694 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2013 / Notices 

Lynn Fischer Fox, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, 

dated December 28, 2012, which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. The 

issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of a 

countervailable subsidy and the net 

countervailable subsidy likely to prevail 

if the order was revoked. Parties can 

find a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file 

electronically via Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’). IA ACCESS is available to 

registered users at http:// 

iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central 

Records Unit in room 7046 of the main 

Commerce building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Internet at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

ia/. The signed Decision Memorandum 

and electronic versions of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to sections 752(b)(1) and (3) 

of the Act, we determine that revocation 

of the countervailing duty order on 

certain pasta from Italy would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

countervailable subsidies at the 

following net countervailable subsidy 

rates: 

Manufacturers/exporters/ 

producers 

Net 

countervailable 

subsidy 

(percent) 

Agritalia, S.r.l. ....................... 6.84 

Arrighi S.p.A. Industrie 

Alimentari .......................... 6.73 

De Matteis Agroalimentare 

S.p.A. ................................ 6.01 

Delverde, S.r.l. ...................... 9.64 

F. Ili De Cecco di Filippo 

Fara S. Martino S.p.A. ...... 6.28 

Industria Alimentare Colavita, 

S.p.A. ................................ 5.89 

Isola del Grano, S.r.L. .......... 13.58 

Italpast S.p.A. ....................... 13.58 

Italpasta S.r.L. ...................... 6.73 

La Molisana Alimentari 

S.p.A. ................................ 7.70 

Labor, S.r.L. .......................... 13.58 

Molino e Pastificio De Cecco 

S.p.A. Pescara .................. 6.28 

Pastificio Guido Ferrara ........ 5.22 

Pastificio Campano, S.p.A. ... 6.35 

Pastificio Riscossa F.lli 

Mastromauro S.r.L. ........... 10.69 

Tamma Industrie Alimentari 

di Capitanata ..................... 9.64 

All Others .............................. 7.39 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return or destruction of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. 

Timely notification of the return or 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective orders 

is hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and terms of an 

APO is a violation which is subject to 

sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

final results and notice in accordance 

with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: December 28, 2012. 

Lynn Fischer Fox, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Negotiations. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31727 Filed 1–3–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CPSC–2009–0015] 

Proposed Extension of Approval of 

Information Collection; Comment 

Request—Testing and Recordkeeping 

Requirements Under the Standard for 

the Flammability (Open Flame) of 

Mattresses 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35), the Consumer Product 

Safety Commission (CPSC or 

Commission) requests comments on a 

proposed 3-year extension of approval 

of information collection requirements 

in the Standard for the Flammability— 

Open Flame—of Mattresses Sets (OpenFlame standard), 16 CFR part 1633. The 

Commission has a separate flammability 

standard that addresses cigarette 

ignition of mattresses, 16 CFR part 1632. 

The Open-Flame standard is intended to 

reduce unreasonable risks of burn 

injuries and deaths from fires associated 

with mattresses, particularly those 

initially ignited by open-flame sources, 

such as lighters, candles, and matches. 

The Open-Flame standard prescribes a 

test to minimize or delay flashover 

when a mattress is ignited. The standard 

requires manufacturers to test 

specimens of each of their mattress 

prototypes before mattresses based on 

that prototype may be introduced into 

commerce. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) previously approved 

the collection of information under 

control number 3041–0133. OMB’s most 

recent extension of approval will expire 

on March 31, 2013. The Commission 

will consider all comments received in 

response to this notice before requesting 

an extension of approval of this 

collection of information from OMB. 

DATES: The Office of the Secretary must 

receive comments not later than March 

5, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CPSC–2009– 

0015, by any of the following methods: 

Electronic Submissions 

Submit electronic comments in the 

following way: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

To ensure timely processing of 

comments, the Commission is no longer 

accepting comments submitted by 

electronic mail (email), except through 

www.regulations.gov. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for 

paper, disk, or CD–ROM submissions), 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West 

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; 

telephone (301) 504–7923. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number for this notice. All 

comments received may be posted 

without change, including any personal 

identifiers, contact information, or other 

personal information provided, to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Do not 

submit confidential business 

information, trade secret information, or 

other sensitive or protected information 

electronically. Such information should 

be submitted in writing. 

Docket: 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: rsquibb@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Estimated Burden 

The standard requires detailed 

documentation of prototype 

identification and testing records, model 

and prototype specifications, inputs 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 3 / Friday, January 4, 2013 / Notices 695 

used, name and location of suppliers, 

and confirmation test records, if 

establishments choose to pool a 

prototype. This documentation is in 

addition to documentation already 

conducted by mattress manufacturers in 

their efforts to meet the cigarette 

standard under 16 CFR part 1632. CPSC 

staff estimates that there are 571 

establishments producing conventional 

mattresses and 100 establishments 

producing nonconventional mattresses 

in the United States, for a total of 671 

firms affected by this standard. CPSC 

staff estimates the recordkeeping 

requirements to take about 4 hours and 

44 minutes per establishment, per 

qualified prototype. Although some 

larger manufacturers reportedly are 

producing mattresses based on more 

than 100 prototypes, most mattress 

manufacturers base their complying 

production on 15 to 20 prototypes. 

Assuming that establishments qualify 

their production with an average of 20 

different qualified prototypes, 

recordkeeping time is estimated to be 

94.7 hours (4.73 hours × 20 prototypes) 

per establishment, per year. (However, 

pooling among establishments or using 

a prototype qualification for longer than 

1 year will reduce this estimate). 

Accordingly, the annual recordkeeping 

time cost to all mattress producers is 

estimated at 63,521 hours (94.7 hours × 

671 establishments). The hourly 

compensation for the time required for 

recordkeeping is $27.64 (U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation,’’ June 2012, 

Table 9, total compensation for all sales 

and office workers in goods-producing, 

private industries: http://www.bls.gov/ 

ncs). Total estimated costs for 

recordkeeping are approximately $1.7 

million (63,521 hours × $27.64). 

The estimated annual cost of 

information collection requirements to 

the federal government is approximately 

$717,954. This represents 50 full-time 

employee staff hours. Record review 

will be performed during compliance 

inspections conducted to follow up on 

consumer complaints and reports of 

injury that indicate possible violations 

of the regulations. This estimate uses an 

annual wage of $119,238 (the equivalent 

of a GS–14 Step 5 employee), with an 

additional 30.8 percent added for 

benefits (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

‘‘Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation,’’ September 2012, Table 

1, percentage of wages and salaries for 

all civilian management, professional, 

and related employees) for total annual 

compensation of $172,309 per full-time 

employee. 

B. Request for Comments 

The Commission solicits written 

comments from all interested persons 

about the proposed collection of 

information. The Commission 

specifically solicits information relevant 

to the following topics: 

• Whether the collection of 

information described above is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the Commission’s functions, including 

whether the information would have 

practical utility; 

• Whether the estimated burden of 

the proposed collection of information 

is accurate; 

• Whether the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be collected 

could be enhanced; and 

• Whether the burden imposed by the 

collection of information could be 

minimized by use of automated, 

electronic or other technological 

collection techniques, or other forms of 

information technology. 

Dated: December 31, 2012. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2012–31677 Filed 1–3–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 12–59] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Defense Security Cooperation 

Agency, Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated July 21, 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 12–59 

with attached transmittal and policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: December 31, 2012. 

Aaron Siegel, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5006–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with