Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Notices 351

1The Commission voted 2–1 to publish this

policy statement for public comment.

Commissioner Gall voted against publication of the

policy statement. Her dissenting statement is

available from the Office of the Secretary, Consumer

Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC

20207–0001.

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0090 or

(202) 482–4477, respectively.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act. In addition, unless

otherwise indicated, all references are

made to the Department of Commerce’s

(the Department) regulations at 19 CFR

Part 351 (2000).

Background

In a letter dated November 29, 2000,

as amended on December 7, 2000, the

Department received a request from

Clipper Manufacturing Ltd. (Clipper),

pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the

Act and in accordance with 19 CFR

351.214(b), for a new shipper review of

the antidumping duty order on fresh

garlic from the People’s Republic of

China with respect to fresh garlic sold

by Clipper to the United States. This

order has a November anniversary

month. Accordingly, we are initiating a

new shipper review for Clipper as

requested. The period of review is June

1, 2000, through November 30, 2000.

Initiation of Review

In accordance with 19 CFR

351.214(b)(2), Clipper provided

certification that it did not export fresh

garlic from the People’s Republic of

China to the United States during the

period of investigation. Clipper also

certified that, since the investigation

was initiated, it has never been affiliated

with any exporter or producer who

exported the subject merchandise to the

United States during the period of

investigation, including those not

individually examined during the

investigation. It also submitted

documentation establishing the

following: (i) The date on which the

fresh garlic from the People’s Republic

of China was first entered or withdrawn

from warehouse and the date on which

the subject was first shipped to the

United States; (ii) the volume of that

shipment; and (iii) the date of the first

sale to an unaffiliated customer in the

United States. Therefore, in accordance

with section 751(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act

and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), we are

initiating a new shipper review of the

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic

from the People’s Republic of China

with respect to fresh garlic sold by

Clipper to the United States during the

period of review. We intend to issue

final results of this review not later than

270 days after the day on which this

new shipper review is initiated.

Concurrent with publication of this

notice and in accordance with 19 CFR

351.214(e), we will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to allow, at the option

of the importer, the posting of a bond or

security in lieu of a cash deposit for

each entry of the merchandise exported

by Clipper until the completion of the

review.

The interested parties must submit

applications for disclosure under

administrative protective order in

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and

351.306.

This initiation and notice are in

accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(ii)

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and

351.221(c)(1)(i).

Dated: December 26, 2000.

Richard W. Moreland,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 01–125 Filed 1–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISSION

Policy Statement on Reporting

Information Under 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)

About Potentially Hazardous Products

Distributed Outside the United States;

Request for Comments

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy

statement.

SUMMARY: Section 15(b) of the Consumer

Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b),

requires manufacturers, distributors,

and retailers of consumer products to

report potential product hazards to the

Commission. The Commission is

seeking public comment on a policy

statement that information concerning

products sold outside of the United

States that may be relevant to evaluating

defects and hazards associated with

products distributed within the United

States is reportable under section 15(b).1

DATES: Comments are due no later than

March 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted to the Office of the Secretary,

Consumer Product Safety Commission,

Washington, DC 20207–0001, or

delivered to room 502, 4330 East West

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marc Schoem, Director, Division of

Recalls and Compliance, Consumer

Product Safety Commission,

Washington, DC 20207, telephone (301)

504–0608, ext. 1365, fax. (301) 504–

0359, E-mail address—

mschoem@cpsc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

15(b) of the Consumer Product Safety

Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C. 2064(b), imposes

specific reporting obligations on

manufacturers, importers, distributors

and retailers of consumer products

distributed in commerce. A firm that

obtains information that reasonably

supports the conclusion that such a

product:

(1) Fails to comply with an applicable

consumer product safety rule or with a

voluntary consumer product safety

standard upon which the Commission

has relied under section 9 of the CPSA,

(2) Contains a defect that could create

a substantial product hazard as defined

in section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA, 15

U.S.C. 2064(a)(2), or

(3) Creates an unreasonable risk of

serious injury or death must

immediately inform the Commission

unless the firm has actual knowledge

that the Commission has been

adequately informed of the failure to

comply, defect, or risk.

The purpose of reporting is to provide

the Commission with the information it

needs to determine whether remedial

action is necessary to protect the public.

To accomplish this purpose, section

15(b) contemplates that the Commission

receive, at the earliest time possible, all

available information that can assist it

in evaluating potential product hazards.

For example, in deciding whether to

report a potential product defect, the

law does not limit the obligation to

report to those cases in which a firm has

finally determined that a product in fact

contains a defect that creates a

substantial product hazard or has

pinpointed the exact cause of such a

defect. Rather, a firm must report if it

obtains information which reasonably

supports the conclusion that a product

it manufactures and/or distributes

contains a defect which could create

such a hazard or that the product creates

an unreasonable risk of serious injury or

death. 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3); 16

CFR 1115.4 and 6.

Nothing in the reporting requirements

of the CPSA or the Commission’s

interpretive regulation at 16 CFR Part

1115 limits reporting to information

352 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 3, 2001 / Notices

derived solely from experience with

products sold in the United States. The

Commission’s interpretative rule

enumerates, at 16 CFR 1115.12(f),

examples of the different types of

information that a firm should consider

in determining whether to report. The

regulation does not exclude information

from evaluation because of its

geographic source. The Commission

interprets the statutory reporting

requirements to mean that, if a firm

obtains information that meets the

criteria for reporting listed above and

that is relevant to a product it sells or

distributes in the U.S., it must report

that information to the CPSC, no matter

where the information came from. Such

information could include incidents or

experience with the same or a

substantially similar product, or a

component thereof, sold in a foreign

country.

Over the past several years, the

Commission has received reports under

section 15(b) that have included

information on experience with

products abroad, and, when

appropriate, has initiated recalls based

in whole or in part on that experience.

Thus, a number of companies already

view the statutory language as the

Commission does. However, with the

expanding global market, more firms are

obtaining this type of information, but

many may be unfamiliar with this

aspect of reporting. Therefore, the

Commission proposes to issue this

policy statement to assist those firms in

complying with the requirements of

section 15(b) of the Consumer Product

Safety Act.

The Commission is not required to

seek public comment on what is a

straight-forward reading of the CPSA.

Nevertheless, because this is the first

public announcement of this

interpretation, the Commission is

providing the public with this

opportunity to comment prior to

issuance of this policy statement.

Dated: December 28, 2000.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

[FR Doc. 01–134 Filed 1–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Joint Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Weapons Surety; Meeting

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee

Meeting.

SUMMARY: The Joint Advisory

Committee on Nuclear Weapons Surety

will conduct a closed session on January

12, 2001 at Science Applications

International Cooperation, San Diego,

California.

The Joint Advisory Committee is

charged with advising the Secretaries of

Defense and Energy, and the Joint

Nuclear Weapons Council on nuclear

weapons surety matters. At this meeting

the Joint Advisory Committee will

receive classified briefings on nuclear

weapons security and use control.

In accordance with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463, as amended, Title 5, U.S.C. App. II,

(1988)), this meeting concerns matters

sensitive to the interests of national

security, listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1)

and accordingly this meeting will be

closed to the public.

Dated: December 26, 2000.

L. M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01–73 Filed 1–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Notice of Proposed Information

Collection Requests

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed information

collection requests.

SUMMARY: The Leader, Regulatory

Information Management, Office of the

Chief Information Officer, invites

comments on the proposed information

collection requests as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: An emergency review has been

requested in accordance with the Act

(44 U.S.C. Chapter 3507 (j)), since

public harm is reasonably likely to

result if normal clearance procedures

are followed. Approval by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) has

been requested by January 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments

regarding the emergency review should

be addressed to the Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attention: Lauren Wittenberg, Acting

Desk Officer: Department of Education,

Office of Management and Budget; 725

17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New

Executive Office Building, Washington,

DC 20503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of

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

that the Director of OMB provide

interested Federal agencies and the

public an early opportunity to comment

on information collection requests. The

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) may amend or waive the

requirement for public consultation to

the extent that public participation in

the approval process would defeat the

purpose of the information collection,

violate State or Federal law, or

substantially interfere with any agency’s

ability to perform its statutory

obligations. The Leader, Regulatory

Information Management, Office of the

Chief Information Officer, publishes this

notice containing proposed information

collection requests at the beginning of

the Departmental review of the

information collection. Each proposed

information collection, grouped by

office, contains the following: (1) Type

of review requested, e.g., new, revision,

extension, existing or reinstatement; (2)

Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4)

Description of the need for, and

proposed use of, the information; (5)

Respondents and frequency of

collection; and (6) Reporting and/or

Recordkeeping burden. ED invites

public comment.

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 respondents, including

through the use of information

technology.

Dated: December 27, 2000.

John Tressler,

Leader, Regulatory Information Management,

Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Office of Elementary and Secondary

Education

Type of Review: New.

Title: Early Childhood Educator

Professional Development Program.

Abstract: The Professional

Development for Early Childhood

Educators and Caregivers Grants are

designed for one or more local

educational service agencies, State

educational agencies, State agencies for

higher education, institutions of higher

education, and other public and private

agencies, organizations, and institutions

to fund projects that provide

professional development opportunities

to improve the knowledge and skills of

early childhood educators and

caregivers who work in urban and rural