### 17139 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Notices

C. Decision on Petition To Make Special Under the Glossary Pilot Program (Form PTO/SB/436): If applicant files a petition using Form PTO/SB/436, the USPTO will decide the petition once the application is ready for examination. If the petition is granted, the application will receive expedited processing up until the time of the first Office action, in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies. In particular, the application will be placed on the examiner’s special docket prior to the first Office action, and will have special status up to issuance of the first Office action. Thereafter, the application will be placed on the examiner’s regular amended docket, unless designated special in accordance with another established procedure (e.g., Accelerated Examination, Prioritized Examination, Special Based On Applicant’s Age, etc.).

If applicant files an incomplete Form PTO/SB/436, or if an application accompanied by Form PTO/SB/436 does not comply with the requirements set forth in this notice, the USPTO will notify the applicant of the deficiency by issuing a notice, and applicant will be given only one opportunity to correct the deficiency, if correctable. If applicant still wishes to participate in the Glossary Pilot Program, applicant must make appropriate corrections within one month or thirty (30) days of the mailing date of the notice, whichever is longer. The time period for reply is not extendable under 37 CFR 1.136(a). If applicant fails to correct the deficiency indicated in the notice within the time period set forth therein, the application will not be eligible for the Glossary Pilot Program, and the application will be taken up for

examination in accordance with standard examination procedures, unless designated special in accordance with another established procedure (e.g., Accelerated Examination, Prioritized Examination, Special BasedOn Applicant’s Age, etc.). An originallyfiled glossary providing explicit

definitions on the record will control the interpretation of the relevant claim terms, whether or not the petition is granted.

D. Interviews: Standard interview practice and procedures applicable to regular ex parte prosecution will be available for applications participating in the Glossary Pilot Program. Applications accepted into the Glossary Pilot Program that also participate in the First Action Interview (FAI) Pilot Program must meet all the requirements and procedural limitations of the FAI Pilot Program. E. Examination: During examination, in applications claiming benefit of an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. 119,

claims that include terms defined in the glossary section will be examined to ensure they comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in order to determine their effective filing

date in accordance with standard examining procedure. An applicant cannot subsequently disavow the meaning of any term that has already been defined in the glossary section submitted on filing. Except for the correction of typographical errors, the glossary definitions cannot be amended or deleted during examination. The examiner will consider the glossary section as controlling for the meaning of the terms defined in the glossary

section.

Dated: March 24, 2014.

Michelle K. Lee,
Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of

the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

[FR Doc. 2014–06792 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3510–16–P**

**CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY**

**COMMISSION**

**[Docket No. CPSC–2009–0092]**

**Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request—Clothing Textiles,**  **Vinyl Plastic Film**

**AGENCY :**  Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  The Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC)

announces that it has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for extension of approval of a collection of information from manufacturers and importers of clothing, textiles, and related materials intended for use in clothing under the Standard for the Flammability of Clothing Textiles (16 CFR part 1610) and the Standard for the Flammability of Vinyl Plastic Film (16 CFR part 1611) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

**DATES :**  Written comments on this request for extension of approval of information collection requirements should be submitted by April 28, 2014.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit comments about this request by email: OIRA

_ submission@omb.eop.gov or fax: 202– 395–6881. Comments by mail should be

sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the CPSC, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. In addition, written comments

that are sent to OMB also should be submitted electronically at http:// www.regulations.gov, under Docket No.

CPSC–2009–0092.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Robert H. Squibb, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301–504–7923 or by email to rsquibb@cpsc.gov

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  In the Federal Register of June 14, 2013 (78 FR 35875), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) published a notice in accordance with provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) to

announce the CPSC’s intention to seek extension of approval of a collection of

information from manufacturers and importers who furnish guaranties for products under 16 CFR parts 1610 and

1611.

A. Background

Clothing and fabrics intended for use in clothing (except children’s sleepwear in sizes 0 through 14) are subject to the Standard for the Flammability of Clothing Textiles (16 CFR part 1610). Clothing made from vinyl plastic film and vinyl plastic film intended for use in clothing (except children’s sleepwear in sizes 0 through 14) are subject to the Standard for the Flammability of Vinyl Plastic Film (16 CFR part 1611). The standards set forth in 16 CFR parts 1610 and 1611 prescribe a test to help ensure that articles of wearing apparel, and

fabrics and film intended for use in wearing apparel, are not dangerously flammable because of rapid and intense burning. Children’s sleepwear and

fabrics and related materials intended for use in children’s sleepwear in sizes 0 through 14 are subject to other, more stringent flammability standards codified at 16 CFR parts 1615 and 1616.

Pursuant to the Flammable Fabrics Act of 1953 (FFA) (Pub. L. 83–88, 67 Stat. 111; June 30, 1953), the testing procedures in 16 CFR parts 1610 and 1611 are mandatory for those firms that issue guaranties.

Section 8 of the FFA (15 U.S.C. 1197) provides that a person who receives a guaranty in good faith that a product complies with an applicable flammability standard is not subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of the FFA resulting from the sale of any product covered by the guaranty. For example, a distributor or importer may rely on a guaranty issued by another


### 17140 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Notices

firm stating that the fabric or wearing apparel covered by the guaranty is compliant with 16 CFR parts 1610 and

1611. The Commission uses the information compiled and maintained by firms that issue these guaranties to help protect the public from risks of injury or death associated with clothing and fabrics and vinyl film intended for use in clothing. In addition, the information helps the Commission pursue corrective actions if any products covered by a guaranty fail to comply with the applicable standard in

a manner that creates a substantial risk of injury or death to the public.

Firms are not required to issue guaranties for fabrics or wearing apparel that they manufacture or distribute. Only domestic firms, or foreign entities with a domestic presence, can issue a guaranty. For those firms that choose to issue guaranties, section 8 of the FFA requires that such guaranties must be based on ‘‘reasonable and representative tests.’’ However, testing is not required to support a guaranty when the guaranty is based on an exemption contained in 16 CFR 1610.1(d). Continuing guaranties may be filed with the Commission. Any firm that issues a guaranty must keep records of the related tests. The testing and recordkeeping requirements for firms that issue guaranties are set forth under 16 CFR part 1610, subpart B, and 16 CFR part 1611, subpart B.

B. Comments

We received two comments, discussing four issues, in response to the June 14, 2013 notice.

Comment 1: One commenter stated that a study should be conducted to assess whether ‘‘anti-inflammatory chemicals’’ may increase the risk of

cancer.

Response 1: This comment is outside the scope of the inquiry regarding paperwork burdens associated with issuing guaranties.

Comment 2: The American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) asserts that under the FFA, continuing guaranties must be maintained for 3 years. However, AAFA notes that the proposed rulemaking for certificates of compliance under 16 CFR part 1110 would require certificates of compliance for non-children’s apparel and supporting test records to be maintained for 5 years, as opposed to 3 years. AAFA opposes the addition of 2 years of record keeping requirements for such

certificates.

Response 2: This information collection is on guaranties issued pursuant to 16 CFR parts 1610 and 1611. Accordingly, recordkeeping requirements for certificates of compliance are outside the scope of this

information collection.

Comment 3: The AAFA questioned the accuracy of the Commission’s estimate that 1,000 apparel manufacturers and importers issue guaranties. AAFA noted that in 2010, more than 7,000 U.S. companies were included in the general U.S. Census category of Apparel Manufacturing and about 6,000 in the category of Textile Mills. Additionally, the AAFA noted that in 2011, based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection estimates, there were about 68,000 apparel importers. Based on the figures provided in its comment,

AAFA believes that the number of apparel and textile manufacturers that furnish guaranties is more than the Commission’s estimate of 1,000. AAFA requested that the Commission describe

in detail how the Commission came to the estimate of 1,000 manufacturers and importers that issue guaranties.

Response 3: For the purposes of this response, we do not question the accuracy of the figures provided by AAFA. However, staff believes that the figures provided by AAFA do not provide an accurate basis to estimate the number of manufacturers and importers that issue guaranties. Manufacturers and importers are not required to issue guaranties, and only domestic firms, or firms with a domestic presence may issue guaranties. Thus, even though tens of thousands of companies may be manufacturing or importing fabric or wearing apparel, based on guaranties filed with the Commission, compliance experience with the industry, and previous discussions with AAFA members, staff does not believe that most of these firms are issuing guaranties.

AAFA has not provided information that would aid in revising the

Commission’s estimate of the number of firms that issue guaranties. The Commission’s estimate of 1,000 firms that issue guaranties was based on the number of guaranties that have been

filed with the Commission. The Commission’s most recent updated records indicate that approximately 660 firms have active continuing guaranties. Because guaranties are not required to be filed with the Commission, CPSC

staff rounded the number of firms that issue guaranties up to 1,000.

Comment 4: The AAFA also questioned the Commission’s estimate that the regulations impose an average

annual burden of about 101.6 hours on each firm that issues guaranties. AAFA noted that the apparel industry is dynamic, with rapidly changing styles and products. AAFA stated that in 2011, there were about 11 million separate entries of imported apparel. AAFA argued that if each entry required one hour of recordkeeping, the total burden could be 11 million hours, much more

than the Commission’s estimate of 101,600 burden hours. AAFA requested

that the Commission describe in detail how the average annual burden of 101.6 hours per firm was derived.

Response 4: The number of apparel entries does not provide an accurate basis for determining the recordkeeping burden for firms that issue guaranties because: (a) Importers are not required to issue or to file a guaranty with each import entry for fabric or wearing apparel; (b) imported fabric and apparel entries are not required to be accompanied by a guaranty; (c) even when fabric or apparel entries are covered by a guaranty, one guaranty can cover multiple products, fabrics, and entries; and (d) the number of apparel entries in a given year does not provide any information about what tests and records are required to be maintained

which would inform an estimate of the recordkeeping burden. A direct relationship does not exist between the number of apparel entries in a given year and either the number of guaranties issued by firms or the burden hours associated with issuing a guaranty. Accordingly, the Commission has not relied upon the number of apparel entries to estimate the recordkeeping burden for guaranties.

The Commission’s estimate of 101.6 average annual burden hours per firm for issuing guaranties is based on an

estimate of the time for each firm that issues a guaranty to conduct the testing required by the regulations, to issue guaranties, and to establish and maintain associated records. In arriving at estimates of testing time, CPSC considered our own laboratory and Compliance experience and the experience of several AAFA- and

ASTM-member manufacturers’ and third party testing laboratories. The estimates used were purposely generous, and may overstate the actual time necessary to conduct testing. Additionally, the estimated testing time is an over-estimate because the testing time is applied to every firm per guaranty issued, even though many firms may issue guaranties based on an exemption from testing under 16 CFR 1610.1(d), and may not actually conduct testing. The Commission’s average

annual burden hour estimate of 101.6 is explained in detail in section C below.

C. Burden Hours

The Commission’s estimate of 1,000 firms that issue guaranties is based on the number of continuing guaranties


### 17141 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Notices

that have been filed with the

Commission. The Commission’s last updated records indicate that approximately 660 firms have active continuing guaranties. Because continuing guaranties are not required to be filed with the Commission, CPSC staff rounded the number of firms up to

1,000.

The Commission estimates that the flammability standards for clothing textiles and vinyl plastic film and enforcement regulations impose an average annual burden of about 101.6 hours on each of those firms, based on

an estimate of the time for each firm to conduct testing, issue guaranties, and to

establish and maintain associated records. The average annual burden

hour estimate of 101.6 is based on the following assumptions, which are based, among other things, on staff’s experience with and expertise in testing requirements and procedures and staff’s review of records relating to guaranties

that have been filed with the

Commission:

• Testing Time—5 hours per test series, using either the test and conditioning procedures in the regulations or alternate methods that are

now allowed under the 2007 amendments to the regulations (this was applied to all firms for each guaranty, even though many firms no longer test because the products are exempt by virtue of weight or fiber content under 16 CFR 1610.1(d), or because the firms’ experience indicates that the fabrics already comply);

• Guaranties Issued—On average, 20 new guaranties issued per firm per year for new fabrics or garments;

• Estimated Annual Testing Time per Firm—5 hours for testing × 20 guaranties issued = 100 hours per firm;

• Estimated Annual Recordkeeping per Firm—1 hour to create, record, and enter test data into a computerized dataset; 20 minutes (= 0.3 hours) for annual review/removal of records; 20 minutes (= 0.3 hours) to respond to one CPSC records request per year; for a total of 1.6 recordkeeping hours per firm (1 hour + .3 hours + .3 hours = 1.6 hours per firm);

• Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours per Firm—100 hours Estimated Annual Testing Time per Firm + 1.6 Estimated Annual Recordkeeping hours per Firm = 101.6 hours per firm;

• Estimated Annual Industry Burden—101.6 hours per firm × 1,000 firms issuing guaranties = 101,600 industry burden hours.

The total annual industry burden imposed by the flammability standards for clothing textiles and vinyl plastic film and enforcement regulations on manufacturers and importers of garments, fabrics, and related materials is estimated to be about 101,600 hours (101.6 hours per firm × 1,000 firms).

The hourly wage for the testing and recordkeeping required by the standards is about $61.06 (for management, professional, and related occupations in goods-producing industries, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 2012), for an estimated annual cost to the industry of approximately $6.2 million (101,600 × $61.06 = $6,203,696.00). The hourly wage was updated from the $57.22 estimate used in the June 14, 2013 notice (for management, professional,and related occupations in goodsproducing industries, Bureau of Labor Statistics, June 2009).

The estimated annual cost of the information collection requirements to the federal government is approximately $4,696, which is based on a total 80 staff

hours to examine and evaluate the information as needed for Compliance activities (representing an estimate of the actual time required to conduct such

examination and evaluation in staff’s experience). Compliance staff typically reviews a subset of the guaranties filed and may inspect firms that issue guaranties. The estimated annual cost to the government is based on a GS–12 level salaried employee. The average hourly wage rate for a mid-level salaried GS–12 employee in the Washington, DC metropolitan area (effective as of January 2011) is $40.80 (GS–12, step 5). This represents 69.5 percent of total compensation (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Employer Costs for Employee Compensation,’’ December 2012, Table 1, percentage of wages and salaries for all civilian management, professional, and related employees: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ ). Adding an additional 30.5 percent for benefits brings average hourly compensation for a mid-level salaried GS–12 employee to $58.70 ($58.70 hourly compensation × 80 hours = $4,696.00).

Dated: March 24, 2014.

Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

[FR Doc. 2014–06772 Filed 3–26–14; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6355–01–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE**

**Office of the Secretary**

**[Docket ID: DoD–2014–HA–0005]**

**Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request** 

**ACTION :**  Notice. **SUMMARY :**  The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

**DATES :**  Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 28, 2014.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Fred
Licari, 571–372–0493.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

Title, Associated Form and OMB

Number: Women, Infants and Children Overseas Participant Satisfaction Survey; OMB Control Number 0720–

0046.

Type of Request: Extension. Number of Respondents: 75. Responses per Respondent: 2. Annual Responses: 150. Average Burden per Response: 15

minutes.

Annual Burden Hours: 38. Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain the participant’s satisfaction levels with the services provided by the

WIC overseas staff and the overall program. The findings from the surveys

will be used to determine the success of the WIC overseas program and if improvements are necessary.

Affected Public: Individual or

Households.

Frequency: On occasion. Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. OMB Desk Officer: Mr. John Kraemer.

Written comments and recommendations on the proposed

information collection should be sent to Mr. John Kraemer at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

You may also submit comments, identified by docket 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

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: Ms. Patricia Toppings.

Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800