11088 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Notices 

fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013- 

22853.htm prior to requesting an 

extension. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

Interested parties must submit 

applications for disclosure under APO 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On 

January 22, 2008, the Department 

published Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Documents Submission Procedures; 

APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 

22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate 

in this investigation should ensure that 

they meet the requirements of these 

procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of 

appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 

351.103(d)). 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: February 20, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

Appendix I 

Scope of the Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation is certain hot-rolled products of 

carbon steel and alloy steel, in coils, of 

approximately circular cross section, less 

than 19.00 mm in actual solid cross-sectional 

diameter. Specifically excluded are steel 

products possessing the above-noted physical 

characteristics and meeting the Harmonized 

Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

definitions for (a) stainless steel; (b) tool 

steel; (c) high nickel steel; (d) ball bearing 

steel; or (e) concrete reinforcing bars and 

rods. Also excluded are free cutting steel 

(also known as free machining steel) 

products (i.e., products that contain by 

weight one or more of the following 

elements: 0.1 percent or more of lead, 0.05 

percent or more of bismuth, 0.08 percent or 

more of sulfur, more than 0.04 percent of 

phosphorus, more than 0.05 percent of 

selenium, or more than 0.01 percent of 

tellurium). All products meeting the physical 

description of subject merchandise that are 

not specifically excluded are included in this 

scope. 

The products under investigation are 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

7213.91.3011, 7213.91.3015, 7213.91.3020, 

7213.91.3093; 7213.91.4500, 7213.91.6000, 

7213.99.0030, 7227.20.0030, 7227.20.0080, 

7227.90.6010, 7227.90.6020, 7227.90.6030, 

and 7227.90.6035 of the HTSUS. Products 

entered under subheadings 7213.99.0090 and 

7227.90.6090 of the HTSUS also may be 

included in this scope if they meet the 

physical description of subject merchandise 

above. Although the HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of this proceeding is dispositive. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04343 Filed 2–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[CPSC Docket No. CPSC–2011–0081] 

CPSC Workshop on Potential Ways To 

Reduce Third Party Testing Costs 

Through Determinations Consistent 

With Assuring Compliance 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Announcement of meeting and 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC, Commission, or we) 

staff is holding a workshop on potential 

ways to reduce third party testing costs 

through determinations consistent with 

assuring compliance. We invite 

interested parties to participate in or 

attend the workshop and to submit 

written comments. 

DATES: The workshop will be held from 

9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on April 3, 2014. 

Individuals interested in serving on 

panels or presenting information at the 

workshop should register by March 13, 

2014; all other individuals who wish to 

attend the workshop should register by 

March 27, 2014. The workshop will also 

be available through a webcast, but 

viewers will not be able to interact with 

the panels and presenters. Written 

comments must be received by April 17, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held 

at the CPSC’s National Product Testing 

and Evaluation Center, 5 Research 

Place, Rockville, MD 20850. There is no 

charge to attend the workshop. Persons 

interested in serving on a panel, 

presenting information, or attending the 

workshop should register online at: 

http://www.cpsc.gov/meetingsignup, 

and click on the link titled, ‘‘Potential 

Ways to Reduce Third Party Testing 

Costs through Determinations 

Consistent with Assuring Compliance 

Workshop.’’ 

You may submit comments, identified 

by Docket No. CPSC–2011–0081, 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. 

The Commission does not accept 

comments submitted by electronic mail 

(email), except through: http://

www.regulations.gov. The Commission 

encourages you to submit electronic 

comments by using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal, as described above. 

Written Submissions 

Submit written submissions in the 

following way: 

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier, 

preferably in five copies, to: Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, Room 820, 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, and insert the 

Docket No. CPSC–2011–0081, into the 

‘‘Search’’ box, and follow the prompts. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Jacqueline Campbell, Directorate for 

Engineering Sciences, 5 Research Place, 

Rockville, MD 20850; telephone 301– 

987–2024; email: jcampbell@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. What does the law require? 

The Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) 

established limits for the maximum lead 

content in substrate for accessible 

component parts of children’s products 

and for the maximum content limit of 

six phthalates for children’s toys and 

child care articles. Currently, the 

maximum lead content limit for 

accessible component parts of children’s 

products is 100 parts per million (ppm), 

and the maximum phthalate content 

limit is 0.1 percent (1000 ppm). 

Additionally, the CPSIA made ASTM 

F963–07, Standard Consumer Safety 

Specification for Toy Safety, or any 

successor version of the standard that 

the Commission does not reject, a 

mandatory consumer product safety 

standard. Currently, ASTM F963–11 

(Toy Standard) is the mandatory version 

of the standard. Table 1 of section 4.3.5 

of ASTM F963–11 lists the limits for the 

soluble amounts of eight elements 

(antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, 

chromium, lead, mercury, and 

selenium) allowable in toy substrates. 

The CPSIA generally requires that 

children’s products that are subject to a 

CPSC children’s product safety rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Notices 11089 

1See also 16 CFR part 1107. 

2http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/103251/

3ptreduce.pdf. 

3http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/129398/

reduce3pt.pdf. 

4http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-16/

pdf/2013-08858.pdf. 

5High degree of assurance means an evidencebased demonstration of consistent performance of a 

product regarding compliance based on knowledge 

of a product and its manufacture. 16 CFR 1107.2. 

6Regardless of any third party testing relief 

provided, compliance with the applicable 

children’s product safety rules, including those for 

lead and phthalates content, is always required. 

must be tested by a third party CPSCaccepted laboratory for compliance with 

applicable CPSC rules. 15 U.S.C. 

2063(a)(2).1 Public Law 112–28 (August 

12, 2011) (Pub. L. 112–28) directed the 

CPSC to seek comment on 

‘‘opportunities to reduce the cost of 

third party testing requirements 

consistent with assuring compliance 

with any applicable consumer product 

safety rule, ban, standard, or 

regulation.’’ 

B. What actions has the Commission 

taken? 

In response to Public Law 112–28, the 

Commission published in the Federal 

Register a Request for Comment (RFC) 

titled, Application of Third Party 

Testing Requirements; Reducing Third 

Party Testing Burdens.2 As directed by 

the Commission, staff submitted a 

briefing package 3 to the Commission 

that described opportunities that the 

Commission could pursue to potentially 

reduce the third party testing costs 

consistent with assuring compliance. 

In FY 2013, subsequent to fulfilling 

Public Law 112–28’s requirement that 

the Commission solicit and review 

comments regarding potential 

opportunities to reduce the cost of third 

party testing requirements consistent 

with assuring compliance, the 

Commission chose to direct staff to 

develop a Request for Information (RFI) 

on four such potential opportunities, 

asking for information on the following 

issues: 

• Are there materials that qualify for 

a determination, under the 

Commission’s existing determinations 

process, that do not, and will not, 

contain higher-than-allowed soluble 

concentrations of any of the eight 

elements specified in section 4.3.5 of 

ASTM F963–ll? 

• Are there materials that qualify for 

a determination, under the 

Commission’s existing determinations 

process, that do not, and will not, 

contain any prohibited phthalates above 

their allowed content limit of 0.1 

percent, and thus, would not be subject 

to third party testing? 

• Are there any adhesives used in 

manufactured woods that can be 

determined not to contain lead in 

amounts above 100 ppm, and thus, 

would not be subject to third party 

testing? 

• Can the process by which materials 

are determined not to contain lead in 

amounts above 100 ppm be expanded to 

include synthetic food additives? 

The RFI was published in the Federal 

Register on April 16, 2013.4 The 

comment period for the RFI closed on 

June 17, 2013. The Commission 

received eight comments. The 

Commission’s FY 14 Operating Plan 

directed staff to ‘‘. . . undertake 

additional necessary research and/or 

necessary testing with priority given to 

those materials most likely to provide 

the widest scope of relief.’’ To obtain 

information and evidence to further 

explore the possibilities for reducing the 

costs of third party testing through 

rulemaking, CPSC staff is conducting a 

workshop focusing on determinations. 

II. What are we trying to accomplish 

with the workshop? 

The goal of the workshop is to 

provide CPSC staff with information 

and evidence concerning possible 

determinations that certain materials, 

irrespective of their manufacturing 

origin or manufacturing process, comply 

with the applicable content or solubility 

limits of applicable children’s product 

safety rules with a high degree of 

assurance,5 without requiring third 

party testing.6 Staff seeks information 

concerning the factors relevant to 

demonstrating a high degree of 

assurance of compliance to the 

applicable children’s product safety 

rules, including consideration of raw 

material sourcing, the manufacturing 

processes used, whether recycled 

materials are or may be included, and 

the potential for contamination. 

III. What topics will the workshop 

address? 

We plan to discuss the three areas in 

which determinations may be made: 

Lead content, phthalate content, and the 

solubility of the eight elements listed in 

the Toy Standard. 

In each case, staff is interested in 

obtaining information regarding 

worldwide production of materials used 

in children’s products, including 

current and past approaches, rather than 

attestations that a particular 

manufacturer or brand does not include 

the chemical of interest. Because 

determinations encompass all 

production of a material (which may 

include future production by new 

entrants), an attestation by a current 

manufacturer is likely to be of limited 

utility in supporting a staff 

recommendation of a determination that 

must apply to all current and future 

manufacturers. 

CPSC staff is interested in obtaining 

information on the following topics: 

A. Phthalates Content 

Should staff consider a determination 

recommendation regarding the six 

prohibited phthalates, such a 

determination would identify materials 

that do not, and will not, contain the 

prohibited phthalates in concentrations 

above 0.1 percent (1000 ppm). 

Phthalates, unlike naturally occurring 

elements, are man-made chemicals, and 

are used intentionally in specific 

applications. Additionally, certain 

materials or processing conditions (such 

as extremely high temperatures) 

inherently may preclude or eliminate 

the presence of phthalates. These factors 

might be used as part of a method to 

identify materials that do not, and will 

not, contain the banned phthalates, 

regardless of the manufacturer or 

manufacturing process used. Additional 

information is sought on this issue. 

A determination that a material does 

not, and will not, contain the prohibited 

phthalates above 0.1 percent could be 

similar to the lead determinations in 16 

CFR 1500.91. Such a determination 

would identify materials that 

intrinsically do not contain the 

prohibited phthalates or are subject to 

some factor in their manufacture, such 

as high temperatures or a deleterious 

effect on the performance of the material 

that precludes the presence of the 

prohibited phthalates above 0.1 percent. 

To consider this possibility, staff is 

interested in learning: 

• What specific data should staff 

consider when deciding whether to 

recommend that the Commission make 

a determination? 

• How can staff be assured that a 

material, regardless of its origin, 

manufacturing process, potential for 

contamination or any other factor, 

would continue to comply with the 

phthalates limit indefinitely into the 

future as the material continues to be 

produced? 

• What kind of follow-up activities 

should be required to assure continued 

compliance of a material? 

• What other technical, practical, or 

implementation issues should CPSC 

staff consider before possibly making 

recommendations to the Commission 

regarding phthalates determinations? 

• What materials would provide the 

greatest cost savings if the Commission 

made a determination that the material 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

11090 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Notices 

7http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/126588/

componenttestingpolicy.pdf. 

did not contain the prohibited 

phthalates above 0.1 percent? Why? 

The 2009 Statement of Policy 7 listed 

examples of materials that may contain 

phthalates. Those materials are: 

• Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and 

related polymers, such as 

polyvinylidene chloride (PVDC), and 

polyvinyl acetate (PVA); 

• Soft or flexible plastics, except 

polyolefins; 

• Soft or flexible rubber, except 

silicone rubber and natural latex; 

• Foam rubber or foam plastic, such 

as polyurethane (PU); 

• Surface coatings, non-slip coatings, 

finishes, decals, and printed designs; 

• Elastic materials on apparel, such as 

sleepwear; 

• Adhesives and sealants; and 

• Electrical insulation. 

Other materials, such as other 

plastics, inks, air fresheners, and 

scented products, may contain 

phthalates. 

To identify materials that could 

contain phthalates, and thus, cannot 

meet the requirements for a 

determination, staff is interested in 

learning: 

• What materials should always 

require third party testing because of 

potential phthalate content above 0.1 

percent? Why? 

• What specific data or other 

information should be sufficient to 

characterize a material as potentially 

containing one or more of the prohibited 

phthalates, and thus, always require 

third party testing for compliance to the 

phthalates limit? 

Phthalates are added to plastics to 

make the resulting material more 

flexible. We are seeking information and 

evidence regarding whether phthalates 

are uniformly excluded from specific 

plastics such that the plastic has no 

application involving the addition of 

phthalates at levels approaching 0.1 

percent, even considering any potential 

recycled or reclaimed materials. Staff 

seeks information and evidence relating 

to a potential recommendation that 

specific plastics that potentially meet 

these requirements do not, and will not, 

contain the prohibited phthalates above 

0.1 percent. Staff is interested in 

learning: 

• What raw materials are used, could 

be used, or may be used to create 

plastics that meet these requirements, as 

well as information about the possibility 

of those materials containing or being 

exposed to any prohibited phthalate? 

• Information about the potential use 

of recycled content in these plastics, 

and the possibility that phthalates may 

be included at noncompliant levels? 

• Information about the possibility or 

likelihood of contamination of the 

component part or finished product 

with a prohibited phthalate? 

• How or why continued 

manufacture, regardless of origin, would 

continue to be compliant with the 

phthalates limit? 

• How the Commission might 

effectively address new applications or 

methods of production of plastics that 

may include the addition of phthalates 

or otherwise result in unacceptable 

levels of phthalates? 

• What other technical, practical, or 

implementation issues should CPSC 

staff consider before possibly making 

recommendations to the Commission 

regarding a phthalates determination for 

a plastic? 

• What would be the potential cost 

savings if such a determination were 

recommended and adopted, especially 

considering that compliance with the 

underlying standard(s) would still be 

required? 

B. Lead Content 

Third party testing requirements 

impose a burden on certifiers of 

children’s products to assure that 

certifiers’ products comply with the 

applicable children’s product safety 

rules. However, testing might not be 

required if the Commission has 

evidence that establishes with a high 

degree of assurance that the material 

does not, and will not, contain lead in 

substrate in amounts above 100 ppm. 

The lead determinations in 16 CFR 

1500.91 list materials that the 

Commission has determined do not 

exceed 100 ppm lead content, and thus, 

are not subject to third party testing. 

The procedures and requirements for 

determinations regarding lead content of 

materials are listed in 16 CFR 1500.89. 

If the Commission could identify 

additional materials that do not, and 

will not, contain lead in amounts above 

100 ppm, the Commission could add 

these materials to the list in 16 CFR 

1500.91. Staff is interested in learning: 

• For manufactured materials, what 

specific information and data should 

staff assess in considering a 

recommendation that the material’s 

production does not, and will not, result 

in a lead content above 100 ppm? 

• How lead in the recycling stream 

can be kept from rendering a material 

noncompliant? 

• How the potential for 

contamination is addressed by all 

manufacturers of a material? 

• What specific information and data 

staff should obtain to be assured that 

continued production of a material, 

regardless of its origin, will continue to 

be compliant with the lead content limit 

without requiring third party testing? 

• What other information the staff 

should consider before potentially 

making recommendations to the 

Commission regarding a determination 

for lead content? 

• What changes would you 

recommend to improve the procedures 

of 16 CFR 1500.89 in furtherance of the 

Commission’s specific determinationsrelated direction to staff? What 

additional specific information and data 

should staff assess in considering a 

recommendation that a determination 

be made that a material intrinsically 

does not, and will not, contain lead 

above 100 ppm? Is this information 

obtainable? 

• What additional lead 

determinations would provide the 

greatest cost savings, assuming that the 

determinations have a satisfactory legal 

and evidentiary basis and are adopted 

by the Commission? 

C. The Eight Elements Listed in the Toy 

Standard 

A possible determination could 

identify materials that do not, and will 

not, contain the eight elements listed in 

the Toy Standard, either with respect to 

chemical content or to solubility of the 

elements at levels that do not exceed the 

allowable limits. Because the 

Commission intends any additional 

determinations to reduce the testing 

costs consistent with assuring 

compliance, a candidate material for a 

determination must comply with the 

limits for all eight elements. The testing 

costs may not be reduced substantially 

if content or solubility testing is still 

required for one or more of the eight 

elements. 

Regarding the eight elements listed in 

the Toy Standard, staff is interested in 

learning: 

• Which materials, by their nature, do 

not, and will not contain any of the 

eight elements in content above their 

solubility limits? 

• Which materials have a solubility of 

all seven elements other than lead that 

is low enough for a determination to 

possibly be recommended that the 

material will comply with ASTM F963– 

11, regardless of the elements’ content 

levels (lead content must not exceed 100 

ppm for substrates, and 90 ppm for 

surface coatings)? 

• How can compliance with the 

solubility limits of the elements other 

than lead be inferred from content 

measurements, irrespective of the shape 

or other physical characteristics of the 

material as a component part of a toy? 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 39 / Thursday, February 27, 2014 / Notices 11091 

• Which materials would present the 

greatest cost reduction if the 

Commission determined that third party 

testing is not required, especially 

considering that compliance with the 

underlying standard(s) would still be 

required? 

• What other information staff should 

consider before potentially making 

recommendations to the Commission 

regarding a determination of compliance 

with the limitations on the eight 

elements listed in the Toy Standard? 

IV. What topics will not be discussed in 

the workshop? 

This staff workshop will focus 

exclusively on potential ways to reduce 

third party testing costs through 

determinations consistent with assuring 

compliance as described in this 

announcement. Other matters, such as 

certification issues, test methods, 

statutory content limits, or definitions 

will not be discussed at this workshop, 

nor are comments on these other topics 

appropriate in response to this 

announcement. Staff will not make 

recommendations for determinations at 

the workshop. The purpose of the 

workshop is to collect specific and 

potentially actionable information and 

evidence to be considered by staff for 

any potential future determinations. 

V. Details Regarding the Workshop 

A. When and where will the workshop 

be held? 

CPSC staff will hold the workshop 

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on April 3, 2014, 

at the CPSC’s National Product Testing 

and Evaluation Center, 5 Research 

Place, Rockville, MD 20850. The 

workshop will also be available through 

a webcast, but viewers will not be able 

to interact with the panels and 

presenters. 

B. How do you register for the 

workshop? 

If you would like to make a 

presentation at the workshop or be 

considered as a panel member for a 

specific topic or topics, you should 

register by March 13, 2014. (See the 

ADDRESSES portion of this document for 

the Web site link and instructions on 

where to register.) We also ask that you 

indicate whether you would like to 

serve on a panel or make a presentation, 

and indicate each topic for which you 

wish to be considered. We ask that you 

limit the number of topics to no more 

than three. We will select panelists and 

individuals who will make 

presentations at the workshop, based on 

considerations such as the individual’s 

demonstrated familiarity or expertise 

with the topic to be discussed, the 

practical utility of the information to be 

presented (such as a discussion of 

specific methods), and the individual’s 

viewpoint or ability to represent certain 

interests (such as large manufacturers, 

small manufacturers, consumer 

organizations). We would like the 

presentations to represent and address a 

wide variety of interests. 

Although we will make an effort to 

accommodate all persons who wish to 

make a presentation, the time allotted 

for presentations will depend on the 

number of persons who wish to speak 

on a given topic and the agenda. We 

recommend that individuals and 

organizations with common interests 

consolidate or coordinate their 

presentations and request time for a 

joint presentation. If you wish to make 

a presentation and want to make copies 

of your presentation or other handouts 

available, you should bring copies to the 

workshop. We will notify those who are 

selected to make a presentation or 

participate in a panel at least two weeks 

before the workshop. Please inform Ms. 

Jacqueline Campbell, jcampbell@

cpsc.gov, 301–987–2024, if you need 

any special equipment to make a 

presentation. 

If you would like to attend the 

workshop but do not wish to make a 

presentation or participate on a panel, 

we ask that you register by March 27, 

2014. Please be aware that seating will 

be on a first-come, first-served basis. 

If you need special accommodations 

because of disability, please contact Ms. 

Jacqueline Campbell, jcampbell@

cpsc.gov, 301–987–2024, at least 10 days 

before the workshop. 

In addition, we encourage written or 

electronic comments. Written or 

electronic comments will be accepted 

until April 17, 2014. Please note that all 

comments should be restricted to the 

topics covered by the workshop as 

described in this Announcement. 

C. What happens if no one registers for 

the workshop? 

If no one registers for the workshop, 

we will cancel the workshop. If we 

decide to cancel the workshop, we will 

post a cancellation notice by March 28, 

2014, on the registration Web page for 

the workshop http://www.cpsc.gov/

meetingsignup and send an email to all 

registered participants who provide 

their email address when they register. 

Dated: February 24, 2014. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–04265 Filed 2–26–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DoD–2014–OS–0023] 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of 

Defense, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice to add a new System of 

Records. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Secretary of 

Defense proposes to add a new system 

of records, entitled ‘‘Interoperability 

Layer Service (IoLS)’’, to its inventory of 

record systems subject to the Privacy 

Act of 1974, as amended. The system 

will evaluate individuals’ eligibility for 

access to DoD facilities or installations 

and implement security standards 

controlling entry to DoD facilities and 

installations. 

DATES: Comments will be accepted on or 

before March 31, 2014. This proposed 

action will be effective on the day 

following the end of the comment 

period unless comments are received 

which result in a contrary 

determination. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

* Federal Rulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

* Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 

East Tower, 2nd Floor, Suite 02G09, 

Alexandria, VA 22350–3100. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Cindy Allard, Chief, OSD/JS Privacy 

Office, Freedom of Information 

Directorate, Washington Headquarters 

Service, 1155 Defense Pentagon, 

Washington, DC 20301–1155, or by 

phone at (571) 372–0461. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office 

of the Secretary of Defense notices for 

systems of records subject to the Privacy 

Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, 

have been published in the Federal 

Register and are available from the 

address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES