRP proposes to capture fish using beach seines, fyke nets, gill nets, hook and line angling, minnow traps, and backpack and boat-operated electrofishing. Most of the captured fish would be anaesthetized, identified to species, allowed to recover, and released. A subset of the Chinook salmon would also be tagged (acoustic, passive integrated transponder (PIT), and elastomer), dyed (Bismark Brown), gastric lavaged, and have scales collected. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.

The Amnis Opes Institute (AOI) is seeking to renew for 5 years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile and adult LCR, PS, SnkR fall-run, SnkR spr/sum, UCR, and UWR Chinook salmon; CR and HCS chum salmon; LCR, OC, and SONCC coho salmon; SnkR sockeye salmon; and LCR, MCR, PS, SnkR, UCR, and UWR steelhead throughout Idaho, Oregon, and Washington States. The purpose of the study is to develop baseline data of the physical and chemical habitat for rivers and streams throughout the United States. Research transects would be randomly determined and would take place on alternating sides of the sampled rivers and streams for a distance of 40 times the mean wetted channel width. The researchers would stop every five channel widths to process the fish. This research would benefit the affected species by characterizing the biological condition of rivers and thereby provide data that supports Clean Water Act implementation.

The AOI researchers propose to capture fish using raft-mounted and backpack electrofishing equipment; stunned fish would be placed in a livewell with a soft mesh dip-net. Fish would be identified to species, measured to length, searched for abnormalities, and returned to the water when recovered. ESA-listed species would be processed and released first. If adult salmonids are observed, electrofishing activities would immediately cease and the researchers would move to another location before resuming electrofishing activities. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.

The Oregon State University is seeking to renew for 5 years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile listed hatchery SONCC coho in the Upper Klamath River. The purposes of this research are to (1) determine the effects of infection by the myxozoan parasite Ceratonova shasta on coho salmon; and (2) estimate disease effects for each study year on the wild coho population. The work would benefit fish by providing information on endemic C. shasta levels in the Klamath River and thereby help managers monitor and mitigate the parasite's effects on listed species.

Juvenile coho salmon from Iron Gate, Fall Creek and/or Trinity River hatcheries would be transported to selected locations on the Klamath River and monitored for disease after the exposure to C. shasta. Following exposure, all fish would be transported to the Oregon State University J. L. Fryer Aquatic Animal Health Laboratory where time to morbidity, overall morbidity and infection prevalence would be ascertained through microscopic and molecular analysis of intestinal tissues. Because all of the fish will be exposed to the parasite C. shasta, they cannot be released after the experiments. In addition, infection prevalence data are needed which requires euthanizing all fish surviving the exposures, since surviving fish may still be infected with the parasite.

The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation (CTWS) is seeking to renew for 5 years a permit that currently authorizes them to take juvenile and adult LCR Chinook salmon, LCR coho salmon, and LCR and MCR steelhead. The purpose of the study is to describe abundance, habitat associations, spawning, distribution, migration patterns, harvest rates, and limiting factors for Pacific lamprey in Fifteen Mile Creek and Hood River and their tributaries (Oregon). The research would provide important basic ecological information about Pacific lamprey, which is not ESA-listed, but which is an important indicator species for characterizing watershed health. Although researchers are targeting juvenile and adult Pacific lamprey ( Entosphenus tridentatus ) for capture, other species may be taken during sampling activities. The research would benefit listed species by improving understanding of watershed condition and helping managers prioritize habitat restoration projects in the Fifteen Mile Creek and Hood River basins. The work would also help the CTWS people re-connect with, increase, and manage a traditional food source.

The CTWS proposes to collect fish from March through October using backpack electrofishing and hand, dip, fyke, and hoop nets. During electrofishing surveys, the researchers would use “lamprey settings” ( i.e., very low voltage). The researchers would set hoop (0.8 meter (m) diameter with 1.9 centimeter (cm) mesh) and fyke (2.5 m high by 2.75 m wide with 1.9 cm mesh size) nets facing downstream in low velocity areas. They will modify the fyke net to deter adult steelhead from entering the hoop net by tying twine across the first throat of the net to create an effective mesh size across the opening of 7.5 cm. This modification has effectively deterred steelhead from entering fyke nets set in previous fieldwork. The researchers propose to measure and PIT- or radio-tag adult lamprey before releasing them. The researchers would immediately release any salmonids that are captured or briefly hold them in buckets of water before releasing them if they require time to recover from being captured. If salmonids are observed during electrofishing, the researchers would immediately turn off the electricity and allow fish to swim away. The CTWS does not propose to kill any listed salmonids, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The Wild Fish Conservancy (WFC) is seeking to renew for 5 years a research permit that currently allows them to take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead in selected stream channels and floodplain areas throughout the Kitsap and Snoqualmie sub-basins of Washington State. The purpose of the study is to classify existing channels by water type and thereby validate and update county, city, and WDNR stream classifications and hydrological maps. This research would benefit the affected species by filling data gaps regarding fish passage impediments (tidegates, culverts, etc. ) and providing fish species composition and distribution—information needed to identify, prioritize, and implement restoration projects.

The WFC proposes to capture fish using backpack electrofishing. Fish would be identified to species, tissue sampled (caudal fin clip—steelhead only), and released. Once fish presence is established, either through visual observation or electrofishing, electrofishing would be discontinued. Surveyors would then proceed upstream until a change in habitat parameters is encountered and electrofishing would recommence. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.

The KCDNRP is seeking to renew a 5-year research permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile and adult PS Chinook salmon, PS steelhead, and PS/GB bocaccio and adult SDPS green sturgeon in the marine waters and shorelines of King County (Washington State). The KCDNRP research may also cause them to take juvenile and adult SDPS eulachon and PS/GB yelloweye rockfish—species for which there are currently no ESA take prohibitions. The purpose of the study is to capture English sole, brown rockfish ( Sebastes auriculatus ), copper rockfish ( Sebastes caurinus ), quillback rockfish ( Sebastes maliger ), and various forage fish to monitor tissue levels of toxic chemical contaminants. This research would benefit the affected species by (1) providing information on the types and concentrations of chemicals in fish; (2) helping managers understand the impact chemical exposures have on marine fish health; (3) filling data gaps to help managers make informed management decisions; and (4) informing a long-term program to evaluate changes in chemical body burdens in fish over time as environmental improvements are made (stormwater discharges reduced, contaminated sediments remediated, etc. ).

The KCDNRP proposes to capture fish using bottom trawls, beach seines, cast nets, and hook and line (sabiki rigs). Captured ESA-listed fish would be identified to species and released. Listed rockfish would be released via rapid submergence to their capture depth to reduce adverse effects from barotrauma. Targeted species (and incidental mortalities) would be sacrificed, stored on ice, and analyzed for contaminants. The researchers do not intend to kill any listed fish, but some may die as an inadvertent result of the research.

Herrera Environmental Consultants (HEC) is seeking to renew a 5-year research permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile PS Chinook salmon and PS steelhead while conducting a study in streams near Redmond, Washington. The purpose of the research is to conduct a paired watershed study monitoring stream health by collecting benthic macroinvertebrates in urban and nearby relatively pristine streams. Due to the collection methods, there is a possibility of capturing juvenile salmonids. The research would benefit listed fish by determining the effectiveness of stormwater management in urban streams which can lead directly to water quality and habitat improvement.

The HEC proposes to use a D-frame kick net to capture the fish. Any fish captured would be identified to species and released. The researchers do not intend to kill any of the fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended consequence of the proposed activities.

The United States Forest Service (USFS) is seeking to renew a permit that currently allows them to annually take juvenile UCR Chinook salmon, UCR steelhead, and MCR steelhead during research activities taking place at various points in the Yakima, Methow, Entiat, and Wenatchee River drainages in Washington State. The purpose of the research is to determine fish distribution in those subbasins. The research would benefit the fish by giving land managers information they need to design forest management activities ( e.g., timber sales, grazing plans, road building) in a manner that would help them have the smallest possible effect on listed species.

Under the renewed permit, the USFS would use using minnow traps, hook-and-line angling, and electrofishing equipment to capture the fish. The fish would then be identified and immediately released whenever possible. The USFS does not intend to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number may die as an unintended result of the research activities.

The Fishery Foundation of California is seeking a new permit that would authorize them to take juvenile CVS Chinook salmon, CCV steelhead, and juvenile SDPS green sturgeon. The purpose of this study is to document the presence of native fish species in Snodgrass Slough, the Cosumnes River and Laguna Creek in Sacramento County, CA prior to a large floodplain restoration project. The study would benefit affected species by providing data on species presence, seasonal water conditions and migratory windows that will inform the restoration project.

Juveniles would be collected via beach seine and fyke net. Juvenile fish would be captured, handled, and released. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.

The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe (LEKT) is seeking a 5-year permit that would allow them to take juvenile HCS chum and PS Chinook and PS steelhead during the course of research designed to determine fish and shellfish presence and use in a 28-acre estuarine lagoon at the base of Ediz Hook in Port Angeles, WA. The study would benefit affected species by providing data on species presence, and that information, along with detailed habitat and water quality data, would be used to inform future restoration actions in the area. Those restoration actions, in turn, would help the LEKT people once again conduct traditional fishing and shellfishing activities in the lagoon.

The fish would be captured primarily by beach seining, but some may be captured in fukui and minnow traps. Once captured, the fish would simply be handled and released. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of the proposed activities.

The Scott River Water Trust is seeking a new permit that would authorize them to take juvenile and adult SONCC coho salmon in the Scott River, CA. The purpose of this study is to assess fish passage at Youngs Dam to determine how and when juvenile and adult salmon utilize the fish ladder at Youngs Dam. The project seeks to determine an ideal flow target through the fish ladder in an effort to improve fish passage at the dam as well as the fish ladder. The study would benefit SONCC coho by providing data to identify and inform recommendations to improve volitional fish passage through Youngs Dam.

Juveniles would be collected via beach seines and observed during snorkel surveys. Juvenile coho would be captured, handled, and released. A subsample of captured juveniles would be anesthetized, tissue sampled and PIT-tagged prior to release. Adult coho would be observed at weirs, fish ladders, dam and during snorkel surveys. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is seeking a 5-year permit that would allow them to take juvenile HCS chum and PS Chinook and PS steelhead during the course of research designed to determine what effect the hatchery barriers have on the distribution of migratory sculpin (with considerations for how these barriers may also be affecting the distributions of strictly fluvial sculpin species). The research would benefit listed species by producing data on how hatchery weirs affect salmonid migrations in the areas being studied. That data could then be used to modify weir operations for the benefit of the migrating fish.

The fish would be largely be collected by electrofishing, but seining or dipnetting may also be employed. All listed fish would be immediately released without further handling. Sampling would cease and the activity would be moved if adult Chinook, chum, or steelhead (or their redds) are encountered at any time during a survey. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is seeking a new permit that would authorize them to take juvenile and adult SDPS green sturgeon in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, CA. The purpose of this study is to develop an indices of white sturgeon abundance for use in species management. Though non-listed white sturgeon are the target species, green sturgeon might be encountered.

Juvenile and adult SDPS green sturgeon would be collected via long line and hook and line sampling and observed via camera and sonar. Juvenile and adult fish would be captured, handled, tagged, and released. The researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.

The USFWS is seeking a 5-year permit that would allow them to take juvenile LCR, UWR, PS, and CC Chinook; CR and HCS chum; LCR, PS, UWR, and NC steelhead; and LCR, OC, and SONCC coho. The fish would be taken during efforts to determine the uppermost ranges of several species of fish in more than 20 subbasins in Western Oregon and Washington and Northern California. The research would produce a large amount of presence/absence data on listed fish and thus help managers plan and carry out land management actions across a broad portion of three states.

The researchers would use backpack electrofishing units to capture the fish. Once captured, all listed salmonids would simply be identified and immediately released. In all cases, the researchers would be operating near what is already considered to be the upper limit of trout distribution, so they are unlikely to encounter many listed fish in any case. Regardless, the researchers are not proposing to kill any of the listed fish being captured, but a small number of fish may be killed as an inadvertent result of these activities.

This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA. NMFS will evaluate the applications, associated documents, and comments submitted to determine whether the applications meet the requirements of section 10(a) of the ESA and Federal regulations. The final permit decisions will not be made until after the end of the 30-day comment period. NMFS will publish notice of its final action in the Federal Register .

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) direct the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made, regulations are promulgated (when applicable), and public notice and an opportunity for public comment are provided.

An authorization for incidental taking shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). If such findings are made, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking; “other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. The MMPA defines “take” to mean harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal (16 U.S.C. 1362(13); 50 CFR 216.103). Level A harassment is defined as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (16 U.S.C. 1362(18); 50 CFR 216.3). Level B harassment is defined as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (16 U.S.C. 1362(18); 50 CFR 216.3). Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA and the implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 216, subpart I authorize NMFS to propose and, if appropriate, promulgate regulations and issue an associated LOA(s). NMFS promulgated regulations on February 14, 2024 (89 FR 11342) for the taking of marine mammals incidental to the construction of the Empire Wind Project offshore of New York. The LOA authorizes Empire Wind and those persons it authorizes or funds to conduct activities on its behalf to take marine mammals incidental to specified activities during the construction of the Project and requires them to implement mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

On February 14, 2024, NMFS promulgated a final rule (89 FR 11342) responding to a request from Empire Wind for authorization to take small numbers of marine mammals (17 species comprising 18 stocks) by Level B harassment (all 17 stocks) and by Level A harassment (2 of the 17 stocks) incidental to construction activities occurring in Federal and State waters off of New York, specifically within and around the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Area OCS-A 0512 (Lease Area) and along 2 export cable routes to sea-to-shore transition points (collectively referred to as the “Project Area”), over the course of 5 years (February 22, 2024 through February 21, 2029). The activities covered under the final rule include the installation of 147 wind turbine generators (WTGs) on monopile foundations and 2 offshore substations (OSSs) on jacket foundations using pin piles by impact pile driving; nearshore cable landfall work comprising of the installation and subsequent removal of nearshore temporary cofferdams by vibratory pile driving or the installation and subsequent removal of casing pipes supported by goal posts by impact pile driving at the sea-to-shore transition points located on Long Island and Brooklyn, New York; removal of berthing piles and installation of marine bulkheads inshore of Long Island, New York; high-resolution geophysical (HRG) marine site characterization surveys using active acoustic sources; fishery and ecological monitoring surveys; the placement of scour protection; the installation of the export cable route from OSSs to shore-based converter stations and inter-array cables between turbines by trenching, laying, and burial activities; vessel transit within the specified geographical region to transport crew, supplies, and materials; and WTG operation.

Marine mammals exposed to elevated noise levels during foundation pile driving, may be taken by Level A harassment (limited to fin whales and minke whale), and marine mammals exposed to elevated noise levels during impact and vibratory pile driving during cable landfall and marina construction activities and/or site characterization surveys may be taken by Level B harassment. No mortality or serious injury of any marine mammal is anticipated to occur or has been authorized.

In accordance with the final rule (89 FR 11342, February 14, 2024, see 50 CFR 217.286), we have issued a LOA to Empire Wind authorizing the take, by harassment, of marine mammals incidental to specified construction activities within the specified geographical region. As previously stated, no mortality or serious injury of any marine mammal species is anticipated to occur or has been authorized. The incidental takes authorized herein are the same as those analyzed and authorized in the final rule (89 FR 11342, February 14, 2024). Takes of marine mammals will be minimized through the following planned mitigation and monitoring measures, as applicable for each specified activity: (1) implementation of spatio-temporal seasonal/time of day work restrictions; (2) use of multiple NMFS-approved Protected Species Observers (PSOs) to visually observe for marine mammals (with any detection within specifically designated zones triggering a delay or shutdown, as applicable); (3) use of NMFS-approved passive acoustic monitoring (PAM) operators to acoustically detect marine mammals, with a focus on detecting baleen whales (with any detection within designated zones triggering a delay or shutdown, as applicable); (4) implementation of clearance and shutdown zones; (5) use of soft-start prior to the start of foundation pile driving; (6) use of noise attenuation technology during foundation pile driving; (7) use of situational awareness monitoring for marine mammal presence; (8) use of sound field verification monitoring; (9) use of ramp-up acoustic sources during HRG surveys; (10) implementation of vessel separation zones between marine mammals and project vessels; (11) use of PAM within the vessel transit corridor for Project vessels to travel over 10 knots (11.5 miles per hour); and (12) implementation of additional Vessel Strike Avoidance measures to reduce the risk of a vessel collision with a marine mammal. Additionally, NMFS may modify the LOA's mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures, based on new information, when appropriate (see also 50 CFR 217.287(c)). Empire Wind is also required to submit reports, as specified in the final rule.

Based on the findings and information discussed in the preamble of the final rule, the take authorized in the LOA will have a negligible impact on marine mammal stocks, will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the affected marine mammal stock for subsistence uses, and the mitigation measures provide a means of affecting the least practicable adverse impact on the affected stocks and their habitat.

The 151st SSC meeting will be held between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time (HST) on March 12-13, and 9 a.m. and 1 p.m. on March 14, 2024. The Executive and Budget SC meeting will be held between 1 p.m. and 5 p.m. HST on March 15, 2024. The Joint Meeting of the AP, FIAC and NCFAC will be held between 4:30 p.m. and 6 p.m. HST on March 19, 2024. The 198th Council Meeting will be held between 10 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. HST on March 18, 2024, 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. HST on March 19, 2024 and 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. HST on March 20, 2024. Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items will be held between 5:15 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. HST on March 18, 2024. The Fishers Forum will be held between 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. HST on March 18, 2024.

Agenda items noted as “Final Action” refer to actions that may result in Council transmittal of a proposed fishery management plan, proposed plan amendment, or proposed regulations to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, under Sections 304 or 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). In addition to the agenda items listed here, the Council and its advisory bodies will hear recommendations from Council advisors. An opportunity to submit public comment will be provided throughout the agendas. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change and will be announced in advance at the Council meeting. The meetings will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

Background documents for the 198th Council meeting will be available at www.wpcouncil.org. Written public comments on final action items at the 198th Council meeting should be received at the Council office by 5 p.m. HST, Thursday, March 14, 2024, and should be sent to Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director; Western Pacific Fishery Management Council, 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1400, Honolulu, HI 96813, phone: (808) 522-8220 or fax: (808) 522-8226; or email: info@wpcouncil.org. Written public comments on all other agenda items may be submitted for the record by email throughout the duration of the meeting. Instructions for providing oral public comments during the meeting will be posted on the Council website. This meeting will be recorded (audio only) for the purposes of generating the minutes of the meeting.

Non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion and formal Council action during its 198th meeting. However, Council action on regulatory issues will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any regulatory issue arising after publication of this document that requires emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

These meetings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

The Monkfish and Dogfish Committees will meet to discuss the repackaged range of alternatives recommended by the Sturgeon Bycatch Fishery Management Action Team/Plan Development Team, the preliminary draft impact analysis of alternatives, and recommendations from the Joint Monkfish and Spiny Dogfish Advisory Panel. They will also discuss any Joint Committee recommendations for final preferred alternatives for the NEFMC and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) to consider during their April Council meetings where final action is anticipated. Other business may be discussed, as necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

This is a request for extension of an approved collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320. This information collection assists NOAA in the development of funding and financing coastal resilience learning products and tools in support of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. NOAA's Office for Coastal Management (OCM) and its regional, State, Federal, and non-profit partners have worked closely with coastal managers across the country to increase the resilience of our coastal communities, economies and ecosystems. Under the CZMA, OCM provides financial and technical assistance to states and territories, including that which helps its customers (coastal managers) develop hazard mitigation and climate adaptation plans that include strategies for short-term responses to immediate threats ( e.g., flooding, hurricanes) as well as long-term responses to gradual changes ( e.g., sea level rise, drought). Services are provided through outreach, training, funding, resource, and tool development.

Solutions to these resilience challenges are often complex and cross-sectoral. Therefore, coastal decision-makers regularly point to the need for more substantial, coordinated, sustained and creative funding opportunities to support these efforts. The results of an initial review of more than 200 resources that NOAA conducted in support of this effort, and informal conversations with NOAA customers and other stakeholders indicate that there is no comprehensive inventory or guide to understanding and selecting appropriate funding options or financing strategies. These findings have been further confirmed in subsequent informal discussions with coastal resilience and finance practitioners at national venues such as the National Adaptation Forum and Social Coast Forum, as well as through the original needs assessment using this information collection instrument. NOAA's coastal management partners continue to request support on this topic.

The financing world is one that is constantly evolving new products and retiring others. The range of funding and financing options, from grants and low-interest loans to more innovative private-public partnerships and emerging bonds, presents an ever-changing and complex array of choices. In initial internal communications and informal discussions conducted between June 2018 and February 2020, NOAA customers indicated that these opportunities and mechanisms are not well understood, and are generally inaccessible to coastal managers, particularly in small to mid-sized communities, rural areas, and tribal communities. The initial information gathered via this collection supported this.

In many coastal communities, investment in mitigation and resilience measures remains either limited or reactive in response to a catastrophic event. While there is no data on the number of adaptation plans that have been implemented, lack of funding is a frequently cited barrier to implementation. At the same time, it has been estimated that investing in mitigation can save communities $6 for every $1 spent through mitigation grants from agencies including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Economic Development Administration (according to the National Institute of Building Sciences' October 2018 report, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: Utilities and Transportation Infrastructure). Understanding the suite of funding and financing options available at the time resilience planning is undertaken, and then incorporating financial strategies into the planning process and recommendations, will help ensure that these plans are implemented. Section 310 of the Coastal Zone Management Act allows for technical assistance and management-oriented research to develop and implement state coastal management program amendments.

NOAA uses the information collected to develop needs assessments defining the types of funding, financing mechanisms, and associated resources that its state and local coastal manager customers need for coastal resilience activities and a market analysis of existing funding and financing programs and mechanisms. Simultaneously, NOAA is identifying existing resources and partnership opportunities for State and local coastal managers and NOAA's non-profit, academic, and other customers. Information collected to date has helped inform the development of new NOAA funding and financing products and services and future collection efforts will help NOAA better understand the impacts these products and services have had on coastal managers' barriers.

This request is for a set of related interviews to facilitate this research. NOAA will perform interviews with state and local coastal managers, as well as representatives from non-profit organizations, academia, the Federal Government, and the finance industry. The interviews will collect relevant information from interviewees on their experiences with coastal resilience funding and financing mechanisms, challenges and opportunities related to funding and financing coastal resilience, and technical support needs and opportunities that NOAA can address.

The information provided by interviewees will be synthesized into the needs assessment, which will address needs and information gaps partitioned by region, financial scale, time scale, and scope/sector. The information provided by interviewees will also be used to help inform an inventory of existing entities providing resources for resilience funding, as well as a summary of existing and emerging funding sources and financial tools and mechanisms for coastal resilience. Finally, the interviews will inform recommendations on NOAA's potential niche in addressing the identified needs and gaps.

The resulting research (and any subsequent resources or tools developed by NOAA to address identified gaps) will provide much needed information to NOAA's customers on funding and financing coastal resilience efforts, including available resources and mechanisms, best practices and strategies, real world success stories, and opportunities for technical and financial partnerships with private and public entities.

Information will be collected during structured telephone interviews.

OMB Control Number: 0648-0796.

Form Number(s): None.

Type of Review: Regular submission. Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; Not-for-profit institutions; State, Local, or Tribal government; Federal Government.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 36.

Estimated Time per Response: 1.25 hours.

Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 45.

Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $0.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

Legal Authority: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.

We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this information collection request. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

The Risk Policy Working Group (RPWG) will address the terms of reference (TORs) approved by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), including progress made in reviewing the Council's current Risk Policy, and Risk Policy Road Map (TOR 1). They will also continue the development of a revised risk policy (TOR 2). The RPWG will outline a possible new approach and consider the process of implementing the risk policy with ABC control rules and other management decisions.

Other business will be discussed, if necessary.

Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

More than 15 years have passed since the Supreme Court's unanimous decision regarding the obviousness of a claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 103 rendered in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). Since then, the Federal Circuit has helped to refine the contours of the obviousness inquiry. This updated guidance serves as a reminder for USPTO personnel of the flexible approach to obviousness that is required under KSR and Federal Circuit precedent.

This guidance does not constitute substantive rulemaking and hence does not have the force and effect of law. It has been developed as a matter of internal Office management and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the Office. Rejections will continue to be based on the substantive law, and it is these rejections that are appealable. Consequently, any failure by Office personnel to follow this guidance is neither appealable nor petitionable.

The Office does not intend to announce any new Office practice or procedure by way of this updated guidance. This guidance is based on the Office's current understanding of the law and is believed to comport with the binding precedent of the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit. Furthermore, it is meant to be consistent with the Office's present examination policy. However, if any earlier guidance from the Office, including any section of the current MPEP (9th Edition, Rev. 07.2022, February 2023), is inconsistent with the updated guidance set forth in this notice, Office personnel are to follow this guidance. This updated guidance will be incorporated into the MPEP in due course. 1

As a preliminary matter, it is noted that KSR was decided prior to the March 16, 2013, effective date of the prior art provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Public Law 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (codified as amended at 35 U.S.C. 1-390 (2012)) (AIA). In keeping with the shift from a first-to-invent statutory scheme to one based on a first-inventor-to-file approach, Congress amended 35 U.S.C. 103 to change the time focus of the obviousness inquiry from “at the time the invention was made” to “before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”  2 When determining obviousness in a case governed by the AIA, Office personnel should interpret references to “at the time of invention” in KSR (see, for example, 550 U.S. at 420, 127 S. Ct. at 1742) as if they referred to the statutory time focus under the AIA, which is “before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” See MPEP 2158. 3

The Supreme Court's decision in KSR clearly reaffirmed the approach to obviousness announced in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S. Ct. 684 (1966) ( Graham ). At the outset of the KSR decision, Justice Kennedy, writing for a unanimous Court, quoted the Court's decades-earlier obviousness decision in Graham:

KSR, 550 U.S. at 406, 127 S. Ct. at 1734 (quoting Graham ). Referring to this analysis as “objective,” the Court then unambiguously stated that Graham remained the law of the land: “While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.” Id. at 406-07, 127 S. Ct. at 1734. Since KSR, the Federal Circuit has frequently emphasized the centrality of the Graham inquiries. See, for example, Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. West-Ward Pharms. Int'l Ltd., 923 F.3d 1051, 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 839 F.3d 1034, 1047-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Thus, USPTO personnel continue to ground obviousness determinations in the objective inquiries announced in Graham. See MPEP 2141, subsections I and II.

A hallmark of the KSR approach to obviousness, for which the Supreme Court found basis in Graham, is flexibility. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 127 S. Ct. at 1739. The KSR court mandated flexibility in at least two respects: first with regard to the proper understanding of the scope of the prior art, and second with regard to appropriate reasons to modify the prior art. In its cases decided since KSR, the Federal Circuit has reiterated these two aspects of flexibility, which are important to a proper determination of obviousness. These aspects are discussed in subsections III.A and III.B of this notice. Subsection III.C concludes the discussion with the important concept, evident in post- KSR Federal Circuit decisions, that the flexible approach does not relieve the decision-maker of the need to provide articulated reasoning that is grounded in fact.

The Supreme Court's directive to employ a flexible approach to understanding the scope of prior art is reflected in the frequently quoted sentence, “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. In this section of the KSR decision, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421-22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (“As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”). “The obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.” Id. at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741.

Federal Circuit case law since KSR follows the mandate of the Supreme Court to understand the prior art—including combinations of the prior art—in a flexible manner that credits the common sense and common knowledge of a PHOSITA. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that a narrow or rigid reading of prior art that does not recognize reasonable inferences that a PHOSITA would have drawn is inappropriate. An argument that the prior art lacks a specific teaching will not be sufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection when the allegedly missing teaching would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art.

For example, in Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated a determination of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) because it had not properly considered a PHOSITA's perspective on the prior art. Id. at 1364. The Randall court recalled KSR' s criticism of an overly rigid approach to obviousness that has “little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.” Id. at 1362, citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415-22, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. In reaching its decision to vacate, the Federal Circuit stated that by ignoring evidence showing “the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the Board failed to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions.” Id.

Consistent with its directive in Randall to focus on a PHOSITA's perspective on the prior art, the Federal Circuit in Zup, LLC v. Nash Mfg., Inc., 896 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018) held that there would have been a reason to combine prior art elements known to aid in stability for riders of water recreational devices, even without an express teaching of simultaneous use of those elements. Id. at 1372-73. The Federal Circuit drew attention to what a PHOSITA in the field of water recreational devices would have known: “Given the consistent focus on rider stability in this industry, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to have a rider use both the handles and the foot bindings at the same time while maneuvering between riding positions.” Id. at 1373 n.2. Thus, the Federal Circuit credited a PHOSITA with knowledge of the industry's concern for rider stability—a matter that could be viewed as common sense.

The Federal Circuit has made it clear that the flexible approach to understanding prior art as mandated by the Supreme Court also extends to the issue of whether a prior art disclosure is analogous art to the claimed invention. To be used in an obviousness rejection, a prior art disclosure must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Federal Circuit reads KSR as “direct[ing] us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly” because “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238 (Fed. Cir. 2010), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 402, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. Consistently, in Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the Federal Circuit recalled the alternative “same field of endeavor” and “reasonably pertinent” tests for analogous art, and stated that “an analysis of whether an asserted reference is analogous art should take into account any relevant evidence in the record cited by the parties to demonstrate the knowledge and perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 1379, 1383-84. More recently in Netflix, Inc. v. DivX, LLC, 80 F.4th 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the Federal Circuit noted the flexible approach under KSR as applied to the “same field of endeavor” test: “We have affirmed findings of analogous art where the references shared a general field of endeavor.” Id. at 1359, citing Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 995, 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and In re Mettke, 570 F.3d 1356, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

The flexible approach to understanding the prior art is reflected in USPTO guidance provided at MPEP 2141, subsection III: “Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art.” MPEP 2141, subsection II.C, and MPEP 2141.03 provide guidance regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art. Office personnel are directed to MPEP 2141.01(a) for guidance on analogous art. Consistent with KSR and subsequent Federal Circuit case law, when evaluating the prior art from the perspective of a PHOSITA, Office personnel must take that person's “ordinary creativity” into account.

Federal Circuit case law since KSR confirms that the flexible approach to obviousness encompasses not only how to understand the scope of prior art, but also how to provide a reasoned explanation to support a conclusion that claims would have been obvious. Consistent with KSR, the Federal Circuit makes it clear that the obviousness analysis is not “confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 795 (Fed. Cir. 2021), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. To be sure, the Federal Circuit continues to use the word “motivation” in its obviousness jurisprudence. However, it is evident that the term is no longer understood in a rigid or formalistic way. See, for example, Norgren Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“A flexible teaching, suggestion, or motivation test can be useful to prevent hindsight when determining whether a combination of elements known in the art would have been obvious.”); Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process.”)

In keeping with this flexible approach to providing a rationale for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has echoed KSR in identifying numerous possible sources that may, either implicitly or explicitly, provide reasons to combine or modify the prior art to determine that a claimed invention would have been obvious. These include “market forces; design incentives; the `interrelated teachings of multiple patents'; `any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent'; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.” Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-21, 127 S. Ct. at 1741-42. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has explained that a reason to optimize prior art parameters may be found in a PHOSITA's desire to improve on the prior art. In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The normal desire of artisans to improve upon what is already generally known can provide the motivation to optimize variables such as the percentage of a known polymer for use in a known device.”). The Federal Circuit has also clarified that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197-98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.”) (emphasis in original).

One aspect of the flexible approach to explaining a reason to modify the prior art is demonstrated in the Federal Circuit's decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which confirms that a proposed reason is not insufficient simply because it has broad applicability. Patent challenger Intel had argued in an inter partes review before the Board that some of Qualcomm's claims were unpatentable because a PHOSITA would have been able to modify the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency. Id. at 796-97. The Board had disagreed with Intel, in part because it viewed Intel's energy efficiency rationale as “no more than a generic concern that exists in many, if not all, electronic devices” (emphasis in original). Id. at 797. Citing KSR and reversing the Board on this point, the Federal Circuit explained that “[s]uch a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it's generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.” Id. The Federal Circuit further pointed out its pre- KSR holding “that because such improvements are `technology- independent,' `universal,' and `even common-sensical,' `there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.' ” Id., quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added by the Federal Circuit in Intel ). However, the Federal Circuit was also quick to point out that a generally applicable rationale would not be legally sufficient if it were asserted without explanation and in a merely conclusive way. Id.

When formulating an obviousness rejection, Office personnel may use any clearly articulated line of reasoning that would have allowed a PHOSITA to draw the conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the facts. MPEP 2143, subsection I, and MPEP 2144. Acknowledging that, in view of KSR, there are “many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,” the Federal Circuit has also pointed to MPEP 2143, which provides several examples of rationales gleaned from KSR. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1003.

As discussed above, KSR' s flexible approach to the obviousness inquiry disallows “[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to common sense.” 550 U.S. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Nevertheless, “[t]he key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious.” MPEP 2142. Although this approach is flexible, a proper obviousness rejection still requires the decision-maker to provide adequate analysis based on evidentiary support. This theme is a frequent one in post- KSR Federal Circuit jurisprudence. See, for example, Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“We reiterate that, on summary judgment, to invoke `common sense' or any other basis for extrapolating from prior art to a conclusion of obviousness, a district court must articulate its reasoning with sufficient clarity for review.”); Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc., 679 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The mere recitation of the words `common sense' without any support adds nothing to the obviousness equation.”); Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[R]eferences to `common sense'—whether to supply a motivation to combine or a missing limitation—cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support, especially when dealing with a limitation missing from the prior art references specified.”); In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he flexibility afforded by KSR did not extinguish the factfinder's obligation to provide reasoned analysis.”). The Federal Circuit has itself called attention to its own repeated emphasis on this requirement since KSR. See Van Os, 844 F.3d at 1361, quoting Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Since KSR, we have repeatedly explained that obviousness findings `grounded in “common sense” must contain explicit and clear reasoning providing some rational underpinning why common sense compels a finding of obviousness.' ”); Arendi S.A.R.L., 832 F.3d at 1362 (“[O]ur cases repeatedly warn” that common sense cannot substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support.).

This updated guidance reinforces the directive that Office personnel are required to provide a clear articulation of their reasoning, grounded in relevant facts, when making a determination that a claim would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103. As has been discussed, precedential case law requires such an analysis. Furthermore, “[t]he goal of examination is to clearly articulate any rejection early in the prosecution process so that the applicant has the opportunity to provide evidence of patentability and otherwise reply completely at the earliest opportunity.” MPEP 706. Thus, clearly articulated obviousness rejections serve the goal of compact prosecution and allow patent practitioners and Office personnel to conclude patent examination or other USPTO proceedings at the earliest possible time.

When reaching a determination of obviousness in view of KSR' s flexible approach as discussed above, decision-makers must consider all relevant evidence that is properly before them. An important theme in the law of obviousness is that the inquiry under Graham and KSR is not limited to the first three Graham factors ( i.e., scope and content of the prior art, differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art). Rather, when the so-called secondary considerations of the fourth factor (also known as objective indicia of nonobviousness) have been made an issue in the case, the decision-maker is not free to ignore them. In re Huai-Hung Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]hen secondary considerations are present, though they are not always dispositive, it is error not to consider them.”); Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“This court has explained, moreover, that the obviousness inquiry requires examination of all four Graham factors.”). 4

The requirement to consider all relevant evidence is part of the establishment of a prima facie case of obviousness. In the context of patent examination and reexamination, MPEP 2142 explains that “[t]he legal concept of prima facie obviousness is a procedural tool” that “allocates who has the burden of going forward with production of evidence in each step of the examination process.” At the outset of examination, the patent examiner who issues an obviousness rejection bears the burden of explaining how a preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that the claims would have been obvious. Id. If objective indicia of nonobviousness are properly before the examiner, such as by way of incorporation into the written description as filed or submission of an evidentiary declaration after the filing date, the examiner must consider those indicia, even before the issuance of a first Office action. A decision-maker “must always consider any objective evidence of nonobviousness presented in a case.” Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc., 617 F.3d 1296, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (referring to a district court as the decision-maker, but also applicable to USPTO decision-makers) (internal citations omitted). “Whether before the Board or a court, this court has emphasized that consideration of the objective indicia is part of the whole obviousness analysis, not just an afterthought.” Leo Pharm. Prod., Ltd. v. Rea, 726 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (emphasis in original).

At each stage of USPTO proceedings, Office personnel must reweigh all evidence that is relevant and properly of record at that time. Newly submitted evidence in rebuttal of an obviousness rejection must not be considered merely for its knockdown value against any previously-established prima facie case. See MPEP 2145, and in particular, the cases cited in examples 1-3. Evidence submitted to rebut a determination of obviousness is important because it may constitute “independent evidence of nonobviousness.” Pressure Prods. Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Ltd., 599 F.3d 1308, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), quoting Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Such evidence “may often be the most probative and cogent evidence of nonobviousness in the record.” Ortho-McNeil, 520 F.3d at 1365, quoting Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 295 F.3d 1277, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

It follows from the directive to consider all relevant evidence that the mere existence of a reason to modify the teachings of the prior art may not necessarily lead to a conclusion that a claimed invention would have been legally obvious. Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Kellogg N. Am. Co., 869 F.3d 1336, 1346-47 (Fed. Cir. 2017). When stepping into the shoes of a PHOSITA, the decision-maker should seek to understand the “complete picture” regarding the PHOSITA's perspective on obviousness, having due regard for additional evidence that may weigh against any prima facie case. Id. at 1346. In determining whether a claimed invention would have been obvious, Office personnel are charged with weighing all the evidence of record, including evidence of obviousness and evidence of nonobviousness. “If this weighing shows obviousness by a preponderance of the evidence, then the claims at issue were unpatentable.” ACCO Brands Corp. v. Fellowes, Inc., 813 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Without diminishing the need to consider all relevant evidence when making a determination about obviousness, the Federal Circuit has made it clear that an expert's conclusory opinion about a matter relevant to the obviousness inquiry may be unavailing unless accompanied by factual support. See, for example, Ethicon, 844 F.3d at 1352 (concluding in the context of an ex parte appeal that the Board properly gave little weight to conclusory expert testimony regarding objective indicia); Quanergy Sys., Inc. v. Velodyne Lidar USA, Inc., 24 F.4th 1406, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (agreeing with the Board, in the context of an inter partes review proceeding, that the proffered expert testimony was “incomplete, unspecific, and ultimately conclusory” and therefore not entitled to controlling weight). Consistently, in the context of proceedings before the PTAB, Office regulations provide that “[e]xpert testimony that does not disclose the underlying facts or data on which the opinion is based is entitled to little or no weight.” 37 CFR 42.65(a); see also Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., No. IPR2022-00624, 2022 WL 3648989, at *6 (PTAB 2022) (precedential) (The USPTO Director affirmed that because “the cited declaration testimony is conclusory and unsupported, [it] adds little to the conclusory assertion for which it is offered to support, and is entitled to little weight.”). Further, during the examination of an application or the reexamination of a patent, any objective evidence of nonobviousness must be submitted by way of an affidavit or declaration; attorney arguments alone cannot take the place of such evidence in the record where the evidence is necessary. See 37 CFR 1.132; MPEP 716.01(c) and MPEP 2145, subsection I.

Consistent with Federal Circuit precedent, Office personnel are directed to consider all objective evidence that has been properly made of record and is relevant to the issue of obviousness at MPEP 2141, subsection II.

Any legally proper obviousness rejection must identify facts and then articulate sound reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the claims would have been obvious to a PHOSITA. “Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying facts. . . .” Henny Penny Corp. v. Frymaster LLC, 938 F.3d 1324, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019). During patent examination, making factual findings concerning the content of the prior art is often the first step when considering whether or not a claimed invention would have been obvious. As discussed above, the obviousness determination may also involve other facts, such as those presented in an evidentiary declaration. After making appropriate findings of fact, Office personnel must use reasoning in accordance with Graham and KSR to determine whether a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of all relevant facts. Office personnel must explain on the record how the conclusion of obviousness was reached. See MPEP 2141, subsection II: “Once the findings of fact are articulated, Office personnel must provide an explanation to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.” See also MPEP 2142.

In keeping with the flexible approach to obviousness in KSR and Graham, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to crafting an obviousness rejection. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 127 S. Ct. at 1739. Different technologies or different factual situations may lend themselves to different formats for presentation of the relevant facts, or to different lines of reasoning to explain the legal conclusion of obviousness. Office personnel are called on to use their legal and technological expertise to determine how best to explain an obviousness rejection. See Hyatt v. Kappos, 625 F.3d 1320, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010), aff'd and remanded, 566 U.S. 431, 132 S. Ct. 1690 (2012). Any legally proper obviousness rejection will be characterized by findings of fact and a reasoned explanation showing why the claimed invention would have been obvious to a PHOSITA. See, for example, In re Biedermann, 733 F.3d 329, 335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prod. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350, 1360-61 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Air Force Recruiting Information Support System—Total Force (AFRISS-TF); OMB Control Number 0701-0150.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 100,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 100,000.

Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 25,000.

Needs and Uses: Recruiting requires the collection of specific information on prospective Air Force, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve Command enlistees, officers, and health profession personnel prior to entering into duty. The information is used to create the initial personnel record that is used to prescreen and qualify enlistees, line officers, and health professionals fit for service and ultimately induct them into one of the three Air Force commands. The information is also collected to process security clearances for those individuals requiring clearances for sensitive and classified positions. The respondents are recruiting applicants of the Air Force who may seek more information or request copies of their personal information. The collection instrument is a list of questions asked by the recruiter that cannot be found on the SF-86; information taken from the SF-86 can complete the rest of the recruit's application. Collections instruments are completed by applicants and recruiters into the system of record as applicable to their recruiting and application purposes. All completed instruments of collection reside in the system of record which has safeguards in place to protect privacy information. The result of successful information collection is the successful accession of an applicant in the Air Force and the safe keeping of said applicant's personal information.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID 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.

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Reginald Lucas.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Installation Management Command Survivor Outreach Service System (SOS IMCOM); OMB Control Number 0702-0148.

Type of Request: Revision.

Number of Respondents: 60,295.

Responses per Respondent: 2.

Annual Responses: 120,590.

Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 40,197.

Needs and Uses: SOS is an Army-wide program that provides dedicated and comprehensive support services to all family members of soldiers who die while on active duty, including Regular Army, United States Army National Guard and Reserves patrons. SOS Support Coordinators serve as the main Survivor advocate. They facilitate support groups, provide life skills education, assist survivors in managing applicable life-long benefit transition milestones, connect survivors with counseling resources, and represent the command in contacts with community organizations. SOS Financial Counselors help survivors by assisting with budget counseling, debt management, education, and higher education needs. SOS staff members are required to make periodic communication with Survivors—at a minimum of one contact annually—to conduct well-being checks and milestone management reviews or determine the level of support Survivors desire. Information gathered in these meetings is input into the SOS application collection instrument by SOS staff members. No customers have access to the collection instrument. SOS staff members collect the information from the survivors and document the information as a direct contact within the SOS application case notes. The successful result of the information collection is an organized and up-to-date database of essential information on survivors that allows SOS to better provide the support they deserve.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID 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.

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Reginald Lucas.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Flood and Coastal Storm Damage Surveys; OMB Control Number 0710-0017.

Needs and Uses: The USACE provides flood risk management structural and nonstructural mitigation, planning and tech services to communities, residents and businesses at risk of flooding. Flood damage surveys are administered by USACE and its contractors to determine the impacts and potential impacts of flooding and to determine how communities, residents, and businesses respond to flooding. The data are used for estimating damage for factors such as depth of flooding, construction types, and different occupancies of use, which influences project formulation and budgeting.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; individuals or households; not-for-profit institutions; State, local, or Tribal government.

Annual Burden Hours: 1,150.

Number of Respondents: 3,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 3,000.

Average Burden per Response: 23 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Standard Form (SF) 87 Fingerprint Charts; SF 87; OMB Control Number 0705-0002.

Type of Request: Revision.

Number of Respondents: 3,136.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 3,136.

Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 261.

Needs and Uses: The Standard Form (SF) 87 fingerprint card is utilized to conduct a national criminal history check, which is a component of a background investigation. The SF 87 is completed by applicants who are under consideration for Federal employment; by Federal employees, to determine whether they should be retained in such employment; by individuals being considered to perform work for the Federal Government under a Government contract or to continue such work; and by persons seeking long-term access to Federal facilities and systems. The SF 87 fingerprint chart is used in background investigations to help establish facts required to determine, for example, whether the subject of the investigation should be adjudicated to be eligible for logical and physical access to Government facilities and systems; suitable or fit for Federal employment; fit to perform work on behalf of the Federal Government under a Government contract; eligible to hold a position that is sensitive for national security reasons; or eligible for access to classified information. The SF 87 form is utilized only when a hardcopy fingerprint chart must be obtained, as opposed to the electronic collection of fingerprints.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: As required.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID 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.

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Reginald Lucas.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery—the Interactive Customer Evaluation System; OMB Control Number: 0704-0420.

Needs and Uses: 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 non-controversial 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 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 non-response 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.

Affected Public: Individuals and households.

Annual Burden Hours: 25,000.

Number of Respondents: 500,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 500,000.

Average Burden per Response: 3 minutes.

Frequency: As needed.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Department of Defense Telework Agreement; DD Form 2946; OMB Control Number 0704-0611.

Needs And Uses: In accordance with and prescribed by DoDI 1035.01, information is collected to register individuals as participants in the DoD alternative workplace program; to manage and document the duties of participants; and to fund, evaluate and report on program activity. The records may be used by Information Technology offices to determine equipment needs, to ensure appropriate safeguards are in place to protect government information, and for assessing and managing technological risks and vulnerabilities. All employees who are authorized to telework shall complete a DD Form 2946. The DD Form 2946 shall be signed and dated by the employee and supervisor and maintained by the employee's supervisor. Components are encouraged to include a DD Form 2946 in the new employee on-boarding packages for those employees occupying telework eligible positions to ensure that they are aware of their telework responsibilities, should telework be offered or requested. Information on telework responsibilities should be posted throughout the workplace and included in periodic training events.

Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

Annual Burden Hours: 103,333.

Number of Respondents: 310,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 310,000.

Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

Frequency: Biennially. Telework agreements shall be reviewed by the supervisor and teleworker, revalidated at least every two years, and revised when appropriate. A new DD Form 2946 should be completed when a new supervisor is responsible for the employee.

This meeting is being held under the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”), 5 U.S.C. 552b (commonly known as the “Government in the Sunshine Act”), and sections 102-3.140 and 102-3.150 of title 41, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Designated Federal Officer and the Department of Defense, the Defense Policy Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning its March 5-6, 2024 meeting. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.

Purpose of the Meeting: To obtain, review, and evaluate classified information related to the DPB's mission to advise on: (a) issues central to strategic DoD planning; (b) policy implications of U.S. force structure and modernization on DoD's ability to execute U.S. defense strategy; (c) U.S. regional defense policies; and (d) other defense policy topics of special interest to the DoD, as determined by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, or the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

Agenda: On March 5, 2024, and March 6, 2024, the DPB will received classified briefings to evaluate the potential impact of an attack by the People's Republic of China's (PRC) on U.S. Defense Critical Infrastructure (DCI). Lt Col Jesse Humpal, Designated Federal Officer and Dr. Janine Davidson, Chair of the Defense Policy Board will provide opening remarks; The Hon. Sasha Baker, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and Ms. Madeline Mortelmans, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy Plans and Capabilities, will welcome the DPB and provide a strategic overview; Thomas Sisk, Defense Intelligence Officer for China, will discuss the PRC threat to the Homeland and DCI; Teresa Whelan, Director Defense Intelligence Collections and Special Programs, and Ms. Lauren Murphy, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, will discuss the potential impact of PRC attacks on homeland DCI; and Ms. Rebecca Zimmerman, Performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Hemispheric Affairs, will discuss DoD plans and strategy for defending DCI. After lunch, Ms. Rebecca Zimmerman, Performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Hemispheric Affairs, Caitlin Durkovich, Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Homeland Security Advisor for Resilience and Response, National Security Council, and Iranga Kahangama, Assistant Secretary for Cyber, Infrastructure, Risk, and Resilience, Department of Homeland Security, will discuss interagency perspectives on the wartime PRC threat to DCI; General Gregory M. Guillot, Commander USNORTHCOM/NORAD, will discuss their perspective on how their combatant command is addressing the DCI issue; General Jacqueline D. Van Ovost, Commander USTRANSCOM, will discuss their perspective on how their combatant command is addressing the DCI issue; and Dr. Janine Davidson, the DPB Chair, will lead the DPB through discussions and deliberations on Defense Critical Infrastructure challenges. Day One will conclude. Day Two begins with Dr. Janine Davidson, the DPB Chair, leading the DPB through discussions and deliberations on Defense Critical Infrastructure challenges; and the DPB will then provide its advice and recommendations to the Hon. Lloyd James Austin III, Secretary of Defense. The meeting will then conclude.

Meeting Accessibility: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 1009(d) and 41 CFR 102-3.155, the DoD has determined that this meeting shall be closed to the public. The Acting Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), in consultation with the DoD FACA Attorney, has determined in writing that this meeting be closed to the public because the discussions fall under the purview of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and are so inextricably intertwined with unclassified material that they cannot reasonably be segregated into separate discussions without disclosing classified material.

Written Statements: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 1009(a)(3) and 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140(c), the public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the membership of the DPB at any time regarding its mission or in response to the stated agenda of a planned meeting. Written statements should be submitted to the DPB's DFO, which is listed in this notice or can be obtained from the GSA's FACA Database— http://www.facadatabase.gov/. Written statements that do not pertain to a scheduled meeting of the DPB may be submitted at any time. However, if individual comments pertain to a specific topic being discussed at a planned meeting, then these statements must be submitted no later than five business days prior to the meeting in question. The DFO will review all submitted written statements and provide copies to all members.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: National Security Education Program (Service Agreement Report for Scholarship and Fellowship Awards); DD Form 2752, DD Form 2753; OMB Control Number 0704-0368.

Needs and Uses: The David L. Boren National Security Education Act NSEA, Title VIII of Public Law 102-183, Sec. 802(b), as amended, directs the Secretary of Defense to carry out a program to award undergraduate scholarships and graduate fellowships, as well as grants to U.S. institutions of higher education. Accordingly, the National Security Education Program (NSEP) was established. Both DD Form 2752, “NSEP Service Agreement for Scholarship and Fellowship Awards,” and the DD Form 2753, “NSEP Service Agreement Report SAR for Scholarship and Fellowship Awards,” are designed to appropriately collect information on the NSEP award recipients. This information will be used by the NSEP Office, or designated administrative agents, as verification that applicable scholarship and fellowship recipients are fulfilling service obligations mandated by the David L. Boren National Security Education Act of 1991, Title VIII of Public Law 102-183, as amended.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 275 hours.

Number of Respondents: 1,650.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 1,650.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Frequency: Annually.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Pre-Embarkation Certificate of Disinsection; DD Form 3044; OMB Control Number 0704-0568.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 1,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 1,000.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 167.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to provide proof of aircraft disinsection to foreign countries that requires it before cargo and aircrew will be allowed to dis-embark in those countries. This standardized form that is used across the DoD satisfies the documentation requirements of disinsection for all 14 countries that currently require it.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID 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.

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Reginald Lucas.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Revitalizing Base Closure Communities, Economic Development Conveyance Annual Financial Statement; OMB Control Number 0790-0004.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 24.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 24.

Average Burden per Response: 40 hours.

Annual Burden Hours: 960.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to verify that Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) recipients of Economic Development Conveyances (EDC) are in compliance with the requirement that the LRA reinvest proceeds from the use of EDC property for seven years. Respondents are LRAs that have executed EDC agreements with a Military Department that transferred property from a closed military installation. As provided by 32 CFR 174.9, such agreements require that the LRA reinvest the proceeds from any sale, lease, or equivalent use of EDC property (or any portion thereof) during at least the first seven years after the date of the initial transfer of the property to support the economic redevelopment of, or related to, the installation. The Secretary of Defense may recoup from the LRA such portion of these proceeds not used to support the economic redevelopment of, or related to, the installation. LRAs are subject to this same seven-year reinvestment requirement if their EDC agreement is modified to reduce the debt owed to the Federal Government. Military Departments monitor LRA compliance with this provision by requiring an annual financial statement certified by an independent Certified Public Accountant. This information is not required to be reported on a specific form or other standardized collection instrument.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: Annually.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID 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.

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Reginald Lucas.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: National Defense University (NDU) Student Profile; OMB Control Number: 0704-0602.

Needs and Uses: This information collection is required to complete the official student record, which is stored in the University Student Management System (USMS), a component of the NDU Enterprise Information System. Through this information collection, students provide profile information such as demographics, educational background, military service or professional background, and emergency contact information. The information is critical to university operations as it is used to fulfill mandatory reporting requirements and for the safety of our students. The information is collected from students electronically, via a web-based form that contains a combination of selected- response (radio buttons, drop-down menus) and open-response items. The National Defense University Student Profile is completed by all students and is administered using a Drupal-based survey platform provided by USA Learning. The data are downloaded, processed, and transferred to the USMS by NDU's Office of Institutional Research. The result is a set of complete student records for each academic year in the official repository for such record. The data are used for various institutional purposes such as mandatory reporting and notifying students of emergencies or closures.

Affected Public: Individuals and Households, Foreign Nationals.

Annual Burden Hours: 50.

Number of Respondents: 150.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 150.

Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

Frequency: Annually.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Nuclear Test Personnel Review Forms; DTRA Form 150, DTRA Form 150A, DTRA Form 150B, DTRA Form 150D; OMB Control Number 0704-0447.

Type of Request: Extension.

Number of Respondents: 278.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 278.

Average Burden per Response: 24.4 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 113.

Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to provide recognition, verify participation, and/or collect irradiation scenario information from nuclear test participants to perform radiation dose assessments. This information is used to award the Atomic Veterans Service Certificate (AVSC) to eligible veterans and to process claims submitted by veterans seeking radiogenic disease compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and/or the Department of Justice (DOJ). This information may also be used in approved veteran epidemiology studies that study the health impact of nuclear tests on U.S. Veterans. Respondents include Veterans and civilian test participants, and their representatives, who apply for the AVSC or file radiogenic disease compensation claims with the VA or DOJ and require information from the Department of Defense.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Frequency: On occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID 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.

DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Reginald Lucas.

Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at whs.mc-alex.esd.mbx.dd-dod-information-collections@mail.mil.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Navy Access Control System (NACS) and the U.S. Marine Corps Biometric and Automated Access Control System (BAACS); SECNAV 5512/1; OMB Control Number 0703-0061.

Needs and Uses: The information collection is required to control physical access to DoD, DoN or U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) installations/units controlled information, installations, facilities, or areas over which the DoD, DoN or USMC has security responsibilities by identifying or verifying an individual through the use of biometric databases and associated data processing/information services for designated populations for purposes of protecting U.S./Coalition/allied government/national security areas of responsibility and information; to issue badges, replace lost badges and retrieve passes upon separation; to maintain visitor statistics; collect information to adjudicate access to facility; and track the entry/exit of personnel.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.

Annual Burden Hours: 583,333.

Number of Respondents: 3,500,000.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 3,500,000.

Average Burden per Response: 10 minutes.

Frequency: On occasion.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: MarineNet Registration; OMB Control Number 0712-MNET.

Type of Request: New collection.

Number of Respondents: 454.

Responses per Respondent: 1.

Annual Responses: 454.

Average Burden per Response: 5 minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 38.

Needs and Uses: The Marine Corps Training and Education Command (TECOM) is tasked by the Commandant of the Marine Corps to provide individual entry-level training, professional military education (PME) and continuous professional development. TECOM operates MarineNet, a web-based e-learning portal, to assist in the delivery of required training and PME. A collection of pertinent information ( i.e., name, social security number, email address) is necessary for administrative access control to confirm the identity and verify the eligibility of individuals seeking access to the training content on the MarineNet portal. Eligible respondents include active-duty military, reservists, dependents, retirees, DoD civilians and contractors seeking initial access to MarineNet for mandatory annual training, PME, and e-learning resources.

Affected Public: Individuals or households.