Petition for Labeling Amendment of Blasting Caps, 74488-74489 [E6-21023]
Download as PDF
74488
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Notices
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rescinded, antidumping duties shall be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review is rescinded, the cash deposit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.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:00 Dec 11, 2006
Jkt 211001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 12, 2006 / Notices
(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
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 https://www.cpsc.gov. A
request for a hard copy of the petition
may be directed to the Office of the
Secretary.
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
https://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
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
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
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
https://www.cpsc.gov.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:00 Dec 11, 2006
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Office of the Secretary
[No. DoD–2006–OS–0212]
Proposed Collection; Comment
Request
Defense Security Service,
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
74489
You may submit comments
identified by document number and
title, by any of the following methods:
• Federal Rule Making Portal: https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
ADDRESSES:
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.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\12DEN1.SGM
12DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74488-74489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-21023]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 74489]]
(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 https://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
https://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 https://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