Page:FR 56124-56153.pdf/3

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 211

[FRL 1270-2]

Approval and Promulgation of the General Provisions for Product Noise Labeling

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: By this notice the Environmental Protection Agency establishes the general provisions of a regulatory program for product noise labeling under the authority of Section 8 of the Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. 4907, These general provisions concern the aspects of the program which the Agency intends to apply in every instance of product noise labeling, The practicality of applying the general provisions will be determined for each product to be noise labeled. The Agency will address the labeling requirements for individual products or product classes, which differ with these provisions, in product-specific rulemaking actions. The major purpose of this regulatory program is to provide accurate and understandable information on the noise generating or noise reducing properties of new products, so that the public can make meaningful comparisons concerning those properties when making decisions to use or buy the products.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 28, 1979.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy McBride, Standards and Regulation Division (ANR-490), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 20460, (703) 557-2710.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

On June 22, 1977, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule (42 FR 31722) to establish a product noise labeling program under the authority of, and as required by, Section 8 of the Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. 4907. The June 22 proposal set forth the general provisions of the noise labeling regulatory program, and established Part 211 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Part 211 will be composed of the general labeling provisions as subpart A, and individual product-specific labeling requirements that would be added as further subparts by separate rulemaking actions. Because of a computerization program undertaken since the promulgation of the proposed rule, it was necessary in the final rule to either replace the second decimal point in each section heading with a zero or delete it entirely. At the time of publication, the EPA solicited written public comment on the proposed General Provisions as well as all other aspects of the proposed product noise labeling program. Public hearings were not initially scheduled. The public comment period for the proposed rule was originally set at 90 days with closing scheduled for September 20, 1977. As the result of receiving a large number of letters shortly after publication in the Federal Register, the EPA decided to schedule public hearings on the proposed rule and extended the comment period to October 28, 1977 (42 FR 41139). Hearings were-held in Washington, D.C. on September 16, 1977; in Cedar Rapids, fowa on September 20, 1977; and in San Francisco, California on September 22, 1977.

In all, the Agency received 735 written comments by the close of the comment period, and tock oral testimony from 51 individuals, organizations and businesses at the three public hearings. Over 600 of the written comments were from private citizens. A large majority of the comments were in favor of the proposed noise labeling program. Most of the favorable comments came from private citizens, while the majority of industry commenters disagreed with various aspects of the program. The comments dealt with virtually every aspect of the program. While the Agency has modified or clarified some aspects of the proposed noise labeling General Provisions, the final rule incorperates no major changes. A discussion of the major comments follows.

II. Discussion of Major Comments

A. Statutory Authority

1. Questions Concerned With Issuing the General Provisions Before Product- Specific Regulations. Four commenters questioned the appropriateness of promulgating genera] labeling provisions before product-specific regulations. They argued that this sequence of actions was illogical; that both the general provisions and product-specific regulations must be considered in tandem; and that, therefore, issuing the general provisions before the product-specific regulations serves no useful purpose. Commenters wanted to be certain that they could comment on the General Provisions and also be able to comment on product-specific regulations, if the Agency proposed product regulations affecting their industry, One commenter indicated that comments on the General Provisions should be considered in future product-specific rulemaking. That same commenter also stated that there were enormous problems in selecting a label format and what sort of relevant information should be included on the label before actually deciding upon the product(s) to be regulated. Another commenter argued that the proposed standards would create confusion and procedural dilemmas when they were applied to a particular product, since they apply neither to a specific product nor to all products in general.

The EPA proposed the noise labeling General Provisions at the same time it proposed a product-specific noise labeling regulation for Hearing Protectors (42 FR 31730). Thus, the General Provisions do not exist alone. The Agency believes that the one-time issuance of the Product Noise Labeling General Provisions is logical and advantageous to the general public, to industry, and to the Federal government, because it eliminates the need to re- propose many of the same regulatory requirements in each product-specific labeling action. The general labeling requirements apply to all noise- producing and noise-reducing products. Where appropriate, product-specific regulations will clearly delineate any exceptions to the General Provisions. Thus, there should be no confusion in using the General Provisions:and future product-specific regulations in tandem.

The size of the public docket attests to EPA's success in eliciting comments from concerned parties. These comments have helped the Agency to shape an overall regulatory program that is both effective and reasonable and also to anticipate many of the technical problems that may occur because of product-specific labeling actions.

By issuing the General Provisions, the Agency intends to provide guidance to the general public and to all potentially