81 FR 78570 - Collection of Information; Proposed Extension of Approval; Comment Request-Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 216 (November 8, 2016)
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 216 (November 8, 2016)
| Page Range | 78570-78574 | |
| FR Document | 2016-26963 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 8, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 78570-78574] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-26963] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2010-0041] Collection of Information; Proposed Extension of Approval; Comment Request--Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information for the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of approval of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by December 8, 2016. ADDRESSES: OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-6974, or emailed to [email protected]. All comments should be identified by Docket No. CPSC-2010-0041. In addition, written comments also should be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. CPSC-2010-0041, or by mail/hand delivery/courier (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions), preferably in five copies, to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to: [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of August 19, 2016 (81 FR 55449), the CPSC published a notice in accordance with provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). This notice announced CPSC's intention to seek extension of approval of a collection of information for a database on the safety of consumer products and other products and substances regulated by the Commission (Database), as required by section 212 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). We received one general comment in support of the Database in response to the August 19 notice. The commenter noted that the existence of the Database may reduce FOIA requests. Nothing in the comment addressed CPSC's burden analysis. Accordingly, by publication of this notice, the Commission announces that it has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for extension of approval of the collection of information for the Database without change. A. Background Section 212 of the CPSIA added section 6A to the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), which requires the Commission to establish and maintain a publicly available, searchable database on the safety of consumer products and other products or substances regulated by the Commission. Among other things, section 6A of the CPSA requires the Commission to collect reports of harm from the public for potential publication in the publicly available Database, and to collect and publish comments about reports of harm from manufacturers. As explained in the August 19, 2016 Federal Register notice (81 FR 55449), the Commission sought, and OMB approved, the collection of information for the Database under control number 3041-0146. OMB's most recent extension of approval on December 2, 2013 will expire on December 31, 2016. Accordingly, the Commission now proposes to request an extension of approval of this collection of information. Details about the information collected through the Database are provided in the August 19, 2016 notice. B. Estimated Burden 1. Estimated Annual Burden for Respondents We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Frequency of responses is calculated by dividing the number of responses by the number of respondents. \2\ Numbers have been rounded. Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Reports of Harm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Response Total annual Minutes per Total burden, Collection type respondents frequency \1\ responses response in hours \2\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reports of Harm--submitted 6,582 1.03 6,790 12 1,358 through Web site............... Reports of Harm--submitted by 2,632 1.01 2,643 10 441 phone.......................... Reports of Harm--submitted by 780 6.67 5,206 20 1,735 mail, email, fax............... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total....................... 9,994 .............. 14,639 .............. 3,534 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 78571]] Table 2--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Manufacturer Submissions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Response Total annual Minutes per Total burden, Collection type respondents frequency \1\ responses response in hours \2\ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manufacturer Comments--submitted 532 6.23 3,317 117 6,468 through Web site............... Manufacturer Comments--submitted 283 1.22 346 147 848 by mail, email, fax............ Requests to Treat Information as 12 1.08 13 42 9 Confidential--submitted through Web site....................... Requests to Treat Information as 0 n/a 0 72 0 Confidential--submitted by mail, email, fax............... Requests to Treat Information as 131 1.82 238 165 655 Materially Inaccurate-- submitted through Web site..... Requests to Treat Information as 79 1.06 84 195 273 Materially Inaccurate-- submitted by mail, email, fax.. Voluntary Brand Identification.. 829 1.48 1,228 10 205 Small Batch Manufacturer 2,208 1 2,208 10 368 Identification................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total....................... 4,074 .............. 7,434 .............. 8,826 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on the data set forth in Tables 1 and 2 above, the annual reporting cost is estimated to be $719,381. This estimate is based on the sum of two estimated total figures for reports of harm and manufacturer submissions. The estimated number of respondents and responses are based on the actual responses received in FY 2015. We assume that the number of responses and respondents will be similar in future years. Reports of Harm: Table 1 sets forth the data used to estimate the burden associated with submitting reports of harm. We had previously estimated the time associated with the electronic and telephone submission of reports of harm at 12 and 10 minutes, respectively, and because we have had no indication that these estimates are not appropriate or accurate, we used those figures for present purposes as well. We estimate that the time associated with a paper or PDF form would be 20 minutes, on average. To estimate the costs for submitting reports of harm, we multiplied the estimated total burden hours associated with reports of harm (1,358 hours + 441 hours + 1,735 hours = 3,534 hours) by an estimated total compensation for all workers in private industry of $32.06 per hour,\3\ which results in an estimated cost of $113,300 (3,534 hours x $32.06 per hour = $113,300). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 of the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC), Private Industry, goods-producing and service-providing industries, by occupational group, June 2016 (data extracted on 06/23/2016 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t09.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manufacturer Submissions: Table 2 sets forth the data used to estimate the burden associated with manufacturers' submissions to the Database. We observed that a large percentage of the general comments come from a few businesses and assumed that the experience of a business that submits many comments each year would be different from one that submits only a few. Accordingly, we divided all responding businesses into three groups, based on the number of general comments submitted in FY 2015; and then we selected several businesses from each group to contact. The first group we contacted consisted of businesses that submitted 50 or more comments in FY 2015, accounting for 31 percent of all general comments received. The second group we contacted included businesses that submitted 6 to 49 comments, accounting for 39 percent of all general comments received. The last group contacted included businesses that submitted no more than five comments, accounting for 30 percent of all general comments received.\4\ We asked each company contacted how long it typically takes to research, compose, and enter a comment, a claim of materially inaccurate information, or a confidential information claim. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ In the last group one company was excluded as an outlier. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To estimate the burden associated with submitting a general comment through the business portal regarding a report of harm, we averaged the burden provided by each company within each group and then calculated a weighted average from the three groups, weighting each group by the proportion of comments received from that group. We found that the average time to submit a general comment regarding a report of harm is 117 minutes based on the data in Table 3 (((15 minutes + 45 minutes + 30 minutes + 15 minutes)/4 companies)*.31 + ((105 minutes + 45 minutes + 150 minutes + 15 minutes)/4 companies)*.39 + ((240 minutes + 60 minutes + 480 minutes)/3 companies)*.30 = 117 minutes). Table 3--Estimated Burden To Enter a General Comment in the Database ------------------------------------------------------------------------ General Group Company comments ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Group 1 (>=50 comments)........... Company A........... 15 Company B........... 45 Company C.......... 30 Company D........... 15 Group 2 (6-49 comments)........... Company A........... 105 Company B........... 45 Company C........... 150 Company D........... 15 [[Page 78572]] Group 3 (<== 5 comments).......... Company A........... 240 Company B........... 60 Company C........... 480 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Registered businesses generally submit comments through our Web site. Unregistered businesses submit comments by mail, email, or fax. We estimate that for unregistered businesses, submitting comments takes a little longer because we often must ask the businesses to amend their submissions to include the required certifications. Thus, we estimated that on average, comments submitted by mail, email, or fax take 30 minutes longer than those submitted through our Web site (117 minutes + 30 minutes = 147 minutes). The submission of a claim of materially inaccurate information is a relatively rare event for all respondents. Accordingly, we averaged all responses together. Eight of the businesses contacted had submitted claims of materially inaccurate information. We found that the average time to submit a claim that a report of harm contains a material inaccuracy is 165 minutes ((30 minutes + 90 minutes + 45 minutes + 90 minutes + 60 minutes + 660 minutes + 45 minutes + 300 minutes)/8 companies = 165 minutes). Registered businesses generally submit claims through the business portal. Unregistered businesses submit claims by mail, email, or fax. We estimate that submitting claims by mail, email, or fax takes a little longer because we often must ask the businesses to amend their submission to include the required certifications. Thus, we estimated that on average, claims submitted by mail, email, or fax take 30 minutes longer than those submitted through our Web site (165 minutes + 30 minutes = 195 minutes). The submission of a claim of confidential information is a relatively rare event for all respondents; accordingly, we averaged all responses together. Five of the businesses contacted had submitted claims of confidential information. We found that the average time to submit a claim that a report of harm contains confidential information is 42 minutes ((45 minutes + 15 minutes + 60 minutes + 30 minutes + 60 minutes)/5 companies = 42 minutes). Registered businesses generally submit confidential information claims through the business portal. Unregistered businesses submit confidential information claims by mail, email, or fax. We estimate that submitting claims in this way takes a little longer because we often must ask the businesses to amend their submission to include the required certifications. Thus, we estimate that a confidential information claim submitted by mail, email, or fax would take 30 minutes longer than those submitted through our Web site (42 minutes + 30 minutes = 72 minutes). For voluntary brand identification, we estimate that a response would take 10 minutes on average. Most responses consist only of the brand name and a product description. In many cases a business will submit multiple entries in a brief period of time and, based on the date and time stamps on these records, an entry often