30-Day FR Notice

78570

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Notices

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION

information from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
DATES: Submit written or electronic
comments on the collection of
information by December 8, 2016.
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
[email protected]. All
comments should be identified by
Docket No. CPSC–2010–0041. In
addition, written comments also should
be submitted at http://
www.regulations.gov, under Docket No.
CPSC–2010–0041, 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
read background documents or
comments received, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.

[Docket No. CPSC–2010–0041]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

NMFS will provide the necessary
administrative support, including
technical assistance, for the HMS AP.
However, NMFS will not compensate
participants with monetary support of
any kind. Depending on availability of
funds, members may be reimbursed for
travel costs related to the HMS AP
meetings.
C. Meeting Schedule
Meetings of the HMS AP will be held
as frequently as necessary but are
routinely held twice each year—once in
the spring, and once in the fall. The
meetings may be held in conjunction
with public hearings.
Dated: November 3, 2016.
Alan D. Risenhoover,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–26943 Filed 11–7–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

Collection of Information; Proposed
Extension of Approval; Comment
Request—Publicly Available Consumer
Product Safety Information Database
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the
Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC or Commission) requests
comments on a proposed extension of
approval of a collection of information
for the Publicly Available Consumer
Product Safety Information Database.
The Commission will consider all
comments received in response to this
notice before requesting an extension of
approval of this collection of

SUMMARY:

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: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
Federal Register of August 19, 2016 (81
FR 55449), the CPSC published a notice
in accordance with provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35). This notice
announced CPSC’s intention to seek
extension of approval of a collection of
information for a database on the safety
of consumer products and other
products and substances regulated by
the Commission (Database), as required
by section 212 of the Consumer Product
Safety Improvement Act of 2008
(CPSIA). We received one general
comment in support of the Database in

response to the August 19 notice. The
commenter noted that the existence of
the Database may reduce FOIA requests.
Nothing in the comment addressed
CPSC’s burden analysis. Accordingly,
by publication of this notice, the
Commission announces that it has
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) a request for
extension of approval of the collection
of information for the Database without
change.
A. Background
Section 212 of the CPSIA added
section 6A to the Consumer Product
Safety Act (CPSA), which requires the
Commission to establish and maintain a
publicly available, searchable database
on the safety of consumer products and
other products or substances regulated
by the Commission. Among other
things, section 6A of the CPSA requires
the Commission to collect reports of
harm from the public for potential
publication in the publicly available
Database, and to collect and publish
comments about reports of harm from
manufacturers. As explained in the
August 19, 2016 Federal Register notice
(81 FR 55449), the Commission sought,
and OMB approved, the collection of
information for the Database under
control number 3041–0146. OMB’s most
recent extension of approval on
December 2, 2013 will expire on
December 31, 2016. Accordingly, the
Commission now proposes to request an
extension of approval of this collection
of information. Details about the
information collected through the
Database are provided in the August 19,
2016 notice.
B. Estimated Burden
1. Estimated Annual Burden for
Respondents
We estimate the burden of this
collection of information as follows:

TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN FOR REPORTS OF HARM
Number of
respondents

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES

Collection type

Response
frequency 1

Total annual
responses

Minutes per
response

Total burden,
in hours 2

Reports of Harm—submitted through Web site ..................
Reports of Harm—submitted by phone ...............................
Reports of Harm—submitted by mail, email, fax .................

6,582
2,632
780

1.03
1.01
6.67

6,790
2,643
5,206

12
10
20

1,358
441
1,735

Total ..............................................................................

9,994

........................

14,639

........................

3,534

1 Frequency of responses is calculated by dividing
the number of responses by the number of
respondents.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:27 Nov 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

2 Numbers

PO 00000

have been rounded.

Frm 00006

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM

08NON1

78571

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Notices
TABLE 2—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN FOR MANUFACTURER SUBMISSIONS
Number of
respondents

Collection type
Manufacturer Comments—submitted through Web site .....
Manufacturer Comments—submitted by mail, email, fax ....
Requests to Treat Information as Confidential—submitted
through Web site ..............................................................
Requests to Treat Information as Confidential—submitted
by mail, email, fax ............................................................
Requests to Treat Information as Materially Inaccurate—
submitted through Web site .............................................
Requests to Treat Information as Materially Inaccurate—
submitted by mail, email, fax ...........................................
Voluntary Brand Identification ..............................................
Small Batch Manufacturer Identification ..............................
Total ..............................................................................

Based on the data set forth in Tables
1 and 2 above, the annual reporting cost
is estimated to be $719,381. This
estimate is based on the sum of two
estimated total figures for reports of
harm and manufacturer submissions.
The estimated number of respondents
and responses are based on the actual
responses received in FY 2015. We
assume that the number of responses
and respondents will be similar in
future years.
Reports of Harm: Table 1 sets forth
the data used to estimate the burden
associated with submitting reports of
harm. We had previously estimated the
time associated with the electronic and
telephone submission of reports of harm
at 12 and 10 minutes, respectively, and
because we have had no indication that
these estimates are not appropriate or
accurate, we used those figures for
present purposes as well. We estimate
that the time associated with a paper or
PDF form would be 20 minutes, on
average.
To estimate the costs for submitting
reports of harm, we multiplied the
estimated total burden hours associated
with reports of harm (1,358 hours + 441

Response
frequency 1

Total annual
responses

Minutes per
response

Total burden,
in hours 2

532
283

6.23
1.22

3,317
346

117
147

6,468
848

12

1.08

13

42

9

0

n/a

0

72

0

131

1.82

238

165

655

79
829
2,208

1.06
1.48
1

84
1,228
2,208

195
10
10

273
205
368

4,074

........................

7,434

........................

8,826

hours + 1,735 hours = 3,534 hours) by
an estimated total compensation for all
workers in private industry of $32.06
per hour,3 which results in an estimated
cost of $113,300 (3,534 hours × $32.06
per hour = $113,300).
Manufacturer Submissions: Table 2
sets forth the data used to estimate the
burden associated with manufacturers’
submissions to the Database. We
observed that a large percentage of the
general comments come from a few
businesses and assumed that the
experience of a business that submits
many comments each year would be
different from one that submits only a
few. Accordingly, we divided all
responding businesses into three
groups, based on the number of general
comments submitted in FY 2015; and
then we selected several businesses
from each group to contact. The first
group we contacted consisted of
businesses that submitted 50 or more
comments in FY 2015, accounting for 31
percent of all general comments
received. The second group we
contacted included businesses that
submitted 6 to 49 comments, accounting
for 39 percent of all general comments

received. The last group contacted
included businesses that submitted no
more than five comments, accounting
for 30 percent of all general comments
received.4 We asked each company
contacted how long it typically takes to
research, compose, and enter a
comment, a claim of materially
inaccurate information, or a confidential
information claim.
To estimate the burden associated
with submitting a general comment
through the business portal regarding a
report of harm, we averaged the burden
provided by each company within each
group and then calculated a weighted
average from the three groups,
weighting each group by the proportion
of comments received from that group.
We found that the average time to
submit a general comment regarding a
report of harm is 117 minutes based on
the data in Table 3 (((15 minutes + 45
minutes + 30 minutes + 15 minutes)/4
companies)*.31 + ((105 minutes + 45
minutes + 150 minutes + 15 minutes)/
4 companies)*.39 + ((240 minutes + 60
minutes + 480 minutes)/3
companies)*.30 = 117 minutes).

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED BURDEN TO ENTER A GENERAL COMMENT IN THE DATABASE
Group
Group 1 (>=50 comments) .........................................................

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES

Group 2 (6–49 comments) .........................................................

3 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Table 9 of the Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation (ECEC), Private Industry,
goods-producing and service-providing industries,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:27 Nov 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

General
comments

Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company
Company

A
B
C
D
A
B
C
D

.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
................................................................................
.................................................................................

by occupational group, June 2016 (data extracted on
06/23/2016 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/
ecec.t09.htm

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

15
45
30
15
105
45
150
15

4 In the last group one company was excluded as
an outlier.

E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM

08NON1

78572

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Notices

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED BURDEN TO ENTER A GENERAL COMMENT IN THE DATABASE—Continued
General
comments

Group

Company

Group 3 (≤= 5 comments) ..........................................................

Company A .................................................................................
Company B .................................................................................
Company C ................................................................................

Registered businesses generally
submit comments through our Web site.
Unregistered businesses submit
comments by mail, email, or fax. We
estimate that for unregistered
businesses, submitting comments takes
a little longer because we often must ask
the businesses to amend their
submissions to include the required
certifications. Thus, we estimated that
on average, comments submitted by
mail, email, or fax take 30 minutes
longer than those submitted through our
Web site (117 minutes + 30 minutes =
147 minutes).
The submission of a claim of
materially inaccurate information is a
relatively rare event for all respondents.
Accordingly, we averaged all responses
together. Eight of the businesses
contacted had submitted claims of
materially inaccurate information. We
found that the average time to submit a
claim that a report of harm contains a
material inaccuracy is 165 minutes ((30
minutes + 90 minutes + 45 minutes + 90
minutes + 60 minutes + 660 minutes +
45 minutes + 300 minutes)/8 companies
= 165 minutes).
Registered businesses generally
submit claims through the business
portal. Unregistered businesses submit
claims by mail, email, or fax. We
estimate that submitting claims by mail,
email, or fax takes a little longer because
we often must ask the businesses to
amend their submission to include the
required certifications. Thus, we
estimated that on average, claims
submitted by mail, email, or fax take 30
minutes longer than those submitted
through our Web site (165 minutes + 30
minutes = 195 minutes).
The submission of a claim of
confidential information is a relatively
rare event for all respondents;
accordingly, we averaged all responses
together. Five of the businesses
contacted had submitted claims of
confidential information. We found that
the average time to submit a claim that
a report of harm contains confidential
information is 42 minutes ((45 minutes
+ 15 minutes + 60 minutes + 30 minutes
+ 60 minutes)/5 companies = 42
minutes).
Registered businesses generally
submit confidential information claims
through the business portal.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:27 Nov 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

Unregistered businesses submit
confidential information claims by mail,
email, or fax. We estimate that
submitting claims in this way takes a
little longer because we often must ask
the businesses to amend their
submission to include the required
certifications. Thus, we estimate that a
confidential information claim
submitted by mail, email, or fax would
take 30 minutes longer than those
submitted through our Web site (42
minutes + 30 minutes = 72 minutes).
For voluntary brand identification, we
estimate that a response would take 10
minutes on average. Most responses
consist only of the brand name and a
product description. In many cases a
business will submit multiple entries in
a brief period of time and, based on the
date and time stamps on these records,
an entry often takes less than two
minutes. CPSC staff enters the same data
in a similar form based on our own
research, and that experience was also
factored into our estimate.
For small batch manufacturer
identification, we estimate that a
response would take 10 minutes on
average. The form consists of three
check boxes and the information should
be readily accessible to the respondent.
The responses summarized in Table 2
are generally submitted by
manufacturers. To avoid
underestimating the cost associated
with the collection of this data, we
assigned the higher hourly wage
associated with a manager or
professional in goods-producing
industries to these tasks. To estimate the
cost of manufacturer submissions we
multiplied the estimated total burden
hours in Table 2 (8,826 hours) by an
estimated total compensation for a
manager or professional in goodsproducing industries of $68.67 per
hour,5 which results in an estimated
cost of $606,081 (8,826 hours × $68.67
per hour = $606,081).
Therefore, the total estimated annual
cost to respondents is $719,381
5 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Table 9 of the Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation (ECEC), Private Industry,
goods-producing and service-providing industries,
by occupational group, June 2016 (data extracted on
06/23/2016 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/
ecec.t09.htm.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

240
60
480

($113,300 burden for reports of harm +
$606,081 burden for manufacturer
submissions = $719,381).
2. Estimated Annual Burden on
Government
We estimate the annualized cost to
the CPSC to be $954,531. This figure is
based on the costs for four categories of
work for the Database: Reports of Harm,
Materially Inaccurate Information
Claims, Manufacturer Comments, and
Small Batch Identification. Each
category is described below. No
government cost is associated with
Voluntary Brand Identification because
this information is entered directly into
the Database by the manufacturer with
no processing required by the
government. The information assists the
government in directing reports of harm
to the correct manufacturer. We did not
attempt to calculate separately the
government cost for claims of
confidential information because the
number of claims is so small. The time
to process these claims is included with
claims of materially inaccurate
information.
Reports of Harm: The Reports of Harm
category includes many different tasks.
Some costs related to this category are
from two data entry contracts. Tasks
related to these contracts include
clerical coding of the report, such as
identifying the type of consumer
product reported and the appropriate
associated hazard, as well as performing
quality control on the data in the report.
Contractor A spends an estimated 5,267
hours per year performing these tasks.
With an hourly rate of $33.31 for
contractor services, the annual cost to
the government of contract A is
$175,444. Contractor B spends an
estimated 2,539 hours per year
performing these tasks. With an hourly
rate of $58.09 for contractor services, the
annual cost to the government of
contract B is $147,491.
The Reports of Harm category also
includes sending consent requests for
reports when necessary, processing that
consent when received, determining
whether a product is out of CPSC’s
jurisdiction, and confirming that
pictures and attachments do not have
any personally identifiable information.
The Reports category also entails

E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM

08NON1

78573

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Notices
notifying manufacturers when one of
their products is reported, completing a
risk of harm determination form for
every report eligible for publication,

referring some reports to a Subject
Matter Expert (SME) within the CPSC
for a determination on whether the
reports meet the requirement of having

a risk of harm, and determining whether
a report meets all the statutory and
regulatory requirements for publication.
Detailed costs are:

TABLE 4—ESTIMATED COSTS FOR REPORTS OF HARM TASK
Number of
hours
(annual)

Grade level

Total
compensation
per hour

Total annual
cost

Contract A ....................................................................................................................................
Contract B ....................................................................................................................................
7 ...................................................................................................................................................
9 ...................................................................................................................................................
12 .................................................................................................................................................
13 .................................................................................................................................................
14 .................................................................................................................................................

5,267
2,539
200
300
5,528
428
1,068

$33.31
58.09
34.78
42.69
61.91
73.37
86.99

$175,444
147,491
6,956
12,807
342,238
31,402
92,905

Total ......................................................................................................................................

15,330

........................

809,243

Materially Inaccurate Information
(MII) Claims: The MII claims category
includes reviewing and responding to

claims, participating in meetings where
the claims are discussed, and
completing a risk of harm determination

on reports when a company alleges that
a report does not describe a risk of
harm.

TABLE 5—ESTIMATED COSTS FOR MII CLAIMS TASK
Number of
hours
(annual)

Grade level

Total
compensation
per hour

Total annual
cost

12 .................................................................................................................................................
13 .................................................................................................................................................
14 .................................................................................................................................................
15 .................................................................................................................................................
SES ..............................................................................................................................................

275
167
323
50
50

$61.91
73.37
86.99
101.99
109.97

$17,025
12,253
28,098
5,100
5,499

Total ......................................................................................................................................

865

........................

67,975.00

Manufacturer Comments: The
Comments category includes reviewing
and accepting or rejecting comments.

TABLE 6—ESTIMATED COSTS FOR MANUFACTURER COMMENTS TASK
Number of
hours
(annual)

Grade level

Total
compensation
per hour

Total annual
cost

12 .................................................................................................................................................
13 .................................................................................................................................................

62
109

$61.91
73.37

$3,838
7,997

Total ......................................................................................................................................

171

........................

11,835

Small Batch Manufacturer
Identification: The Small Batch
Manufacturer Identification category

includes time spent posting the list of
small batch registrations, as well as
answering manufacturers’ questions on

registering as a Small Batch company
and what the implications to that
company of small batch registration.

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES

TABLE 7—ESTIMATED COSTS FOR SMALL BATCH TASK
Number of
hours
(annual)

Grade level

Total
compensation
per hour

Total annual
cost

15 .................................................................................................................................................

642

$101.99

$65,478

Total ......................................................................................................................................

642

........................

65,478

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:27 Nov 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM

08NON1

78574

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 216 / Tuesday, November 8, 2016 / Notices

We estimate the annualized cost to
the CPSC of $954,531 by adding the four
categories of work related to the
Database summarized in Tables 4
through 7 (Reports of Harm ($809,243)
+ MII Claims ($67,975) + Manufacturer
Comments ($11,835) + Small Batch
Identification ($65,478) = $954,531).
This information collection renewal
request based on an estimated 12,360
burden hours per year for the Database
is a decrease of 7,485 hours since this
collection of information was last
approved by OMB in 2013. The decrease
in burden is due primarily to the fact
that the number of incoming reports of
harm has decreased, and the number of
claims based on those reports has
decreased as well. While comments did
not decline significantly, they did shift
to the more efficient online
submissions. We note a large increase in
small batch manufacturer activity,
which has been rising steadily for years.
However, this increase was not large
enough to offset the decreases in other
areas.
Dated: November 3, 2016.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016–26963 Filed 11–7–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Performance Review Board
Membership
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.

AGENCY:
ACTION:

Notice is given of the names
of members of a Performance Review
Board for the Department of the Army.
DATES: Effective Date: November 01,
2016.
SUMMARY:

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barbara Smith, Civilian Senior Leader
Management Office, 111 Army
Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310–0111.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
4314(c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C.,
requires each agency to establish, in
accordance with regulations, one or
more Senior Executive Service
performance review boards. The boards
shall review and evaluate the initial
appraisal of senior executives’
performance by supervisors and make
recommendations to the appointing
authority or rating official relative to the
performance of these executives.
The Department of the Army
Performance Review Board will be

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:27 Nov 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

composed of a subset of the following
individuals:
1. Ms. Lisha Adams, Executive
Deputy to the Commanding General,
U.S. Army Materiel Command.
2. LTG Joseph Anderson, Deputy
Chief of Staff, G–3/5/7, Department of
the Army.
3. LTG Robert P. Ashley Jr., Deputy
Chief of Staff, G–2, Department of the
Army.
4. Mr. Stephen D. Austin, Assistant
Chief of the Army Reserve, Office of the
Chief Army Reserve.
5. LTG Gwendolyn Bingham,
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management, Department of the Army.
6. Dr. Joseph L. Corriveau, Director,
Edgewood Chemical Biological Center,
U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical
Biological Center, U.S. Army Research,
Development and Engineering
Command.
7. Mr. James C. Dalton, Director of
Civil Works, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
8. Ms. Gwendolyn R. DeFilippi,
Director, Civilian Senior Leader
Management Office, Office of the
Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Manpower and Reserve Affairs).
9. Ms. Steffanie B. Easter, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Acquisition, Policy and Logistics,
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology).
10. Ms. Sue A. Engelhardt, Director of
Human Resources, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
11. Mr. Randall L. Exley, The Auditor
General, U.S. Army, Office of the
Auditor General.
12. Mr. Richard Fong, Senior
Research Scientist (Warheads
Technology), U.S. Army Armament
Research, Development, and
Engineering Center (ARDEC), U.S. Army
Research, Development and Engineering
Command.
13. Ms. Susan J. Goodyear, Deputy
Chief of Staff for Resource Management,
U.S. Army Materiel Command.
14. Mr. Patrick K. Hallinan, Executive
Director of the Army National
Cemeteries Program, Department of the
Army.
15. Mr. Stuart A. Hazlett, Director of
Contracting, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
16. Ms. Ellen M. Helmerson, Deputy
Chief of Staff, G–8, U.S. Army Training
and Doctrine Command.
17. Mr. David Jimenez, Assistant to
the Deputy Under Secretary of the
Army/Director of Test and Evaluation.
18. MG Donald E. Jackson, Jr., Deputy
Commanding General for Civil and
Emergncy Operations, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

19. MG Daniel I. Karbler,
Commanding General, U.S. Army Test
and Evaluation Command.
20. Ms. Krystyna M. A. Kolesar,
Deputy Director, Program Analysis &
Evaluation Directorate, Office of the
Deputy Chief of Staff, G–8.
21. Mr. Mark R. Lewis, Executive
Advisor to the Adminstrative Assistant
to the Secretary of the Army, Office of
the Administrative Assistant.
22. LTG Kevin W. Mangum, Deputy
Commanding General/Chief of Staff,
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine
Command.
23. Mr. David Markowitz, Assistant
Deputy Chief of Staff, G–8, Deputy Chief
of Staff, G–8.
24. Mr. Joseph M. McDade, Principal
Deputy General Counsel of the Air
Force.
25. Ms. Kathleen S. Miller, Assistant
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations (G–
3/5/7), Office of the Deputy Chief of
Staff, G–3/5/7.
26. Mr. William F. Moore, Assistant
Deputy Chief of Staff, G–4, Office of the
Deputy Chief of Staff, G–4.
27. Mr. Levator Norsworthy Jr.,
Deputy General Counsel(Acquisition)/
Senior Deputy General Counsel, Office
of the General Counsel.
28. Mr. Gerald B. O’Keefe,
Administrative Assistant to the
Secretary of the Army, Office of the
Administrative Assistant to the
Secretary of the Army.
29. Mr. Philip R. Park, Principal
Deputy General Counsel, Office of the
General Counsel.
30. LTG Gustave F. Perna,
Commanding General, U.S. Army
Materiel Command.
31. Mr. Dean E. Pfoltzer, Principal
Director, Policy and Resources/Chief
Financial Officer, Office of the Chief
Information Officer/G–6.
32. Mr. David W. Pittman, Deputy
Director, Engineer Research and
Development Center, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
33. Mr. Vic S. Ramdass, Director for
Partnering USSOUTHCOM, U.S.
Southern Command.
34. Ms. Diane M. Randon, Deputy
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management, Office of the Assistant
Chief of Staff for Installation
Management.
35. Mr. Jeffrey N. Rapp, Assistant
Deputy Chief of Staff, G–2 Office of the
Deputy Chief of Staff, G–2.
36. Dr. Jaques Reifman, Senior
Research Scientist (Advanced Medical
Technology), U.S. Army Medical
Research Materiel Command.
37. Mr. J. Randall Robinson, Principal
Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Installations, Energy and

E:\FR\FM\08NON1.SGM

08NON1