Document re7nyZGe1wOJxadJpojdzrmpJ

JOSEPH E KELLEH JEROME H HFXKMAN CHARLES M MEEHAN WILLIAM H. BOROHESANI, JR ROBERT R TIERNAN WAYNE V, BLACK DAVID L, HILL MARTIN W( BERCOVICI EDWIN B SPIEVACK PETER M NEMKOV JOSEPH E. HADLEY Carole c. Harris WILLIAM w PUGH Kelleb and IIeckman 1150 |9TM STREET, N. W. SUITE lOOO WASHINGTON, D. C. 20036 April 16, 1974 TELEPHONE 90S 2QQ-2700 CABLE ADDRESS"KELMAN" Dr. Karl A. Hochschwender American Hoechst Corporation Route 202-206 North Bridgewater Post Office Box 2500 Somerville, New Jersey 08876 Re: Proposed Regulation of Food-Contact Articles in the Household; 39 Fed. Reg 13285, et seq. Dear Karl We have reported several times recently that FDA was considering the revocation of the so-called "housewares exemption" under which utensils, dinnerware and similar articles used in the home were exempt from the Food Additives Amendment of 1958. The formal FDA action in this connection by means of a proposed Rule Making was published in the Federal Register on April 12, 1974. We are enclosing copies of the pertinent pages from the Federal Register for your ready reference. It will be apparent to you that in this proposed Rule Making the Food and Drug Administration is asserting jurisdiction over dinnerware, utensils and other housewares, but is also once again reaffirming that if a substance does not migrate under intended conditions of use, it is not a food additive. As we see it, in its citation of legislative history in the preamble to this proposal, the Food and Drug. Administration has .gone to almost, tortuous care to rationalize.away and thereby minimize the significance of the explicit statements expressing Congressional intent to the effect that dinnerware or utensils were not intended to be the subject of coverage under the 1958 Food ASI-PR 0002083 Dr. Karl A. Hochschwender April 16, 1974 Page Two Additives Amendment. Nevertheless, we believe that in light of recent Supreme Court decisions, it is not un reasonable to anticipate that the FDA position would be upheld by the courts should its jurisdiction be challenged in a case in which a health hazard was shown to exist. Although the Food and Drug Administration refers to "no migration" in the preamble, and uses the statutpry definition of a food additive in the proposed regulation which implies that a substance that does not migrate is not a food additive, FDA still has not defined "no migration" in operational terms. In following up on this, I discussed the situation in some detail and was advised by Peter B. Hutt, Assistant General Counsel of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (in effect. General Counsel for FDA) that the time might be appropriate for filing a Food Additive Petition that would effectively define "zero migration" for indirect additives. It is our intention to prepare such a Petition promptly to be able to circulate a draft along with draft Comments on the subject proposed Rule Making for your consideration. In this connection, we are requesting those receiving copies of this letter who wish to do so to submit to us your suggestions for the preparation of Comments. In order to circulate draft Comments and leave time to prepare final Comments within the permitted sixty day period, we are requesting your initial responses by May 1, 1974. We plan to circulate draft Comments embodying any recommendations we might receive and a draft Petition to establish a "zero" standard for migration as close to May 15 as we can. In the meantime, as we await your suggestions, we hope that those of you who have any questions will not hesitate to contact us. CoEflially yours. Enclosures cc: To All Members of SPI Food,tBrug and Cosmetic Packaging Materials Committee / ASI-PR 0002084 PROPOSED RULES' 132? in Puerto Rico, including industry Com tery dinnerware, in enamclware, or in The . legislation also covers substane mittees Nos. 118, 119-A, 119-B, 120-A, pewter articles, which may migrate to which ipay reasonably be expected to becon 120- B, 121-A, 121--B, and 121-C and gave food held in the dinnerware (or enamel- notice of dates of Investigations and ware or pewter) and poison the con hearings. sumer, is subject to regulation as a "food The purpose of the hearings was to additive" within the meaning of section review the wage rates in those industries 201 (s) of the act (21 U.S.C. 321). Food a component of any food or to affect ti characteristics of any food. These substane arc generally referred to as "incidental add tives/* The principal examples of both Intention and Incidental additives are substances 1: which were below $1.60, the then highest additive regulations have been promul tended for use In producing, manufacturln minimum rate under the Fair Labor Standards Act, except in agriculture where minimum rates below $1,30 were to be considered. Under section 5(d) of the Act, the Secretary is obliged to fur nish to such committees such data as gated governing numerous substances used in food-contact surfaces, and in sanitizing solutions for such food-contact surfaces, in 21 CFR Part 121, Subpart F. Because, of resulting confusion with regard to the applicability of the Fed packing, processing, preparing, treatln packaging, transporting, or holding food. On the other hand, substances which m: accidentally get into a food, as for examp: paints or cleaning solutions used in for processing plants, are not covered by th legislation. These additives are general he has available on the matters referred eral Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to' referred to as "accidental additives," sin to the committees. Section 511.6, Title various houseware, food service, and these substances If properly used may n 29, Code of Federal Regulations pre food dispensing products, including reasonably be expected to become a cor. scribes the use of surveys. As the result , of the enactment of the Fair Labor cleaning agents, the Commissioner has determined that it is in the interest of ponent of a food or otherwise to affect tl characteristics of a food. Standards Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. efficient enforcement of the act to These statements make it clear that Coi No. 93-259, April 8, 1974, the data ob promulgate, a regulation articulating the gress intended to regulate all substane. tained In surveys in industries are now scope of the food additive provisions of (except those generally recognized inadequate; the criteria for use in recom the act with regard to such products. safe or specifically exempted by sectic mending wage rates are changed sub The definition of a food additive is ex 201 (s) of the act) which become or whic stantially, and the hotel and restaurant tremely broad and easily covers all sub may become a component of food by ar Industries wage rates have been in stances which may reasonably be ex means other than purely accidental cot creased to those In the various States. pected to migrate to food from food- tamination. Accordingly, pursuant to section 5 of contact articles. Section 201 (s) provides The House Select Committee to L the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 that: vestigate the Use of Chemicals in Foo< (29 U.S.C. 205) as amended, Reorgani The term "food additive" means any sub and Cosmetics which originally recon r zation Plan No. 6 of 1950 (3 CFR 1949- stance the Intended use of which results or mended a' food additives amendme. 53 Comp. p. 1004). and 29.CFR Part 511, may reasonably be expected to result, directly showed a similar desire for providing tl I postpone the meetings of Industry or Indirectly, In Its becoming a component or strongest possible consumer protects, Committees Nos. 118, 119-A, 119-B, 120- otherwise affecting the characteristics of any tnrough comprehensive food additi A, 120-B, and 121-A,-New dates for the convening of the postponed Industry committees will be published in the Federal Register within the next few weeks. These industry, committees will food (Including any substance intended for use In producing, manufacturing, packing, processing, preparing, treating, packaging, transporting, or holding food; *), If such substance Is not generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific train legislation. The committee's report to tl Congress (House Report No. 2356, 81 Cong,, 2d sess.), recommended: * * * the [food additive] legislation shou provide' that evidence that the chemical hold their meetings within the period be ing and experience to evaluate Its Safety, as safe, and does not produce harmful chemlc tween September 1, 1974 and Decem having been adequately shown through reactions In the end food product, shou ber 15, 1974. Industry Committees Nos. scientific procedures * * * to be safe under be submitted, to the Food and Drug Admt 121- B and 121-C for the Hotels and the conditions of its intended use; * 1 Restaurant Industries are dissolved. This statutory language provides no istratlon for clearance before the chemical utilized. Signed at Washington, D.C., this 9th of April 1974. , . . - Peter J. Brennan, Secretary of Labor, basis for an exemption for any houseware, food service, or fopd dispensing ar ticle or cleaning agent, and shows clearly that Congress meant to regulate all sub stances not generally recognized by ex Several manufacturers of food pad aging and wrapping materials testified the hearings on the Food Additlv Amendment of 1958 and, while son favored and others opposed the legisl [PR Doc.74-8482 FUed 4-11-74:8:46 am) `' perts as having been shown to be safe tion, it was generally recognized th which become or which may reasonably substances used to package and hold fo< . V DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE be expected to become, directly or In would be subject to the new legislate directly, a component of any food unless where migration occurred. See, for e specifically exempted by section 201 (s). ample, the statement by Frederick Food and Drug Administration [21 CFR Part 121] (Although color additives are specifically Leinbach, representing the Americ; exempted from the definition of food Paper & Pulp Association, "the overt additives by section 201 (s>(3), they are national association of the paper ar SUBSTANCES IN FOOD-CONTACT AR regulated by sections 706 and 402(c) of pulp industry," speaking with regard TICLES iN THE HOUSEHOLD, FOOD the act (21 U.S.C. 376, 342) regardless of packaging materials: SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS. AND FOOD DISPENSING EQUIPMENT intended use. See 21 CFR 8.1(f).) The legislative history of the Food If there are extractables, if those mater!; could reasonably be expected to become Food Additive Status Additives Amendment of 1958 also shows component of the packaged food, they th Since enactment of the Food Additives Amendment of 1958 (September 6, 1958, Pub. L. 85-929, 72 Stat, 1784), letters and oral opinions have at times been issued by personnel of the Food and Drug Ad ministration advising that ordinary houseware articles such as cutting boards, pots and pans, and eating uten sils, as well as agents used to clean such housewares, are not subject to regula tion under section 409 of the Federal Food. Drug, and Cosmetic Act (72 Stat. that Congress recognized and Intended ` become additives, and we feel they should that all substances which may reason treated as additives. (Hearings Before a Su ably be expected to become a component of any food are "food additives" (unless committee of the Committee on Intersta and Foreign Commerce, House of Represent tlvcs. Eighty-fifth Congress, on Bills' specifically exempt under section 201 (s) Amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmei of the act). Both the House and Senate Act with Respect to Chemical Additives Reports on the Food Additives Amend Food.] ment of 1958 contain the following text Congressman John Bell Williams, tl (House Report No. 2284, 85th Cong., 2d chairman of the subcommittee whli sess., p. 3, July 28, 1958; Senate Report prepared the food additive legislatic No. 2422, 85th Cong., 2d sess., p. 5, August reflected this understanding in the co: 18,1958): grcssional debate on the bill : 1785; 21 U.S.C. 348). The FDA has also had a well-established regulatory policy The legislation covers substances which are added Intentionally to food. These addltlves are generally referred to as "Intentional Since the food additive bill, H.R. 132 passed the House, I have received an I qulry as to how this legislation affects t that lead (or other heavy metals) in pot additives." packaging Industry. Of course, packagl FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 72--FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 1974 ASI-PR 0002085 ,13286 PROPOSED RULES. ordinarily is not Intended or reasonably ex the production, storage, or transportation pected to become a part of food and there of any raw agricultural commodity; or fore would not come under the bill. The (3) a color additive; or term "otherwise directing the characteris (4) any aubstance used In accordance with tics of any food" refers to an effect not gen a sanction or approval granted prior to erally recognized as safe among experts qual (September 6, 195BJ pursuant to this Act, ified by scientific training and experience the Poultry Products Inspection Act * * * to evaluate the safety of food additives; but or the Meat Inspection Act * *; or Innocuous effects of packaging, such as pro (5) a new animal drug. i tection from dirt, retarding moisture loss, preserving shape, providing convenience in use. handling, and storage, and the like, would not be covered. (Congressional Rec ord of August 23, 1938. 85th Cong., 2d boss.) Had Congress meant to exempt specific articles such as dinnerware and cooking utensils from the coverage of the act, therefore, it would have been a simple Similarly, Congressman Williams also stated that ordinary housewares would not be subject to the new law: matter for it to do so. Finally, section 409(c)(5) of the act provides that: This bill Is not Intended, for example, to give the Food and Drug Administration au thority to regulate the use of components ' In dlnnerware or ordinary eating utensils. In determining * * * whether a proposed use of a food additive Is safe, the Secretary shall consider among other relevant factors-- *** (Congressional Record, 104:17418.) (B) the cumulative effect of such additive Thus, ordinary inert articles from which In the diet of man * * no migration to food occurs are clearly It is not possible to make an accurate de not subject to the act, but there was no termination of the cumulative effect of congressional intent to exempt all food- an additive without .taking into account contact articles used in the household, all means by which that additive may food service establishments, and food reasonably be expected tTo enter man's dispensing equipment. diet. Any reports of adverse effects re Other provisions of section 409 of the sulting from migration of unsafe chem act also manifest a strong congressional ical additives from articles such as desire to regulate all intended uses of dinnerware and eating utensils would food additives. Section 409(a) provides require prompt regulatory action. There-' that: A food additive shall, with respect to any particular use or intended use of such addi tives, be deemed to be unsafe unless-- (1) it and its use or intended use conform fore, to exempt dinnerware, eating uten sils and other houseware, food service, and food dispensing articles which may reasonably be expected to contribute significant amounts of harmful additives to the terms of an exemption * * pur suant to subsection (1) (for investigational use( * *; or (2) there Is In effect, and It and Its use or Intended use are In conformity with, a regulation Issued under this section pre scribing the conditions under which such additive may be safely used. Section 409(b) provides that:. at the final and, arguably, most critical stage of food processing (i.e., immediately before being Ingested by the consumer) at the very time when technological ad vancements have vastly improved meth ods of detection and evaluation of their effect in man, would be in direct conflict with the express mandate of section 409 (c) (5) (B> of the act. , (1) Any person may, with respect to any Intended use of a food additive, file with the Secretary a petition proposing the Issuance ol a regulation prescribing the conditions under which such additive may be safely used. . (2) Such petition shall * contain-- * *' , * , (B) a statement of the conditions of the On January 17, 1974, Judge John Feikens of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Mich igan handed down an opinion in United States v. Articles of food * * * pottery, holding that pottery dinnerware is sub ject to the food additive and food re quirements of the act: proposed use of such additive * The legislative history leading to the Food *- * " * * * (D) a description of practicable methods for determining the quantity of such ad ditive In or on food, and any substance formed In or on food, because of Its use; * * Additives Amendment of the Act shows a clear Congressional Intent that substances which are subject to being ingested by human beings be cause of migration are "food additives" and thus "foods" within the meaning of the Act. * * It Is likewise These sections are clear. They give no indication that some intended uses are to be regulated while others are not. To the contrary, they show a definite Congressional concern for additives in or on food regardless of how they got there. When Congress Intended to exempt certain substances from the coverage of the act it had no difficulty making such intent readily apparent. Thus, in sec tion 201 (s) of the act it specifically pro vided that the term "food additive" does not include: clear that ordinary packaging or food holding devices from which there Is no migration are not subject to the Act, For these reasons, and in the interest of public health, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs lias concluded that any prior statements by FDA which conflict with this notice are erroneous and con trary to the Congressional intent as plainly expressed in the act, and any such statements are hereby withdrawn. The Commissioner recognizes that as a matter of fairness, transitional provisions to implement this proposed regulation (1) a pesticide chemical In or on a raw agricultural commodity: or (2) a pesticide chemical to the extent that It Is intended for use or la used In are appropriate, since members of indus try may presently be marketing certain products bearing migratory substances without an applicable food additive regu lation, in reliance upon a prior statement from FDA that the act was not applicable to the product, The proposal therefore provides that by December 31, 1974, manufacturers must either be in com pliance with existing regulations or have filed a food additive petition covering the use of a given substance or article. Of course, if there is no migration of a sub stance to food, or if the substance is gen erally recognized as safe at the level of migration under the conditions of use in volved, the substance is not a food addi tive and no petition is required. An opin ion with respect to migration or GRAS status may be obtained from the Food and Drug Administration upon request. No transition period is justified, how ever, for migratory substances in pottery dinnerware, enamelware, or pewter. FDA has for several years conducted a widely publicized regulatory program against such products. Accordingly, the proposal explicitly states that there is no mora torium on food additive charges where migratory substances are found in pot tery dinnerware, enamelware, or pewter. Therefore, pursuant to provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (secs. 201 (s), 409, 701(a), 72 Stat, 1784-1788, 52 Stat. 1055-1056; 21 U.S.C. 321 (s), 348, 371(a)), and under authority delegated to him (21 CFR 2.120), the Commissioner proposes to amend 21 CFR Part 121 by adding a new } 121,14, as follows: . ' ,-/ ; ; 121.14 Food additive status of food- roulnct articles intended for use in tlic household, food service establish ments, and food dispensing equip- men!. (a) Any substance th<; intended use of which results or may reasonably be ex pected to result, directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component or otherwise affecting the characteristics of any food Is subject to the food provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and, if it is not generally recognized as safe or exempt under section 201<s) (1)- (4) of the act, to the food additive provi sions of the act. This includes any sub stance in food-contact articles whether intended for use in the household, food service establishments, or, food dispens ing equipment, (b) Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, a food addi tive In a food-contact article intended for any of the uses referred to in paragraph (a) of this section shall, not later than December 31, 1974, be the subject of a food additive regulation or a food addi tive petition filed with the Food and Drug Administration covering such use. The filing of such a food additive petition shall stay the effective date of this sec tion until the petition is granted or de-. nied. (c> The transitional provisions in par agraph (b) of this section shall not apply to: (1) Migratory substances in pottery dinnerware, enamelware, or pewter: (2) Any migrating substance which is a poisonous or deleterious substance under section 402(a) (1) of the act: or FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 39, NO. 72--FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 1974 ASI-PR 0002086 PROPOSED RULES 13287 (3) Pood additives in food packaging and wrapping materials used to package, hold, or otherwise contain food prior to ultimate purchase by the consumer. (d) Any oral or written opinions con trary to this section are hereby revoked and superseded. Interested persons may, on or before June , 1074, file with the Hearing Clerk, Food and Drug Administration, Rm, 6-86. 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, written comments (preferably in quintuplicate) regarding this proposal. Com ments may be accompanied by a memo randum or brief in support thereof. Re ceived comments may be seen in the above office during working hours, Mon day through Friday. Dated: April 5, 1974. SamD. Fine, Associate Commissioner for Compliance. [FR Doc.74-8424 Filed 4-ll-74;8:45 ami DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National H ighway Traffic Safety Administration [ 49 CFR Part 571 ] ' [Docket No. 74-16; Notice 1] MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS Proposed Modification of Requirements for Motor-Driven Cycles This notice proposes amendments of 49 CFR 571.108, 571.122. and 571.123, Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 108, 122, and 123, that would modify current re quirements applicable to motor-driven cycles. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been petitioned by Cycles Peugeot, Ateliers de la Motobecane, and S.I.N.F.A.C. for "(1) recogni tion of the power-assisted bicycle as a separate category of motor vehicle and (2) promulgation of safety standards for the bicycle appropriate to its low power and speed." Similar petitions have been filed by Bermuda Bikes, Inc. and Robert F. Smith, who are retail dealers of lowpowered two-wheeled vehicles. These vehicles are currently classified as "motor-driven cycles", a subcategory of "motorcycle" that is defined by 49 CFR 571.3(b) as "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less". As such they are required to meet Federal motor vehicle safety standards, most importantly the ones covering lights (No, 108), hydraulic brake systems (No. 122) and controls and displays (No. 123). Petitioners contend that vehicles which produce no more than 1.5 horsepower de serve a separate classification, and that existing standards applicable to motordriven cycles are not reasonable, prac ticable, and appropriate for them. This agency has decided not to estab lish a separate category of motor vehicle. The problems of conforming to the standards encountered by vehicles with 1,5 horsepower or less do not appear to be sufficiently different from those of vehicles between 1.5 and 5 horsepower to justify a separate category. However, this agency has reviewed the require ments applicable to motor-driven cycles in light of the petitions and the re newed public interest in this type-of ve hicle, and has found that certain minor modifications in the standards may ease the burden of compliance without jeop ardizing basic safety performance. With respect to Standard No. 108, this agency has tentatively determined that in view of the speed and weight charac teristics of motor-driven cycles, the problems associated with hand signaling and the lack of turn signal lamps are not as significant as they are with the larger motorcycles. It is therefore pro posed that the requirement for turn signals be deleted for motor-driven cycles with a top-speed capability of 30 mph or less. Also, it has been found that low-powered cycle motors may have some difficulty in providing the full re quired illumination. It is proposed that the required stop-lamp photometric out put for low top-speed motor-driven cycles be .reduced to one-half that for motorcycles generally. It should be noted that Standard 108 already contains re duced photometric output requirements for motor-driven cycle headlamps. Because of the low speed of these ve hicles, it appears that some modification of Standard No. 122, Motorcycle Brak ing, would be appropriate. Since fade recovery is not a safety-critical require ment for vehicles with low top speeds, it is proposed that a motorcycle be ex empted from the fade requirements of S5.4 if the speed it attains in 1 mile is 30 mi/h or less. Further, since Table I provides no maximum stopping distances below 30 mi/h, values for stops'from 25, 20, and 15 mi/h are proposed, maintain ing the same deceleration values as re quired of higher speed stops. For ex ample, a stop from 25 mi/h in the total system effectiveness test would have to be made in not more than 19 feet. Finally, the NHTSA is proposing an amendment to the Motorcycle Controls and Displays standard, No. 123. Manu facturers of lightweight motor-driven cycles have petitioned that placement of the rear brake control on the left handlebar, rather than at the right foot, be allowed. This deviation from the standardized position for motorcycles would appear to have a minimal detri mental effect, and it is' therefore pro posed by this notice. In consideration of the foregoing, It Is proposed that 49 CFR Part 571 be amended as follows: g 571.108 [Amended] 1. In 571.108 the following definition would be added to paragraph S3: "Speed attainable in 1 mile" means the speed attainable by accelerating at maxi mum rate from a standing start for 1 mile on a level surface. 2. In 571.108 the following two subparagraphs would be added to paragraph S4: 54.1.l.._ A motor-driven cycle whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mi/h or less need not De equipped with turn signal lamps. S4.1.1.-- A motor-driven cycle whos. speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mi/h or less may be equipped with a stop lamp whoso photometric output for the group? of test points specified in Figure 1 is at least one-half of the minimum values set forth in that figure. 571.122 [Amended] 3. In 571,122, the following sentence would be added to S5.4: "These require ments do not apply to a motorcycle whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mi/h or less." 4. In { 571.122, Table I . would be amended to add the following values: Vehicle Prebnrnish lYeburnlsh Effective- test effective* effective* ness speed ness nevss total miles total partial system per system * mechanical (S5.1) hour {S5.2.J) systems (S3.7.J) (85.2.2) Effective ne'ks partial hydraulic sy^i'ins I . II III IV 15......... 20........... 13 ' 24 37 30 54 84 n 19 30 n A g 571.123 [Amended] 5. In 571.123, Table I would be amended by revising Item 11.-Column 2 to read: "Right foot control.1 Left handlebar permissible for motor-driven cycles." Interested persons are invited to sub mit comments on the proposal. Com ments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Section. Na tional Highway Traffic Safety Adminis tration, Room 5103, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. It is re quested but not required that 10 copie be submitted. ' A11 comments received before the closi of business on the comment closing dati indicated below will be considered, am will be available for examination in th docket at the above address both befor and after that date. To the extent pos sible, comments filed after the closin; date will also be considered. However, tin rulemaking action may proceed at an; time after that date, and comments re celved after the closing date and too lat. for consideration in regard to the actioi will be treated as suggestions for futur rulemaking. The NHTSA will continue t file relevant material as it becomes avail able in the docket after the closing date and it is recommended that interests persons continue to examine the docke for new material. . Comment closing date: May 13, 1974 Proposed effective date: 30 days afte; publication of final rule in Federa; Register. (Sec. 103, 119, Pub. L. 89-563. 80 Stat. 71E 15 U.S.C. 1392, 1407; delegations ol authorlt at 49 CFR 1.51 and 49 CFR 501.8.) , Issued on April 9, 1974. Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator. Motor Vehicle Programs. [FRDoc.74-8461 Filed4-11-74:8:45 am] FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 72--FRIDAY, APRIL 12, 1974 ASI-PR 0002087