9654 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules

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 Worland,

Wyoming, by designating the Class E

airspace as full-time instead of parttime. The coordinates for this airspace

docket are based on North American

Datum 83. Class E airspace is published

in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order

7400.9B dated July 18, 1994, and

effective September 16, 1994, 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. app. 1348(a), 1354(a),

1510; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 14 CFR

11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9B, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated July 18, 1994, and effective

September 16, 1994, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending

Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the

Surface of the Earth

* * * * *

ANM WY E5 Worland, WY [Revised]

Worland Municipal Airport, WY

(Lat. 43°57′56′′ N, long. 107°57′01′′ W)

Worland VOR/DME

(Lat. 43°57′51′′ N, long. 107°57′′03′ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within 4 miles east and

8.3 miles west of the Worland VOR/DME

352° and 172° radials extending from 16.1

miles north to 5.3 miles south of the VOR/

DME; that airspace extending upward from

1,200 feet above the surface within a 20.1-

mile radius of the VOR/DME, and that

airspace extending upward from 10.500 feet

MSL bounded on the north by lat. 44°00′00′′

N. on the east by the 20.1-mile radius of the

Worland VOR/DME, on the south by V–319,

and on the west by V–85. 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.

* * * * *

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on February

2, 1995.

Bill H. Ellis,

Acting Assistant Manager, Air Traffic

Division, Northwest Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 95–4208 Filed 2–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1700

Requirements for the Special

Packaging of Household Substances;

Reconsideration of Final Rule;

Opportunity for Written Comment

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

ACTION: Reconsideration of final rule;

notice of opportunity for additional

written public comment.

SUMMARY: The Commission on February

6, 1995, approved a Federal Register

notice amending its requirements under

the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of

1970 for child-resistant packaging to

change the child and adult tests under

which child-resistant packaging is

evaluated. Immediately thereafter, the

Commission became aware of comments

on the final rule that had not previously

been submitted to the agency during the

course of the rulemaking. As a result,

the Commission on February 9, 1995,

voted to withhold publication of the

final rule in order to consider these new

arguments.

The new arguments can be

summarized as follows. First, in

establishing an adult test panel

consisting of adults aged 60–75, the

Commission allegedly exceeded its

statutory authority to require that childresistant packaging not be difficult for

‘‘normal adults’’ to use properly.

Second, the rule allegedly addresses

consumer convenience, rather than

safety, which the comment claims is not

properly the subject of a Commission

regulation.

DATES: Written comments limited to the

new issues described below may be

submitted on or before March 7, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed to the Office of the Secretary,

Consumer Product Safety Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20207, or delivered to

the Office of the Secretary, Consumer

Product Safety Commission, Room 501,

4340 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD

20814.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Suzanne Barone, Ph.D., Project

Manager, Consumer Product Safety

Commission, Washington, DC 20207;

telephone (301) 504–0477, ext. 1196.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Poison Prevention Packaging Act

of 1970 (‘‘PPPA’’), 15 U.S.C. 1471–1476,

authorizes the Consumer Product Safety

Commission to issue requirements that

certain household substances be sold in

child-resistant (‘‘CR’’) packaging. Under

the PPPA, the Commission has defined

and established standards for such

‘‘special’’ packaging. 16 CFR

1700.1(b)(4), 1700.3, 1700.15, and

1700.20. The Commission has also

determined which household

substances are required to have the

special packaging. 16 CFR 1700.14.

To comply with the special packaging

requirements, a package must resist

entry by most young children and must

be ‘‘not difficult’’ for ‘‘normal adults’’ to

open and properly resecure, within

specified time periods. 15 U.S.C.

1471(4). The existing requirements were

developed before the widespread use of

CR packaging (‘‘CRP’’) and, therefore,

without the benefit of the actual use

experience and test data that since have

become available.

The current adult test protocol, 16

CFR 1700.20(a)(4) and (5), specifies a

test panel of 100 adults, ages 18 through

45 years. Seventy percent of the adults

must be females and 30 percent must be
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 1995 / Proposed Rules 9655

males. The test period is 5 minutes. The

adults are given the test package and

asked to open and then properly close

the package. For a package to meet the

PPPA effectiveness criteria, at least 90

percent of the adults must be able to

open and, if appropriate, properly close

the package within the 5-minute test

period. 16 C.F.R. 1700.15(b)(2).

In enacting the PPPA, the Congress

was concerned that the elderly or

individuals with disabilities would be

unable to open CRP. Therefore, the

PPPA was drafted to permit substances

subject to CRP requirements to be

marketed in non-CR packages (‘‘nonCRP’’) in certain circumstances.

Section 4(a) of the PPPA, 15 U.S.C.

1473(a), allows the manufacturer or

packer to package a nonprescription

product subject to special packaging

standards in one size of non-CRP only

if (1) the manufacturer (or packer) also

supplies the substance in CRP of a

popular size and (2) the non-CRP bears

conspicuous labeling stating: ‘‘This

package for households without young

children.’’ 15 U.S.C. 1473(a). If the

package is too small to accommodate

this label statement, the package may

bear a label stating: ‘‘Package not childresistant.’’ 16 CFR 1700.5(b). The right

of the manufacturer or packer to market

a single size of the product in

noncomplying packaging under these

conditions is termed the ‘‘single-size

exemption.’’

Furthermore, prescription substances

subject to special packaging standards

may be dispensed in non-CRP if

directed by the prescriber or requested

by the purchaser. PPPA § 4(b), 15 U.S.C.

1473(b).

Thus, persons who find CRP unduly

difficult to use may purchase the single

size of a nonprescription product that

may be provided in noncomplying

packaging or may request that his or her

prescriptions be supplied in

noncomplying packaging, thereby

eliminating the protection that CRP

provides against poisoning. Consumers

are also making a substantial number of

CRP ineffective after bringing them

home, such as by leaving the package

cap off or loose or by placing the

package’s contents in a non-CR

container. The Commission was

concerned that these consumer actions,

all caused at least in part by packaging

that is difficult for normal adults to use

properly, were exposing children to

avoidable poisonings.

On January 19, 1983, the Commission

published an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’)

outlining its concerns in this area and

explaining possible actions to increase

the proper use of CRP, simplify the test

procedures, and make the test

procedures less affected by possible

variables. 48 FR 2389. After considering

comments on the ANPR and other

available information, the Commission

decided to propose amendments to the

protocol to address this problem. Also,

the proposed amendments would

change the protocol to make the test

results more consistent and make the

child test easier to perform. The

Commission published its initial

proposal in the Federal Register of

October 5, 1990. 55 FR 40856.

Older adults typically have the most

difficulty with CRP. Therefore, in order

to eliminate the currently-marketed CR

package designs that are most difficult

for ‘‘normal adults’’ of all ages to open,

the Commission proposed to substitute

older adults, ages from 60–75 years, for

the current panel of 100 18–45 yearolds.

The original period for written

comments on the proposal expired

January 3, 1991, and oral comments

were received by the Commission on

December 5, 1990. The written and oral

comments included several requests

that the comment period be extended

for periods up to 180 days. The requests

stated that the testing and evaluations

needed to respond to the proposal

required the additional time. Some

requests also asked for a second

opportunity to submit oral comments at

the end of the extended period for

submitting written comments. The

Commission considered these requests

and granted an extension of 180 days,

until July 1, 1991, for submission of

written comments. Additional oral

comments were received on September

12, 1991.

During the original comment period,

a commenter suggested certain changes

to the proposed adult test. The

Commission preliminarily concluded

that this suggestion might have merit

and requested comment on it. 56 FR

9181 (March 5, 1991).

The Commission received a number

of comments in response to the

proposed rule and the additional

request for comment. The Commission

then published a further request for

comment on additional information

used to address comments and on the

changes to the test procedures that the

Commission preliminarily concluded

were appropriate. 59 FR 13264 (March

21, 1994). On December 20, 1994, the

Commission was briefed by its staff on

the comments on the proposed rule and

the changes recommended by the staff.

On January 6, 1995, the Commission

met and decided to approve the rule

recommended by the staff, but to

exclude from the scope of the rule those

products that must be packaged in metal

cans or aerosol form. The staff made

appropriate changes to the draft Federal

Register notice that would issue the

final rule, and that notice was approved

by the Commission on February 6, 1995.

Immediately thereafter, certain portions

of the packaging industry raised

concerns about the Commission’s

action. Some of these concerns already

had been addressed in the rulemaking

proceeding. Two concerns, however,

had not been the subject of specific

comments by interested parties in this

rulemaking.

Specifically, the new comments can

be summarized as follows. First, in

establishing an adult test panel

consisting of adults aged 60–75, the

Commission allegedly exceeded its

statutory authority to require that childresistant packaging not be difficult for

‘‘normal adults’’ to use properly.

Second, the rule allegedly addresses

consumer convenience, rather than

safety, which the comment claims is not

properly the subject of a Commission

regulation. In addition, the second

comment contends that to the extent

that child-resistant packages exist that

will pass the ‘‘senior friendly’’ test

approved by the Commission, market

forces will be an adequate and more

appropriate mechanism to ensure that

the more convenient packaging will be

adopted.

The Commission wanted to assure

that it had an opportunity to consider

these new arguments that had not

previously been raised in the

rulemaking. Accordingly, on February 8,

1995, the Commission voted

unanimously to withhold publication of

the Federal Register notice that would

have issued the final rule, to consider

the new arguments. Written comments,

limited to these two issues only, may be

submitted until March 7, 1995. The

Commission will consider any new

information and arguments received on

these issues alone, and will resolve

these points as quickly as possible.

Comments addressing other issues will

not be considered.

Dated: February 16, 1995.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–4307 Filed 2–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P