Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 10489

AGL OH D Cleveland, Burke Lakefront

Airport, OH [Revised]

(Lat. 41°31′03′′N., Long. 81°41′00′′W.)

That airspace extending upward from the

surface to but not including 3000 feet MSL

within a 4.1-mile radius of Burke Lakefront

Airport, excluding that airspace within the

Cleveland, OH, Class B airspace area. This

Class D 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 Des Plaines, Illinois on February

15, 1995.

Roger Wall,

Manager, Air Traffic Division.

[FR Doc. 95–4778 Filed 2–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Economic Analysis

15 CFR Part 806

[Docket No. 9050206037–5037–01]

RIN 0691–AA23

Direct Investment Surveys: Raising

Exemption Level for Quarterly Report

Form BE–577

AGENCY: Bureau of Economic Analysis,

Commerce.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule amends

regulations on direct investment surveys

to raise the exemption level for filing

quarterly Form BE–577, Direct

Transactions of U.S. Reporter With

Foreign Affiliate. The BE–577 is a

mandatory survey of U.S. direct

investment abroad conducted by the

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA),

U.S. Department of Commerce. Under

this final rule, the exemption level for

the survey—the level below which

reports are not required—is raised from

$15 million to $20 million. This change

will reduce the number of respondents

that otherwise must report in the

survey.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will be

effective March 29, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Betty L. Barker, Chief, International

Investment Division (BE–50), Bureau of

Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, DC 20230;

phone (202) 606–9800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

December 12, 1994 Federal Register, 59

FR 63941, BEA published a notice of

proposed rulemaking that would

increase the exemption level for filing

the BE–577, Direct Transactions of U.S.

Reporter With Foreign Affiliate. No

comments on the proposed rule itself

were received. (As noted below, one

comment on changes to the survey

forms that did not require rule changes

was received.) Thus, this final rule is

the same as the proposed rule.

The quarterly BE–577 is part of BEA’s

regular data collection program for U.S.

direct investment abroad. The survey is

mandatory and is conducted pursuant to

the International Investment and Trade

in Services Survey Act (Pub. L. 94–472,

90 Stat. 2059, 22 U.S.C. 3101–3108, as

amended).

The exemption level is set in terms of

the size of a U.S. company’s foreign

affiliates. Under this final rule, the

exemption level for the BE–577 survey

is raised from $15 million to $20

million. Thus, if an affiliate is owned 10

percent or more by the U.S. company

and has assets, sales, or net income

greater than $20 million (positive or

negative), it will have to be reported. If

the affiliate does not meet these criteria,

a report is not required. The last time

the exemption level was raised was May

1, 1986.

Raising the exemption level lowers

the number of reports that otherwise

must be filed, thus reducing the

reporting and processing burdens. The

changes in exemption level will be

implemented beginning with the reports

for the first quarter of 1995.

BEA has made changes to the BE–577

survey form in addition to the raising of

the exemption level. These changes,

however, did not require rule changes

and are not reflected in the final rule.

They are a result of changes made to the

related BE–10. Benchmark Survey of

U.S. Direct Investment Abroad—1994.

They include the combination of two

items that appeared on the 1994 BE–577

survey and the addition of other items

that are on the 1994 BE–10 but were not

on the 1994 BE–577. Added to the form

are items, to be completed annually, on

services transactions between U.S.

Reporters and their foreign affiliates by

type and an item, to be completed

quarterly by affiliates classified in

banking, on the U.S. Reporter’s share of

the affiliate’s provision for loan losses.

Also, changes in the survey instructions

are being made primarily for purposes

of clarification and to reflect the

combination or addition of items.

In response to the notice of proposed

rulemaking, one letter of comment was

received. It expressed concern that the

new items on services transactions

would impose additional burden by

requiring modification of information

systems and more time to complete the

survey forms. The new items must be

completed only annually, and the first

time they will need to be completed will

not be until the second quarter

following the end of affiliates’ fiscal

year 1995, which in most cases will be

mid-1996. This will give companies at

least a year to implement program

changes necessary to report this

information.

Executive Order 12612

This final rule does not contain

policies with Federalism implications

sufficient to warrant preparation of a

Federalism assessment under E.O.

12612.

Executive Order 12866

This final rule has been determined to

be not significant for purposes of E.O.

12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information required

in this final rule has been approved by

OMB (OMB No. 0608–0004).

The public reporting burden for this

collection of information is estimated to

be 1.15 hours per response (form). The

burden on the U.S. Reporter will vary

depending on the number of forms that

must be submitted in a given reporting

period; this ranges from 1 to 225 forms.

The estimated burden of 1.15 hours per

form includes the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information.

Comments from the public regarding the

burden estimate or any other aspect of

this collection of information should be

addressed to: Director, Bureau of

Economic Analysis (BE–1), U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

DC 20230; and to the Office of

Management and Budget, Washington,

DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for

the Department of Commerce.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Assistant General Counsel for

Legislation and Regulation, Department

of Commerce, has certified to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business

Administration, under the provisions of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

606(b)), that this final rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Because it raises the exemption level for

filing the survey, it will actually reduce

the reporting requirements of smaller

entities.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 806

Balance of payments, Economic

statistics, Foreign investments in United

States, Penalties, Reporting and
10490 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 38 / Monday, February 27, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

recordkeeping requirements, United

States investments abroad.

Dated: February 2, 1995.

Carol S. Carson,

Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, BEA amends 15 CFR Part 806

as follows:

PART 806—DIRECT INVESTMENT

SURVEYS

1. The authority citation for 15 CFR

Part 806 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 22 U.S.C. 3101–

3108; and E.O. 11961 (3 CFR, 1977 Comp.,

p. 86), as amended by E.O. 12013 (3 CFR,

1977 Comp., p. 147), E.O. 12318 (3 CFR, 1981

Comp., p. 173), and E.O. 12518 (3 CFR, 1985

Comp., p. 348).

§ 806.14 [Amended]

2. Section 806.14(e) is amended by

removing ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and adding

‘‘$20,000,000’’ in its place.

[FR Doc. 95–4631 Filed 2–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–EA–M

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 1117

Interpretative Regulations for

Reporting Choking Incidents to the

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Pursuant to the Child Safety Protection

Act

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety

Commission (CPSC).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The ‘‘Child Safety Protection

Act’’ requires manufacturers,

distributors, retailers, and importers of

marbles, small balls, latex balloons, and

toys or games that contain such items or

other small parts, to report to the

Commission when they learn of choking

incidents involving such products. The

Commission is issuing a rule to

implement this reporting requirement.

DATES: This regulation becomes

effective March 29, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric

L. Stone, Office of Compliance and

Enforcement, CPSC, 4440 East West

Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814 (Mailing

address: Washington, D.C. 20207),

telephone (301) 504–0626 extension

1350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

Section 102 of the Child Safety

Protection Act, (Pub. L. No. 103–267

(June 17, 1994) (‘‘the Act’’ or the ‘‘the

CSPA’’) requires:

Each manufacturer, distributor,

retailer and importer of marble, small

ball, or latex balloon, or a toy or game

that contains a marble, small ball, latex

balloon or other small part, shall report

to the Commission any information

obtained by such manufacturer,

distributor, retailer, or importer which

reasonably supports the conclusion

that—

(A) an incident occurred in which a

child (regardless of age) choked on such

a marble, small ball, or latex balloon or

on a marble, small ball; latex balloon, or

other small part contained in such toy

or game and

(B) as a result of that incident the

child died, suffered serious injury,

ceased breathing for any length of time,

or was treated by a medical

professional.

A failure to report is a prohibited act

under section 19(a)(3) of the Consumer

Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C.

2068(a)(3), punishable by civil penalties

under section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C.

2069. The Act provides a high degree of

confidentiality for choking reports.

Reports shall not be interpreted as

admissions of liability or of the truth of

the information in the reports.

On July 1, 1994, the Commission

proposed a rule to define several terms

and resolve ambiguities and

uncertainties in the statutory reporting

scheme. (59 F.R. 33927) The

Commission received over 200

comments from consumer groups,

medical professionals, and individual

consumers. Generally, these comments

supported the proposed rule.

Manufacturers, trade associations,

testing labs, attorneys and others

commented on behalf of industry.

Generally, these groups sought to limit

the reporting requirements and allow

firms more time and discretion. In all,

over 260 comments were received and

analyzed.

B. Consideration of the Comments

1. Substantive Versus Interpretative

Several manufacturers, trade

associations and industry consultants

objected to this rule being issued as a

substantive rule. Generally, these

commenters believed interpretative

rules were more appropriate. Consumers

and consumer groups supported

issuance of substantive rules.

The business commenters argued (1) a

substantive rule would be binding and

would eliminate the opportunity to

challenge the Commission’s

interpretation of the reporting

requirement on a case-by-case basis; (2)

the Commission did not issue other

reporting rules under section 15(b) or 37

of the CPSA as substantive rules; (3)

since, unlike the provisions of section

101(c) of the Child Safety Protection

Act, Congress did not grant the

Commission specific authority to issue

this rule, the Commission should limit

itself to an interpretative rule; (4)

section 16(b) of the CPSA is a

recordkeeping and inspection provision

and was not intended to be used for

reporting rules except those limited to

inspections; and (5) given the tight

timeframes for reporting, the rule

should be interpretative.

Section 102(a)(2) of the Child Safety

Protection Act provides that ‘‘[f]or

purposes of section 19(a)(3) of the

Consumer Product Safety Act [15 U.S.C.

2068(a)(3), describing prohibited acts],

the requirement to report information

under this subsection is deemed to be a

requirement under such Act.’’ While the

Act does not explicitly require the

Commission to issue rules to implement

it, the Commission believes that

Congress intended the entire reporting

section to be considered part of the

CPSA. The Commission believes its

general authority under section 16(b) to

issue rules concerning reporting applies.

Section 102 left unanswered several

questions about reporting procedures

and the contents of the report. The

Commission has an obligation to further

define the reporting obligation outlined

in the statute through rulemaking and it

has the authority to do so.

Section 16(b) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C.

2065(b)) authorizes the Commission to

require manufacturers, private labelers

and distributors to ‘‘make such reports

* * * as the Commission may, by rule,

reasonably require for the purposes of

implementing this Act.’’ A failure to

make reports or provide information

under section 16(b) of the CPSA (15

U.S.C. 2065(b)) is a prohibited act under

section 19(a)(3) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C.

2068(a)(3)). The Commission proposed

this rule under section 102 of the Act

and section 16(b) of the CPSA (15 U.S.C.

2065(b)).

Although section 16(b) falls within a

section titled ‘‘Inspection and

Recordkeeping,’’ the language of the

provision does not by its terms limit

reporting solely to an inspectional

context. The Commission has

consistently taken this ‘‘plain language’’

view of section 16(b). The Commission

cited section 16 as part of the authority

for the section 15(b) reporting

regulations codified in 16 CFR Part

1115. In addition , the Commission has

relied on section 16(b) for authority to

require reports in the certification