takes less than two minutes. CPSC staff enters the same data in a similar form based on our own research, and that experience was also factored into our estimate. For small batch manufacturer identification, we estimate that a response would take 10 minutes on average. The form consists of three check boxes and the information should be readily accessible to the respondent. The responses summarized in Table 2 are generally submitted by manufacturers. To avoid underestimating the cost associated with the collection of this data, we assigned the higher hourly wage associated with a manager or professional in goods-producing industries to these tasks. To estimate the cost of manufacturer submissions we multiplied the estimated total burden hours in Table 2 (8,826 hours) by an estimated total compensation for a manager or professional in goods- producing industries of $68.67 per hour,\5\ which results in an estimated cost of $606,081 (8,826 hours x $68.67 per hour = $606,081). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 of the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC), Private Industry, goods-producing and service-providing industries, by occupational group, June 2016 (data extracted on 06/23/2016 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t09.htm. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, the total estimated annual cost to respondents is $719,381 ($113,300 burden for reports of harm + $606,081 burden for manufacturer submissions = $719,381). 2. Estimated Annual Burden on Government We estimate the annualized cost to the CPSC to be $954,531. This figure is based on the costs for four categories of work for the Database: Reports of Harm, Materially Inaccurate Information Claims, Manufacturer Comments, and Small Batch Identification. Each category is described below. No government cost is associated with Voluntary Brand Identification because this information is entered directly into the Database by the manufacturer with no processing required by the government. The information assists the government in directing reports of harm to the correct manufacturer. We did not attempt to calculate separately the government cost for claims of confidential information because the number of claims is so small. The time to process these claims is included with claims of materially inaccurate information. Reports of Harm: The Reports of Harm category includes many different tasks. Some costs related to this category are from two data entry contracts. Tasks related to these contracts include clerical coding of the report, such as identifying the type of consumer product reported and the appropriate associated hazard, as well as performing quality control on the data in the report. Contractor A spends an estimated 5,267 hours per year performing these tasks. With an hourly rate of $33.31 for contractor services, the annual cost to the government of contract A is $175,444. Contractor B spends an estimated 2,539 hours per year performing these tasks. With an hourly rate of $58.09 for contractor services, the annual cost to the government of contract B is $147,491. The Reports of Harm category also includes sending consent requests for reports when necessary, processing that consent when received, determining whether a product is out of CPSC's jurisdiction, and confirming that pictures and attachments do not have any personally identifiable information. The Reports category also entails [[Page 78573]] notifying manufacturers when one of their products is reported, completing a risk of harm determination form for every report eligible for publication, referring some reports to a Subject Matter Expert (SME) within the CPSC for a determination on whether the reports meet the requirement of having a risk of harm, and determining whether a report meets all the statutory and regulatory requirements for publication. Detailed costs are: Table 4--Estimated Costs for Reports of Harm Task ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Total Grade level hours compensation Total annual (annual) per hour cost ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contract A...................................................... 5,267 $33.31 $175,444 Contract B...................................................... 2,539 58.09 147,491 7............................................................... 200 34.78 6,956 9............................................................... 300 42.69 12,807 12.............................................................. 5,528 61.91 342,238 13.............................................................. 428 73.37 31,402 14.............................................................. 1,068 86.99 92,905 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 15,330 .............. 809,243 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Materially Inaccurate Information (MII) Claims: The MII claims category includes reviewing and responding to claims, participating in meetings where the claims are discussed, and completing a risk of harm determination on reports when a company alleges that a report does not describe a risk of harm. Table 5--Estimated Costs for MII Claims Task ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Total Grade level hours compensation Total annual (annual) per hour cost ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.............................................................. 275 $61.91 $17,025 13.............................................................. 167 73.37 12,253 14.............................................................. 323 86.99 28,098 15.............................................................. 50 101.99 5,100 SES............................................................. 50 109.97 5,499 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 865 .............. 67,975.00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Manufacturer Comments: The Comments category includes reviewing and accepting or rejecting comments. Table 6--Estimated Costs for Manufacturer Comments Task ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Total Grade level hours compensation Total annual (annual) per hour cost ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.............................................................. 62 $61.91 $3,838 13.............................................................. 109 73.37 7,997 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 171 .............. 11,835 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Small Batch Manufacturer Identification: The Small Batch Manufacturer Identification category includes time spent posting the list of small batch registrations, as well as answering manufacturers' questions on registering as a Small Batch company and what the implications to that company of small batch registration. Table 7--Estimated Costs for Small Batch Task ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Total Grade level hours compensation Total annual (annual) per hour cost ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15.............................................................. 642 $101.99 $65,478 ----------------------------------------------- Total....................................................... 642 .............. 65,478 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 78574]] We estimate the annualized cost to the CPSC of $954,531 by adding the four categories of work related to the Database summarized in Tables 4 through 7 (Reports of Harm ($809,243) + MII Claims ($67,975) + Manufacturer Comments ($11,835) + Small Batch Identification ($65,478) = $954,531). This information collection renewal request based on an estimated 12,360 burden hours per year for the Database is a decrease of 7,485 hours since this collection of information was last approved by OMB in 2013. The decrease in burden is due primarily to the fact that the number of incoming reports of harm has decreased, and the number of claims based on those reports has decreased as well. While comments did not decline significantly, they did shift to the more efficient online submissions. We note a large increase in small batch manufacturer activity, which has been rising steadily for years. However, this increase was not large enough to offset the decreases in other areas. Dated: November 3, 2016. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. 2016-26963 Filed 11-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
![78570 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Notices
NMFS will provide the necessary information from the Office of response to the August 19 notice. The
administrative support, including Management and Budget (OMB). commenter noted that the existence of
technical assistance, for the HMS AP. DATES: Submit written or electronic the Database may reduce FOIA requests.
However, NMFS will not compensate comments on the collection of Nothing in the comment addressed
participants with monetary support of information by December 8, 2016. CPSC’s burden analysis. Accordingly,
any kind. Depending on availability of ADDRESSES: OMB recommends that
by publication of this notice, the
funds, members may be reimbursed for written comments be faxed to the Office Commission announces that it has
travel costs related to the HMS AP of Information and Regulatory Affairs, submitted to the Office of Management
meetings. OMB, Attn: CPSC Desk Officer, FAX: and Budget (OMB) a request for
202–395–6974, or emailed to extension of approval of the collection
C. Meeting Schedule
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. All of information for the Database without
Meetings of the HMS AP will be held change.
as frequently as necessary but are comments should be identified by
routinely held twice each year—once in Docket No. CPSC–2010–0041. In A. Background
the spring, and once in the fall. The addition, written comments also should
be submitted at http:// Section 212 of the CPSIA added
meetings may be held in conjunction section 6A to the Consumer Product
with public hearings. www.regulations.gov, under Docket No.
CPSC–2010–0041, or by mail/hand Safety Act (CPSA), which requires the
Dated: November 3, 2016. delivery/courier (for paper, disk, or CD– Commission to establish and maintain a
Alan D. Risenhoover, ROM submissions), preferably in five publicly available, searchable database
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, copies, to: Office of the Secretary, U.S. on the safety of consumer products and
National Marine Fisheries Service. Consumer Product Safety Commission, other products or substances regulated
[FR Doc. 2016–26943 Filed 11–7–16; 8:45 am] Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, by the Commission. Among other
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) things, section 6A of the CPSA requires
504–7923. For access to the docket to the Commission to collect reports of
read background documents or harm from the public for potential
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY comments received, go to http:// publication in the publicly available
COMMISSION www.regulations.gov. Database, and to collect and publish
comments about reports of harm from
[Docket No. CPSC–2010–0041] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For manufacturers. As explained in the
further information contact: Robert H. August 19, 2016 Federal Register notice
Collection of Information; Proposed Squibb, Consumer Product Safety (81 FR 55449), the Commission sought,
Extension of Approval; Comment Commission, 4330 East West Highway, and OMB approved, the collection of
Request—Publicly Available Consumer Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504–7815, or information for the Database under
Product Safety Information Database by email to: rsquibb@cpsc.gov. control number 3041–0146. OMB’s most
AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the recent extension of approval on
Commission. Federal Register of August 19, 2016 (81 December 2, 2013 will expire on
ACTION: Notice. FR 55449), the CPSC published a notice December 31, 2016. Accordingly, the
in accordance with provisions of the Commission now proposes to request an
SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 extension of approval of this collection
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the U.S.C. Chapter 35). This notice of information. Details about the
Consumer Product Safety Commission announced CPSC’s intention to seek information collected through the
(CPSC or Commission) requests extension of approval of a collection of Database are provided in the August 19,
comments on a proposed extension of information for a database on the safety 2016 notice.
approval of a collection of information of consumer products and other
for the Publicly Available Consumer products and substances regulated by B. Estimated Burden
Product Safety Information Database. the Commission (Database), as required 1. Estimated Annual Burden for
The Commission will consider all by section 212 of the Consumer Product Respondents
comments received in response to this Safety Improvement Act of 2008
notice before requesting an extension of (CPSIA). We received one general We estimate the burden of this
approval of this collection of comment in support of the Database in collection of information as follows:
TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN FOR REPORTS OF HARM
Number of Response Total annual Minutes per Total burden,
Collection type respondents frequency 1 responses response in hours 2
Reports of Harm—submitted through Web site .................. 6,582 1.03 6,790 12 1,358
Reports of Harm—submitted by phone ............................... 2,632 1.01 2,643 10 441
Reports of Harm—submitted by mail, email, fax ................. 780 6.67 5,206 20 1,735
Total .............................................................................. 9,994 ........................ 14,639 ........................ 3,534
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
1 Frequency of responses is calculated by dividing 2 Numbers have been rounded.
the number of responses by the number of
respondents.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Nov 07, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM 08NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_78786/page/1.svg)
![78574 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Notices
We estimate the annualized cost to composed of a subset of the following 19. MG Daniel I. Karbler,
the CPSC of $954,531 by adding the four individuals: Commanding General, U.S. Army Test
categories of work related to the 1. Ms. Lisha Adams, Executive and Evaluation Command.
Database summarized in Tables 4 Deputy to the Commanding General, 20. Ms. Krystyna M. A. Kolesar,
through 7 (Reports of Harm ($809,243) U.S. Army Materiel Command. Deputy Director, Program Analysis &
+ MII Claims ($67,975) + Manufacturer 2. LTG Joseph Anderson, Deputy Evaluation Directorate, Office of the
Comments ($11,835) + Small Batch Chief of Staff, G–3/5/7, Department of Deputy Chief of Staff, G–8.
Identification ($65,478) = $954,531). the Army. 21. Mr. Mark R. Lewis, Executive
This information collection renewal 3. LTG Robert P. Ashley Jr., Deputy Advisor to the Adminstrative Assistant
request based on an estimated 12,360 Chief of Staff, G–2, Department of the to the Secretary of the Army, Office of
burden hours per year for the Database Army. the Administrative Assistant.
is a decrease of 7,485 hours since this 4. Mr. Stephen D. Austin, Assistant 22. LTG Kevin W. Mangum, Deputy
collection of information was last Chief of the Army Reserve, Office of the Commanding General/Chief of Staff,
approved by OMB in 2013. The decrease Chief Army Reserve. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine
in burden is due primarily to the fact 5. LTG Gwendolyn Bingham, Command.
that the number of incoming reports of Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation 23. Mr. David Markowitz, Assistant
Management, Department of the Army. Deputy Chief of Staff, G–8, Deputy Chief
harm has decreased, and the number of
6. Dr. Joseph L. Corriveau, Director, of Staff, G–8.
claims based on those reports has
Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, 24. Mr. Joseph M. McDade, Principal
decreased as well. While comments did U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical
not decline significantly, they did shift Deputy General Counsel of the Air
Biological Center, U.S. Army Research, Force.
to the more efficient online Development and Engineering
submissions. We note a large increase in 25. Ms. Kathleen S. Miller, Assistant
Command. Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations (G–
small batch manufacturer activity, 7. Mr. James C. Dalton, Director of
which has been rising steadily for years. 3/5/7), Office of the Deputy Chief of
Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of Staff, G–3/5/7.
However, this increase was not large Engineers.
enough to offset the decreases in other 26. Mr. William F. Moore, Assistant
8. Ms. Gwendolyn R. DeFilippi,
areas. Deputy Chief of Staff, G–4, Office of the
Director, Civilian Senior Leader
Deputy Chief of Staff, G–4.
Dated: November 3, 2016. Management Office, Office of the 27. Mr. Levator Norsworthy Jr.,
Todd A. Stevenson, Assistant Secretary of the Army Deputy General Counsel(Acquisition)/
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety (Manpower and Reserve Affairs).
Senior Deputy General Counsel, Office
Commission. 9. Ms. Steffanie B. Easter, Principal
of the General Counsel.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
[FR Doc. 2016–26963 Filed 11–7–16; 8:45 am] 28. Mr. Gerald B. O’Keefe,
for Acquisition, Policy and Logistics,
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P Administrative Assistant to the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Secretary of the Army, Office of the
Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and
Administrative Assistant to the
Technology).
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 10. Ms. Sue A. Engelhardt, Director of Secretary of the Army.
Human Resources, U.S. Army Corps of 29. Mr. Philip R. Park, Principal
Department of the Army Deputy General Counsel, Office of the
Engineers.
11. Mr. Randall L. Exley, The Auditor General Counsel.
Performance Review Board 30. LTG Gustave F. Perna,
Membership General, U.S. Army, Office of the
Auditor General. Commanding General, U.S. Army
AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 12. Mr. Richard Fong, Senior Materiel Command.
Research Scientist (Warheads 31. Mr. Dean E. Pfoltzer, Principal
ACTION: Notice.
Technology), U.S. Army Armament Director, Policy and Resources/Chief
SUMMARY: Notice is given of the names Research, Development, and Financial Officer, Office of the Chief
of members of a Performance Review Engineering Center (ARDEC), U.S. Army Information Officer/G–6.
Board for the Department of the Army. Research, Development and Engineering 32. Mr. David W. Pittman, Deputy
DATES: Effective Date: November 01, Command. Director, Engineer Research and
2016. 13. Ms. Susan J. Goodyear, Deputy Development Center, U.S. Army Corps
Chief of Staff for Resource Management, of Engineers.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 33. Mr. Vic S. Ramdass, Director for
U.S. Army Materiel Command.
Barbara Smith, Civilian Senior Leader 14. Mr. Patrick K. Hallinan, Executive Partnering USSOUTHCOM, U.S.
Management Office, 111 Army Director of the Army National Southern Command.
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310–0111. Cemeteries Program, Department of the 34. Ms. Diane M. Randon, Deputy
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section Army. Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., 15. Mr. Stuart A. Hazlett, Director of Management, Office of the Assistant
requires each agency to establish, in Contracting, U.S. Army Corps of Chief of Staff for Installation
accordance with regulations, one or Engineers. Management.
more Senior Executive Service 16. Ms. Ellen M. Helmerson, Deputy 35. Mr. Jeffrey N. Rapp, Assistant
performance review boards. The boards Chief of Staff, G–8, U.S. Army Training Deputy Chief of Staff, G–2 Office of the
shall review and evaluate the initial Deputy Chief of Staff, G–2.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
and Doctrine Command.
appraisal of senior executives’ 17. Mr. David Jimenez, Assistant to 36. Dr. Jaques Reifman, Senior
performance by supervisors and make the Deputy Under Secretary of the Research Scientist (Advanced Medical
recommendations to the appointing Army/Director of Test and Evaluation. Technology), U.S. Army Medical
authority or rating official relative to the 18. MG Donald E. Jackson, Jr., Deputy Research Materiel Command.
performance of these executives. Commanding General for Civil and 37. Mr. J. Randall Robinson, Principal
The Department of the Army Emergncy Operations, U.S. Army Corps Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the
Performance Review Board will be of Engineers. Army (Installations, Energy and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:27 Nov 07, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM 08NON1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_78786/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-14 08:23:54
Document Modified: 2018-02-14 08:23:54
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice. | |
| Dates | Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by December 8, 2016. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 78570 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR