Notices. Notice of Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Suspension Agreement on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine

4,612 words·~21 min read·/register/2006/12/12/06-9637·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 8230-01-M DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board T-4-2006 Foreign-Trade Zone 222 - Montgomery, Alabama, Temporary/Interim Manufacturing Authority, Arvin Meritor, Inc. (Automotive Parts), Notice of Approval On October 20, 2006, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones

(FTZ)Board filed an application submitted by the Montgomery Area Chamber of Commerce, grantee of FTZ 222, requesting temporary/interim manufacturing (T/IM) authority within FTZ 222 at the Arvin Meritor, Inc. (Arvin Meritor) automotive parts manufacturing facility located in Montgomery, Alabama. The application was processed in accordance with T/IM procedures, as authorized by FTZ Board Order 1347 (69 FR 52857, 8/30/04), including notice in the **Federal Register** inviting public comment (71 FR 63283, 10/30/06). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval under T/IM procedures. Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board Executive Secretary in Board Order 1347, the application was approved, effective December 1, 2006, until December 1, 2008, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. Dated: December 1, 2006. Andrew McGilvray, Acting Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-21126 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 1496] Grant Of Authority For Subzone Status, Merck & Co., Inc., (Vaccine Pharmaceuticals), Durham, North Carolina Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: *Whereas* , the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for “ . . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry; *Whereas* , the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest; *Whereas* , the Triangle J Council of Governments, grantee of FTZ 93, has made application to the Board for authority to establish special-purpose subzone status at the vaccine pharmaceutical manufacturing plant of Merck & Co., Inc., located in Durham, North Carolina (FTZ Docket 64-2005, filed 12/15/05); *Whereas* , notice inviting public comment has been given in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 76444, 12/27/05); and, WHEREAS, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application is in the public interest; *Now therefore* , the Board hereby grants authority for subzone status for activity related to vaccine pharmaceutical manufacturing at the Merck & Co., Inc., facility located in Durham, North Carolina (Subzone 93H), as described in the application and **Federal Register** notice, and subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. Signed at Washington, DC, this 1st day of December 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board Attest: Andrew McGilvray, Acting Executive Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-20946 Filed 12-8-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-823-808 Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine; Final Results of Administrative Review of the Suspension Agreement AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Notice of Final Results of the Administrative Review of the Suspension Agreement on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine. SUMMARY: On August 9, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of an administrative review of the suspension agreement on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Ukraine (the Agreement). *See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine; Preliminary Results of Administrative Review of the Suspension Agreement* , 71 FR 45519 (August 9, 2006) ( *Preliminary Results* ). The period of review

(POR)is November 1, 2004 through October 31, 2005. No interested parties submitted comments and we have made no changes to our preliminary results. Therefore, the final results do not differ from the preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judith Rudman or Jay Carreiro, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone:

(202)482-0192 or

(202)482-3674. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On October 24, 1997, the Department signed an agreement with the Government of Ukraine

(GOU)that suspended the antidumping duty investigation on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (CTL plate) from Ukraine. *See Suspension of Antidumping Duty Investigation: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine* , 62 FR 61766 (November 19, 1997). In accordance with section 734(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Tariff Act), on November 19, 1997, the Department also published its final determination of sales at less than fair value in this case. *See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From Ukraine* , 62 FR 61754 (November 19, 1997). On November 1, 2005, the Department published its notice of opportunity to request an administrative review. *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review* , 70 FR 65883 (November 1, 2005). On November 30, 2005, Mittal Steel USA submitted a request for an administrative review. The Department initiated a review of the Agreement on December 22, 2005. *See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Request for Revocation in Part* , 70 FR 76024 (December 22, 2005). On August 9, 2006, the Department published its preliminary results of review. *See Preliminary Results* , 71 FR 45519. We invited interested parties to comment on our preliminary results. No interested parties submitted comments and we have made no changes to our preliminary results. Scope of Review The products covered by the Agreement include hot-rolled iron and non-alloy steel universal mill plates ( *i.e.* , flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain iron and non-alloy steel flat-rolled products not in coils, of rectangular shape, hot-rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 mm or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness. Included as subject merchandise in the Agreement are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process ( *i.e.* , products which have been “worked after rolling”), for example, products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges. This merchandise is currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTS)under item numbers 7208.40.3030, 7208.40.3060, 7208.51.0030, 7208.51.0045, 7208.51.0060, 7208.52.0000, 7208.53.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.13.0000, 7211.14.0030, 7211.14.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the Agreement is dispositive. Specifically excluded from subject merchandise within the scope of this Agreement is grade X-70 steel plate. Period of Review The POR is November 1, 2004 through October 31, 2005. Final Results of Review Our review of the information submitted by the GOU indicates that each of the export licenses governed by the Agreement were at or above the quarterly FOB reference prices stipulated by the Agreement. Furthermore, data supplied by the GOU in its monthly reports, as well as our independent review of import data compiled by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, indicate Ukraine did not exceed its annual export limits. Therefore, we continue to find that the GOU has been in compliance with the Agreement. This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order

(APO)of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: November 30, 2006. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Adminstration. [FR Doc. E6-21128 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A-337-806 Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen red raspberries from Chile. This review covers sales of individually quick frozen red raspberries to the United States during the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006. Based on the withdrawal of requests for review with respect to certain companies, we are rescinding, in part, the fourth administrative review. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 12, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yasmin Bordas, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone

(202)482-3813. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On July 3, 2006, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the **Federal Register** the *Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review* , 71 FR 37890 (July 3, 2006), for the above-cited segment of this antidumping duty proceeding. We received a timely filed request for review of 60 companies from the Pacific Northwest Berry Association, Lynden, Washington, and each of its individual members, Curt Maberry Farm; Enfield Farms, Inc.; Maberry Packing; and Rader Farms, Inc. (collectively, “the petitioners”). We also received timely filed requests for review from Arlavan S.A. (“Arlavan”); Sociedad Agroindustrial Valle Frio Ltda. (“Valle Frio”); Fruticola Olmue S.A. (“Olmue”); Santiago Comercio Exterior Sociedad Anonima (“SANCO”); Valles Andinos S.A. (“Valles Andinos”); Vital Berry Marketing S.A. (“VBM”); and Alimentos Naturales Vitafoods S.A. (“Vitafoods”). On July 31, 2006, the Department received a request from SANCO to defer for one year, with respect to SANCO, the initiation of the July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 administrative review of the antidumping duty order on individually quick frozen red raspberries from Chile. The Department received no objections to this request from any party cited in 19 CFR 351.213(c)(1)(ii). On August 30, 2006, the Department published in the **Federal Register** the *Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 51573 (Aug. 30, 2006) (“ *Initiation Notice* ”), initiating this review for all 60 companies. In the Initiation Notice, the Department inadvertently included SANCO, despite SANCO's pending, unopposed request for deferral. Therefore, on November 21, 2006, the Department corrected the Initiation Notice and granted SANCO's deferral request. *See Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile: Correction to Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and Requests for Revocation in Part* , 71 FR 70363 (Dec. 4, 2006). On November 28, 2006, we received a submission from the petitioners withdrawing their requests for review for all of the companies for which they had requested an administrative review, except for the following companies: Arlavan, Valle Frio, Olmue, Valles Andinos, VBM, SANCO, and Vitafoods. Partial Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review The petitioners filed their withdrawal request within the deadline established by the Department's regulations. Therefore, we are rescinding the above-cited administrative review with respect to the following companies in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1): Agricola Nova, Ltda. Agricola San Antonio Agrocomercial Las Tinajas Ltda. Agrofruta Chilena Ltda. Agrofruticola Pehuenche S.A. Agroindustria Framberry Ltda. Agroindustria Frisac Ltda. Agroindustria Frutos del Maipo Ltda. Agroindustria Merco Trading Ltda. Agroindustria Niquen Ltda. Agroindustria Sagrada Familia Ltda. Agroindustria San Francisco Ltda. Agroindustria y Frigorifico M y M Ltda. Agroindustrial del Maule Agross S.A. Alimentos Prometeo Ltda. Alimentos y Frutos S.A. Andesur S.A. Angloeuro Comercio Exterior S.A. Armijo Carrasco, Claudio del Carmen Bajo Cero S.A. C y C Group S.A. Certified Pure Ingredients (Chile) Inc. y Cia. Ltda. Chile Andes Foods S.A. Comercializadora Agricola Berries & Fruit Ltda. Comercializadora de Alimentos del Sur Ltda. Comercio y Servicios S.A. Copefrut S.A. Exportaciones Meyer S.A. Exportadora Fragaria Ltda. Exportadora Pentagro S.A. Exportadora South Berries Ltda. Francisco Nancuvilu Punsin Frigorifico Ditzler Ltda. Frutas de Guaico S.A. Fruticola Viconto S.A. Hassler Monckeberg S.A. Hortifrut S.A. Interagro Comercio y Ganado S.A. Kugar Export Ltda. (Kulenkampff & Gardeweg Ltda.) Maria Teresa Ubilla Alarcon Multifrigo Valparaiso S.A. Nevada Export S.A. Prima Agrotrading Ltda. Procesadora y Exportadora de Frutas y Vegetales Ltda. Rio Teno S.A. Sociedad Agricola Valle del Laja Ltda. Sociedad Comercial C y C, S.A. Sociedad Exportaciones Antiquina Ltda. Sociedad San Ernesto Ltda. Surfrut Terra Natur S.A. Terrazas Export S.A. The following companies remain subject to this administrative review: Olmue, VBM, Valles Andinos, Vitafoods, Arlavan and Valle Frio. As discussed in the *Background* section, above, we have deferred for one year an administrative review for 2005-2006 with respect to SANCO. We intend to issue our preliminary results in this administrative review for Olmue, VBM, Valles Andinos, Vitafoods, Arlavan, and Valle Frio by April 2, 2007. Assessment The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For those companies for which this review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of this notice. Cash Deposit Rates For the companies for which this review is rescinded, the cash deposit rate will continue to be 6.33 percent, the “all others” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. *See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: IQF Red Raspberries from Chile* , 67 FR 40270 (June 12, 2002). These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of this administrative review. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Notification Regarding APOs This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4). Dated: December 6, 2006. Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6-21129 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will submit to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). *Agency:* United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). *Title:* Patent Cooperation Treaty. *Form Number(s):* PCT RO/101, PCT/RO/134, PTO-1382, PTO-1390, PCT/IPEA/401, PTO/SB/61/PCT, PTO/SB/64/PCT, PCT/Model of power of attorney, PCT/Model of general power of attorney. *Agency Approval Number:* 0651-0021. *Type of Request:* Revision of a currently approved collection. *Burden:* 347,891 hours annually. *Number of Respondents:* 355,658 responses per year. *Avg. Hours Per Response:* The USPTO estimates that it will take the public approximately 15 minutes (0.25 hours) to 8 hours to gather the necessary information; prepare the appropriate form, petition, or other request; and submit the information to the USPTO. *Needs and Uses:* The general purpose of the Patent Cooperation Treaty

(PCT)is to standardize the format and filing procedures so that applicants may file one international application in one location, in one language, and pay one initial set of fees to seek protection for an invention in more than 100 designated countries. This collection of information is necessary so that respondents can apply for an international patent and so that the USPTO can fulfill its duties to process, search, and examine international patent applications under the provisions of the PCT. The USPTO is submitting this collection in support of a final rulemaking entitled “Changes to Facilitate Electronic Filing of Patent Correspondence” (RIN 0651-AB92), which will provide applicants with a new process for showing that national stage correspondence submitted electronically was actually received by the Office. A new petition to support this process is being added to this collection. *Affected Public:* Businesses or other for-profits, and not-for-profit institutions. *Frequency:* On occasion. *Respondent's Obligation:* Required to obtain or retain benefits. *OMB Desk Officer:* David Rostker,

(202)395-3897. Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by any of the following methods: • *E-mail: Susan.Brown@uspto.gov* . Include “0651-0021 copy request” in the subject line of the message. • *Fax:* 571-273-0112, marked to the attention of Susan Brown. • *Mail:* Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Architecture, Engineering and Technical Services, Data Architecture and Services Division, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent on or before January 11, 2007 to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Dated: December 5, 2006. Susan K. Brown, Records Officer, USPTO, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Architecture, Engineering and Technical Services, Data Architecture and Services Division. [FR Doc. E6-21121 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-16-P CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Petition HP 07-1] Petition for Labeling Amendment of Blasting Caps AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) has received a petition (HP 07-1) requesting that the Commission amend its regulation under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act

(FHSA)to allow the use of the term “detonator” to be used interchangeably with the term “blasting cap.” The Commission solicits written comments concerning the petition. 1 1 Commissioner Thomas H. Moore filed a statement which is available from the Office of the Secretary or on the Commission's Web site at *http://www.cpsc.gov.* DATES: The Office of the Secretary must receive comments on the petition by February 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: Comments on the petition may be filed by e-mail to *cpsc-os@cpsc.gov.* Comments may also be filed by facsimile to

(301)504-0127, or delivered or mailed, preferably in five copies, to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, telephone

(301)504-7923. Comments should be captioned “Petition HP 07-1, Petition Requesting Labeling Amendment of Blasting Caps.” The petition is available on the CPSC Web site at *http://www.cpsc.gov.* A request for a hard copy of the petition may be directed to the Office of the Secretary. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rockelle Hammond, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone

(301)504-6833, e-mail *rhammond@cpsc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Institute of Makers of Explosives

(IME)submitted correspondence requesting that the Commission amend its regulation at 16 CFR 1500.83(a)(35), to allow the use of the term “detonator” to be used interchangeably with the term “blasting cap.” IME requests the addition of the term “detonator” to the regulation as follows (added text is underlined): Individual *detonators or* blasting caps are exempt from bearing the statement “Keep out of the reach of children,” or its practical equivalent, if:

(i)Each *detonator or* cap bears conspicuously in the largest type size practicable the statement “DANGEROUS—BLASTING CAPS—EXPLOSIVE” *or “DANGEROUS—DETONATOR—EXPLOSIVE”;* IME states that the terms “detonator” and “blasting cap” are generally synonymous in the explosive community. IME asserts that the term “detonator” may be interpreted as being more inclusive and is more commonly used than the term “blasting cap.” In order to minimize the possibility that an individual may not take recommended precautions when handling initiating devices, IME states that it has encouraged the use of the term “detonator” instead of the term “blasting cap” whenever possible. According to IME, there is no practical benefit to requiring the use of both the term “detonator” and “blasting cap” on printed warnings given the limited space available on small detonators. IME also does not believe there is any practical benefit to replacing the term “blasting cap” with “detonator” at this time. Interested parties may obtain a copy of the petition on the CPSC Web site at *http://www.cpsc.gov* or by writing or calling the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone

(301)504-7923. Dated: December 6, 2006. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission. [FR Doc. E6-21023 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [No. DoD-2006-OS-0212] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Defense Security Service, Office of the Secretary, DoD. ACTION: Notice. 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;

(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 February 12, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by document 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, 1160 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1160. *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: To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instrument, please write to Defense Security Service, ATTN: Mr. Stephen Lewis, Deputy Director, Policy, Industrial Security Program Office, 1340 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314-1650, or call,

(703)325-6034. *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 Department of Defense Security Cognizance. *Respondent burden:* *Industrial security review data:* *Total annual burden hours:* 39,999 hours. *Total number of respondents:* 12,111. *Possessors of classified:* 4,781. *Non-Possessors of classified:* 7,330. *Responses per respondent:* 1. *Average burden hours per respondent:* *Possessors of classified:* 5.3 hours. *Non-Possessors of classified:* 2 hours. *Frequency:* Periodic (e.g., Possessors—Annually, Non-Possessors—18 months, Compliance Reviews, or when directed). *Industrial security facility clearance survey data:* *Total annual burden hours:* 3,522 hours. *Number of respondents:* 1,761. *Responses per respondent:* 1. *Average burden hours per respondent:* 2 hours. *Frequency:* On occasion (e.g., initial eligibility determination and when a significant changed condition, such as a change in ownership). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Summary of Information Collection Executive Order

(EO)12829, “National Industrial Security Program (NISP),” dated January 6, 1993, as amended by EO 12885 dated December 14, 1993, established the NISP to safeguard Federal Government classified information released to contractors, licensees and grantees of the U.S. Government. Section 202(a) of EO 12829 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 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 5220.22M, “National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM),” dated February 28, 2006. The Executive Agent has the authority to issue, after consultation with affected agencies, standard forms or other standardization that will promote the implementation of the NISP. Contractors operating under DoD security cognizance are subject to an initial facility clearance survey and periodic government security reviews to determine their eligibility to participate in the NISP and ensure that safeguards employed are adequate for the protection of classified information. DoD Directive 5105.42, “Defense Security Service,” dated May 13, 1999, delineates the mission, functions and responsibilities of DSS. DSS is an Agency of the Department of Defense under authority, direction and control of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. DSS functions and responsibilities include the administration and implementation of the Defense portion of the NISP pursuant to Executive Order 12829. DSS is the office of record for the maintenance of information pertaining to contractor facility clearance records and industrial security information regarding cleared contractors under its cognizance. To the extent possible, information required as part of the survey or security review is obtained as a result of observation by the representative of the CSA or its designated Cognizant Security Office. Some of the information may be obtained based on conferences with Key Management Personnel and/or other employees of the company. The information is used to respond to all inquires regarding the facility clearance status and classified information storage capability of cleared contractors. It is also used to assess and/or advise Government Contracting Activities regarding any particular contractor's continued ability to protect classified information. Dated: December 5, 2006. Patricia L. Toppings, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 06-9637 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45am]

Connectionstraces to 6

Traces to 6 documents

CFR