Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 7645 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Department’s Central Records Unit. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/

index.html. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that 

revocation of the AD order on 

lightweight thermal paper from 

Germany would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

at the following weighted-average 

margins: 

Manufacturer/exporter Margin 

(percent) 

Koehler ....................................... 6.50 

All Others .................................... 6.50 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs no later than 50 days after the 

date of publication of the preliminary 

results of this full sunset review, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal briefs, which 

must be limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, may be filed not later than 

the five days after the time limit for 

filing case briefs in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.309(d). 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.310(c). A hearing, if requested, will 

be held on a date to be determined. 

The Department intends to issue a 

notice of final results of this full sunset 

review, which will include the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any briefs, 

no later than May 29, 2014. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

preliminary results and notice of this 

full sunset review in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(1). 

Dated: February 4, 2014. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and 

Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02838 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[Application No. 99–7A005] 

Export Trade Certificate of Review 

ACTION: Notice of Application (99– 

7A005) to amend the Export Trade 

Certificate of Review held by California 

Almond Export Association, LLC 

(‘‘CAEA’’). 

SUMMARY: The Office of Trade and 

Economic Analysis (‘‘OTEA’’) of the 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce, has received 

an application to amend an Export 

Trade Certificate of Review 

(‘‘Certificate’’). This notice summarizes 

the proposed amendment and requests 

comments relevant to whether the 

amended Certificate should be issued. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Flynn, Director, Office of Trade 

and Economic Analysis, International 

Trade Administration, (202) 482–5131 

(this is not a toll-free number) or email 

at etca@trade.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title III of 

the Export Trading Company Act of 

1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001–21) (‘‘the Act’’) 

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to 

issue Export Trade Certificates of 

Review. The regulations implementing 

Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325 

(2014). 

OTEA is issuing this notice pursuant 

to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the 

Secretary of Commerce to publish a 

summary of the application in the 

Federal Register. Under 15 CFR 

325.6(a), interested parties may, within 

twenty days after the date of this notice, 

submit written comments to the 

Secretary on the application. 

Summary of the Application 

Applicant: California Almond Export 

Association, LLC (‘‘CAEA’’), 4800 Sisk 

Road Modesto, CA 95356. 

Contact: Bill Morecraft, Chairman, 

Telephone: (916) 446–8537. 

Application No.: 99–7A005. 

Date Deemed Submitted: January 29, 

2014. 

Proposed Amendment: CAEA seeks to 

amend its Certificate to delete the 

following company as a Member of 

CAEA’s Certificate: Treehouse 

California Almonds, LLC, Los Angeles, 

CA. 

CAEA’s proposed amendment of its 

Export Trade Certificate of Review 

would result in the following companies 

as Members under the Certificate: 

Almonds California Pride, Inc., 

Caruthers, CA 

Baldwin-Minkler Farms, Orland, CA 

Blue Diamond Growers, Sacramento, CA 

Campos Brothers, Caruthers, CA 

Chico Nut Company, Chico, CA 

Del Rio Nut Company, Inc., Livingston, 

CA 

Fair Trade Corner, Inc., Chico, CA 

Fisher Nut Company, Modesto, CA 

Hilltop Ranch, Inc., Ballico, CA 

Hughson Nut, Inc., Hughson, CA 

Mariani Nut Company, Winters, CA 

Minturn Nut Company, Inc., LeGrand, 

CA 

Nutco, LLC d.b.a. Spycher Brothers, 

Turlock, CA 

Paramount Farms, Inc., Los Angeles, CA 

P–R Farms, Inc., Clovis, CA 

Roche Brothers International Family 

Nut Co., Escalon, CA 

South Valley Almond Company, LLC, 

Wasco, CA 

Sunny Gem, LLC, Wasco, CA 

Western Nut Company, Chico, CA 

Dated: February 4, 2014. 

Joseph Flynn, 

Director, Office of Trade and Economic 

Analysis, International Trade Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02733 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CPSC–2011–0074] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for Office of 

Management and Budget Review; 

Comment Request; CPSC Table Saw 

User Survey 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Consumer Product Safety 

Commission (CPSC or Commission) is 

announcing that a proposed collection 

of information regarding a survey of 

table saw users to determine the 

effectiveness of modular blade guards 

has been submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Written comments on this 

request for extension of approval of 

information collection requirements 

should be submitted by March 12, 2014. 

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 oira_

submission@omb.eop.gov. All 

comments should be identified by 

Docket No. CPSC–2011–0074. In 

addition, written comments also should 

be submitted at http://

www.regulations.gov, under Docket No. 

CPSC–2011–0074, 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7646 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov. The draft survey 

may be viewed under Docket No. CPSC– 

2011–0074, Supporting and Related 

Materials. 

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. Background 

A. Table Saw User Survey 

The CPSC is considering whether a 

new performance safety standard is 

needed to address an unreasonable risk 

of injury associated with table saws. On 

October 11, 2011, the Commission 

published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPR) for table 

saws, under the Consumer Product 

Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2051– 

2084. (76 FR 62678). The ANPR 

explained that under the current 

voluntary standard, UL 987, Stationary 

and Fixed Electric Tools, published in 

November 2007, a new modular blade 

guard design, developed by a joint 

venture of table saw manufacturers, 

expanded the table saw guarding 

requirements. The new blade guard did 

not consist of a hood, but rather, a topbarrier guarding element and two sidebarrier guarding elements. The new 

modular guard design was intended by 

UL to provide safety improvements over 

traditional hood guard designs, by 

providing better visibility, by being 

easier to remove and install, and by 

incorporating a permanent riving knife 

design. The revised standard also 

specified detailed design and 

performance requirements for the 

modular blade guard, riving knife, and 

anti-kickback device(s). The effective 

date for the new requirements in UL 987 

was January 31, 2010. 

In the ANPR, the Commission 

expressed concern that the requirements 

in the voluntary standard for table saws, 

UL 987, which include a permanent 

riving knife and the new modular blade 

guard system, may not adequately 

address the operator blade contact 

injuries associated with table saw use. 

The Commission stated that: 

While we support the recent progress UL 

has made in improving the voluntary 

standard to address blade contact injuries by 

focusing solely on prevention of skin-toblade contact, the standard requirements do 

not appear to address adequately the number 

or severity of blade contact injuries that 

occur on table saws, nor do they address the 

associated societal costs. In addition, while 

we believe that the new modular guard 

design is a significant improvement over the 

old guard design, the effectiveness of any 

blade guard system depends upon an 

operator’s willingness to use it. Safety 

equipment that hinders the ability to operate 

the product likely will result in consumers 

bypassing, avoiding, or discarding the safety 

equipment. In addition, of the 66,900 table 

saw operator blade contact injuries in 2007 

and 2008, approximately 20,700 (30.9%) of 

the injuries occurred on table saws where the 

blade guard was in use. The current 

voluntary standard for table saws does not 

appear to address those types of injuries. 

Accordingly, we are particularly interested in 

obtaining information regarding current or 

developing voluntary standards that would 

address table saw blade contact injuries. 

76 FR 62683. 

Currently, the CPSC does not have 

information about actual use by 

consumers of the new modular blade 

guard. Because the usage patterns are 

directly linked to the safety of the user, 

additional data are needed to 

understand how consumers use the 

modular blade guard to determine how 

effective the design will be in 

preventing future injuries. 

The data collected from this survey 

will be used to help CPSC staff 

understand better how consumers are 

using the modular blade guard system, 

such as when consumers install and 

remove the blade guard, what type of 

cuts are being made without the blade 

guard, and/or what may be preventing 

the use of the blade guard. With 

additional information, the Commission 

will be able to evaluate better the role 

of modular blade guards on table saws. 

The data, along with other available test 

results and studies will be reviewed by 

the Commission in its consideration of 

whether a new performance safety 

standard is needed to address an 

unreasonable risk of injury associated 

with table saws. 

To gather the information, the CPSC 

will conduct a survey of consumers who 

own table saws with a modular blade 

guard system. Because the population of 

owners of table saws that were 

purchased with a modular blade guard 

is a specific and hard-to-reach 

population, the survey will be based on 

a convenience sample of participants 

recruited by various advertisement 

strategies. A convenience sample is a 

non-probability sample, which is 

collected by the most efficient means of 

reaching a group of interest. No results 

from the survey will be generalized to 

the population or used to draw 

statistical inferences. 

To recruit respondents, 

advertisements will be placed on 

popular Web sites, in woodworking 

magazines, and posted in woodworking 

guilds with their cooperation. 

Respondents will have the option of 

going through a screening process, 

either online, or via telephone. 

Respondents meeting the criteria of the 

survey—owners of table saws with the 

modular blade guard system—will 

participate in the follow-up, full-scale 

Computer Assisted Telephone 

Interviewing (CATI) survey about their 

usage of, and opinions about, the 

modular blade guard system. 

CPSC staff anticipates that 

approximately 200 eligible respondents 

will complete the CATI interview 

survey. After completion of the fullscale CATI survey, each respondent will 

be sent a $50 check for completing the 

survey. A final report will summarize 

the data about modular blade use 

collected from the surveyed table saw 

owners. Any patterns that emerge may 

also be used by CPSC staff to develop 

future studies. 

On May 28, 2013, the Commission 

sought comments on the proposed 

collection of information through a 

survey to obtain information from 

consumers (respondents) who own table 

saws with a modular blade guard 

system. 78 FR 31897. 

B. Comments 

The Commission received five 

comments on the table saw survey. One 

commenter generally supported the 

survey. One commenter raised an issue 

regarding the SawStop technology but 

did not raise any issues related to the 

survey. That comment is outside the 

scope of the notice regarding the 

proposed information collection and 

will be treated as a comment to the 

ANPR. Comments were also submitted 

by Stephen Gass, the manufacturer of 

SawStop table saws, and the Power Tool 

Institute (PTI). PTI made two 

submissions. On May 13, 2013, prior to 

the publication of the May 28, 2013 

notice, PTI submitted its own draft 

survey to the Commission for 

consideration. On July 26, 2013, PTI 

submitted comments on the CPSC’s 

proposed survey. 

The Commission will continue to use 

the survey sponsored by the CPSC, 

which is tailored to address the CPSC 

staff’s questions on table saw modular 

blade guard use. However, several 

changes have been made to the CPSC’s 

survey, in response to comments from 

Mr. Gass and PTI, as discussed below. 

1. Injury Data 

Comment: Mr. Gass states that to 

understand usage of the modular blade 

guard system, injured users should be 

surveyed to determine whether the 

injury occurred with the new modular 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 7647 

blade guard system or an older guard. 

According to Mr. Gass, if the new 

guards are truly effective, there should 

be a commensurate drop in the number 

of table saw injuries in the National 

Electronic Surveillance System (NEISS). 

Response: A reduction in injuries is 

the most direct way of assessing the 

effectiveness of the new modular blade 

guard. However, the currently available 

injury data do not provide that 

information. For example, NEISS data 

on table saw-related injuries do not 

indicate whether a blade guard was 

used, what type of blade guard was 

used, or how the blade guards were 

used. The CPSC has conducted a special 

study on injuries associated with table 

saws in 2007 and 2008. However, the 

addition of the revised modular blade 

guard system is a recent development 

and another special study is unlikely to 

gather sufficient data to assess the 

efficacy of the modular blade guard in 

injury prevention. Through the 

proposed survey, CPSC staff believes 

that more information regarding the use 

of the modular blade guard will become 

available, will supplement existing 

CPSC information and data, and will 

assist the Commission in identifying 

addressable hazards related to table saw 

use. 

2. Definitions 

Comment: Both Mr. Gass and PTI 

state that clear definitions must be 

provided to all participants to identify 

properly the table saw used by the 

participant. 

Response: To identify the 

respondent’s saw better, the revised 

survey provides that clear definitions of 

table saws (bench top portable bench 

saw, contractor saw, stationary saw) will 

be provided to all participants. 

3. Number of Respondents 

Comment: Although PTI states that 

some useful information may be 

developed, PTI questions the utility of 

a survey that has only 100 respondents, 

if the information is intended for use in 

developing a rule. 

Response: The primary goal of the 

survey is to help CPSC staff understand 

if and how the modular blade guard 

system is used by consumers. The 

principal benefit of the survey is to 

provide the Commission with important 

information about table saw use that is 

now lacking and would not be 

obtainable other than through such a 

survey. The survey now seeks two 

hundred responses (up from the 100 

respondents initially sought), which 

will greatly expand the quantity and 

scope of existing information and 

significantly inform staff’s evaluation of 

modular blade guard systems. To the 

extent that other studies, tests, or 

surveys have been performed to analyze 

table saw blade contact injuries, the 

Commission would review all available 

data in its consideration of whether a 

new performance safety standard is 

needed to address an unreasonable risk 

of injury associated with table saws. 

The population sought in the survey 

is a specific subset of all table saw users 

and is a hard-to-reach population. The 

survey seeks consumers who purchased 

table saws with a modular blade guard 

within the last 4 years (from 2009 and 

the present). Table saws purchased 

before 2009 do not meet the needs of the 

study; and the consumers who 

purchased table saws before 2009 will 

constitute a significant portion of 

current table saw owners. Accordingly, 

this survey will be based on a 

convenience sample of recruited 

participants by various advertisement 

strategies. No results from this study 

will be generalized to the population. 

4. Years Covered by the Survey 

Comment: According to PTI, the 

screener and survey should cover years 

before 2009 because table saws with 

modular guards were on the market as 

of 2007. 

Response: Due to the limited number 

of table saws sold before 2009 with a 

modular blade guard, the cost of 

recruiting participants would increase 

greatly if the survey were expanded to 

add table saws purchased before 2009. 

Few table saws had modular blade 

guards before 2009, so significant 

additional data are not likely to be 

obtained from the period between 2007 

and 2009. Because many more table 

saws manufactured in 2009 and later 

were sold with modular blade guards, 

the survey covers 2009 to the present. 

5. New vs. Old Table Saws 

Comment: PTI states that the survey 

should focus only on new table saws 

purchased or received as a gift and that 

all questions regarding used table saws 

or table saws without modular blade 

guards should be removed. 

Response: The survey will not be 

limited to new table saws because there 

is a secondhand market for table saws. 

The survey seeks to obtain information 

on how table saw owners are using (or 

not using) their modular blade guard 

system. If table saw users are not using 

their modular blade guard system 

because they did not purchase, install, 

or receive one, that information is useful 

to CPSC staff. Similarly, if the lack of 

instructions prevents the user from 

installing and using the modular blade 

guard system, that information also will 

assist CPSC staff in understanding the 

use patterns of the modular blade guard 

system. 

6. Screener Should Apply To All 

Woodworkers 

Comment: PTI states that the table 

saw survey should not terminate if the 

participant is using the saw only at 

work or at wood working facilities. 

According to PTI, the survey already 

establishes that the table saw is owned 

by the participant and not by the 

participant’s employer or by a third 

party. 

Response: Many table saw owners are 

consumers who may use the table saw 

to perform work and for recreation. 

These participants are invited to 

complete the screener questions and 

survey, if applicable. However, if the 

table saw owner is using the table saw 

for work purposes only, or in a 

commercial woodworking facility, those 

woodworkers fall outside the scope of 

the survey, which is intended to assess 

how consumers would use the modular 

blade guard system. 

7. Other Clarifications to the Screener/ 

Survey 

Comment: PTI contends that the 

survey questions regarding table saw 

use and installation or removal of the 

modular blade guard require additional 

clarification or revision. PTI states that 

a more accurate picture of the 

traditional guarding system should be 

used in the table saw screener. In 

addition, PTI states that questions 

comparing modular blade guards to 

traditional blade guards should be 

removed or clarified. 

Response: In response to this 

comment, many of the questions related 

to the blade guard and certain types of 

cuts have been revised. A new picture 

of the traditional guard has been added, 

as suggested by the commenter. The 

questions have been clarified to specify 

the use and removal of the blade guard 

for both through or non-through cuts. In 

addition, other questions have been 

removed, including questions that were 

ambiguous or unrelated to the use of the 

modular blade guard system, such as 

questions on kickback and riving knife 

use. However, the survey does not 

modify questions comparing the use of 

the modular blade guard to the 

traditional blade guard because these 

questions ascertain overall attitudes for 

general blade guard use, and there is no 

need to distinguish between through 

cuts or non-through cuts for these 

questions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7648 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 27 / Monday, February 10, 2014 / Notices 

B. Burden Hours 

CPSC staff estimates that the 

recruitment stage time required to verify 

whether a respondent fits the study’s 

target group of consumers will not 

exceed 10 minutes, and the actual 

survey will not exceed 25 minutes. 

Thus, total time per eligible respondent 

is estimated not to exceed 35 minutes. 

For the 200 anticipated eligible 

respondents, (which is up from the 100 

respondents originally targeted) the total 

time required in connection with the 

survey would be estimated at 

approximately 116 hours (200 x 0.58 

hours) in the aggregate. According to the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, September 

2013 (updated from March 2013), the 

average hourly compensation rate for all 

workers is $29.23. The total cost burden 

to respondents for this study is 

estimated at $3,391. 

