70976 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Notices 

Directorate for Health Sciences, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814; email: khatlelid@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 

section 101(a) of the CPSIA, consumer 

products designed or intended primarily 

for children 12 years old and younger 

that contain lead content in excess of 

100 ppm are considered to be banned 

hazardous substances under the Federal 

Hazardous Substances Act (‘‘FHSA’’). 

Section 101(b)(1) of the CPSIA 

provides for a functional purpose 

exception from lead content limits 

under certain circumstances. The 

exception allows us, on our own 

initiative, or upon petition by an 

interested party, to exclude a specific 

product, class of product, material, or 

component part from the lead limits 

established for children’s products 

under the CPSIA if, after notice and a 

hearing, we determine that: (i) The 

product, class of product, material, or 

component part requires the inclusion 

of lead because it is not practicable or 

not technologically feasible to 

manufacture such product, class of 

product, material, or component part, as 

the case may be, in accordance with 

section 101(a) of the CPSIA by removing 

the excessive lead or by making the lead 

inaccessible; (ii) the product, class of 

product, material, or component part is 

not likely to be placed in the mouth or 

ingested, taking into account normal 

and reasonably foreseeable use and 

abuse of such product, class of product, 

material, or component part by a child; 

and (iii) an exception for the product, 

class of product, material, or component 

part will have no measurable adverse 

effect on public health or safety, taking 

into account normal and reasonably 

foreseeable use and abuse. Under 

section 101(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA, there 

is no measurable adverse effect on 

public health or safety if the exception 

will result in no measurable increase in 

blood lead levels of a child. Given the 

highly technical nature of the 

information sought, including data on 

the lead content of the product and test 

methods used to obtain those data, we 

believe that the notice and solicitation 

for written comments would provide the 

most efficient process for obtaining the 

necessary information, as well as 

provide adequate opportunity for all 

interested parties to participate in the 

proceedings. However, we would have 

the option to hold a public hearing or 

public meeting, if appropriate, to 

determine whether a petition for a 

functional purpose exception should be 

granted. 

On September 29, 2011, Joseph L. 

Ertl, Inc., Corporate office of divisions: 

Scale Models and Dyersville Die Cast 

(‘‘petitioner’’), submitted a petition 

requesting an exception from the lead 

content limit of 100 ppm under section 

101(b) of the CPSIA for its die-cast rideon pedal tractors, scaled for children 

ages 3–10. The petitioner states that the 

components of its pedal tractors are 

made of aluminum metal die castings, 

which are the best alloy of choice for 

pedal tractor production, based on 

weight, cost, structural properties, 

surface finish and coatings, corrosion 

resistance, and bearing properties and 

wear resistance. The pedal tractor 

components are manufactured via the 

aluminum die-casting process. Although 

the petitioner states that it is able to 

meet the lead content requirements of 

300 ppm for its pedal tractor 

components, it is unable to meet 

consistently the 100 ppm lead content 

limits, due to alloys used in the 

aluminum die-cast process. 

Accordingly, the petitioner requests an 

exception from the 100 ppm lead 

content limit to continue to manufacture 

its pedal tractors with components up to 

the 300 ppm lead content limit. 

Through this notice, we invite written 

comments on the petition. Interested 

parties may view a copy of the petition 

under supporting and related materials 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2011– 

0087, through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or on the CPSC 

Web site at: http://www.cpsc.gov/

library/foia/foia12/brief/ertlpetition.pdf. 

Interested parties also may obtain a 

copy of the petition by writing or calling 

the Office of the Secretary, Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, 

MD 20184; telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Dated: November 9, 2011. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29504 Filed 11–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID DOD–2011–OS–0125] 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Defense Security Service, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 

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

Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense 

Security Service (DSS) announces the 

proposed extension of a public 

information collection and seeks public 

comments on the provision thereof. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of the functions 

of the agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the information to be 

collected; and (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

information collection on respondents, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

DATES: Consideration will be given to all 

comments received by January 17, 2012. 

ADDRESS: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rule Making Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, 

Alexandria, VA 22350–3100. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include agency name, docket 

number and title for this Federal 

Register document. The general policy 

of 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 contract 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request more information on this 

proposed data collection or obtain a 

copy of the proposal and associated 

collection instrument, please write to 

Defense Security Service, OCIO, Attn: 

Mr. Prakash Kollaram, Russell-Knox 

Building, 27130 Telegraph Road, 

Quantico, VA 22134–2253, or call 

Defense Security Service at (571) 305– 

6445. 

Title, Associated Form, and OMB 

Number: ‘‘Department of Defense 

Security Agreement,’’ ‘‘Appendage to 

Department of Defense Security 

Agreement,’’ ‘‘Certificate Pertaining to 

Foreign Interests;’’ DD Forms, 441, 

441–1 and SF 328; OMB No. 0704–0194. 

Needs and Uses: Executive Order (EO) 

12829, ‘‘National Industrial Security 

Program (NISP),’’ stipulates that the 

Secretary of Defense shall serve as the 

Executive Agent for inspecting and 

monitoring the contractors, licensees, 

and grantees who require or will require 

access to or, who store or will store 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 221 / Wednesday, November 16, 2011 / Notices 70977 

classified information; and for 

determining the eligibility for access to 

classified information of contractors, 

licensees, and grantees and their 

respective employees. The specific 

requirements necessary to protect 

classified information released to 

private industry are set forth in DoD 

5220.22–M, ‘‘National Industrial 

Security Program Operating Manual 

(NISPOM),’’ dated February 28, 2006. 

Respondents must execute DD Form 

441, ‘‘Department of Defense Security 

Agreement,’’ which is the initial 

agreement between the contractor and 

the government regarding security 

requirements necessary to protect 

classified information associated with 

the contract. This legally binding 

document details the responsibility of 

both parties and obligates the contractor 

to fulfill the requirements outlined in 

DoD 5220.22–M. The DD Form 441–1, 

‘‘Appendage to Department of Defense 

Security Agreement,’’ is used to extend 

the agreement to branch offices of the 

contractor. The SF Form 328, 

‘‘Certificate Pertaining to Foreign 

Interests,’’ must be submitted to provide 

certification regarding elements of 

Foreign Ownership, Control or 

Influence (FOCI) as stipulated in 

paragraph 2–302 of the NISPOM. 

DSS proposes to make changes to the 

DD Form 441 and SF 328. The 

requirement for execution of the 

corporate ‘‘Certificate’’ section and the 

use of a corporate seal is being deleted. 

Currently the government does not 

require all corporations to execute the 

corporate Certificate portion of the 

Forms. Only those corporations who are 

in possession of a seal were being 

required to execute the Certificate. 

Corporations that do not have a seal and 

other types of businesses structures 

such as limited liability companies, 

partnership and sole proprietors are 

only required to have the signing of the 

agreement witnessed. DSS proposes that 

a witness is sufficient for all companies 

whether or not they are a corporation. 

Affected Public: Business, or other 

profit and non-profit organizations 

under Department of Defense Security 

Cognizance. 

Total Annual Burden Hours: 12,246. 

Number of Respondents: 4,128. 

Responses per Respondent: 2. 

Average Burden Hours per 

Respondent: 1.5. 

Frequency: One time and/or on 

occasion (e.g. initial facility clearance 

processing, when the respondent 

changes: Name, organizational structure, 

or address; or there is a material change 

pertaining to its Foreign Ownership, 

Control or Influence, etc.). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Summary of Information Collection 

The execution of the DD Form 441, 

441–1 and SF 328 is a factor in making 

a determination as to whether a 

contractor is eligible to have a facility 

security clearance. It is also a legal basis 

for imposing NISP security 

requirements on eligible contractors. 

These requirements are necessary in 

order to preserve and maintain the 

security of the United States through 

establishing standards to prevent the 

improper disclosure of classified 

information. 

Dated: November 10, 2011. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

[FR Doc. 2011–29531 Filed 11–15–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DOD–2011–OS–0126] 

Proposed Collection; Comment 

Request 

AGENCY: Defense Security Service, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with Section 

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

Reduction Act of 1995, DSS announces 

the proposed extension of a public 

information collection and seeks public 

comments on the provision thereof. 

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 

the proposed collection is necessary for 

the proper performance of the functions 

of the agency, including whether the 

information shall have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate 

of the burden of the information to be 

collected; (c) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

ways to minimize the burden of the 

information collection on respondents, 

including through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

DATES: Consideration will be given to all 

comments received by January 17, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rule Making Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments 

• Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, 

Alexandria, VA 22350–3100. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include agency name, docket 

number, and title for this Federal 

Register document. The general policy 

of 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 contract 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request more information on this 

proposed information collection or 

obtain a copy of the proposal and 

associated collection instrument, please 

write to: Defense Security Service, 

OCIO, ATTN: Mr. Prakash Kollaram, 

Russell-Knox Building, 27130 Telegraph 

Road, Quantico, VA 22134–2253, or call 

Defense Security Service at (571) 305– 

6445. 

Title and OMB Number: ‘‘Defense 

Security Service Industrial Security 

Review Data’’ and ‘‘Defense Security 

Service Industrial Security Facility 

Clearance Survey Data,’’ OMB No. 

0704–0427. 

Needs and Uses: The conduct of an 

Industrial Security Review and/or 

Industrial Security Facility Security 

Survey assists in determining whether a 

contractor is eligible to establish its 

facility security clearance and/or retain 

its participation in the National 

Industrial Security Program (NISP). It is 

also the basis for verifying whether 

contractors are appropriately 

implementing NISP security 

requirements. These requirements are 

necessary in order to preserve and 

maintain the security of the United 

States through establishing standards to 

prevent the improper disclosure of 

classified information. 

In accordance with Department of 

Defense (DoD), 5220.22–R, ‘‘Industrial 

Security Regulation,’’ DSS is required to 

maintain a record of the results of 

surveys and security reviews. 

Documentation for each survey and/or 

security review will be compiled 

addressing areas applicable to the 

contractor’s security program. Portions 

of the data collected will be stored in 

databases. All data collected will be 

handled and marked ‘‘For Official Use 

Only.’’ 

Affected Public: Businesses, 

universities, partnerships, or other 

profit and non-profit organizations 

under DoD security cognizance 

Respondent burden: 

Industrial security review data: 

Total annual burden hours: 41,536 

hours. 

Total number of respondents: 13,140. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES