Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 4641 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XA141 

Taking and Importing of Marine 

Mammals 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; affirmative finding 

issuance. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator 

for Fisheries, NMFS, (Assistant 

Administrator) has issued a 5-year 

affirmative finding for the Government 

of Guatemala under the Marine Mammal 

Protection Act (MMPA). This 

affirmative finding will allow yellowfin 

tuna harvested in the eastern tropical 

Pacific Ocean (ETP) in compliance with 

the International Dolphin Conservation 

Program (IDCP) by Guatemalan-flag 

purse seine vessels or purse seine 

vessels operating under Guatemalan 

jurisdiction to be imported into the 

United States. The affirmative finding 

was based on review of documentary 

evidence submitted by the Government 

of Guatemala and obtained from the 

Inter-American Tropical Tuna 

Commission (IATTC) and the U.S. 

Department of State. 

DATES: The affirmative finding is 

effective from April 1, 2010 through 

March 31, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Wilkin, Southwest Region, NMFS, 

501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, 

Long Beach, CA 90802–4213; phone 

562–980–3230; fax 562–980–4027. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

MMPA, 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq., allows 

the entry into the United States of 

yellowfin tuna harvested by purse seine 

vessels in the ETP under certain 

conditions. If requested by the 

harvesting nation, the Assistant 

Administrator will determine whether 

to make an affirmative finding based 

upon documentary evidence provided 

by the government of the harvesting 

nation, the IATTC, or the Department of 

State. 

The affirmative finding process 

requires that the harvesting nation is 

meeting its obligations under the IDCP 

and obligations of membership in the 

IATTC. Every 5 years, the government of 

the harvesting nation must request an 

affirmative finding and submit the 

required documentary evidence directly 

to the Assistant Administrator. On an 

annual basis, NMFS will review the 

affirmative finding and determine 

whether the harvesting nation continues 

to meet the requirements. A nation may 

provide information related to 

compliance with IDCP and IATTC 

measures directly to NMFS on an 

annual basis or may authorize the 

IATTC to release the information to 

NMFS to annually renew an affirmative 

finding determination without an 

application from the harvesting nation. 

An affirmative finding will be 

terminated, in consultation with the 

Secretary of State, if the Assistant 

Administrator determines that the 

requirements of 50 CFR 216.24(f) are no 

longer being met or that a nation is 

consistently failing to take enforcement 

actions on violations, thereby 

diminishing the effectiveness of the 

IDCP. 

As a part of the affirmative finding 

process set forth in 50 CFR 216.24(f), the 

Assistant Administrator considered 

documentary evidence submitted by the 

Government of Guatemala and obtained 

from the IATTC and the Department of 

State and has determined that 

Guatemala has met the MMPA’s 

requirements to receive an affirmative 

finding. 

After consultation with the 

Department of State, the Assistant 

Administrator issued the Republic of 

Guatemala a 5-year affirmative finding, 

allowing the continued importation into 

the United States of yellowfin tuna and 

products derived from yellowfin tuna 

harvested in the ETP by Guatemalanflag purse seine vessels or purse seine 

vessels operating under Guatemalan 

jurisdiction. This affirmative finding for 

Guatemala will remain valid through 

March 31, 2015. 

Dated: January 20, 2010. 

Eric C. Schwaab, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1631 Filed 1–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket No. CPSC–2010–0080] 

Children’s Products Containing Lead; 

Technological Feasibility of 100 ppm 

for Lead Content; Notice of Public 

Hearing 

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of public hearing. 

SUMMARY: Section 101(a) of the 

Consumer Product Safety Improvement 

Act (‘‘CPSIA’’) provides that, as of 

August 14, 2011, children’s products 

may not contain more than 100 parts per 

million (‘‘ppm’’) of lead unless the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(‘‘CPSC,’’ ‘‘Commission,’’ or ‘‘we’’) 

determines that such a limit is not 

technologically feasible. The 

Commission may make such a 

determination only after notice and a 

hearing and after analyzing the public 

health protections associated with 

substantially reducing lead in children’s 

products. Through this notice, the 

Commission is announcing that it will 

conduct a public hearing to receive 

views from all interested parties about 

the technological feasibility of meeting 

the 100 ppm lead content limit for 

children’s products and associated 

public health considerations. 

DATES: The public hearing will begin at 

10 a.m. EST on February 16, 2011, and 

conclude the same day. 

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will be 

held in the Hearing Room, 4th Floor of 

the Bethesda Towers Building, 4330 

East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 

20814. 

Online Registration and Webcast: 

Members of the public who wish to 

attend the public hearing are requested 

to preregister online at http:// 

www.cpsc.gov/meetingsignup.html. You 

may register until 5 p.m. EST on 

February 15, 2011. This public hearing 

also will be available live via webcast 

on February 16, 2011, at http:// 

www.cpsc.gov/webcast. Registration is 

not necessary to view the webcast. A 

transcript will be made of the 

proceedings of the public hearing. 

Oral Presentations and Written 

Comments: To make oral presentations, 

participants must preregister online. 

Presenters must also submit a request to 

make an oral presentation, and the 

written text of such comments 

captioned ‘‘100 PPM—Technological 

Feasibility Public Hearing’’ by electronic 

mail (email) to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov, or 

mailed or delivered to the Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814, no later than 5 

p.m. EST on February 10, 2011. 

Commenters should limit their 

presentations to approximately 15 

minutes, exclusive of any periods of 

questioning by the Commissioners or 

CPSC staff. We may limit further the 

time for any presentation and impose 

restrictions to avoid excessive 

duplication of presentations. 

Participants who are unable to make 

an oral presentation may submit written 

comments regarding the issues outlined 

under Supplementary Information 

captioned ‘‘100 PPM—Technological 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

4642 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 

Feasibility Public Hearing’’ by electronic 

mail (email) to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov, or 

mailed or delivered to the Office of the 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission, 4330 East West Highway, 

Bethesda, MD 20814, no later than 5 

p.m. EST on February 10, 2011. 

Any information submitted in writing 

and orally to the CPSC at the public 

hearing will become part of the public 

record. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning requests and procedures for 

oral presentations of comments: 

Rockelle Hammond, Consumer Product 

Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD 

20814; telephone: (301) 504–6833; 

email: cpscos@cpsc.gov. For all other 

matters: Dominique Williams, 

Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 

504–7597; e-mail: dwilliams@cpsc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

101(a)(2)(C) of the CPSIA (15 U.S.C. 

1278a(a)(2)(C)) provides that, as of 

August 14, 2011, children’s products 

may not contain more than 100 parts per 

million (ppm) of lead unless the 

Commission determines that such a 

limit is not technologically feasible. The 

Commission may make this 

determination only after notice and a 

hearing and after analyzing the public 

health protections associated with 

substantially reducing lead in children’s 

products. Section 101(d) of the CPSIA 

(15 U.S.C. 1278a(d)) provides that a lead 

limit shall be deemed technologically 

feasible with regard to a product or 

product category if: 

(1) A product that complies with the 

limit is commercially available in the 

product category; 

(2) Technology to comply with the 

limit is commercially available to 

manufacturers or is otherwise available 

within the common meaning of the 

term; 

(3) Industrial strategies or devices 

have been developed that are capable or 

will be capable of achieving such a limit 

by the effective date of the limit and that 

companies, acting in good faith, are 

generally capable of adopting; or 

(4) Alternative practices, best 

practices, or other operational changes 

would allow the manufacturer to 

comply with the limit. 

If the Commission determines that the 

100 ppm lead content limit is not 

technologically feasible for a product or 

product category, section 101(a)(2)(D) of 

the CPSIA requires the Commission, by 

regulation, to establish the lowest 

amount below 300 ppm that it 

determines is technologically feasible. 

On July 27, 2010, we published a notice 

in the Federal Register (75 FR 43942) 

requesting comments and information 

regarding the technological feasibility 

for manufacturers to meet the 100 ppm 

lead content limits. We received 

comments from consumer groups, 

manufacturers, retailers, associations, 

and laboratories regarding the 

technological feasibility of meeting the 

100 ppm lead content limit. A number 

of commenters stated that some classes 

of materials will have difficulty meeting 

the 100 ppm lead content limit, 

including metal components and some 

glass and ceramic components. 

According to the commenters, source 

materials, including recycled materials 

for metal alloys, cannot comply 

consistently due to the variability of the 

materials. A few commenters contended 

that other materials, such as plastics, 

could comply if only virgin plastics are 

used. 

However, some commenters stated 

that for all materials, there is significant 

variability among test results, even for 

identical products, due to variations in 

testing methodology and procedures, 

and that inter- and intra-laboratory 

variability must be addressed. Several 

commenters also stated that there are no 

demonstrable health benefits of 

reducing lead limits from 300 ppm to 

100 ppm in light of the relative 

inaccessibility of lead that is bound in 

plastic or metal. Other commenters 

stated that there are children’s products 

in the market now that meet the 100 

ppm lead content limits, and that it is 

not only possible, but also essential for 

the public health, to reduce lead in 

consumer products—particularly 

children’s products—to the lowest 

levels that are technologically feasible. 

We are still reviewing the comments 

and will consider them along with the 

additional information presented at the 

hearing. 

Participants should not resubmit their 

comments, which were submitted in 

response to the July 27, 2010 notice. The 

Commission is seeking new or 

additional information that specifically 

addresses the issues outlined below in 

the public hearing that were not 

addressed in the earlier comments: 

(1) Please identify any product or 

product category that already complies 

with the 100 ppm limit and describe the 

extent to which such product(s) or 

product categories are commercially 

available in the United States. We are 

interested especially in: 

(a) Metal components in children’s 

products, how such metal components 

are sourced or obtained, and the extent 

to which lead is found in metals alloys 

even when it is not introduced 

intentionally; 

(b) Plastic and non-metal materials in 

children’s products, how such plastic 

and non-metal materials are sourced or 

obtained, and the extent to which lead 

is found in such materials even when it 

is not introduced intentionally; 

(c) Glass and ceramic materials in 

children’s products, how such glass and 

ceramic materials are sourced or 

obtained, and the extent to which lead 

is found in such materials even when it 

is not introduced intentionally; and 

(d) What factors or considerations 

should we evaluate in deciding whether 

a product complying with the limit is 

‘‘commercially available?’’ 

(2) What technologies exist that 

would enable manufacturers to comply 

with the 100 ppm limit? In responding 

to this question, please describe the 

technology or technologies and the 

product or product category that would 

benefit. 

(a) Please describe the extent to which 

the technology or technologies is 

commercially available or otherwise 

available to manufacturers. 

(b) Section 101(d)(2) of the CPSIA 

states that the technology to comply 

with the limit is ‘‘commercially 

available to manufacturers or is 

otherwise available within the common 

meaning of the term.’’ What factors or 

considerations should we evaluate in 

deciding whether a technology is 

‘‘commercially available’’ or ‘‘otherwise 

available within the common meaning 

of the term?’’ 

(3) What industrial strategies or 

devices have been developed that are 

capable or will be capable of achieving 

a lead limit of 100 ppm by August, 

2011? 

(a) What barriers, if any, exist to 

prevent a company from adopting such 

an industrial strategy or device to 

achieve the desired limit? 

(b) How might CPSC determine 

whether companies are acting in ‘‘good 

faith’’ as to their capabilities in adopting 

a particular industrial strategy or 

device? 

(4) What alternative practices, best 

practices, or other operational changes 

exist that would allow the manufacturer 

to comply with the 100 ppm lead limit? 

What factors or considerations might 

encourage or deter manufacturers from 

adopting such practices or operational 

changes? 

(5) What data on inter- and intralaboratory variability and inter- and 

intra-lot variability exists? In 

responding to this question, it would be 

very helpful if the basis for such 

variability can be explained. For 

example, the sensitivity of a particular 

piece of laboratory equipment or the use 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 17 / Wednesday, January 26, 2011 / Notices 4643 

of a particular test method might lead to 

some variation in results. 

(6) What health effects are associated 

with a reduction of the lead content 

limit from 300 ppm to 100 ppm? From 

300 ppm to some other level above 100 

ppm? In responding to these questions, 

published scientific or medical articles 

will be helpful. 

Any information submitted in writing 

and orally to the CPSC at the public 

hearing will become part of the public 

record. The public hearing will begin at 

10 a.m. EST on February 16, 2011, and 

will conclude the same day. This public 

hearing will also be available live via 

webcast on February 16, 2011, at 

http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast. Requests 

to present oral comments must be 

submitted to the Office of the Secretary 

no later than 5 p.m. EST on February 10, 

2011. Written comments, or a written 

copy of the text of the oral comments, 

must be received no later than 5 p.m. 

EST on February 10, 2011. Commenters 

should limit their presentations to 

approximately 15 minutes, exclusive of 

any periods of questioning by the 

Commissioners or the CPSC staff. We 

may limit further the time for any 

presentation and impose restrictions to 

avoid excessive duplication of 

presentations. A transcript will be made 

of the proceedings of the public hearing. 

Access to the docket to read background 

documents, including a transcript of the 

public meeting, or comments received, 

will be made available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

CPSC–2010–0080. 

Dated: January 21, 2011. 

Todd A. Stevenson, 

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1658 Filed 1–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Comment request. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Education 

(the Department), in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), 

provides the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and continuing 

collections of information. This helps 

the Department assess the impact of its 

information collection requirements and 

minimize the reporting burden on the 

public and helps the public understand 

the Department’s information collection 

requirements and provide the requested 

data in the desired format. The Director, 

Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management, invites comments on the 

proposed information collection 

requests as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before March 

28, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding burden 

and/or the collection activity 

requirements should be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or 

mailed to U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW., LBJ, 

Washington, DC 20202–4537. Please 

note that written comments received in 

response to this notice will be 

considered public records. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that Federal agencies provide interested 

parties an early opportunity to comment 

on information collection requests. The 

Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Regulatory 

Information Management Services, 

Office of Management, publishes this 

notice containing proposed information 

collection requests at the beginning of 

the Departmental review of the 

information collection. The Department 

of Education is especially interested in 

public comment addressing the 

following issues: (1) Is this collection 

necessary to the proper functions of the 

Department; (2) will this information be 

processed and used in a timely manner; 

(3) is the estimate of burden accurate; 

(4) how might the Department enhance 

the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (5) how 

might the Department minimize the 

burden of this collection on the 

respondents, including through the use 

of information technology. 

Dated: January 20, 2011. 

Darrin A. King, 

Director, Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and 

Policy Development 

Type of Review: New. 

Title of Collection: Language 

Instruction Educational Programs 

(LIEPs): Lessons from the Research and 

Profiles of Promising Programs. 

OMB Control Number: Pending. 

Agency Form Number(s): N/A. 

Frequency of Responses: On 

Occasion. 

Affected Public: Individuals or 

households; State, Local or Tribal 

Governments. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Responses: 330. 

Total Estimated Number of Annual 

Burden Hours: 384. 

Abstract: Language Instruction 

Educational Programs (LIEPs) refers to a 

systematic approach to the provision of 

services that support the development 

of English language proficiency and 

academic achievement among English 

learners. This exploratory study will 

describe LIEP characteristics that may 

influence the quality of programs 

delivered to English Learners (EL) in 

grades K through 12. The major purpose 

of this project is to gather data from the 

field that yields an initial portrait of 

well-designed and implemented LIEPs, 

and to provide practical guidance to 

local educators on selecting, designing, 

implementing and evaluating LIEPs. 

This is important because before this, 

there have been no systematic attempts 

to determine the characteristics of LIEPs 

for ELs in kindergarten through grade 12 

and to describe contextual factors that 

contribute to their effectiveness. 

Requests for copies of the proposed 

information collection request may be 

accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, 

by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending 

Collections’’ link and by clicking on link 

number 4488. When you access the 

information collection, click on 

‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view. 

Written requests for information should 

be addressed to U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed 

to 202–401–0920. Please specify the 

complete title of the information 

collection and OMB Control Number 

when making your request. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

[FR Doc. 2011–1541 Filed 1–25–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Submission for OMB Review 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Comment Request. 

SUMMARY: The Director, Information 

Collection Clearance Division, 

Regulatory Information Management 

Services, Office of Management invites 

comments on the submission for OMB 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES