### 13989 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices

available. However, the meeting will be recorded and posted on the CPSC’s Web site.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Michael Babich, Directorate for Health Sciences, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504–7253; e-mail mbabich@cpsc.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Section 108 of the CPSIA permanently prohibits the sale of any ‘‘children’s toy or child care article’’ containing more than 0.1 percent of each of three specified phthalates—di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP). Section 108 of the CPSIA also prohibits, on an interim basis, the sale of any ‘‘children’s toy that can be placed in a child’s mouth’’ or ‘‘child care article’’ containing more than 0.1 percent of each of three additional phthalates—diisononyl phthalate (DINP), diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP), and di-n -octyl phthalate (DNOP).

Moreover, section 108 of the CPSIA requires the Commission to convene a CHAP ‘‘to study the effects on children’s health of all phthalates and phthalate alternatives as used in children’s toys and child care articles. ’’ The CPSIA requires the CHAP to complete an examination of the full range of phthalates that are used in products for children and:

• Examine all of the potential health effects (including endocrine disrupting effects) of the full range of phthalates;

• Consider the potential health effects of each of these phthalates, both in isolation and in combination with other phthalates;

• Examine the likely levels of children’s, pregnant women’s, and others’ exposure to phthalates, based upon a reasonable estimation of normal and foreseeable use and abuse of such products;

• Consider the cumulative effect of total exposure to phthalates, from children’s products and from other sources, such as personal care products;

• Review all relevant data, includingthe most recent, best available, peerreviewed, scientific studies of these phthalates and phthalate alternatives that employ objective data-collection practices or employ other objective methods;

• Consider the health effects of phthalates not only from ingestion butalso as a result of dermal, hand-tomouth, or other exposure;

• Consider the level at which there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to children, pregnant women, or other susceptible individuals and their offspring, reviewing the best available science, and using sufficient safety factors to account for uncertainties regarding exposure and susceptibility of children, pregnant women, and other potentially susceptible individuals; and

• Consider possible similar health effects of phthalate alternatives used in children’s toys and child care articles.

The CPSIA contemplates completion of the CHAP’s examination within 18 months of the panel’s appointment. The CHAP must review prior work on phthalates by the Commission, but the prior work is not to be considered determinative, as the CHAP’s examination must be conducted de

novo.

The CHAP must make recommendations to the Commission which phthalates (or combinations of phthalates) in addition to those identified in section 108 of the CPSIA or phthalate alternatives that the panel determines should be prohibited from use in children’s toys or child care articles or otherwise restricted. The CHAP members were selected by the Commission from scientists nominated by the National Academy of Sciences. See 15 U.S.C. 2077, 2030(b).

The CHAP met previously in April, July, and December 2010. The CHAP heard testimony from interested parties at the July meeting. The March 2011 meeting will include discussion of the CHAP’s progress toward its analysis of potential risks from phthalates and phthalate substitutes. There will not be any opportunity for public comment at the March 30–31 meeting.

Dated: March 10, 2011. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011–6020 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6355–01–P**

**CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE** 

**Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review, Comment Request** 

**AGENCY :**  Corporation for National and Community Service.

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  The Corporation for National and Community Service (hereinafter the

‘‘Corporation’’ ), has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled the Senior Corps Grant Application to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Corporation for National and Community Service, Ms. Angela Roberts, at (202) 606–6822, (aroberts@cns.gov). Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY–TDD) may call (202) 606– 3472 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday.

**ADDRESSES :**  Comments may be submitted, identified by the title of the information collection activity, to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service, by any of the following two methods within 30 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register : (1) By fax to: (202) 395–6974, Attention:

Ms. Sharon Mar, OMB Desk Officer for the Corporation for National and Community Service; and (2) Electronically by e-mail to :

smar@omb.eop.gov

. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Corporation, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

Comments

A 60-day public comment Notice was published in the Federal Register on December 14, 2010. This comment period ended February 14, 2011. The following summarizes the public comments received from the Notice
summary:

(a) Two commenters supported the change and noted that an Executive Summary would add minimal burden to the application process. (b) Five commenters requested more details about the Executive Summary, asking what an Executive Summary is and


### 13990 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 50 / Tuesday, March 15, 2011 / Notices

what information will be required in it. The Executive Summary will ask respondents to summarize the application’s contents. The Corporation will provide more details about the Executive Summary at the appropriate time. (c) One commenter indicated that the Corporation underestimated the additional time burden added by the executive summary. The Corporation agrees and has adjusted the estimated time accordingly. (d) One commenter suggested that the Corporation eliminate another part of the application to account for the addition of an Executive Summary. The Corporation believes that the additional burden of an Executive Summary will be minimal, and that the addition will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the grant review process. Therefore, we do not intend to remove another portion of the application.

Description: The Corporation seeks to renew the current application with one modification. The Corporation will ask applicants to include an Executive Summary to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the peer review process.

The information collection will otherwise be used in the same manner as the existing application. The Corporation also seeks to continue using the current application until the revised application is approved by OMB. The current application is due to expire on May 31, 2011.

The Senior Corps Grant Application is completed by applicant organizations interested in sponsoring a Senior Corps project. The application is completed electronically using the Corporation’s web-based grants management system, eGrants.

Type of Review: Renewal. Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

Title: National Senior Service Corps Grant Application.

OMB Number: 3045–0035. Agency Number: SF 424–NSSC. Affected Public: Current and prospective sponsors of National Senior Service Corps Grants.

Total Respondents: 1,350. Frequency: Annually, with exceptions.

Average Time per Response:Estimated at 17 hours each for 180 firsttime respondents; 15.5 hours each for 900 continuation sponsors; 5.5 hours each for 270 revisions.

Estimated Total Burden Hours: 18,495 hours.

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/ maintenance): $4,609.50. Dated: March 9, 2011. Erwin Tan, Director, National Senior Service Corps.
[FR Doc. 2011–6032 Filed 3–14–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6050–$$–P**

**DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE**

**Office of the Secretary**

**[Docket ID: DOD–2011–HA–0033]**

**Proposed Collection; Comment Request** 

**AGENCY :**  Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, DoD.

**ACTION :**  Notice.

**SUMMARY :**  In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs announces a proposed new public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information 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 proposed information collection; (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 May 16, 2011.

**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, 1160 Defense Pentagon, OSD Mailroom 3C843, 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 instruments, please write to Naval Health Research Center, DoD Center for Deployment Health Research, Department 164, ATTN: Tyler C. Smith, MS, PhD, 140 Sylvester Rd., San Diego, CA 92106– 3521, or call (619) 553–7593.

Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: ACAM2000 ® Myopericarditis Registry; OMB Control Number 0720– TBD.

Needs and Uses: The Food and Drug Administration required theestablishment of several Phase IV postlicensure studies to evaluate the longterm safety of ACAM2000 ® smallpoxvaccine. Among the required postlicensure studies is the establishment of a myopericarditis registry. The ACAM2000 ® Myopericarditis Registry is designed to study the natural history of myopericarditis following receipt of the ACAM2000 ® vaccine, including evaluating factors that may influence disease prognosis, thus addressing the FDA post-licensure requirement and ensuring the continued licensing of this vaccine.

Affected Public: Civilians, former Active Duty or active Guard/Reserve in the U.S. Military, who received the ACACM2000 ® smallpox vaccine while in the military and subsequently developed signs or symptoms of myopericarditis.

Annual Burden Hours: 20. Number of Respondents: 20. Responses per Respondent: 2. Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

Frequency: Semi-annually.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Summary of Information Collection

Eligible respondents are civilians who are former Active Duty or active Guard/ Reserve in the U.S. Military that received the ACACM2000 ® smallpox vaccine while in the military and subsequently developed signs or symptoms of myopericarditis. The information collected will illuminate the natural history of post-vaccine myopericarditis and evaluate factors that may influence disease prognosis. Inclusion of civilians who were formerly in the military in addition to current military members is imperative in order to obtain information on those who may have separated from the military due to their medical condition. Conducting this Registry will ensure the continued licensure of this military relevant vaccine.