15636 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Renton, Washington 98055–4056;

telephone number: (206) 227–2536.

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. 97–

ANM–02.’’ 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 the

light of comments received. All

comments submitted will be available

for examination at the address listed

above 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 this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

Federal Aviation Administration,

Operations Branch, ANM–530, 1601

Lind Avenue SW, Renton, Washington

98055–4056. 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

amend Class E airspace at Alamosa,

Colorado, to accommodate a new ILS

SIAP and a new GPS SIAP to San Luis

Valley Regional/Bergman Field. The

area would be depicted on aeronautical

charts for pilot reference. The

coordinates for this airspace docket are

based on North American Datum 83.

Class E airspace areas extending upward

from the surface of the earth, and from

700 feet or more above the surface of the

earth, are published in Paragraph 6002

and Paragraph 6005, respectively, of

FAA Order 7400.9D dated September 4,

1996, and effective September 16, 1996,

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. It,

therefore, (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 rule,

when promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR

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.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9D, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated September 4, 1996, and effective

September 16, 1996, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace areas

designated as a surface area for an airport.

* * * * *

ANM CO E2 Alamosa, CO [Revised]

Alamosa, San Luis Valley Regional/Bergman

Field, CO

(Lat. 37°26′06′′N, long. 105°52′01′′W)

Alamosa VORTAC

(Lat. 37°20′57′′N, long. 105°48′56′′W)

Within a 5-mile radius of the San Luis

Valley Regional/Bergman Field, and within 3

miles each side of the Alamosa VORTAC

127° and 335° radials extending from the 5-

mile radius to 10.1 miles southeast of the

VORTAC. This Class E airspace area is

effective during the specific dates and times

established in advance by a Notice to

Airmen. The effective date and time will

thereafter be continuously published in the

Airport/Facility Directory.

* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM CO E5 Alamosa, CO [Revised]

Alamosa, San Luis Valley Regional/Bergman

Field, CO

(Lat. 37°26′06′′N, long. 105°52′01′′W)

Alamosa VORTAC

(Lat. 37°20′57′′N, long. 105°48′56′′W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within 8.7 miles

northeast and 10.5 miles southwest of the

Alamosa VORTAC 335° and 155° radials

extending from 20.1 miles northwest to 10.5

miles southeast of the VORTAC, and within

1.8 miles northwest and 5.3 miles southeast

of the Alamosa VORTAC 200° radial

extending from the VORTAC to 14 miles

southwest of the VORTAC; that airspace

extending upward from 1,200 feet above the

surface within an area bounded by a point

beginning at lat. 37°37′00′′N, long.

106°14′00′′W; to lat. 37°44′00′′N, long.

105°55′00′′W; to lat. 37°52′00′′N, long.

105°43′00′′W; to lat. 37°49′00′′N, long.

105°31′00′′W; to lat. 37°20′30′′N, long.

105°18′00′′W; to lat. 37°03′30′′N, long.

105°18′00′′W; to lat. 37°01′30′′N, long.

105°46′00′′W; to lat. 37°05′25′′N, long.

106°02′00′′W; to lat. 37°09′00′′N, long.

106°19′00′′W; to lat. 37°17′00′′N, long.

106°21′00′′W; thence to the point of

beginning.

* * * * *

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on March

19, 1997.

Helen Fabian Parke,

Manager, Air Traffic Division, Northwest

Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 97–8368 Filed 4–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 703

Request for Comments Concerning

Rule Governing Informal Dispute

Settlement Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15637

1 15 U.S.C. 2301 et seq. (1975).

2 40 FR 60,190.

3 General Motors ceased incorporating an IDSM in

its warranty beginning with its 1986 models and no

longer operates a 703 program. Ford discontinued

operation under Rule 703 with its 1988 model year

cars. Chrysler discontinued its Rule 703 program

with its 1991 models. Similarly, American Honda,

Nissan, Volvo, and other auto manufacturers have

all discontinued operating Rule 703 programs.

Although they are not required to do so, the IDSMs

for the major auto manufacturers continue to file

annual audits with the Commission. These audits

are placed on the public record and can be obtained

from the FTC’s Public Reference Branch, Room 130,

6th St. and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20580; (202) 326-2222. (FTC File No. R711002)

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

public comments.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) is

requesting public comment on its Rule

Governing Informal Dispute Settlement

Procedures (‘‘Rule 703’’). The

Commission is also requesting

comments about the overall costs and

benefits of Rule 703 and its overall

regulatory and economic impact as part

of its systematic review of all current

Commission regulations and guides.

Rule 703 specifies the minimum

standards which must be met by any

informal dispute settlement mechanism

that is incorporated into the written

warranty of a consumer product and

which the consumer must use prior to

pursuing any legal remedies in court.

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted until June 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: Secretary, Federal Trade

Commission, Room H–159, Sixth and

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20580. Comments should be

identified as ‘‘Rule 703—Comment.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carole I. Danielson, Investigator,

Division of Marketing Practices, Federal

Trade Commission, Washington, DC

20580, (202) 326-3115.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Commission has determined, as part of

its oversight responsibilities, to review

rules and guides periodically. Pursuant

to these reviews, the Commission seeks

information about the costs and benefits

of the rules and guides under review, as

well as their regulatory and economic

impact. The information obtained will

assist the Commission in identifying

rules and guides that warrant

modification or rescission. At this time,

the Commission solicits written public

comments concerning its Rule

Governing Informal Dispute Settlement

Procedures, 16 CFR Part 703 (‘‘Rule

703’’).

A. Background

In enacting the Magnuson-Moss

Warranty Act (‘‘Warranty Act’’ or

‘‘Act’’),1 which governs written

warranties on consumer products,

Congress recognized the growing

importance of alternatives to the judicial

process in the area of consumer dispute

resolution. In Section 110(a)(1) of the

Act, Congress announced a policy of

‘‘encourag[ing] warrantors to establish

procedures whereby consumer disputes

are fairly and expeditiously settled

through informal dispute settlement

mechanisms’’ (‘‘IDSMs’’) and erected a

framework for their establishment. As

an incentive to warrantors to establish

such IDSMs, Congress provided in

Section 110(a)(3) that warrantors may

incorporate into their written warranties

a requirement that a consumer must

resort to an IDSM before pursuing any

of his or her legal remedies for breach

of warranty. To ensure fairness to

consumers, however, Congress also

directed that, if a warrantor were to

incorporate such a ‘‘prior resort

requirement’’ into its written warranty,

the warrantor must comply with the

minimum standards set by the

Commission for such IDSMs; Section

110(a)(2) directed the Commission to

establish those minimum standards.

Accordingly, on December 31, 1975, the

Commission published its Rule

Governing Informal Dispute Settlement

Procedures, 16 CFR Part 703.2

Rule 703 contains extensive

procedural standards that must be

followed by every warrantor who

wishes to incorporate an IDSM, through

a prior resort clause, into the terms of

a written warranty. These standards

include requirements concerning the

mechanism’s structure (e.g., funding,

staffing, and neutrality), the

qualifications of staff or decision

makers, the mechanism’s procedures for

resolving disputes (e.g., notification,

investigation, time limits for decisions,

and follow-up), recordkeeping, and

annual audits. The Rule is unique

among Commission rules because it is a

voluntary regulation; that is, the Rule

applies only to those firms that choose

to be bound by it by placing a ‘‘prior

resort requirement’’ in their warranties.

The Act does not require warrantors to

set up IDSMs. Furthermore, a warrantor

is free to set up an IDSM that does not

comply with Rule 703 as long as the

warranty does not contain a ‘‘prior

resort requirement.’’

In the twenty years since Rule 703

was promulgated, most of the activity in

developing mediation and arbitration

programs for the resolution of consumer

warranty disputes has taken place in the

automobile industry. It is unclear how

many companies, if any continue to

participate in a Rule 703 mechanism.3

Most vehicle manufacturers no longer

include a ‘‘prior resort requirement’’ in

their warranties; thus, they and any

dispute resolution programs in which

they participate are not required to

comply with Rule 703.

The fact that most warrantors do not

include ‘‘prior resort requirements’’ in

their warranties does not mean,

however, that warrantors have

abandoned informal dispute resolution

programs. On the contrary, due to the

terms of state lemon laws (as explained

more fully below), all major automakers

participate in either manufacturersponsored or state-run dispute

resolution programs that frequently are

modeled on the minimum standards set

out in Rule 703 even though they are

not required to do so under any

provision of federal law. Today, most

automobile warranty disputes are

handled either by state-operated

programs not subject to Rule 703 or by

private programs which choose not to

operate under the Rule. As a result of

these trends, the Commission’s

enforcement responsibility for Rule 703

has virtually ceased.

Since Rule 703 was promulgated,

warrantors, consumer groups, state

governments and IDSMs have criticized

the Rule. Some warrantors and IDSMs

have argued that the Rule is unduly

burdensome, discourages the formation

of new IDSMs, and hinders the efficient

operation of existing ones. These critics

have alleged high compliance costs of

the procedural provisions and

burdensome recordkeeping

requirements. Other parties, by contrast,

have asserted that the Rule is

insufficiently stringent in many

respects. For example, consumer groups

and state law enforcement offices have

alleged that decisionmakers are not

adequately trained and that the

recordkeeping requirements are

insufficient to evaluate the programs’

performance. Finally, because few, if

any, programs actually operate under

Rule 703, some might argue that the

Rule no longer serves a useful purpose

and has become irrelevant to today’s

market.

In 1986, the Commission decided to

evaluate Rule 703 in an effort to address

criticisms of the Rule and to develop

proposals for reform. In order to assist

in this evaluation, the Commission

conducted a ‘‘regulatory negotiation’’

with an advisory committee of 25

organizations representing the major
15638 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules

4The notice of intent to form an advisory

committee for regulatory negotiation appears at 51

FR 5205 (February 12, 1986). The notice of

formation of the advisory committee and notice of

the first meeting appears at 51 FR 29666 (August

20, 1986).

5The record of that negotiated rulemaking and

the facilitators’ final report were placed on the

public record and is available through the FTC’s

Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th and

Pennsylvania, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202–

326–2222. (FTC File No. R711002)

6On April 11, 1988, the Motor Vehicle

Manufacturers Association of the United States, Inc.

and the Automobile Importers of America, Inc. filed

their petition together with a proposed revised

Rule. The petition and the record of the ANPR

which followed is available through the FTC’s

Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th and

Pennsylvania, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202–

326–2222. (FTC File No. R711002)

7The Memorandum in Opposition was filed on

June 22, 1988.

8 54 FR 21070 (May 16, 1989).

9The record for the ANPR proceeding was placed

on the public record and is available through the

FTC’s Public Reference Branch, Room 130, 6th and

Pennsylvania, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580; 202–

326–2222. (FTC File No. R711002)

10 ‘‘Lemon Laws’’ entitle the consumer to obtain

a replacement or a refund for a defective new car

if the warrantor is unable to repair the car after a

reasonable number of repair attempts.

11Some state lemon laws also require that the

IDSM comply with additional state standards in

addition to complying with the Rule 703

provisions.

interests affected by the Rule.4 The

Commission agreed to publish a Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) to

amend Rule 703 if the advisory

committee could reach a consensus

recommendation regarding revisions.

The Commission agreed to incorporate

any consensus recommendation coming

out of the negotiated rulemaking into

any NPR. However, the regulatory

negotiation was unable to reach a

consensus on a proposed revision of the

Rule and concluded its meetings in

1987.5 Since no consensus

recommendation was reached, the

Commission did not publish an NPR.

A second evaluation began in 1988,

after the auto manufacturers petitioned

the Commission to initiate a rulemaking

proceeding to amend Rule 703.6 Among

other things, the petitioners proposed

that the Commission institute a national

certification program for IDSMs and that

the Commission preempt those

provisions of state laws which impose

requirements upon warrantors’ private

IDSMs which differ from the

requirements specified in Rule 703. This

petition was followed by a

Memorandum in Opposition to the

petition filed by the Attorneys General

of 41 states.7 Because of the continuing

interest in the issues surrounding Rule

703 (as evidenced by the petition and

the Memorandum in Opposition), the

Commission published an Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(‘‘ANPR’’) in order to generate a broad

range of views on which dispute

resolution practices are sound and

could form the basis for possible

revisions to the Rule.8 In addition, the

Commission’s ANPR requested

economic or cost data to buttress the

petitioners’ allegations of injury due to

non-uniformity and the costs and

benefits associated with a national

certification program. On June 13, 1991,

the Commission denied the automakers’

petition because the record failed to

provide the adequate factual basis

regarding the costs of non-uniformity

that would have been necessary to

justify a rulemaking procedure,

preemption of state laws governing

IDSMs, or federal certification of

IDSMs.9

Rule 703 is brought into play only if

the warranty includes a ‘‘prior resort

requirement.’’ Because few warrantors

have a ‘‘prior resort requirement’’ in

their warranties, they and their dispute

resolution programs are not governed by

Rule 703. Nonetheless, although few

warrantors operate Rule 703 IDSMs

today, there is a recurring issue that

arise from the interplay between Rule

703 and state ‘‘lemon laws.’’ Many state

lemon laws, paralleling Section

110(a)(3) of the Warranty Act, prohibit

the consumer from pursuing any state

lemon law rights in court unless the

consumer first seeks a resolution of the

claim to the manufacturer’s (or a stateoperated) IDSM.10 Those statutes also

provide that the consumer is required to

use the manufacturer’s IDSM only if it

complies with the FTC’s standards set

out in Rule 703. Thus, in effect, these

states incorporate Rule 703 into their

lemon laws.11 A threshold question for

many state lemon law suits is whether

the IDSM complies with Rule 703 and

thus whether the consumer must use

that IDSM or may proceed directly to a

court action.

B. Issues for Comment

There are issues surrounding Rule 703

that continue to be of interest to many

parties. A review of the Rule and its

provisions, including the specific issue

of the interplay of Rule 703 and lemon

law litigation, will be helpful in

determining what direction the

Commission might take in the area of

setting standards for informal dispute

settlement procedures. Therefore, at this

time, the Commission solicits written

public comments on the following

questions with regard to Rule 703:

1. Is there a continuing need for Rule

703? Does the Rule continue to

serve a useful purpose?

(a) What benefits has the Rule

provided to consumers?

(b) Has the Rule imposed costs on

consumers?

2. What changes, if any, should be made

to Rule 703 to increase the benefits

of the Rule to consumers? How

would these changes affect the costs

that the Rule imposes on firms

subject to its requirements?

3. What significant burdens or costs,

including costs of compliance, has

Rule 703 imposed on firms subject

to requirements? Has the Rule

provided benefits to such firms?

4. What changes, if any, should be made

to Rule 703 to reduce the burdens

or costs imposed on firms subject to

its requirements? How would these

changes affect the benefits provided

by the rule?

5. Does Rule 703 overlap or conflict

with other federal, state, or local

government laws or regulations?

6. Since Rule 703 was issued, what

effects, if any, have changes in

relevant technology or economic

conditions had on the Rule? Are

there ways in which new electronic

technology, such as the Internet,

could be used to further the

purpose of the Rule?

7. What are the aggregate costs and

benefits of Rule 703? Are there

provisions in the Rule that are not

necessary to implement the

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act or

that have imposed costs not

outweighed by benefits? Who has

benefited and who has born the

costs? Have the costs or benefits of

the Rule changed over time?

8. Many state lemon laws require that,

before the consumer pursues any

legal remedies in court, the

consumer first must resort to the

manufacturers’ informal dispute

resolution mechanism if that

mechanism complies with Rule

703.

(a) What costs and benefits, if any,

result to the parties in a state lemon

law dispute from Rule 703 with

respect to the issues of:

(1) Whether a particular IDSM

complies with the Rule; and

(2) whether a plaintiff must first resort

to such an IDSM before bringing

suit in state court.

(b) What changes, if any, could be

made to Rule 703 that might

minimize burdens and maximize

benefits to parties in state lemon

law disputes?

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 703

Warranties, trade practices.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41–58.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 63 / Wednesday, April 2, 1997 / Proposed Rules 15639

By direction of the Commission.

Benjamin I. Berman,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–8411 Filed 4–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service

30 CFR Part 253

RIN 1010–AC33

Oil Spill Financial Responsibility for

Offshore Facilities; Correction

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service

(MMS), Interior.

ACTION: Correction to notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document corrects the

proposed regulation published in the

Federal Register on March 25, 1997 (62

FR 14052). Section 253.44 of the

proposed regulation (62 FR 14064) is

revised to clarify the intended

compliance date.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Raymond L. Beittel, Performance and

Safety Branch, at (703) 787–1591.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: MMS

published a proposed rule on March 25,

1997 (62 FR 14052), which addressed

new requirements for demonstrating oil

spill financial responsibility for cleanup

and damages from oil discharges from

oil exploration and production facilities

and associated pipelines. The rule will

apply to operations in: the Outer

Continental Shelf; State waters seaward

of the line of ordinary low water along

that portion of the coast that is in direct

contact with the open sea; and in coastal

inland waters, such as bays and

estuaries, seaward of the line of

ordinary low water along that portion of

the coast that is not in direct contact

with the open sea. This rule implements

the authority of the Oil Pollution Act of

1990 (OPA).

Need For Correction

As published, the proposed regulation

at § 253.44 contains an error that may be

misleading and is in need of

clarification.

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication on

March 25, 1997, of the proposed

regulation, which was the subject of FR

Doc 97–7270, is corrected as follows:

§ 253.44 [Corrected]

On page 14064, in the first column, in

§ 253.44, is corrected to read as follows:

§ 253.44 When must I comply with this

regulation?

You must submit to MMS your

evidence of OSFR for all the COF’s on

all the leases, permits, and RUE’s for

which you are the designated applicant

no later than 60 days after the

publication date of the final regulation.

* * * * *

Date: March 27, 1997.

E.P. Danenberger,

Chief, Engineering and Operations Division.

[FR Doc. 97–8269 Filed 4–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

32 CFR Part 552

[APG Reg 1–1]

Protests, Picketing, and Other Similar

Demonstrations on the Installation of

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action will establish 32

CFR Part 552, Subpart P, Protests,

Picketing, and Other Similar

Demonstrations, and authenticates

Aberdeen Proving Ground Regulation,

APG Reg. 1–1. This subpart will

establish policies, responsibilities, and

procedures for protests, picketing, and

other similar demonstration on the

Aberdeen Proving Ground military

reservation. This regulation will be

applicable to all personnel assigned,

residing, working, or visiting on the

Aberdeen Proving Ground reservation.

DATES: Comments must be received no

later than May 2, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army

Test and Evaluation Command, Office of

the Chief Counsel and Staff Judge

Advocate, Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Maryland 21005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura R. Haug, Deputy Chief Counsel,

telephone (410) 278–1105 or 1107.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Supplementation of this subpart by

subordinate units is prohibited.

Executive Order 12291

This proposed rule is not a major rule

as defined by Executive Order 12291.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act has no

bearing on this proposed rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This proposed rule does not contain

reporting or recordkeeping requirements

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 552

Federal buildings and facilities.

It is proposed to add Subpart P to 32

CFR Part 552 as set forth below:

Roslyn M. Glantz,

Colonel, U.S. Army, Aberdeen Proving

Ground Garrison Commander.

32 CFR Part 552 is amended by

adding a new Subpart P as follows:

Subpart P—Protests, Picketing, and Other

Similar Demonstrations on the Installation

of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland

Sec.

552.211 Purpose.

552.212 Scope.

552.213 Policy.

552.214 Procedures.

552.215 Responsibilities.

552.216 Violations.

Authority: 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1382.

Subpart P—Protests, Picketing, and

Other Similar Demonstrations on the

Installation of Aberdeen Proving

Ground, Maryland

§ 552.211 Purpose.

This subpart establishes policies,

responsibilities, and procedures for

protests, picketing, and other similar

demonstrations on the Aberdeen

Proving Ground installation.

§ 552.212 Scope.

(a) The provisions of this subpart

apply to all elements of U.S. Army

Garrison, Aberdeen Proving Ground

(USAGAPG), and the supported

organizations and activities on the

Aberdeen and Edgewood Areas of

Aberdeen Proving Ground.

(b) The provisions of this subpart

cover all public display of opinions

made by protesting, picketing, or any

other similar demonstration.

(c) The provisions of this subpart are

applicable to all people, military and

civilian employees, and all visitors,

family members, or others, entering

upon or present at Aberdeen Proving

Ground.

§ 552.213 Policy.

(a) Aberdeen Proving Ground is a

non-public forum and is NOT open for

expressive activity. Aberdeen Proving

Ground is a military installation under

the exclusive federal jurisdiction at

which official business of the federal

government is conducted, including

military training, testing of weapon

systems and other military equipment,

and other official business.