issue-1995-11-16•Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-16
Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-16
issue-1995-11-16Federal Register proposed rules — 1995-11-16Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 95-28358 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Containers
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57567-57569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28358]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 93-02; Notice 11]
RIN 2127-AF79
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Compressed Natural Gas
Fuel Containers
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to a request by the Aluminum Association, this
document proposes amending the specifications in FMVSS No. 304,
Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity, with respect to CNG
containers made with aluminum alloys. The proposed changes, if adopted,
would make FMVSS No. 304 consistent with the most recent voluntary
standard issued by the aluminum industry.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 2, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. Samuel
Daniel, NPS-01.01, Special Projects Staff, Office of Safety Performance
Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (Telephone 202-366-4921) (FAX 202-
366-4329).
For legal issues: Mr. Marvin L. Shaw, NCC-20, Rulemaking Division,
Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590
(Telephone 202-366-2992) (FAX 202-366-3820) (internet
[email protected])
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Final Rule Establishing FMVSS No. 304
On September 26, 1994, NHTSA published a final rule addressing the
safe performance of compressed natural gas (CNG) containers 1 (59
FR 49010). The final rule established a new Federal motor vehicle
safety standard (FMVSS) FMVSS No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas Fuel
Container Integrity. The Standard specifies pressure cycling, burst,
and bonfire tests for the purpose of ensuring the durability, initial
strength, and venting of CNG containers. In addition, the Standard
specifies labeling requirements for CNG fuel containers. FMVSS No. 304
took effect on March 27, 1995.
1 When used as a motor fuel, natural gas is stored on-
board a vehicle in cylindrical containers at a pressure of
approximately 20,684 kPa (3,000 psi). Among the terms used to
describe CNG fuel containers are tanks, containers, cylinders, and
high pressure vessels. The agency will refer to them as
``containers'' throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS No. 304 is patterned after the American National Standards
Institute's (ANSI's) voluntary industry standard known as ANSI/NGV2.
ANSI/NGV2 was developed by the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition. ANSI/NGV2
and FMVSS No. 304 specify detailed material and other requirements for
different types of CNG containers, including those made with aluminum
alloys. For each type of container, ANSI/NGV2 and FMVSS No. 304 specify
a unique safety factor for determining the internal hydrostatic
pressure that the container must withstand during the burst test. In
addition, a container must meet the applicable material and
manufacturing requirements as well as the burst test.
FMVSS No. 304 specifies certain material and manufacturing
characteristics for aluminum containers using alloy 6010 and alloy
6061. The material characteristics specify the percentage of various
elements, including magnesium, silicon, copper, and manganese. The
specifications for the two aluminum alloys listed in FMVSS No. 304 were
patterned after the specifications set forth in ANSI/NGV2. In
establishing the specifications applicable to aluminum alloys, the
Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition relied on the Aluminum Association
Standards Data document (Sixth Edition 1979).
On March 24, 1995, The Aluminum Association, Inc. (TAAI) submitted
a letter to NHTSA, requesting several changes be made to FMVSS No. 304,
with respect to specifications for aluminum alloys 6010 and 6061 which
are used to make CNG fuel containers. TAAI stated that FMVSS No. 304 is
inconsistent with the TAAI registered limits for materials used in
these two aluminum alloys. That organization stated that because the
1979 document, on which the FMVSS No. 304 composition tables are based,
has been superseded several times in recent years, the chemical
compositions for aluminum alloys set forth in FMVSS No. 304 do not
reflect the current compositions for these alloys, as accepted by the
aluminum industry. TAAI provided a copy of the most recent document in
which the industry aluminum alloy specifications are contained: The
Registration Record of Aluminum Association Designations and Chemical
Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys
(Revised December 1993).
The discrepancies between the 1993 Registration Record and FMVSS
No. 304 are as follows:
Alloy 6010:
*Chromium is shown in FMVSS No. 304 as an alloying element, as
opposed to an impurity which it is, with a 0.05% minimum limit as well
as the proper maximum limit of 0.10%
[[Page 57568]]
*Limits are defined for both Bismuth (0.003% maximum) and lead
(0.003% maximum). These individual elements are properly covered or
included in ``Others Each'' in TAAI's registration.
*Magnesium, silicon, copper, and manganese limits are shown to two
decimal places, instead of one, for levels greater than 0.55%.
Alloy 6061
*Magnesium limits are specified in FMVSS No. 304 as 0.60 to 1.20%,
as opposed to TAAI registered limits of 0.8 to 1.2%.
*Limits are defined for both bismuth (0.003%) and Lead (0.003%).
These individual elements are properly covered in ``Others Each'' in
TAAI's registration.
*Magnesium, silicon, and iron limits are all properly covered to
two decimal places, instead of one, for levels greater than 0.55%.
After reviewing the information supplied by TAAI, NHTSA has decided
to propose amending FMVSS No. 304 with respect to the aluminum alloy
specifications for CNG containers. The proposed changes, if adopted,
would make FMVSS No. 304 consistent with the most recent aluminum
industry specifications for those materials.2 The agency requests
comments about the appropriateness and safety implications of adopting
TAAI's request.
\2\ The agency has already corrected the magnesium limits for
alloy 6061 to the range of 0.80 to 1.20, based on a typographical
correction provided by the American Gas Association. This was
published on July 24 1995, as part of a final rule on petitions for
reconsideration on FMVSS No. 304 (60 FR 37836).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leadtime
The statute requires that each order (i.e., final rule) shall take
effect no sooner than 180 days from the date the order is issued unless
good cause is shown that an earlier effective date is in the public
interest. NHTSA has tentatively concluded that there would be good
cause not to provide the 180 day lead time given that this amendment
would have no adverse effect on manufacturers. The proposal merely
proposes minor changes to the chemical compositions in FMVSS No. 304.
Based on the above, the agency has tentatively concluded that there is
good cause for an effective date 30 days after publication of the final
rule. NHTSA requests comments about whether a 30 day effective date is
appropriate or whether more lead time is necessary.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulatory Planning and Review) and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposal was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. NHTSA has analyzed
this proposal and determined that it is not ``significant'' within the
meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. A full regulatory evaluation is not required because the
rule, if adopted, would have no effect on costs or benefits, since the
proposal adopts current industry specifications. The aluminum alloys
6010 and 6061 specified in FMVSS No. 304 have a slightly different
composition than alloys manufactured in accordance with current
specifications for these materials. TAAI did not identify any safety
problems such as reduced strength, durability or resistance to
environmental hazards that might result from this difference in
aluminum specifications for CNG containers. The potential costs,
benefits, and other impacts of not adopting this petition cannot be
quantified at this time.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NHTSA has
evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. Based upon this
evaluation, I certify that the proposed amendment would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
CNG container manufacturers typically would not qualify as small
entities. Further, as noted above, the proposed changes would not have
more than a minimal impact on the costs or benefits associated with
FMVSS No. 304. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis has been
prepared.
3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the proposed rule would not have sufficient Federalism
implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
4. National Environmental Policy Act
Finally, the agency has considered the environmental implications
of this proposed rule in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 and determined that the proposed rule would not
significantly affect the human environment.
5. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under
section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49
U.S.C. 30111), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard. Section 105 of the Act (49 U.S.C. 30161) sets forth a
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
Public Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
[[Page 57569]]
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, the agency proposes to amend
Standard No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container Integrity, in
Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations at Part 571 as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.304 would be amended by revising S5.2.2 to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.304 Standard No. 304, Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Container
Integrity
* * * * *
S5.2.2 Aluminum containers and aluminum liners. (Type 1, Type 2 and
Type 3) shall be 6010 alloy, 6061 alloy, and T6 temper. The aluminum
heat analysis shall be in conformance with one of the following grades:
Table Two.--Aluminum Heat Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade element 6010 alloy percent 6061 alloy percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnesium....................... 0.6 to 1.0........ 0.8 to 1.2
Silicon......................... 0.8 to 1.2........ 0.40 to 0.8
Copper.......................... 0.15 to 0.6....... 0.15 to 0.40
Chromium........................ 0.10 max.......... 0.04 to 0.35
Iron............................ 0.50 max.......... 0.7 max
Titanium........................ 0.10 max.......... 0.15 max
Manganese....................... 0.20 to 0.8....... 0.15 max
Zinc............................ 0.25 max.......... 0.25 max
Others, Each (1)................ 0.05 max.......... 0.05 max
Others, Total (1) (2)........... 0.15 max.......... 0.15 max
Aluminum min.................... Remainder......... Remainder
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) ``Others'' includes listed elements for which no specific limit
is shown as well as unlisted metallic elements. The producer may
analyze samples for trace elements not specified in the registration or
specification. However, such analysis is not required and may not cover
all metallic ``other'' elements. Should any analysis by the producer or
purchaser establish that an ``others'' element exceeds the limit of
``Each'' or that the aggregate of several ``others'' elements exceeds
the limit of ``Total,'' the material shall be considered non-
conforming.
(b) The sum of those ``Others'' metallic elements 0.10 percent or
more each, expressed to the second decimal before determining the sum.
(Registration Record of Aluminum Association Designations and Chemical
Composition Limits for Wrought Aluminum and Wrought Aluminum Alloys,
The Aluminum Association, Inc. Rev. Dec. 1993)
* * * * *
Issued on: November 13, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-28358 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28357 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Brake Hoses; Whip Resistance Test
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57562-57565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28357]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-88, Notice 01]
RIN 2127-AG02
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Brake Hoses; Whip
Resistance Test
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: As the result of an inquiry from Earl's Performance Products,
this document proposes to amend Standard
[[Page 57563]]
No. 106, Brake Hoses, by revising the whip resistance test. Under the
proposal, it would be permissible, for the purpose of the test, to
mount such brake hose assemblies using a supplemental support. This
proposal would serve to amend a provision that has the unintended
consequence of prohibiting the manufacture and sale for use on the
public roads of a type of brake hose that has significant safety
advantages.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before January 16,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted to: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
Docket hours are 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues: Mr. Richard
Carter, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20590. (202-366-5274).
For legal issues: Mr. Marvin L. Shaw, NCC-20, Rulemaking Division,
Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-
366-2992).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, specifies labeling and performance
requirements for motor vehicle brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and
brake hose end fittings. The Standard includes several requirements,
including one for whip resistance. Section S5.3.3, Whip resistance,
specifies that ``A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall not rupture when
run continuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours.'' The purpose of
the whip resistance requirement is to replicate the bending cycles that
a brake hose experiences when mounted on a vehicle's front axle. The
flexing machine simulates the turning of the front wheels combined with
the jounce and rebound of the wheel on rough roads.
Section S6.3 specifies the test conditions for the whip resistance
test, including the testing apparatus, test preparation, and test
operation. The standard specifies that the testing apparatus is
required to be equipped with capped end fittings that permit mounting
at each end point. The present specifications requirements for the whip
test apparatus are patterned after an existing Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE's) Recommended Practice, J1401, Hydraulic Brake Hose
Assemblies for Use with Nonpetroleum Based Hydraulic Fluids (June
1990).
II. Request for Interpretation and NHTSA's Response
On December 8, 1994, Earl's Performance Products (Earl's) contacted
the agency requesting an interpretation of the whip resistance
requirements in Standard No. 106. Specifically, that company asked
about the permissibility of using an alternative whip resistance test
apparatus for testing hydraulic brake hose. Earl's is seeking
permission to use the alternative fixture because it wishes to begin
selling its armored brake hose for use on the public roads and its hose
will not pass the present whip resistance test. The test fixture would
provide a pivoted supplemental hose support for use with Earl's brake
hose, which is armored with braided stainless steel. The alternative
test fixture is based on the manner in which its brake hose is
currently mounted on racing vehicles and in which it would be mounted
on vehicles used on the public roads if the agency adopts the amendment
requested by Earl's. The Standard specifies that the test sample be
``mounted through bearings at each end * * *'' (S6.3.1(a)) Earl's
armored brake hoses are installed differently than conventional hoses,
since Earl's hoses, unlike conventional hoses, are attached to the
vehicle frame.
Earl's has manufactured its armored brake hose for use in off-road,
high performance race cars since the 1960s. It claimed that its product
is of very high quality and easily meets all of the requirements in
Standard No. 106, except the whip resistance test. Its product fails
the whip resistance test due to cyclic stress at the interface between
the hose and the swaged collar at the fixed end of the hose assembly.
Such cyclic stress occurs in the real world also, but does not pose a
problem in that environment because the hose is protected by the
supplemental support.
Earl's further indicated that it had successfully tested hose
assemblies from 9 inches to 24 inches using its new test fixture. In
describing its test fixture, that company stated that
* * * the whip dampener consists of a spherical bearing enclosed
in a machined housing. The housing clips into the OEM bracket where
the OEM hard brake tubing joins to the flexible brake hose. The
flexible brake hose of stainless armored teflon is inserted through
the bearing on assembly and cannot be removed. Suitable threaded
couplings * * * are provided at each end of the assembly to match
the OEM threads at the end of the hard lines and at the caliper of
the wheel cylinder * * *
On April 24, 1995, NHTSA responded to Earl's request for an
interpretation, by stating that
Section S6.3 cannot be interpreted to permit mounting the brake
hose at the ``whip dampener.'' S6.3.1 Apparatus specifies a test
apparatus that mounts the brake hose at ``capped end fittings'' on
one end and ``open end fittings'' on the other, and specifies no
mounting points in between. Thus a test apparatus that mounts the
brake hose at a ``whip dampener,'' which is not an end fitting would
not meet Standard No. 106.
The agency then stated that it would initiate rulemaking to further
consider whether to amend the whip resistance test to permit a
supplemental support.
III. Agency Proposal
After reviewing the issues raised in the letter from Earl's, NHTSA
has decided to propose amending the whip resistance test of Standard
No. 106. Under this proposal, section S6.3.2 would be amended to permit
a pivoted supplemental support, thereby providing an optional way to
mount certain brake hose assemblies during the test. Without such an
amendment, those armored hoses would remain prohibited because they
cannot comply with the current whip resistant test. The proposed
amendment is intended to allow the mounting of Earl's brake hose
assembly in the same way that it is mounted in the real world. The
proposal applies to those brake hose assemblies that are fitted with a
supplemental support which cannot be removed from the hose without
destroying the hose. The supplemental support would be placed so that
it is spaced in accordance with the recommendation of the brake hose
assembly manufacturer. The agency invites comments about the
appropriateness of the proposed modification to the whip resistance
test.
NHTSA believes that the provision it proposes to amend has the
unintended consequence of prohibiting the manufacture and sale for use
on the public roads of a type of brake hose that has significant safety
advantages. Among the safety advantages are the elimination of hose
swell under pressure which results in a significant reduction in brake
pedal travel and a much firmer brake pedal feel. The firmer pedal
allows the driver to modulate braking force more precisely. These
safety advantages are relevant in ``typical road environments.'' The
agency notes that armored brake hoses are designed to withstand
operating conditions, such as those experienced in racing environments,
that are significantly more severe than those experienced in typical
road environments. Brake hoses of this type
[[Page 57564]]
are of higher quality and more expensive than those typically installed
for use on the public roads.
Leadtime
The statute requires that each order shall take effect no sooner
than 180 days from the date the order is issued unless good cause is
shown that an earlier effective date is in the public interest. 49
U.S.C. 30111(d) NHTSA has tentatively concluded that there would be
good cause not to provide the 180 day lead time given that this
amendment would have no adverse effect on manufacturers. The proposal
merely specifies an alternative method of testing certain brake hoses.
Based on the above, the agency has tentatively concluded that there is
good cause for an effective date 30 days after publication of the final
rule. NHTSA requests comments about whether a 30 day effective date is
appropriate or whether more leadtime is necessary.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
1. Executive Order 12866 (Federal Regulatory Planning and Review) and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
This proposal was not reviewed under E.O. 12866. NHTSA has analyzed
this proposal and determined that it is not ``significant'' within the
meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and
procedures. A full regulatory evaluation is not required because the
rule, if adopted, would have no mandatory effects. Instead, the
proposed rule would permit the use of brake hoses which are designed to
be installed using a supplemental support, such as those manufactured
by the petitioner that are armored with braided stainless steel.
Therefore, this rulemaking would not have any cost impacts.
2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NHTSA has
evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. Based upon this
evaluation, I certify that the proposed amendment would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Vehicle and brake hose manufacturers typically would not qualify as
small entities. Further, as noted above, the proposal would have
minimal, if any impacts on costs or benefits. Accordingly, no
regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.
3. Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612, and it has been determined
that the proposed rule would not have sufficient Federalism
implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment. No
State laws would be affected.
4. National Environmental Policy Act
Finally, the agency has considered the environmental implications
of this proposed rule in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 and determined that the proposed rule would not
significantly affect the human environment.
5. Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under
section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49
U.S.C. 30111), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard. Section 105 of the Act (49 U.S.C. 30161) sets forth a
procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or
revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not
require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
Public Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR Part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons
continue to examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, the agency proposes to amend
Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, in Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations at Part 571 as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for Part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Sec. 571.121 would be amended by adding S6.3.2(d), which would
read as follows:
Sec. 571.121 Standard No. 106; Brake Hoses.
* * * * *
S6.3.2 * * *
(d) For a brake hose assembly fitted with a supplemental support
which cannot be removed from the hose without destroying the hose, the
brake hose assembly may be mounted using a supplemental support. Mount
the supplemental support in the same vertical and horizontal planes as
the stationary header end of the whip test fixture described in
S6.3.1(b). Place the supplemental support so that it is spaced in
accordance with the recommendation of the brake hose assembly
manufacturer for mounting the hose assembly on a vehicle.
* * * * *
[[Page 57565]]
Issued on: November 13, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-28357 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28351 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Steering Control Rearward Displacement
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57565-57567]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28351]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-79; Notice 1]
RIN 2127-AG01
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Steering Control Rearward
Displacement
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to exclude certain vehicles from the
application of the agency's standard on steering control rearward
displacement. The excluded vehicles would be passenger cars and other
light vehicles that are certified to comply with the frontal barrier
crash test requirements of the agency's occupant crash protection
standard by means of an air bag. The agency believes that the
engineering considerations that go into designing a vehicle with air
bags would ensure that the vehicle would have the same performance for
steering control rearward displacement as is currently required by
regulation.
DATES: Comment Date: Comments must be received by January 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice number of
this notice and be submitted to: Docket Section, Room 5109, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20590. (Docket Room hours are 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Clarke B. Harper, Office of
Vehicle Safety Standards, NPS-12, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202) 366-2264. Fax: (202) 366-4329. For legal issues: Mr.
Edward Glancy, Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-20, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC
20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the March 4, 1995 directive,
``Regulatory Reinvention Initiative,'' from the President to the heads
of departments and agencies, NHTSA has undertaken a review of all its
regulations and directives. During the course of this review, the
agency identified several regulations that are potential candidates for
rescission or amendment. One of these regulations is Standard No. 204,
Steering Control Rearward Displacement, which may be redundant for
certain vehicles, given the actions which are separately required to be
taken to comply with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.
Standard No. 204 specifies requirements that limit the rearward
motion of the steering column in a frontal crash. The standard
specifies that the upper end of the steering column and shaft may not
be displaced horizontally rearward more than 5 inches in a 30-mile-per-
hour frontal barrier crash test. The standard applies to passenger cars
and other light vehicles.
Standard No. 204 is one of the agency's original safety standards.
In conjunction with Standard No. 203, Impact Protection For The Driver
From The Steering Control System, the standard is intended to reduce
the likelihood of chest, neck or head injuries in frontal impact
accidents.
In 1975, NHTSA amended Standard No. 203 to exclude from its
requirements vehicles that complied with the frontal barrier crash test
requirements (S5.1) of Standard No. 208 by means other than safety
belts, i.e., by air bags. 40 FR 17992, April 24, 1975. NHTSA stated at
that time that redundant occupant crash protection offered by certain
standards is justified for those situations where the primary occupant
crash protection system fails or multiple collisions occur. However,
NHTSA determined that the redundant protection of Standard No. 203 was
not justified where it directly interfered with the development of a
more advanced, convenient and effective occupant protection system,
such as air bags.
In 1988, NHTSA denied a petition for rulemaking from Mitsubishi
which requested that the agency amend Standard No. 204 to exclude
vehicles that comply with the frontal barrier crash test requirements
of Standard No. 208 by means other than safety belts. 53 FR 780,
January 13, 1988. The agency stated:
The agency does not agree that the protection provided by
Standard No. 204 is unnecessary for vehicles equipped with air bags.
The standard essentially requires hardware to disconnect steering
gear movement from the steering column under crash conditions. The
standard provides protection to the driver of an air bag equipped
vehicle against chest, neck or head injuries which could occur in
frontal collisions at speeds below the deployment level of the
vehicle's air bag, or in angular impacts where an air bag might not
be as likely to deploy. NHTSA further believes that, in the absence
of Standard No. 204, it is possible for a steering assembly to
displace more than five inches in a situation where the injury
criteria of Standard No. 208 were met. Thus, although the driver's
impact with the assembly fell within the injury criteria of the
latter standard, the rearward motion of the assembly might entrap
the driver or make escape from the vehicle more difficult.
In the context of reviewing whether any of its requirements are no
longer necessary, NHTSA believes it is appropriate to reconsider the
position it took in denying the Mitsubishi petition. In particular, the
agency believes that it should distinguish between whether it is
possible for a steering assembly to displace more than five inches in a
situation where an air-bag-equipped vehicle meets the injury criteria
of Standard No. 208, and whether there is any reasonable likelihood of
such an event.
NHTSA believes that one of the most fundamental engineering
considerations that manufacturers take into account in designing an
air-bag-equipped vehicle is to provide a secure platform for the air
bag. This is because, in order to design an effective air bag, the
designer must know the relative location of the air bag and the
protected occupant. If the air bag platform were moving up or down, or
backwards or forward during a crash, it could adversely affect
performance. Since the driver air bag is located on the steering
column, NHTSA believes that the engineering consideration of ensuring
that the air bag platform remains secure will lead manufacturers to
take steps that will also ensure that Standard No. 204's specified
performance for steering control rearward displacement is satisfied,
even in the absence of such standard.
NHTSA also believes that another important engineering
consideration that manufacturers take into account in designing air-bag
equipped vehicles is ensuring that the air bags are not too close to
the vehicle occupants. This is an important consideration because a
deploying air bag can injure a person who is sitting too close to the
air bag.
The agency notes that the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association
(now called the American Automobile Manufacturers Association) was
sufficiently concerned about the issue of proper spacing between
vehicle occupants and air bags to petition NHTSA to require a vehicle
label that would, among other things, caution passengers not to sit
unnecessarily close to the point from which the air bag will be
deployed. As a result of this petition, the agency amended Standard No.
208
[[Page 57566]]
to require a label providing this information. See 57 FR 59043,
December 14, 1992, and 58 FR 46551, September 2, 1993.
The agency believes that manufacturers take account of this same
concern in designing their air-bag equipped vehicles. Hence, the
consideration of ensuring that the driver air bag is not too close to
the driver will lead manufacturers to limit rearward movement of the
steering column in a crash, i.e., movement toward the driver, even in
the absence of a regulation.
For the reasons discussed above, NHTSA has tentatively concluded
that the requirements of Standard No. 204 are unnecessary for vehicles
which are certified to comply with the frontal barrier crash test
requirements of Standard No. 208 by means of air bags. The agency is
accordingly proposing to exclude such vehicles from the applicability
of Standard No. 204.
The agency emphasizes that the reason for its tentative conclusion
that Standard No. 204 is unnecessary for these vehicles is its belief,
discussed above, that the engineering considerations that go into
designing a vehicle with air bags would ensure that the vehicle would
have the same performance for steering control rearward displacement as
is currently required by Standard No. 204. NHTSA continues to believe
in the importance of limiting steering control rearward displacement,
and specifically requests comments on its belief that Standard No.
208's air bag requirements will indirectly ensure this aspect of safety
performance. Comments are specifically sought on whether a rescission
of this requirement in Standard No. 204 could lead to an increase in
injuries of a type not protected against in Standard No. 208.
The agency is proposing an effective date of 30 days after
publication of a final rule. NHTSA believes that there would be good
cause for such an effective date since the amendment would not impose
any new requirements but instead reduce manufacturers' costs without
any adverse impact on safety.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
E.O. 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies
and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under E.O.
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' This action has been
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. NHTSA believes
that there would be no gain or loss of benefits from Standards No. 204
as a result of excluding vehicles which are certified to comply with
the frontal barrier crash test requirements of Standard No. 208 by
means of air bags. This is because, for reasons discussed above, these
vehicles would continue to have the same performance with respect to
steering control rearward displacement as vehicles without air bags.
Manufacturers would have minor, nonquantifiable cost savings as they
would no longer have to certify compliance with this requirement.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
NHTSA has also considered the impacts of this notice under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I hereby certify that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The rule would not impose any new requirements but
would instead exclude from the applicability of Standard No. 204 those
light vehicles that are equipped with air bags. The proposed rule, if
made final, would likely result in small, nonquantifiable cost savings
for motor vehicle manufacturers since they would not need to certify
the vehicles to Standard No. 204. The cost savings would be too small
to have any significant impact on vehicle prices. Therefore, small
businesses, small organizations and small governmental units which
purchase motor vehicles would not be significantly affected by the
proposed rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-
511), there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA has also analyzed this proposed rule under the National
Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have a
significant impact on the human environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
NHTSA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in E.O. 12612, and has determined that this
proposed rule would not have significant federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Civil Justice Reform
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 49
U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in
effect, a State may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable
to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal
standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a
higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for
the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial
review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor
vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a
petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court.
Submission of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the proposal.
It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments must not exceed 15 pages in length. (49 CFR 553.21).
Necessary attachments may be appended to these submissions without
regard to the 15-page limit. This limitation is intended to encourage
commenters to detail their primary arguments in a concise fashion.
If a commenter wishes to submit certain information under a claim
of confidentiality, three copies of the complete submission, including
purportedly confidential business information, should be submitted to
the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the street address given above, and seven
copies from which the purportedly confidential information has been
deleted should be submitted to the Docket Section. A request for
confidentiality should be accompanied by a cover letter setting forth
the information specified in the agency's confidential business
information regulation. 49 CFR part 512.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment
closing date indicated above for the proposal will be considered, and
will be available for examination in the docket at the above address
both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed
after the closing date will also be considered. Comments received too
late for consideration in regard to the final rule will be considered
as suggestions for further rulemaking action. Comments on the proposal
will be available for inspection in the docket. The NHTSA will continue
to file relevant information as it becomes available in the docket
after the
[[Page 57567]]
closing date, and it is recommended that interested persons continue to
examine the docket for new material.
Those persons desiring to be notified upon receipt of their
comments in the rules docket should enclose a self-addressed, stamped
postcard in the envelope with their comments. Upon receiving the
comments, the docket supervisor will return the postcard by mail.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 571
Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, tires.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 571 would be amended
as follows:
PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
1. The authority citation for part 571 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. Section 571.204 would be amended by revising S2 to read as
follows:
Sec. 571.204 Standard No. 204; Steering control rearward displacement.
* * * * *
S2. Application. This standard applies to passenger cars and to
multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses. However it does not
apply to vehicles that conform to the frontal barrier crash protection
requirement (S5.1) of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR 571.208) by means of an
inflatable restraint system. It also does not apply to walk-in vans.
* * * * *
Issued on November 13, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-28351 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28344 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hettinger, ND, Hettinger Municipal Airport
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57550-57552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28344]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57551]]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AGL-17]
Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hettinger, ND,
Hettinger Municipal Airport
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to establish Class E airspace at
Hettinger, ND. A Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument
approach procedure (SIAP) to Runway 30 has been developed for the
Hettinger Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from
700 feet above ground level (AGL) and from 1200 feet AGL is needed for
aircraft executing the approach. The intended effect of this proposal
is to provide segregation of aircraft using instrument approach
procedures in instrument conditions from other aircraft operating in
visual weather conditions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 29, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of the Assistant Chief Counsel, AGL-7,
Rules Docket No. 95-AGL-17, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines,
Illinois 60018
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue,
Des Plaines, Illinois. An informal docket may also be examined during
normal business hours at the Air Traffic Division, System Management
Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des
Plaines, Illinois.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eleanor J. Williams, Air Traffic Division, System Management Branch,
AGL-530, Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des
Plaines, Illinois 60018, telephone (708) 294-7568.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 95-
AGL-17.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received on or before the specified
closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on
the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed
in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available
for examination in the Rules Docket, FAA, Great Lakes Region, Office of
the Assistant Chief Counsel, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines,
Illinois, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report
summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202)
267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's
should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which
describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to establish Class E airspace at
Hettinger, ND. This proposal would provide adequate Class E airspace
for operators executing the GPS Runway 30 SIAP at Hettinger Municipal
Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL and
1200 feet AGL is needed for aircraft executing the approach. The
intended effect of this action is to provide segregation of aircraft
using instrument approach procedures in instruments conditions from
other aircraft operating in visual weather conditions. The area would
be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts thereby enabling pilots
to circumnavigate the area or otherwise comply with IFR procedures.
Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward from
700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in
paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995, and
effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document
would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore this, proposed regulation--(1) is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
Regulatory 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 will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
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; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
[[Page 57552]]
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth
* * * * *
AGL ND E5 Hettinger, ND [New]
Hettinger Municipal Airport, ND
(Lat. 46 deg.00'56''N, long. 102 deg.39'20''W).
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Hettinger Municipal Airport and
within 1.9 miles each side of the 136 bearing from the Hettinger
Municipal Airport from the 6.4-mile radius to 8.9 miles southeast of
the airport, and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
above the surface bounded by a line beginning at Lat. 462000N/Long.
1025800W, to Lat. 462000N/Long. 1024400W, to Lat. 454500N/Long.
1020900W, to Lat. 454500N./Long. 1025800W to point of beginning
excluding that airspace previously described as Victor 491.
* * * * *
Issued in Des Plaines, Illinois on October 31, 1995.
Maureen Woods,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division.
[FR Doc. 95-28344 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28343 Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Rice Lake, WI
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28343]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-AGL-8]
Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Rice Lake, WI
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action withdraws the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
which proposed to revise Class E airspace to accommodate a
Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB) for runway 19 approach at Rice Lake
Municipal Airport, Rice Lake, WI. The NPRM is being withdrawn as a
result of wrong geographical coordinates and airport name change.
DATES: This withdrawal is effective November 16, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eleanor J. Williams, Air Traffic Division, System Management Branch,
AGL-530, Federal Aviation Administration, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des
Plaines, Illinois 60018, telephone (708) 294-7568.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Proposed Rule
On August 4, 1995, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in
the Federal Register to revise Class E airspace to accommodate a
Nondirectional Radio Beacon (NDB) for runway 19 approach at Rice Lake
Municipal Airport, Rice Lake, WI (60 FR 39893).
Subsequent to publication in the Federal Register it was discovered
that the geographical coordinates and airport name were in error.
Conclusion
In consideration of the erroneous information, action to revise the
Class E airspace serving Rice Lake Municipal Airport, Rice Lake, WI,
has been withdrawn.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Withdrawal of Proposed Rule
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Airspace
Docket No. 95-AGL-8, as published in the Federal Register on August 4,
1995, (60 FR 39893), is hereby withdrawn.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
* * * * *
Issued in Des Plaines, IL, on November 2, 1995.
Maureen Woods,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division.
[FR Doc. 95-28343 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28325 Viruses, Serums, Toxins, and Analogous Products; Rabies Vaccine, Killed Virus and Rabies Vaccine, Live Virus
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57549-57550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28325]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 113
[Docket No. 95-012-1]
Viruses, Serums, Toxins, and Analogous Products; Rabies Vaccine,
Killed Virus and Rabies Vaccine, Live Virus
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the standard requirements for
establishing the immunogenicity of Rabies Vaccine, Killed Virus and
Rabies Vaccine, Live Virus. The amendment would change and clarify
alternate test procedures which may be used in animals other than
carnivores. Under the proposed rule, when a reduced number of challenge
animals is used in a rabies immunogenicity test, all vaccinates must
survive challenge. If one or more of the challenged vaccinates die of
rabies, all of the remainder of the vaccinates would have to be
challenged or the test would be deemed unsatisfactory and terminated.
This proposed action would correct a problem associated with rabies
immunogenicity tests in the regulations and make other changes deemed
necessary for clarity and consistency.
DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or
before January 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to
Docket No. 95-012-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
state that your comments refer to Docket No. 95-012-1. Comments
received may be inspected at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th
Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to
inspect comments are requested to call ahead (202) 690-2817 to
facilitate entry into the comment reading room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David A. Espeseth, Deputy
Director, Veterinary Biologics, BBEP, APHIS, USDA, 4700 River Road Unit
148, Riverdale, MD 20737-1237, (301) 734-8245.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 113 pertain to standard requirements
for the preparation of veterinary biological products. A standard
requirement consists of test methods, procedures, and criteria
established by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to
determine that a veterinary biological product is pure, safe, potent,
and efficacious and not worthless, dangerous, contaminated, or harmful.
The standard requirements for Rabies Vaccine, Killed Virus, and for
Rabies Vaccine, Live Virus, appear in Secs. 113.209 and 113.312,
respectively. Sections 113.209(b)(4) and 113.312(b)(4) provide for an
alternative immunogenicity test, for domestic species other than dogs
and cats, that reduces the number of animals that must be challenged to
a minimum of five vaccinates and five unvaccinated control animals. The
regulations require that a minimum of 25 animals be vaccinated and
blood be taken for serology at prescribed intervals postvaccination.
All surviving test animals must be challenged 1 year after vaccination
unless the alternative test is used. In the case of the alternative
test for domestic species other than dogs or cats, the five vaccinates
with the lowest rabies antibody titers at each of the last two
bleedings, and all vaccinates with titers below 1:10, as determined by
the mouse serum neutralization (SN) test or below 1:16 by the rapid-
fluorescent-focus-inhibition test at any bleeding, must be challenged
at 1 year after vaccination.
The following example illustrates how the current regulations can
lead to different interpretations for the rabies immunogenicity test
for species other than dogs and cats. The regulations in
Secs. 113.209(b)(3)(v) and 113.312(b)(3)(v) (applicable to all animal
species) require that the statistical equivalent of 22 out of 25 or 26
out of 30 vaccinates remain well for 90 days after challenge. If only
five vaccinates are challenged and three die of rabies, the test would
be deemed unsatisfactory under Secs. 113.209(b)(3)(v) and
113.312(b)(3)(v). The results would be considered unsatisfactory
because survival of 2 of 5 animals is not statistically equivalent to
survival of 22 of 25 or 26 of 30 animals.
Sections 113.209(b)(4) and 113.312(b)(4) (which apply to animals
other than dogs and cats), however, state that all unchallenged
vaccinates shall be considered protected for purposes of the test when
evaluated for acceptance. The previous test would be considered
satisfactory under Secs. 113.209(b)(4) and 113.312(b)(4), since the
unchallenged vaccinates would be deemed protected, meeting the
requirement that 22 of the 25 vaccinates be protected for a
satisfactory test. For this reason, the
[[Page 57550]]
regulations in Secs. 113.209(b)(4) and 113.312(b)(4) need to be
amended.
Sections 113.209(b)(4) and 113.312(b)(4) also need to be amended
because serologic titer is not sufficiently correlated with efficacy to
ensure that all of the unchallenged vaccinates in a reduced
immunogenicity test would be protected after a real challenge.
The amendment would clarify which of the vaccinates should be
challenged under Secs. 113.209(b)(4) and 113.312(b)(4), and would
require that all challenged vaccinates remain well for 90 days in order
for the test to be satisfactory. The amendment would specify that the
reduced immunogenicity test described in Secs. 113.209(b)(4) and
113.312(b)(4) may not be used for carnivores (e.g., dogs, cats, and
ferrets). The amendment would therefore exclude from a reduced
challenge test species of animals that have a high potential for
transmitting rabies.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
This proposed rule amending Secs. 113.209 and 113.312 is necessary
to clarify the regulations regarding the rabies immunogenicity test.
The amendment would clarify which animals are to be challenged in a
reduced immunogenicity study and the procedures to follow when one or
more of the vaccinates die of rabies. The proposed amendment would
require that additional vaccinates be challenged if one of the low
titer vaccinates succumbs to rabies. In 7 of the last 10 rabies
challenge tests of non-carnivores, firms elected to challenge 25 or
more animals. In the remaining three cases in which a reduced number of
animals were challenged in accordance with current Sec. 113.209 or
Sec. 113.312, paragraph (b)(4), no additional animals were challenged
and no additional animals would have been challenged under the proposed
rule. The proposed amendment, therefore, would have minimal economic
effect.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State
and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will
be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and
(3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may
file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no new information collection or record
keeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 113
Animal biologics, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Accordingly, 9 CFR part 113 would be amended as follows:
PART 113--STANDARD REQUIREMENTS
1. The authority citation for part 113 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 151-159; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).
2. Section 113.209 would be amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) to
read as follows:
Sec. 113.209 Rabies Vaccine, Killed Virus.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) An alternative to challenging all surviving test animals in
accordance with paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section may be used when
the test animals are of species other than carnivores. Vaccinates shall
be challenged at 1 year postvaccination. These shall include five
vaccinates with the lowest SN titers at the 270th-day bleeding, five
vaccinates with the lowest SN titers at the 365th-day bleeding, and all
vaccinates with SN titers below 1:10 by the mouse SN test or below 1:16
by the rapid-fluorescent-focus-inhibition test at any bleeding. At
least five SN-negative controls of each species shall be challenged at
the same time as the vaccinates. All SN titers shall be titrated to an
endpoint. All of the challenged vaccinates must remain well for a
period of 90 days, and at least 80 percent of the controls must die of
rabies for a satisfactory test without further challenge. If one or
more of the vaccinates die from rabies, all the remaining vaccinates,
regardless of titer, along with the five controls shall be challenged.
The cumulative results from the two challenges shall be evaluated for
acceptance as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this section.
3. Section 113.312 would be amended by revising the section heading
and paragraph (b)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 113.312 Rabies Vaccine, Live Virus.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) An alternative to challenging all surviving test animals in
accordance with paragraph (b)(3)(iv) of this section may be used when
the test animals are of species other than carnivores. Vaccinates shall
be challenged at 1 year postvaccination. These shall include five
vaccinates with the lowest SN titers at the 270th-day bleeding, five
vaccinates with the lowest SN titers at the 365th-day bleeding, and all
vaccinates with SN titers below 1:10 by the mouse SN test or below 1:16
by the rapid-fluorescent-focus-inhibition test at any bleeding. At
least five SN-negative controls of each species shall be challenged at
the same time as the vaccinates. All SN titers shall be titrated to an
endpoint. All of the challenged vaccinates must remain well for a
period of 90 days, and at least 80 percent of the controls must die of
rabies for a satisfactory test without further challenge. If one or
more of the vaccinates die from rabies, all the remaining vaccinates,
regardless of titer, along with the five controls shall be challenged.
The cumulative results from the two challenges shall be evaluated for
acceptance as specified in paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this section.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 8th day of November 1995.
Terry L. Medley,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 95-28325 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28324 Irish Potatoes Grown in Maine; Proposed Termination of Marketing Order No. 950
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57548-57549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28324]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 221 / Thursday, November 16, 1995 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 57548]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 950
[Docket No. FV95-950-1PR]
Irish Potatoes Grown in Maine; Proposed Termination of Marketing
Order No. 950
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule proposes to terminate the Federal marketing order
regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Maine (order) and
the rules and regulations issued thereunder. The Maine potato industry
has not operated under the order for almost three decades and the
current order does not reflect current industry structure and operating
procedures. Thus, there is no need for the Department of Agriculture to
continue this order.
DATES: Comments must be received by December 18, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
concerning this proposal. Comments must be sent in triplicate to the
Docket Clerk, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456,
room 2523-S, Washington, D.C. 20090-6456; FAX (202) 720-5698. Comments
should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this
issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public
inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business
hours.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Matthews, Marketing Order
Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.
Box 96456, room 2523-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456, telephone (202) 690-
0464, FAX (202) 720-5698.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed rule is governed by the
provisions of section 608c(16)(A) of the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter
referred to as the Act and Sec. 950.84 of the order.
This regulatory action is being taken as a part of the National
Performance Review to eliminate unnecessary regulations and to improve
those that remain in force.
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule is not intended to have
retroactive effect. This proposed rule would not preempt any State or
local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an
irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has a principal
place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the Secretary's
ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is filed not later
than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small
entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 750 producers. Some of them are also
handlers who would be subject to seasonal handling regulations under
the order, but no such regulations have been implemented since the
1967-68 season, and there is no indication that such regulations will
again be needed. Small agricultural producers have been defined by the
Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those having annual
receipts of less than $500,000, and small agricultural service firms,
which include handlers, are defined as those whose annual receipts are
less than $5,000,000. The majority of the Maine potato producers and
handlers may be classified as small entities.
The order was initially established on August 24, 1954, to help the
industry solve specific marketing problems and maintain orderly
marketing conditions. It was the responsibility of the Maine Potato
Marketing Committee (committee), the agency established for local
administration of the marketing order, to periodically investigate and
assemble data on the growing, harvesting, shipping, and marketing
conditions of Maine potatoes. The committee endeavored to achieve
orderly marketing and improve acceptance of Maine potatoes through the
establishment of minimum size and quality requirements. When regulated,
fresh potato shipments consisted only of those grades and sizes desired
by consumers.
Although the Department has not conducted interviews of current
industry members with respect to the need for a marketing order,
neither has it received recent inquiries from the industry asking for
reactivation. The Maine potato industry has not operated under the
marketing order for almost three decades. Regulations have not been
applied to Maine potato handlers since the late 1960's and a committee
to locally administer the marketing order has not been appointed since
the early 1970's. In August 1954, when the marketing order was issued,
there were almost 4,500 producers of Maine potatoes. Currently, there
are about 750 producers.
While a sizeable potato industry remains active in Maine, there
seems to be virtually no interest in a marketing order. Most of the
members appointed to the last committee have retired from commercial
potato production or handling.
[[Page 57549]]
Over the years, there have been periodic inquiries about reviving
the marketing order, but no formal requests for reactivation have ever
materialized. In any case, with the passage of time and changes in
industry structure and operating practices since the order was
formulated, a much revised marketing order would have to be
established. The need for a new marketing order would have to be
justified and supported by a large majority of current Maine potato
producers. This would require a public hearing and a producer
referendum. Thus, there is little justification to continue the current
marketing order.
We believe that conducting a termination referendum would merely
reaffirm the Maine potato industry's continued lack of interest in a
marketing order and that conducting such a referendum would be wasteful
of Departmental and public resources.
Therefore, pursuant to section 608c(16)(A) of the Act and
Sec. 950.84 of the order, the Department is considering the termination
of Marketing Order No. 950, covering Irish potatoes grown in Maine. If
the Secretary decides to terminate the order, trustees would not need
to be appointed to continue in the capacity of concluding and
liquidating the affairs of the former committee, since no funds or
property remain to be distributed or liquidated.
Section 608c(16)(A) of the Act requires the Secretary to notify
Congress 60 days in advance of the termination of a Federal marketing
order. Congress will be so notified upon publication of this proposed
rule.
Based on the foregoing, the Administrator of the AMS has determined
that this action would not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to
respond to this proposal. All written comments timely received will be
considered before a final determination is made on this matter.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 950
Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Potatoes.
PART 950--[REMOVED]
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, and under the authority
of 7 U.S.C. 601-674, 7 CFR part 950 is proposed to be removed.
Dated: November 9, 1995.
Kenneth C. Clayton,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-28324 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28296 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment; November Advisory Committee Public Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 57562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28296]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. 95-28; Notice 4]
RIN 2127-AF73
Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment; November
Advisory Committee Public Meeting
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); DOT.
ACTION: Notice; change of location of November Advisory Committee
Meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces a change in the dates and location of
the November meeting of NHTSA's Advisory Committee on Regulatory
Negotiation (concerning the improvement of headlamp aimability
performance and visual/optical headlamp aiming).
DATES: Tuesday-Thursday, November 28-30.
ADDRESSES: The November meetings of the Advisory Committee will be held
at Maryland State Highway Administration, 7491 Connelly Drive, Hanover,
Maryland 21076.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jere Medlin, Office of Vehicle Safety
Standards, NHTSA (Phone: 202-366-5276; FAX: 202-366-4329). Mediator:
Lynn Sylvester, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (phone: 202-
606-9140; FAX: 202-606-3679).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Notice 3 of Docket No. 95-28, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced that
the November meetings of the Advisory Committee for the purposes of
negotiating the contents of the preamble and a proposed amendment to 49
CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective
Devices, and Associated Equipment to develop recommended specifications
for adding a visual/optical aimability requirement for the lower beam
headlamp, would be held on Tuesday/Wednesday November 28/29 beginning
at 9:00 a.m. in room 2230 of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC (60 FR 42496).
The Committee has decided to hold a third day of meetings, on
Thursday, November 30, and to conduct all its November meetings at the
offices of the Maryland State Highway Administration, 7491 Connelly
Drive, Hanover, Md. This action is taken to facilitate a nighttime
demonstration of headlamp aiming and visibility of overhead signs. The
meeting on Tuesday, November 28 will begin at 12:30 p.m. The meeting on
Wednesday, November 29 will begin at 10:00 a.m. The meeting on
Thursday, November 30, will begin at 9:00 a.m.
The meetings are open to the public, except for the nighttime
demonstration of headlamp aiming and visibility of overhead signs. For
logistical reasons, this must be restricted to the Committee, and to
State Highway Administration personnel involved in the demonstration.
As announced previously, the Committee will review the tentative
schedule for meetings for January, February, and March 1996, at its
November meeting, and a further notice will be published if there is
any change in this schedule.
Issued: November 9, 1995.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.
[FR Doc. 95-28296 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28294 Tramroads and Logging RoadsSubpart 2812Over O. and C. and Coos Bay Revested Lands
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57561-57562]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28294]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Part 2810
[WO-420-6310-00]
Tramroads and Logging Roads--Subpart 2812--Over O. and C. and
Coos Bay Revested Lands
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plans to revise
regulations governing logging roads over revested Oregon and California
Railroad grant lands and reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands
(collectively known as the O&C lands). The changes will bring the
existing cost-sharing road program under the regulatory framework of
Section 502 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(FLPMA) and incorporate environmental protection and other requirements
for rights-of-way over public lands found in Title V of FLPMA. Another
change will allow compensation for the use of roads and rights-of-way
where the landowner has granted BLM rights of access for recreational
purposes. In addition, the entire subpart will be revised, using a
``plain English'' approach, to remove obsolete terms and improve its
clarity, organization, and readability. The purpose of this notice is
to solicit comments to help guide preparation of the proposed rule.
This notice presents only a general description of the actions being
considered and includes no regulatory text.
DATES: Comments on this advance notice of proposed rulemaking must be
received by December 18, 1995. Comments postmarked after this date may
not be considered in the preparation of the proposed rule.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Regulatory Management Team (420),
Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW, Room 401LS, Washington, DC
20240.
Comments may be sent via Internet to: WO[email protected]. Please
include ``ATTN: O&C'' and your name and return address in your Internet
message.
Comments may be hand-delivered to the Bureau of Land Management
Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620 L Street NW, Washington, DC.
Comments will be available for public review at the L Street
address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday
through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Styduhar, Oregon State Office,
Bureau of Land Management, (503) 952-6454.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM is responsible for the conservation
and management of about two million acres of public forestlands in
western Oregon, commonly referred to as the O&C lands. The O&C lands
are generally intermingled with private lands in a checkerboard pattern
which creates particular problems with respect to land management as
each party must cross the lands of the other for access.
The Oregon and California Revested Lands Sustained Yield Management
Act of August 28, 1937 (43 U.S.C. 1181a and 1181b) granted to the
Secretary of the Interior the general authority to provide for the use,
occupancy, and development of the O&C lands through permits and rights-
of-way. The BLM has had a cost-share logging road right-of-way program
in western Oregon under this authority since the early 1950's. The
regulations for this program are contained in 43 CFR Subpart 2812. With
the enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
(FLPMA), all right-of-way authorizations must be issued under the
authority and requirements of Title V of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1761-1771).
The Secretary was given specific authority to enter into cost-share
agreements under Section 502 of the Act.
The BLM has continued the use of regulations in 43 CFR Subpart 2812
on an interim basis pending the preparation and publication of new
cost-share regulations. Since the regulations contained in this subpart
clearly represent a cost-share road agreement concept, it is proposed
by the Secretary that these regulations be revised as necessary and
adopted pursuant to the authority contained in Section 310 of FLPMA (43
U.S.C. 1740) for the purpose of implementing Section 502. Continuing
the use of pre-existing regulations with only minor modifications and
changes would provide for the orderly and continuous administration of
all outstanding permits and agreements issued prior to the effective
date of this rulemaking.
BLM has identified the following changes that it intends to include
in the proposed rule and invites the public to submit information and
comments:
1. Include as an authority Title V of FLPMA, thus bringing the
authority section up to date.
2. Modify the definition of ``management'' to include the
conservation of environmental resources. This will ensure that
protection of the environment is
[[Page 57562]]
considered equally with all other management objectives.
3. Provide for reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred by the
United States in considering right-of-way requests. The BLM currently
charges no fees for processing right-of-way applications under this
subpart.
4. Remove the restriction on granting permits to noncitizens since
this restriction is no longer required under FLPMA.
5. Permit the collection of additional information that the
Secretary deems necessary to determine whether a right-of-way should be
granted, issued, or renewed, and what terms and conditions should be
included in the right-of-way.
6. Remove the provision allowing construction in advance of the
issuance of a permit, because there is no authority for it in Title V
of FLPMA.
7. Allow either party to record legal instruments. As a practical
matter, BLM rather than the applicant often records these instruments,
and the regulation should be amended to authorize this practice.
8. Provide regulatory authority for the BLM to object to the
location of a road right-of-way across public lands because of
potential effects on species listed as threatened or endangered under
the Endangered Species Act.
9. Add terms and conditions including environmental protection
provisions and measures to protect cultural sites and objects. Include
a reservation of the right of the government to permit compatible use
of the right-of-way by others.
10. Add an abandonment provision providing that failure to use the
right-of-way for a continuous 5-year period will be treated as
abandonment. This presumption of abandonment would be rebuttable by the
holder.
11. Establish terms and conditions whereby the government can
exercise the rights received from a permittee for use by properly
licensed hunters and fishermen and by other recreationalists to reach
United States lands.
The public is invited to raise any additional issues or concerns
related to the proposed rulemaking, including any other factors that
should be considered in its development. BLM is particularly interested
in ideas about how to reorganize, simplify, and clarify the existing
regulations.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, BLM is
required to provide notice in the Federal Register concerning a
proposed collection of information. The purpose of the notice is to
solicit comments on whether the collection of information is necessary,
the accuracy of BLM's estimate of the burden imposed by the collection,
ways to enhance the quality and usefulness of the information, and ways
to minimize the burden. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, BLM is publishing a notice concerning the form used by
applicants for right-of-way permits.
The principal author of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking
is John Styduhar, Oregon State Office, assisted by Pat Boyd, Regulatory
Management Team, Washington Office.
Dated: November 13, 1995.
Annetta Cheek,
Regulatory Management Team.
[FR Doc. 95-28294 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28290 Request for Comments Concerning Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57552-57558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28290]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 423
Request for Comments Concerning Trade Regulation Rule on Care
Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Request for public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (the ``Commission'') is
requesting public comments on a proposed conditional exemption to its
Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and
Certain Piece Goods (``the Care Labeling Rule'' or ``the Rule''). The
proposed conditional exemption would permit the use of certain care
symbols in lieu of words on the permanently attached care label, as
long as hangtags with explanatory language are used for the first 12
month period of symbol use. All interested persons are hereby given
notice of the opportunity to submit written data, views and arguments
concerning this proposal.
DATES: Written comments will be accepted until January 31, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: Secretary, Federal Trade
Commission, Room H-159, Sixth and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20580. Comments about this conditional exemption to the Care
Labeling Rule should be identified as ``Conditional exemption for
symbols, 16 CFR Part 423--Comment.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Vecellio, Attorney,
Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2966.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
On June 15, 1994, the Commission published a Federal Register
notice (``FRN'') requesting comment on various aspects of the Care
Labeling Rule, including whether the Rule should be modified to permit
the use of symbols in lieu of words. The Commission has now tentatively
determined to permit the use of certain symbols, under certain
conditions, and now seeks additional comment on the specifics of the
proposal. The Commission will summarize other results of the regulatory
review it conducted in a separate notice.
II. Background
The Rule was promulgated by the Commission on December 16, 1971, 36
FR 23883 (1971), and amended on May 20, 1983, 48 FR 22733 (1983). The
Rule makes it an unfair or deceptive act or practice for manufacturers
and importers of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods to
sell these items without attaching care labels stating ``what regular
care is needed for the ordinary use of the product.'' (16 CFR 423.6(a)
and (b)) The Rule also requires that the manufacturer or importer
possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis for the care instructions.
(16 CFR 423.6(c))
The ``Terminology'' section of the Rule, 16 CFR 423.2(b), currently
requires that care instructions be stated in ``appropriate terms,''
although it also states that ``any appropriate symbols may be used on
care labels or care instructions, in addition to the required
appropriate terms so long as the terms fulfill the requirements of this
regulation.'' (Emphasis added). Although the Rule does not specifically
state that the instructions must be in English, they usually are in
English. The FRN stated that the North American Free Trade Agreement
(``NAFTA'') ``has created industry interest in being permitted to use
symbols in lieu of words to provide care instructions, and the
Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of such a change.''
[[Page 57553]]
The FRN included the following questions on this issue:
(7) Should the Commission amend the Rule to allow care symbols to
be used in lieu of language in care instructions? If so, is there an
existing set of care symbols that would provide all or most of the
information required by the current Rule? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of the existing systems of care symbols?
(a) In particular, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the
system of care symbols developed by the International Association for
Textile Care Labeling (``Ginetex'') and adopted by the International
Standards Organization as International Standard 3758?
(b) What are the advantages and disadvantages of the system of care
symbols developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials
(``ASTM'') and designated as ASTM D5489 Guide to Care Symbols for Care
Instructions on Consumer Textile Products?
III. Analysis of Comments
Eighty-one comments were received.\1\ Sixty-five of the comments
discussed the use of symbols in lieu of written language to communicate
care instructions; 60 of those favored the use of symbols.\2\ Five
comments opposed allowing symbols in lieu of written instructions.\3\
Most comments stated that they favored symbols because symbols would
make international trade easier.
\1\ The commenters included cleaners; consumers; public
interest-related groups; fiber, textile, or apparel manufacturers or
sellers (or conglomerates); federal government entities; fiber,
textile, or apparel manufacturers or retailers trade associations;
two label manufacturers; one cleaning products manufacturer; one
association representing the leather apparel industry; one Committee
formed by industry members from the countries signatory to NAFTA;
one appliance technician; one appliance manufacturers trade
association; two standards-setting organizations; and two
representatives from foreign nations. Each comment was assigned a
number. The first time a comment is cited it is cited by the full
name of the commenter and the assigned number; subsequently, it is
cited by the number and a shortened form of the name. The comments
are available for inspection in the Public Reference Room, Room 130,
Federal Trade Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except federal holidays.
\2\ These comments are: Benjamin Axleroad (1), Baby Togs, Inc.
(2), Judith S. Barton (7), C.M. Offray & Son, Inc. (9), The Schwab
Company (10), Fieldcrest Cannon (11), Ardis W. Koester (12),
University of Kentucky College of Agriculture (15), ASTM Committee
D-13 on Textiles (16), Pittsfield Weaving Co. (17), European Union
(GATT Secretariat) (18), Todd Uniform, Inc. (19), Acqua Clean System
(20), Woolrich, Inc. (21), The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction
Institute (23), Carter's (24), Braham Norwick (25), Oshkosh B'Gosh,
Inc. (27), Ecofranchising, Inc. (28), Consumers Union (31), Clorox
Company (32), The Warren Featherbone Company (33), Industry Canada
(37), Business Habits, Inc. (38), Clothing Manufacturers Association
of the United States of America (40), National Association of
Hosiery Manufacturers (41), Paxar Corporation (42), Jo Ann Pullen
(44), The Warren Featherbone Company (46), United States Apparel
Industry Council (47), Dan River, Inc. (48), American Fiber
Manufacturers Association, Inc. (49), The Leslie Fay Companies, Inc.
(50), Springs Industries, Inc. (51), Salant Corporation (52),
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (53), Milliken (54),
Ruff Hewn (55), American Textile Manufacturers Institute (56),
United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (57),
Authentic Fitness Corporation (60), Warnaco (61), Salant Corporation
(63), Fruit of the Loom (64), Drycleaners Environmental Legislative
Fund (65), Angelica Corporation (66), Department of the Air Force
(67), American Apparel Manufacturers Association (68), Trilateral
Labeling Committee (69), J.C. Penney (70), Liz Claiborne, Inc. (71),
Wemco, Inc. (72), Horace Small Apparel Company (74), Perry
Manufacturing Company (75), Russell Corporation (76), Oxford
Industries, Inc. (77), The GAP, Inc. (78), Haggar Apparel Company
(79), Capital Mercury Shirt Corp. (80), Bidermann Industries (81).
\3\ Evelyn Borrow (4), Margaret Tilden (13), Capital Mercury
Shirt Corp. (26), Ann Geerhart (29), and VF Corporation (36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada and Mexico currently allow the use of symbols to convey
garment care instructions. Many comments focused on trade with Mexico
and Canada, stating or implying that symbols that harmonize with those
used in Mexico and Canada would further the goals of NAFTA.\4\ Some of
these comments stated or implied that, in addition to harmony with
Canada and Mexico, whatever system is adopted should be in harmony with
the symbol system used in Europe.\5\ Other comments placed more
importance on harmony with the European system than with NAFTA.\6\
\4\ Togs (2) p.1; Offray (9) p.1; Fieldcrest (11) p.2; Koester
(12) p.2; Pittsfield (17) pp. 2-3; Mass. Toxics Reduction (23) p.2;
Carter's (24) p.1; Featherbone (33) p.2; Industry Canada (37) p.3;
Paxar (42) p.1; Featherbone (46) p.1; USAIC (47) p.2; Dan River (48)
p.1; AFMA (49) p.1; Salant (52) p.1; AHAM (53) p.2; Milliken (54)
p.2; Ruff Hewn (55) p.2; ATMI (56) p.1; USA-ITA (57) p.3; Authentic
Fitness (60) pp. 1-2; Warnaco (61) pp. 1-2; Salant (63) pp. 1-2;
Fruit (64) p.2; Angelica (66) p.6; AAMA (68) p.1; Trilateral
Committee (69) pp. 1-2; Wemco (72) p.1; Horace Small (74) p.1;
Russell (76) p.2; Oxford (77) p.1; Haggar (79) p.1; Bidermann (81)
p.1.
\5\ E.g., Fieldcrest (11) p.2; Pittsfield (17) p.3.
\6\ European Union (18) pp. 2-3; Leslie Fay (50) p.1; Gap (78)
p.4. The Ginetex/ISO system is used in Europe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some comments said there would be some initial cost to changing to
a symbol system, but they either stated or implied that the long-run
cost savings would exceed these initial ``change-over'' costs. Some
comments explained in more detail why the current Rule impedes trade
within North America. One comment stated that the requirement that care
instructions be written makes for very long labels because it ``forces
manufacturers and retailers wanting to sell products freely within the
NAFTA territory to display care instructions in English, French and
Spanish.'' \7\ Many other comments stated that the use of symbols would
cause production costs to decline because the size of labels would be
reduced and smaller labels are less expensive.\8\
\7\ Fruit (64) p.2.
\8\ Fieldcrest (11) p.2; Pittsfield (17) p.1; Mass. Toxics
Reduction (23) p.2; Carter's (24) p.1; Norwick (25) p.1; Capital
Shirt (26) p.1; Featherbone (33) p.2; VF Corp. (36) p.4; Industry
Canada (37) p.2; Paxar (42) p.1; Pullen (44) p.4; USAIC (47) p.2;
ATMI (56) p.3; USA-ITA (57) p.2; Salant (63) p.1; Fruit (64) p.2;
Air Force (67) p.2; AAMA (68) p.2; Haggar (79) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several comments noted that the use of symbols would help U.S.
consumers who cannot speak English (or whose primary language is not
English) and consumers who cannot read (or cannot read well).\9\ Some
comments noted that smaller labels may improve consumer comfort.\10\
Other comments stated that smaller labels would also make garments more
attractive.\11\ Several comments stated that savings from smaller
labels could be passed on to consumers as reductions in the cost of
apparel.\12\
\9\ Togs (2) p.1; Koester (12) p.2; Pittsfield (17) p.2; Norwick
(25) p.1; Pullen (44) p.2.
\10\ A few comments mention that some labels are scratchy and
irritate the skin. Axleroad (1) p.1; Borrow (4) p.1; Martin (8) p.1;
Pittsfield (17) p.1; Featherbone (33) p.1; Salant (63) p.1; Capital
Shirt (80) p.1.
\11\ AAMA (68) p.2.
\12\ Paxar (42) p.1, Fruit (64) p.2, Haggar (79) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many comments that favored the use of symbols emphasized that the
symbols should not be mandatory, but a voluntary option, and that the
use of written care instructions should continue to be allowed, either
as a supplement to symbols or alone.\13\ Several comments noted that
all possible care instructions cannot be conveyed by symbols; certain
special handling instructions such as ``remove promptly''; ``double
rinse for best results''; ``wash inside out''; ``wash with like
garments''; or ``wash before wearing'' will probably have to be
communicated in words.\14\ But one comment noted that ``symbols alone
could easily accommodate 75-80% of the merchandise sold.'' \15\
\13\ Oshkosh (27) p.1; USAIC (47) p.2; Springs (51) p.1; ATMI
(56) p.2; Salant (63) pp. 1-2; Fruit (64) p.2; Air Force (67) p.2;
AAMA (68) p.3; Trilateral Committee (69) p.2; Penny (70) p.2.
\14\ Fieldcrest (11) p.3; Pittsfield (17) p.1; European Union
(18) p.2, Woolrich (21) p.1, VF Corp. (36) p.4.
\15\ Penney (70) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, most of the comments state that the use of symbols would
benefit both manufacturers, by lowering production costs and increasing
exports, and consumers, by communicating care instructions clearly and
by potentially
[[Page 57554]]
decreasing garment prices. Moreover, one comment stated that it
``considers that the obligation of using mandatory language
instructions would have the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to
international trade.'' 16 Another comment stated that the
mandatory language requirement could function as a non-tariff barrier
to trade which would ``significantly impede the free flow of goods
within the NAFTA territory in direct contravention of the NAFTA.''
17
\16\ European Union (18) p.1.
\17\ Fruit (64) p.2. See also AHAM (53) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The record contains persuasive evidence indicating that allowing
care information to be conveyed by symbols would lower production costs
and would also have benefits for consumers. Moreover, the record
indicates that care symbols are used in many other countries, and
presumably the symbols communicate the information they contain to the
consumers in those countries. Nevertheless, many comments noted the
need for consumer education and expressed confidence that U.S consumers
could adapt to care symbols with appropriate education.18 Some
comments indicated that symbols should be used with words until the
U.S. population understands the symbols.19 Pittsfield, on the
other hand, argued that consumer education based on dual disclosure--
the use of symbols with accompanying written instructions on the
label--will not work, as shown by the U.S. experience with the metric
system.20
\18\ Schwab (10) p.1; Fieldcrest (11) pp. 2-3; ASTM (16) p.8;
Pittsfield (17) p.1; Woolrich (21) p.1; Carter's (24) p.2; Consumers
Union (31) p.1; Clorox (32) p.4; Business Habits (38) p.4; Pullen
(44) p.4; AHAM (53) p.2; Fruit (64) p.3; AAMA (68) p.3. Some
comments stated that symbols should not replace words until a
consumer education program has become effective. Consumers Union
(31) p.1; VF Corp. (36) p.4; Gap (78) p.3. However, consumers do not
need to memorize the symbols if they have ``decoding'' charts they
can place in their laundry rooms and if such ``decoding'' charts, or
hangtags, are available in retail stores.
\19\ Consumers Union (31) p.1; Gap (78) p.3.
\20\ Comment 17, p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 18(g)(2)of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(d)(2)(B), provides
that ``[i]f * * * the Commission finds that the application of a rule
prescribed under subsection (a)(1)(B) to any person or class of persons
is not necessary to prevent the unfair or deceptive act or practice to
which the rule relates, the Commission may exempt such person or class
from all or part of such rule.'' The record indicates that care
information can be conveyed by means of symbols, but it also indicates
that American consumers need to be educated--or to be provided with
``decoding'' charts or hangtags--in order to learn to use a particular
symbol system. Consequently the Commission proposes to grant a
conditional exemption from the ``Terminology'' section of the Care
Labeling Rule. However, for the reasons discussed above, the Commission
proposes that the conditional exemption state that care labels that use
symbols instead of language to convey information must be accompanied
by hangtags explaining the meaning of the symbols. If the symbols on
the label are accompanied by explanatory hangtags, then an exemption
from the requirement that words be used on the label is appropriate
because words on the label are not necessary to ``prevent the unfair or
deceptive act or practice to which the rule relates.''
IV. Symbol Systems That Were Considered
The Commission examined two existing symbol systems--the Ginetex
system and the ASTM system--to identify which conveys all or most of
the information the Rule requires to be conveyed and meets other
important criteria. As explained below, the ASTM system best meets the
needs of consumers and industry at the present time.
A. ISO/Ginetex System
Because the Ginetex system has been adopted by the International
Standards Organization (``ISO'') as International Standard 3758,21
the Commission gave careful consideration to this system.22
However, the ISO/Ginetex system does not provide symbols for some of
the basic information the Rule requires to be conveyed. For example, if
chlorine bleach would harm a product but non-chlorine bleach would not,
section 423.6(b)(1)(iv) of the Rule requires that the label contain a
warning such as ``only non-chlorine bleach when needed.'' However, the
ISO/Ginetex system contains no symbol for non-chlorine bleach.23
Further, the system's symbols for reduced spin and reduced mechanical
action, required under section 423.(b)(1)(v) [``Warnings''] of the
Rule, are linked to temperature.24 (ISO standard 3759 Table 1).
This linkage is inconsistent with the technology of American
washers.25 Its temperature ranges for tumble drying (normal and
low--ISO standard 3759 Table 5) are also inconsistent with American
technology.26 It has no symbols for natural drying, or the use of
steam in ironing, which are care practices addressed by the
Rule.27
\21\ Ginetex (Groupement International d'Etiquetage pour
l'Entretien des Textiles, or International Association for Textile
Care Labeling) is an organization composed of national member
bodies, with a goal, among other things, of drawing up ``guidelines
and compulsory directives for the use of the uniform GINETEX symbols
and to control their application.'' The Ginetex system was adopted
as an international standard by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) in 1991 as ISO Standard 3758.
\22\ The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 states that any federal
agency must, in developing standards, ``take into consideration
international standards and shall, if appropriate, base the
standards on international standards.'' Trade Agreements Act of
1979, title IV, section 402, 93 Stat. 242 (1979) (codified as
amended at 19 U.S.C. 2532(2)(A) (Supp. 1995)).
\23\ Several comments noted this deficiency. Pittsfield (17)
p.2; Clorox (32) p.4; V.F. Corp. (36) p.4; Pullen (44) p.5; ATMI
(56) p.4; GAP (78) p.4. Consumer Union (31) stated, at p.2, that
``we need a symbol pertinent to non-chlorine bleach as the industry
plans to move away from chlorine bleach.'' The Trilateral Committee
(69), at p.2, and ATMI (56), at p.2, both recommend that any care
symbol system adopted by the U.S. include chlorine and non-chlorine
bleach instructions.
\24\ The system also indicates temperatures for washing in
precise degrees Centigrade, but few washing machines in the United
States have internal heating devices as European machines do.
\25\ Pittsfield (17), at p.2, noted ``technical inconsistencies
such as the interconnection of temperature and cycle conditions'';
Pullen (44), at p.5, noted the lack of a complete selection of
symbols for all washing cycles and temperatures.
\26\ ATMI (56) p.4; Penney (70), noting at p.2, that the Ginetex
symbols are ``technically incomplete for the American consumer's
laundering practices.''
\27\ Section 423.6(b)(1)(ii) states that the label must state
whether the product should be dried by machine or by some other
method. Section 423.6(b)(1)(v) states that there must be a warning
against any part of the prescribed procedure which consumers can
reasonably be expected to use that would harm the product. However,
without a symbol for steam ironing, it is impossible to warn against
steam ironing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For dry cleaning, the ISO/Ginetex system provides only a symbol
(constituting an underlining of the circle) that means ``strict
limitations on the addition of water and/or mechanical action and/or
temperature during cleaning and/or drying.'' (ISO standard 3759 Table
4). However, section 423.6(b)(2)(ii)(A) provides that, if a dry
cleaning instruction is included on the label, it must also warn
against any part of the dry cleaning process which consumers or dry
cleaners could reasonably be expected to use that would harm the
product or others being cleaned with it.28 The ISO/Ginetex system
does not have a method for providing warnings about which specific
parts of the dry cleaning process should be avoided. Accordingly, the
dry cleaning symbol in the ISO/Ginetex system does not satisfy the
Rule's requirements for dry cleaning instructions.
\28\ The Appendix to the Rule provides specific examples such as
``short cycle,'' ``low moisture,'' ``do not tumble,'' and ``no
steam.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the ISO/Ginetex system cannot convey all the information that
the Commission has found to be necessary to prevent the unfair and
deceptive
[[Page 57555]]
practices that the Rule was designed to prevent.29 Moreover, the
ISO/Ginetex system is inconsistent with American technology in several
ways. The Trade Agreements Act explicitly identifies several reasons
why basing a standard on an international standard may not be
appropriate, including the prevention of deceptive practices and
fundamental technological problems. 19 U.S.C. 2532(2)(B)(i) (1980).
Accordingly, the Commission has concluded the use of ISO standard 3758
is not appropriate for the United States at this time.30
\29\ Section 423.5 describes the unfair or deceptive acts or
practices the Rule was designed to prevent. Section 423.5(a)(2)
states that it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a
manufacturer or importer to fail to disclose instructions which
prescribe a regular care procedure necessary for the ordinary use
and enjoyment of the product. Section 423.5(a)(2) states that it is
an unfair or deceptive act or practice to fail to warn a purchaser
when any part of the prescribed regular care procedure, which a
consumer or professional cleaner could reasonably be expected to
use, would harm the product or others being cleaned with it.
\30\ The European Union (GATT Secretariat), noting that the
Ginetex system was adopted as international standard ISO 3758 in
1991, stated that Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers
to Trade requires U.S. authorities to use international standards as
a basis for technical regulations. Comment 18, pp.1-2. However,
while Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
provides that ``technical regulations shall not be more trade
restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective, taking
account of the risks non-fulfillment would create,'' it recognizes
prevention of deceptive practices as a legitimate objective. It also
states that, in assessing such risks, ``relevant elements of
consideration are, inter alia: available scientific and technical
information, related processing technology or intended end-uses of
products.'' Thus, the differences in U.S. and European technology
provide a valid reason for the U.S. to adopt a system that is
slightly different than the European system. Nevertheless, the
Commission agrees with those comments that indicate that the
creation of a system of care symbols appropriate for use worldwide
is desirable. However, ISO Standard 3758, as it now exists, simply
does not fulfill the legitimate objectives of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another problem that weighed against the ISO/Ginetex system is the
fact that Ginetex asserts trademark rights relating to the symbols.
Annex A to ISO 3758 states that the symbols used in that standard are
registered with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and
owned by Ginetex. Part A.2.1 of Annex A of ISO Standard 3758
constitutes an agreement between ISO and Ginetex that ``GINETEX's
ownership rights related to the marks are preserved under the terms of
this agreement, as well as the structure, rights and obligations of its
national committees.'' The Trilateral Committee (a committee formed by
industry members from the countries signatory to NAFTA), those comments
that explicitly supported its conclusions, and numerous other comments
stated that they could only support a symbol system that was free of
proprietary claims.31 The Commission agrees with these
comments.32
\31\ Carter's (24) p.3; Oshkosh (27) p.1; AHAM (53) p.2;
Milliken (54) p.2; ATMI (56) p.2; Authentic Fitness (60) p.2,
Warnaco (61) p.2; Fruit (64) p.4; Drycleaners Fund (65) p.3; AAMA
(68) p.4; Penney (70) p.1; Trilateral Committee (79) p.2; GAP (78)
p.4. In addition, ATMI (56) objected, at p.4, to the fact that
Ginetex requires that a national body in the country using the
system register with Ginetex and monitor use of the system within
the country. (See section A.1. of Annex A to ISO Standard 3758,
which states, ``Ginetex has delegated to its national committees,
i.e., its members, the task of promoting the implementation of
textile care labelling symbols, of granting the right to reproduce
and use the symbols, and of monitoring their use.'')
\32\ Before the ISO subcommittee voted to make the Ginetex
system an international standard, several countries (including the
U.S.) objected to the use of a proprietary system as an
international standard, but they were outvoted. Subsequent to the
adoption of ISO 3758, the USA delegation to the ISO textile
committee submitted to ISO a document entitled ``USA Comments and
Questions Related to ISO 3758'' in which they stated, ``The USA
opposes any standard that requires royalty fees from any
organization. Therefore, USA opposes `ISO 3758-1991- Care labelling
code using symbols' and recommends it be withdrawn as an ISO
Standard.'' Attachment to ASTM comment (16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The System
ASTM is a scientific and technical organization that publishes
voluntary consensus standards. Its Committee D-13 on Textiles contains
a Subcommittee D13.62 on Care Labeling, which developed the voluntary
consensus standard D5489 referenced in the FRN. A copy of Standard
D5489 is attached to ASTM's comment. A copy of an explanatory or
``decoding'' chart can be found at the end of this notice.
The ASTM system provides symbols relating to the basic information
required by the Rule. It includes machine and hand washing, with hand
washing indicated by a hand in the washtub. It indicates permanent
press cycle by underlining the washtub, and gentle cycle by underlining
it twice. It includes chlorine and non-chlorine bleach instructions
(the latter indicated by a shaded triangle), and tumble drying and
natural drying instructions. It indicates dryer cycles by underlining,
with single underlining for permanent press and double underlining for
gentle cycle. The iron symbolizes ironing and pressing, and includes an
indication as to whether steam can be used (an instruction that may be
particularly important for commercial laundries). Temperature--for
water, dryers, or ironing--is indicated by a series of dots, with one
dot indicating cold, two indicating warm, three indicating hot, four
indicating very hot. Five and six dots may be used for even higher
temperatures. (Alternatively, temperature may be stated in degrees
Celsius.)
For dry cleaning, it indicates short cycle, no steam finishing,
reduce moisture, and low heat, respectively, by means of a line drawn
under, above, to the left, or to the right of the circle. Finally, the
ASTM system (in Standard section 5.10) allows for optional symbols that
may be used for additional procedures or warnings (e.g., do not wring).
More comments favored the ASTM system than the Ginetex system for a
variety of reasons, including the fact that it is more
comprehensive.33 One comment noted that it is easier to add new
symbols in the ASTM system.34
\33\ Togs (2) p.1; Fieldcrest (11) pp. 3-4; Koester (12) pp. 1-
2; U. of Kentucky (15) p.2; ASTM (16) p.1; Pittsfield (17) p.2;
Carter's (24) p.3; Norwick (25) p.3, Oshkosh (27) p.1, Clorox (32)
pp. 3-4; Pullen (44) pp. 4-7, Salant (52) p.1; Milliken (54) pp. 1-
2; ATMI (56) pp. 4-5; Air Force (67) p.2; J.C. Penney (70) p.2.
\34\ VF Corp. (36), although not supporting the use of symbols
without words, did note, at pp.4-5, that under Ginetex, ``current
symbols cannot be modified and additional symbols cannot be added''
and that an advantage of the ASTM system is that there ``is a
procedure to modify or add other symbols.'' According to the forward
to the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 7 Textiles, an ASTM
standard ``is subject to revision at any time by the responsible
technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and if not
revised, either reapproved or withdrawn.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that ASTM has obtained a copyright for the
entire Standard D5489, including an explanatory chart.35 Several
comments expressed concern over possible copyright licensing fees for
the use of the chart.36 However, ASTM recently submitted to the
Commission a document entitled ``Conditions for Republishing the ASTM D
5489 Care Symbol Chart'' which states that ASTM will grant other
organizations a royalty free license for the republication of the
complete chart, or portions thereof, provided that the charts include a
line crediting ASTM and providing that the copies are not sold
separately from the products to which the copies are affixed.37
This document may alleviate
[[Page 57556]]
concerns about ASTM's copyright and remove any impediments to the
dissemination of explanatory materials about the system. However, the
Commission seeks comment on this issue.
\35\ Letter of June 7, 1994, from Bode Buckley, Manager,
Technical Committee Operations, ASTM, to Kay Villa, ATMI, attached
to ATMI comment (56). The letter states that a fee will be
established for the use of the chart. A copy of the chart was
attached to the ASTM comment (16).
\36\ Milliken (54), noting, at p.2, that ``there is some concern
that ASTM (the organization) has not completely followed the wishes
of its volunteer members in making the symbol chart. . . freely
available without copyright licensing considerations''; ATMI (56),
asking, at p.5, that the FTC ``obtain official information from the
ASTM about this fee structure and assure that there would be no fee
for use of the symbol chart prior to any adoption of the standard by
the FTC''; AAMA (68), stating, at p.4, that ``the most important
reason for not accepting the ASTM system is the copyright issue.''
\37\ Moreover, it states that if the chart or symbols are
modified, then they may not be represented as being the ASTM
standard. By implication, however, modified charts could be
distributed under some other title (e.g., Care Symbols Used in the
U.S.) This document has been placed on the public record for
examination by interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Use of the ASTM System in Canada and Mexico
Although the Commission's first criterion in considering a symbol
system was whether it could fulfill the requirements of the Rule, an
equally important criterion was whether the system could be harmonized
with the symbol systems used in Canada and Mexico. NAFTA specifically
requires the U.S. to attempt to harmonize its textile labeling
requirements with those of Canada and Mexico. Article 906 of NAFTA
states that ``the Parties shall, to the greatest extent practicable,
make compatible their respective standards-related measures, so as to
facilitate trade in a good or service between the Parties.'' Article
913 requires the creation of a Committee on Standards-Related Measures,
which shall include a Subcommittee on Labelling of Textile and Apparel
Goods, in accordance with Annex 913.5.a-4. Annex 913.5.a-4. states that
the Subcommittee on Labelling of Textile and Apparel Goods
shall develop and pursue a work program on the harmonization of
labelling requirements to facilitate trade in textile and apparel
goods between the Parties through the adoption of uniform labelling
provisions. The work program should include the following matters:
(a) pictograms and symbols to replace, where possible, required
written information, as well as other methods to reduce the need for
labels on textile and apparel goods in multiple languages; (b) care
instructions for textile and apparel goods;
* * * * *
The Canadian and Mexican systems use the same five basic symbols
that are used in the Ginetex and ASTM systems: a washtub to indicate
washing (with a hand in the washtub to indicate hand washing), a
triangle to indicate bleaching, a square to indicate drying (and a
circle within a square to indicate machine drying), an iron to indicate
ironing, and a circle to indicate dry cleaning. An ``X'' cancelling out
the symbol warns against using the designated cleaning technique, e.g.,
``do not dry clean.''
One commenter suggested that the Commission adopt the Canadian
system, which uses the five generic symbols and three colors (red,
green, and yellow).38 However, several comments noted that the use
of color makes labels much more expensive.39 In addition, neither
the Canadian nor the Mexican system provides a method of communicating
all the information required by the current Care Labeling Rule. For
example, if chlorine bleach would harm a product but non-chlorine
bleach would not, section 423.(b)(1)(iv) of the Rule requires that the
label contain a warning such as ``only non-chlorine bleach when
needed.'' However, these systems do not address the use of non-chlorine
bleach.40 Moreover, with respect to dry cleaning, they do not have
a method for providing warnings about parts of the dry cleaning process
that might damage the garment.41
\38\ Todd Uniform (19), p.1.
\39\ Woolrich (21) p.1; Carter's (24) p.1. Fruit (64), at p.4,
stated that it could not endorse a system which required the use of
color, but, with that proviso, it endorsed the Canadian system.
\40\ Several comments noted this deficiency. Pittsfield (17)
p.2; Clorox (32) p.4; V.F. Corp. (36) p.4; Pullen (44) p.5; ATMI
(56) p.4; GAP (78) p.4. Consumer Union (31) stated, at p.2, that
``we need a symbol pertinent to non-chlorine bleach as the industry
plans to move away from chlorine bleach.'' The Trilateral Committee
(69), at p.2, and ATMI (56), at p.2, both recommend that any care
symbol system adopted by the U.S. include chlorine and non-chlorine
bleach instructions.
\41\ For dry cleaning, section 423.(b)(2)(ii) of the Rule
states that there must be a warning about any part of the normal dry
cleaning process that would harm the product, and the Appendix
provides examples such as ``short cycle,'' ``low moisture,'' ``do
not tumble,'' and ``no steam.'' Canada uses a yellow circle to
indicate ``dry clean with caution,'' but that warning is too vague
to satisfy the requirements of the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to machine washing, the Mexican system does not convey
any refinements, such as ``gentle cycle,'' and the Canadian system does
so by means of color (a yellow washtub means ``gentle setting.'')
Neither system offers a means of referring to ``permanent press cycle''
in washing, or various cycles in dryers. Both offer symbols for natural
drying (dry flat, hang to dry, and, in Canada, drip dry.) Both systems
require that temperature for washing be indicated in Celsius in the
washtub. For tumble drying, Mexico has no indication of temperature,
and Canada uses a yellow symbol to mean ``low temperature.'' In both
systems, temperatures for ironing can be indicated by a system of three
dots, one for low, two for medium, and three for high.
The Commission has concluded that the ASTM system basically is
compatible with the Canadian and Mexican systems. Although there are
differences among the systems, they do not pose insurmountable
problems.42 The ASTM system includes some refinements that are not
a part of those systems (e.g., underlining to indicate gentle or
permanent press cycles in washers and dryers). The Commission has
tentatively decided that consumer education would be more effective if
the system was introduced as a whole, including the use of
underlining.43 Nevertheless, the Commission seeks comment on
whether the ASTM system, with its use of underlining to reflect cycle
variations, should be permitted or whether only the basic symbols,
without refinements, should be allowed.
\42\ The Canadian system is not mandatory; thus, the use of
symbols without colors should be acceptable.
\43\ Some comments expressed the concern that the ASTM system
may be too complicated. USA-ITA (57) p.3; Fruit (64) p.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to temperature indications, the ASTM system differs
slightly from the Canadian and Mexican systems. Nevertheless, the dot
system for temperature, which can be combined with the Celsius
temperature as required for the washtub symbol in Mexico and Canada,
seems the best compromise for temperature indications.44
\44\ The ASTM standard is not entirely clear as to whether
temperature can be indicated by the use of dots and the Celsius
temperature. The Commission solicits comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``do not bleach'' symbol (a triangle with an ``X'' through it)
represents the only instance in which a symbol in the ASTM system has a
different meaning in Canada or Mexico. In Mexico, this symbol means
``do not use chlorine bleach''; in the ASTM system, it means ``do not
[use any] bleach,'' chlorine or non-chlorine. To avoid this conflict,
the Commission has tentatively decided to accept the ASTM system with
one exception and addition - i.e., the elimination of the triangle with
an ``X'' through it and the substitution of a shaded triangle with an
``X'' through it for the ``do not bleach'' symbol. However, the
Commission has been informed that members of the ASTM subcommittee that
developed that care symbol system are considering making this
modification to the system. If this change is made by ASTM prior to the
final issuance by the Commission of a conditional exemption for the use
of symbols, the Commission will simply reference the modified version
of the ASTM system, without exceptions or additions.45
\45\ The ASTM subcommittee recently voted on two additions to
the symbols for machine drying: a circle in the square with no dots
to indicate any heat; a blacked-in circle to indicate air dry only
(no heat). These changes must still be submitted to the entire
membership of ASTM. In addition, the subcommittee has discussed
modifying the dry cleaning symbol so that lines indicating
refinements to dry cleaning are placed next to the circle at an
acute angle; if all four refinements were used, the symbol would
consist of a circle surrounded by four lines in a diamond formation
rather than a square. This avoids conflict with the symbol for
machine drying (which is a circle in a square). These changes
provide useful additional symbols, and, if these changes are adopted
by ASTM, the Commission proposes adopting the ASTM system with these
changes. However, if adopted, the conditional exemption will
reference a specific version of the ASTM system.
[[Page 57557]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Consumer Education
Many comments noted the need for education, although most expressed
confidence that U.S consumers could adapt to care symbols with
appropriate education.46 Some comments indicated that symbols
should be used with words until the U.S. population understands the
symbols.47 Pittsfield, on the other hand, argued that consumer
education based on dual disclosure--the use of symbols with
accompanying written instructions on the label--will not work, as shown
by the U.S. experience with the metric system.48
\46\ Schwab (10) p.1; Fieldcrest (11) pp. 2-3; ASTM (16) p.8;
Pittsfield (17) p.1; Woolrich (21) p.1; Carter's (24) p.2; Consumers
Union (31) p.1; Clorox (32) p.4; Business Habits (38) p.4; Pullen
(44) p.4; AHAM (53) p.2; Fruit (64) p.3; AAMA (68) p.3. Some
comments stated that symbols should not replace words until a
consumer education program has become effective. Consumers Union
(31) p.1; VF Corp. (36) p.4; Gap (78) p.3.
\47\ Consumers Union (31) p.1; Gap (78) p.3.
\48\ Comment 17, p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission agrees that the use of symbols with explanatory
written instructions on the permanently attached label would probably
not be an effective way to teach the symbol system. However, other
comments suggested strategies that would allow consumers to use the
symbols while learning them, such as hangtags on garments or charts
placed on washing machines, product packaging, or on the back of
detergent boxes.49 ASTM, cognizant of this issue, formed a Task
Group on Care Symbol Education that includes the Soap and Detergent
Association, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and
numerous other trade associations and representatives from the USDA
Extension Service.50 The members of this task group are interested
in educating consumers about the symbols. In addition, numerous
commenters stated they would participate in a program of consumer
education. The Commission seeks comment on the amount of time that
would be needed to develop and disseminate consumer education and what
forms consumer education might take. The Commission itself would be
pleased to work with industry members on such campaigns if the
Commission ultimately adopts the proposed conditional exemption.
\49\ Fieldcrest (11) p.3; Pittsfield (17) p.2; Carter's (24)
p.2; Fruit (64) p.3; AAMA (68) p.3.
\50\ Attachment to Subcomm. D13.62 Minutes, attached to ASTM
comment (16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes, however, that although educational
campaigns will be necessary and helpful, for at least for an initial 12
month period, manufacturers and importers who choose to use symbols
without words should be required to attach explanatory hangtags to each
such garment. This will ensure that consumers continue to have access
to information about garment care when they make their purchases.
Consumers who wish to do so could keep one or more of these hangtags in
their laundry rooms. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed
requirement of the exemption.
VII. Request for Comment
A. Terms of the Proposed Conditional Exemption
The Commission proposes a conditional exemption to the Rule to
allow the use of certain care symbols without language. The proposed
conditional exemption from the Care Labeling Rule simply expands the
terminology that those covered by the Rule can use to convey the
required information. Specifically, the proposed conditional exemption
would (1) permit the use of the ASTM system of symbols with an
exception and addition (i.e., the substitution of a different ``do not
bleach'' symbol) and (2) require that, for a 12 month period, care
labels with information conveyed only in symbols be accompanied by
hangtags explaining the meaning of the symbols.
B. Questions on Proposed Conditional Exemption
The Commission specifically solicits written public comments on the
following questions, as well as any other issues relevant to granting
or denying the conditional exemption described above:
1. Will the underlining of the washtub or the machine drying symbol
be confusing to Canadian and Mexican consumers? Will the underlining be
confusing to American consumers? If so, should the Commission
``except'' this part of the ASTM system from the conditional exemption?
51 Will ``excepting'' the underlining of symbols reduce the
benefit of symbols or impose costs on manufacturers?
\51\ Mexico does not indicate cycles at all, and Canada does so
by the use of color.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Should the Commission specify the minimum size of the symbols or
are existing requirements of legibility sufficient? 52
\52\ Pittsfield, a woven label manufacturer, stated that
``after surveying the label-producing industry, we would also
recommend that care symbols on a label be a minimum of 5 mm in
height to ensure legibility.'' Comment 17, p.3. Paxar, which
described itself as the ``world's largest manufacturer of various
forms of identification for the textile and apparel industry,''
stated that woven label manufacturers may find it difficult to weave
symbols clearly, but no problems should exist with printed labels.
Comment 42, p.1. The Rule currently defines a ``care label'' as a
permanent label or tag that ``will remain legible during the useful
life of the product.'' 16 CFR 423.1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Should explanatory hangtags providing care information in
language be required for more than one year? Less than one year? How
long would it take for hangtags to be prepared and affixed to garments?
4. What types of consumer education should be planned and to what
extent are industry members willing to participate in such campaigns?
How long would it take to develop and undertake such campaigns?
5. If the Commission were to grant a conditional exemption, when
should it become effective?
6. Does ASTM's copyright pose a barrier to the use of the ASTM
system?
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423
Care labeling of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods;
Trade practices.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
[[Page 57558]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP16NO95.000
[FR Doc. 95-28290 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-C
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28253 Country of Origin Marking
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57558-57560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28253]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57559]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
U.S. Customs Service
19 CFR Part 134
RIN 1515-AB82
Country of Origin Marking
AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the Customs Regulations to
ease the requirement that whenever words appear on an imported article
indicating the name of a geographic location other than the true
country of origin of the article, the country of origin marking always
must appear in close proximity to those words. Customs believes that,
consistent with the statutory requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304, the
country of origin is only necessary to be in close proximity to the
name of the other geographic location on the imported article if the
name of the other geographic location may mislead or deceive the
ultimate purchaser as to the actual country of origin of the imported
article.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments (preferably in triplicate) must be submitted to the
U.S. Customs Service, ATTN: Regulations Branch, Franklin Court, 1301
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20229 and may be inspected
at the Regulations Branch, 1099 14th Street, NW., Suite 4000,
Washington, D.C., between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on
regular business days.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Tonucci, Office of Regulations
and Rulings, 202-482-6980.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304)
provides that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin
imported into the United States shall be marked in a conspicuous place
as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article (or
container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate
purchaser in the United States the English name of the country of
origin of the article. Congressional intent in enacting 19 U.S.C. 1304
was that the ultimate purchaser should be able to know by an inspection
of the marking on the imported goods the country of which the goods are
the product. Part 134, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part 134),
implements the country of origin marking requirements and exceptions of
19 U.S.C. 1304.
Section 134.46, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.46) provides that
in any case in which the words ``United States,'' or American,'' the
letters ``U.S.A.,'' any variation of such words or letters, or the name
of any city or locality in the United States, or the name of any
foreign country or locality other than the country or locality in which
the article was manufactured or produced, appear on an imported article
or its container, there shall appear, legibly and permanently, in close
proximity to such words, letters or name, and in at least a comparable
size, the name of the country of origin preceded by ``Made in,''
``Product of,'' or other words of similar meaning.
A strict application of Sec. 134.46 would require that in any case
in which a non-origin locality reference appears on an imported article
or its container, the actual country of origin of the article must
appear in close proximity and in comparable size lettering to the
locality reference preceded by the words ``Made in,'' ``Product of,''
or other words of similar meaning.
This document proposes to modify this regulation to reflect Customs
application of the regulation consistent with 19 U.S.C. 1304. In
practice, Customs has applied a less stringent standard in determining
whether the country of origin marking appearing on an imported article
or its container is acceptable. That is, Customs takes into account the
question of whether the presence of words or symbols on an imported
article or its container can mislead or deceive the ultimate purchaser
as to the actual country of origin of the article. Consequently, if a
non-origin locality reference appears on an imported article or its
container, Customs applies the special marking requirements of
Sec. 134.46 only if it finds that the reference may mislead or deceive
the ultimate purchaser as to the actual country of origin of the
imported article. If it is concluded that the non-origin locality
reference would not mislead or deceive an ultimate purchaser as to the
actual country of origin of the imported article, Customs policy is
that the special marking requirements of Sec. 134.46 are not triggered,
and the origin marking only needs to satisfy the general requirements
of permanency, legibility and conspicuousness under 19 U.S.C. 1304 and
19 CFR Part 134. This less stringent application is evidenced in
numerous Headquarters Customs Rulings.
For example, Customs has allowed a ``design/decoration'' exception
for not applying the special marking requirements of Sec. 134.46. In
Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 732412 of August 29, 1989, Customs
considered whether jeans met the country of origin marking requirements
of Sec. 134.46. In that case, the jeans were labeled as follows:
``Kansas'' appeared on a fabric label attached to the rear right
pocket. ``Kansas Jean'' appeared on the rear pocket snaps.
``Kansas'' and ``Kansas Jeans Navy Wear'' were printed on a leather
label attached to the front right pocket. And a stylized ``K'' and
the words ``J. Kansas'' decorated the front button. The country of
origin of the jeans appeared on a fabric label sewn into the
waistband.
Noting that Customs often distinguished those special cases in which
the circumstances were such that reference to a place other than the
country of origin on an imported article would not confuse the ultimate
purchaser as to the true country of origin, i.e., design/decoration use
of locality name and finding that the country of origin marking was
conspicuous in that it appeared in a usual place, in lettering
sufficient to be easily found and read, Customs determined that the
United States references (``Kansas'') did not trigger the marking
requirements of Sec. 134.46. See also HQ 723604 of November 3, 1983, in
which ``USA'' letters on men's bikini-style swimming trunks did not
trigger the marking requirements of 19 CFR 134.46 because such marking
was used as a symbol or decoration and would not reasonably be
construed as indicating the country of origin of the article.
In HQ 733833 of February 19, 1991, however, Customs found that the
design/decoration exception to Sec. 134.46 was not applicable to the
letters ``USA'' printed alone next to the name ``Brittania'' on a
leather-like pouch affixed to a pair of jeans because it could
potentially mislead an ultimate purchaser and could be considered an
indication of origin rather than part of the design of the jeans, thus
triggering the special marking requirements of 19 CFR 134.46.
Section 134.46 was promulgated pursuant to the statutory authority
of 19 U.S.C. 1304(a)(2), which provides that the Secretary of the
Treasury may by regulations require the addition of any words or
symbols which may be appropriate to prevent deception or mistake as to
the origin of the article or as to the origin of any other article with
which such imported article is usually combined subsequent to
importation but before delivery to an ultimate purchaser.
[[Page 57560]]
Customs believes that the strict requirements of Sec. 134.46 are
not always necessary to ``prevent deception or mistake as to origin of
the article'' in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 1304. Accordingly, Customs
is proposing to modify Sec. 134.46 as set forth below.
Proposal
Customs proposes to amend Sec. 134.46 to reflect the fact that the
special marking requirements of Sec. 134.46 shall apply only if the
non-origin reference is likely to mislead or deceive the ultimate
purchaser as to the actual country of origin of the article.
This document also proposes to remove Sec. 134.36(b), Customs
Regulations (19 CFR 134.36(b)). This regulation provides that an
exception from marking shall not apply to any article or retail
container bearing any words, letters, names or symbols described in
Sec. 134.46 or Sec. 134.47 which imply that an article was made or
produced in a country other than the actual country of origin.
Since the special marking requirements of Sec. 134.46, as proposed
to be amended, would be triggered only when the marking appearing on an
imported article or its container is capable of misleading or deceiving
an ultimate purchaser as to the actual country of origin of the
article, Sec. 134.36(b) which serves the same purpose for the ultimate
purchaser would be redundant and no longer needed.
Comments
Before adopting this proposal, consideration will be given to any
written comments (preferably in triplicate) that are timely submitted
to Customs. All such comments received from the public pursuant to this
notice of proposed rulemaking will be available for public inspection
in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552),
Sec. 1.4, Treasury Department Regulations (31 CFR 1.4), and
Sec. 103.11(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 103.11(b)) during regular
business days between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the
Regulations Branch, 1099 14th Street, NW., Suite 4000, Washington, D.C.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Based on the analysis set forth in the preamble, it is certified
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that the
proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, the rule is not
subject to the regulatory analysis requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and
604.
Executive Order 12866
This document does not meet the criteria for a ``significant
regulatory action'' as specified in E.O. 12866.
Drafting Information: The principal author of this document was
Janet L. Johnson, Regulations Branch, U. S. Customs Service.
However, personnel from other offices participated in its
development.
List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 134
Customs duties and inspection, Labeling, Packaging and containers.
Proposed Amendments
It is proposed to amend Part 134, Customs Regulations (19 CFR Part
134), as set forth below.
PART 134--COUNTRY OF ORIGIN MARKING
1. The general authority citation for Part 134 would continue to
read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 20,
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1304,
1624.
2. It is proposed to amend Sec. 134.36 by revising its heading to
read ``Inapplicability of Marking Exception for Articles Processed by
Importer'', removing the designation and heading of paragraph (a) and
removing paragraph (b).
3. It is proposed to revise Sec. 134.46 to read as follows:
Sec. 134.46 Marking when name of country or locality other than
country of origin appears.
In any case in which the words ``United States,'' or ``American,''
the letters ``U.S.A.,'' any variation of such words or letters, or the
name of any city or location in the United States, or the name of any
foreign country or locality other than the country or locality in which
the article was manufactured or produced, appear on an imported article
or its container, which may mislead or deceive the ultimate purchaser
as to the actual country of origin of the article, there shall appear,
legibly and permanently, in close proximity to such words, letters or
name, and in at least a comparable size, the name of the country of
origin preceded by ``Made in,'' ``Product of,'' or other words of
similar meaning.
Approved: September 6, 1995.
George J. Weise,
Commissioner of Customs.
Dennis M. O'Connell,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.
[FR Doc. 95-28253 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 95-28175 Training of Lessee and Contractor Employees Engaged in Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57560-57561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28175]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Part 250
Training of Lessee and Contractor Employees Engaged in Oil and
Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of a public workshop and a pilot testing program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice announces a public workshop and a pilot testing
program that Minerals Management Service (MMS) will conduct. The public
workshop will assist MMS to acquire additional information and comments
pertinent to the recently published training proposed rule and the
pilot testing program. The purpose of the pilot testing program is to
assess the drilling training and testing that lessee and contract
employees receive.
DATES: MMS will conduct the public workshop on December 6, 1995, from
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., at the location listed in the ADDRESSES
section.
ADDRESSES: MMS will hold the workshop in the MMS Gulf of Mexico
Regional Office located at 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70123-2394.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wilbon Rhome, Information and Training Branch, telephone (703) 787-1587
or FAX (703) 787-1575.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: MMS recently published a proposed rule (60
FR 55683, November 2, 1995) concerning Subpart O--Training, in the
Federal Register. New elements that provide more flexibility include
alternative training methods and third-party training program
accreditation (previously termed ``certification''). In order to
discuss the new elements of the training rule, MMS will conduct the
workshop listed in the ADDRESSES section. The workshop will include a
session on the proposal to allow third parties to accredit to accredit
worker training programs. Currently, MMS accredits these programs.
[[Page 57561]]
MMS will also present a summary of the third-party accreditation
comments received from the August 5, 1994, advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (59 FR 39991). We will outline the range of options that we
have identified for third-party accreditation. These options range from
MMS accrediting third parties to having non-profit organizations
accredit them. The workshop will provide an additional opportunity to
discuss third-party options.
MMS has launched a pilot testing program that will initially cover
the drilling well-control training that lessee and contract employees
receive. Under the authority located at paragraph (b) of 30 CFR
250.215, MMS may test trainees at a training facility.
MMS has gathered sample test questions from various schools. These
questions form the current data base that MMS is using to generate
tests. MMS will randomly visit schools to administer a test to trainees
in drilling. The test will take place after the trainees complete the
course. Any trainee who does not pass the MMS-conducted test must pass
a retest administered by the school to continue to work in drilling in
the OCS.
MMS is currently administering a written test at a small sampling
of schools. MMS will use the workshop as an opportunity to exchange
ideas about the pilot testing program.
MMS encourages all interested parties to attend this workshop. The
workshop will include presentations by MMS and an open comment period.
Registration: The workshop will not have a registration fee.
However, to assess the probable number of participants, MMS requests
participants to register by contacting Wilbon Rhome, Information and
Training Branch, telephone (703) 787-1587 or FAX (703) 787-1575.
Limited seating is available and will be on a first-come-first-seated
basis.
Proceedings: MMS will have a service transcribe the proceedings and
make copies available for purchase. We will supply the details during
the workshop for obtaining copies of the proceedings.
Dated: November 3, 1995.
Thomas M. Gernhofer,
Associate Director for Offshore Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 95-28175 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-M
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.