The estimated cost under the federal 

government contract is $276,585 for the 

costs of recruiting respondents and 

conducting the survey. In addition, one 

full-time CPSC employee will spend an 

estimated 600 hours of labor reviewing 

responses for a total estimated cost of 

$49,488, the equal to 600 hours at an 

hourly compensation rate of $57.08 for 

a GS–14 Step 5 employee, with an 

additional 30.8 percent added for 

benefits for a total hourly compensation 

rate of $82.48. (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). Accordingly, 

the total estimated cost to the federal 

government is $326,073 ($276,585 plus 

$49,488). 

Dated: February 5, 2014. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02786 Filed 2–7–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Docket ID: DoD–2014–OS–0019] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Notice of a 

Computer Matching Program 

AGENCY: Defense Manpower Data 

Center, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice of a computer matching 

program. 

SUMMARY: Subsection (e)(12) of the 

Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 

requires agencies to publish advance 

notice of any proposed or revised 

computer matching program by the 

matching agency for public comment. 

The Department of Defense (DoD), as the 

matching agency under the Privacy Act 

is hereby giving notice to the record 

subjects of a computer matching 

program between the Department of 

Defense (DoD) and the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) that their 

records are being matched by computer. 

The purpose of this agreement is to 

establish the conditions, safeguards, and 

procedures under which the OPM, as 

the source agency, will disclose Federal 

Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) 

program eligibility and Federal 

employment information to DoD, as the 

recipient agency. This disclosure by 

OPM will provide the DoD with the 

FEHB program eligibility and Federal 

employment information necessary to 

either verify the eligibility to enroll or 

verify the continuing eligibility of 

enrolled Service members for premium 

based TRICARE health plans such as the 

TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) and the 

TRICARE Retired Reserve (TRR). 

DATES: This proposed action will 

become effective March 12, 2014 and 

matching may commence unless 

changes to the matching program are 

required due to public comments or by 

Congressional or by Office of 

Management and Budget objections. 

Public comments must be received 

before March 12, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and title, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking 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, 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Samuel P. Jenkins at telephone (703) 

571–0070. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to subsection (o) of the Privacy Act of 

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

Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) 

and OPM have concluded an agreement 

to conduct a computer matching 

program between the agencies. The 

purpose of this match is for determining 

the eligibility for the FEHB program and 

the eligibility for enrollment in 

premium based TRICARE health plans 

for Reserve Component (RC) Service 

members. The parties to this agreement 

have determined that a computer 

matching program is the most efficient, 

expeditious, and effective means of 

obtaining the information needed by the 

OPM to identify individual’s ineligible 

to continue the TRICARE Reserve Select 

and TRICARE Retired Reserve (TRR) 

Programs. If this identification is not 

accomplished by computer matching, 

but is done manually, the cost would be 

prohibitive and it is possible that not all 

individuals would be identified. A copy 

of the computer matching agreement 

between OPM and DMDC is available 

upon request to the public. Requests 

should be submitted to Acting Director, 

Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties 

Office, 241 18th Street South, Suite 101, 

Arlington, VA 22202 or to the Office of 

Personnel Management, 1900 E Street 

NW., Room 5415, Washington, DC 

20415. Set forth below is the notice of 

the establishment of a computer 

matching program required by 

paragraph 6.c. of the Office of 

Management and Budget Guidelines on 

computer matching published in the 

Federal Register at 54 FR 25818 on June 

19, 1989. 

The matching agreement, as required 

by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 

1974, as amended, and an advance copy 

of this notice was submitted on 

February 3, 2014, to the House 

Committee on Government Reform, the 

Senate Committee on Governmental 

Affairs, and the Administrator of the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget pursuant to paragraph 4d of 

Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A–130, 

‘‘Federal Agency Responsibilities for 

Maintaining Records About 

Individuals,’’ February 8, 1996 

(February 20, 1996; 61 FR 6427). 

Dated: February 5, 2014. 

Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal 

Register Liaison Officer, Department 

of Defense. 

Notice of a Computer Matching 

Program Between the Department of 

Defense (DOD), Defense Manpower 

Data Center (DMDC) 

A. Participating Agencies: 

Participants in this computer matching 

program are the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) and the Defense 

Manpower Data Center (DMDC) of the 

Department of Defense (DoD). The OPM 

is the source agency, i.e., the activity 

disclosing the records for the purpose of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES