Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30655

evaluation as the anticipated impact is

so minimal. Since this is a routine

matter that will only affect air traffic

procedures and air navigation, it is

certified that this proposed rule, when

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Jet routes and Domestic VOR Federal

airways are published in paragraphs

2004 and 6010(a), respectively, of FAA

Order 7400.9H dated September 1, 2000,

and effective September 16, 2000, which

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The jet route and VOR Federal

airway listed in this document would be

published subsequently in the order.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING

POINTS

1. The authority citation for part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p.389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9H,

Airspace Designations and Reporting

Points, dated September 1, 2000, and

effective September 16, 2000, is

amended as follows:

Paragraph 2004 Jet Routes

* * * * *

J–86 [Revised]

From Beatty, NV; INT Beatty 131° and

Boulder City, NV 284° radials; Boulder City;

Peach Springs, AZ; INT of Peach Springs

091°(076°M) and Winslow, AZ, 301°(287°M)

radials; El Paso, TX; Fort Stockton, TX;

Junction, TX; Humble, TX; Leeville, LA; INT

Leeville 104° and Sarasota, FL, 286° radials;

Sarasota; INT Sarasota 103° and La Belle, FL,

313° radials; La Belle; to Dolphin, FL.

* * * * *

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal

Airways

* * * * *

V–105 [Revised]

From Tucson, AZ; INT Tucson 300° and

Stanfield, AZ 145° radials; Stanfield;

Phoenix, AZ; INT Phoenix 321°(309°M) and

Drake, AZ, 168°(154°M) radials; Drake; 25

miles, 22 miles 85 MSL; Boulder City, NV;

Las Vegas, NV; INT Las Vegas 266° and

Beatty, NV, 142° radials; 17 miles, 105 MSL;

Beatty; 105 MSL, Coaldale, NV; 82 miles, 110

MSL; to Mustang, NV.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 31,

2001.

Reginald C. Matthews,

Manager, Airspace and Rules Division.

[FR Doc. 01–14328 Filed 6–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1115

Substantial Product Hazard Reports

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed revision to

interpretative rule.

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 Consumer Product

Safety Commission publishes a

proposed revision to its interpretative

rule advising manufacturers,

distributors, and retailers how to

comply with the requirements of section

15(b). The proposed revision points out

that information concerning products

manufactured or sold outside of the

United States that may be relevant to the

existence of potential defects and

hazards associated with products

distributed within the United States

should be evaluated and may lead to a

report under section 15(b).

DATES: Comments from the public are

due no later than July 9, 2001.

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) requires

manufacturers, distributors, and

retailers of consumer products to report

potential product hazards to the

Commission. In 1978, the Commission

published an interpretative rule, 16 CFR

1115, that clarified the Commission?s

understanding of this requirement and

that established policies and procedures

for filing such reports and proffering

remedial actions to the Commission.

That rule talks generally about the types

of information a firm should evaluate in

considering whether to report, but does

not specifically address information

about experience with products

manufactured or sold outside of the

United States. Neither the statute, nor

the rule itself, suggests that firms need

not evaluate such information and,

when appropriate, report to the

Commission under section 15(b).

Over the past several years, the

Commission has received section 15(b)

reports that have included information

on experience with products abroad.

When appropriate, the agency has

initiated recalls based in whole or in

part on that experience. In addition, the

Firestone tire recall of 2000 focused

public attention on the possible

relevance of information generated

abroad to the safety of products used in

the United States. Accordingly, to

assure that firms who obtain

information generated abroad are aware

that they should consider such

information in deciding whether there is

a need to report under section 15(b), the

staff recommended that the Commission

issue a policy statement to this effect.

On January 3, 2001, the Commission

solicited comments on a proposed

policy statement summarizing the

Commission’s position that, under

section 15(b), information concerning

products sold outside of the United

States may be relevant to defects and

hazards associated with products

distributed within the United States.

On May 17, 2001, after receiving and

analyzing the comments, the

Commission voted to issue a final policy

stating that information concerning

products manufactured or sold outside

of the United States which may be

relevant to the existence of potential

defects and hazards associated with

products distributed within the United

States should be evaluated and may be

reportable under section 15(b). The

Commission’s analysis of those

comments and the final policy

statement are published elsewhere in

this edition of the Federal Register.

The Commission believes that

members of the public should fully

understand their obligations under the

law. In the context of the obligation to

evaluate and, if necessary, to report

information from outside the United

States under section 15(b), the

Commission believes that it can best

accomplish this objective by amending

the existing interpretative rule to reflect

the substance of the policy statement.

Accordingly, the Commission proposes

to amend the interpretative rule as

30656 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

specified below. Although the

Commission previously accepted and

analyzed public comment on this

subject when it issued the policy

statement, the policy statement did not

offer a specific amendment to the

interpretative reporting rule. The

Commission has, therefore, elected to

solicit public comment on the proposed

amendment, even though, as an

amendment to an interpretative rule,

notice and comment is not required

under the Administrative Procedure

Act. To assist members of the public

who wish to comment, the Commission

has included the text of the final policy

statement in this notice.

Guidance Document on Reporting

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

About Potentially Hazardous Products

Manufactured or Distributed Outside

the United States

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:

• 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,

• 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

• 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 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 issues this policy statement

to assist those firms in complying with

the requirements of section 15(b) of the

Consumer Product Safety Act.

Proposed Effective Date: The

Commission proposes that this revision

become effective 30 days after the date

of publication of the revised final

intepretative rule in the Federal

Register.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1115

Administrative practice and

procedure, Business and industry,

Consumer protection, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

In accordance with the procedures of

5 U.S.C. 553 and under the authority of

the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15

U.S.C. 2051 et seq., the Commission

proposes to amend part 1115 of title 16,

Chapter II, of the Code of Federal

Regulations as follows:

PART 1115—SUBSTANTIAL PRODUCT

HAZARD REPORTS

1. The authority citation for part 1115

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2061, 2064, 2065,

2066(a), 2068, 2070, 2071, 2073, 2076, 2079

and 2084.

2. Section 1115.12(f) introductory text

is revised to read as follows:

§ 1115.12 Information which should be

reported; evaluating substantial product

hazards.

* * * * *

(f) Information which should be

studied and evaluated. Paragraphs (f)(1)

through (7) of this section are examples

of information which a subject firm

should study and evaluate in order to

determine whether it is obligated to

report under section 15(b) of the CPSA.

Such information may include

information about product experience,

performance, design, or manufacture

outside the United States that is relevant

to products sold or distributed in the

United States. All information should be

evaluated to determine whether it

suggests the existence of a

noncompliance, a defect, or an

unreasonable risk of serious injury or

death:

* * * * *

Dated: June 1, 2001.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

[FR Doc. 01–14298 Filed 6–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN135–1; FRL–6993–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On November 15, 2000, the

State of Indiana submitted a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

request to the EPA which tightens

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)

regulations for cold cleaning degreasing

operations in Clark, Floyd, Lake and

Porter Counties, which are

nonattainment for ozone. VOC combines

with oxides of nitrogen in the

atmosphere to form ground-level ozone,

commonly known as smog. Exposure to

ozone is associated with a wide variety