[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37238-37242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18204]
[[Page 37237]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Federal Trade Commission
_______________________________________________________________________
16 CFR Part 432
Trade Regulation Rule Relating to Power Output Claims for Amplifiers
Utilized in Home Entertainment Products; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 131 / Thursday, July 9, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 37238]]
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 432
Trade Regulation Rule Relating to Power Output Claims for
Amplifiers Utilized in Home Entertainment Products
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'' or ``FTC''), has
completed its regulatory review of the Rule relating to Power Output
Claims for Amplifiers Utilized in Home Entertainment Products (the
``Amplifier Rule'' or the ``Rule''). Pursuant to that review, the
Commission concludes that the Amplifier Rule continues to provide
benefits to consumers and firms. The regulatory review record also
suggests that certain substantive amendments to the Rule may be
appropriate, and could reduce compliance obligations without lessening
the protection provided by the Rule. Accordingly, the Commission seeks
comment on whether it should initiate a rulemaking proceeding to amend
the Rule to: reduce the preconditioning power output requirement from
one-third of rated power to a lower figure, such as one-eighth of rated
power; exempt sellers who make power output claims in media advertising
from the requirement to disclose total rated harmonic distortion and
the associated power bandwidth and impedance ratings; and clarify the
manner in which the Rule's testing procedures apply to self-powered
subwoofer-satellite combination speaker systems. The regulatory review
record also suggests that a non-substantive technical amendment be made
to the Rule to clarify the Rule's applicability to self-powered
loudspeakers for use in the home. A Notice of Final Action announcing
such amendment is published elsewhere in this Federal Register.
DATES: Written comments will be accepted until September 8, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: Secretary, Federal Trade
Commission, Room H-159, Sixth and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20580. Comments about the Amplifier Rule should be identified ``16
CFR Part 432--Comment.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Murphy, Economist, Division of
Consumer Protection, Bureau of Economics, (202) 326-3524 or Robert E.
Easton, Esq., Special Assistant, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of
Consumer Protection, (202) 326-3029, Federal Trade Commission,
Washington, DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Part A--General Background Information
The Commission is publishing this notice pursuant to Section 18 of
the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a et seq., the provisions of Part 1, Subpart B
of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 1.7, and 5 U.S.C. 551 et
seq. This authority permits the Commission to promulgate, modify, and
repeal trade regulation rules that define with specificity acts or
practices that are unfair or deceptive in or affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1).
The Amplifier Rule was promulgated on May 3, 1974 (39 FR 15387), to
assist consumers in purchasing power amplification equipment for home
entertainment purposes by standardizing the measurement and disclosure
of various performance characteristics of the equipment. On April 7,
1997, the Commission published a Federal Register Notice (``FRN'')
seeking comment on the Rule as part of an ongoing project to review all
Commission rules and guides to determine their current effectiveness
and impact (62 FR 16500). This FRN sought comment on the costs and
benefits of the Rule, what changes in the Rule would increase its
benefits to purchasers and how those changes would affect compliance
costs, and whether technological or marketplace changes have affected
the Rule. The FRN also sought comment on issues related to the Rule's
product coverage, test procedures, and disclosure requirements.
The FRN elicited six written comments.\1\ Two commenters expressed
continuing support for the Rule because it has given consumers a
standardized method of comparing the power output of audio
amplifiers.\2\ One commenter noted that industry use of this
standardized testing method has created a level playing field among
competitors.\3\ Another commenter stated that the rule may initially
have caused an increase in product prices, but ultimately manufacturers
have responded by making better products at more affordable prices.\4\
None of the four remaining commenters stated that the costs of the Rule
exceeded its benefits, or that there were any other reasons why the
Rule should be rescinded. On the basis of this review, the Commission
has decided that the Rule provides benefits to consumers and industry
and that there is a continuing need for the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The commenters were: Phillips Sound Labs [Phillips](1);
Fultron Car Audio [Fultron](2); Klipsch Audio and Home Theater
Products [Klipsch](3); Miller & Kreisel Sound Corporation [MK](4);
Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association [CEMA](5); and Labtec
Multimedia Speakers [Labtec](6). The comments are cited as ``[name
of commenter], Comment (designated number), p. __.'' All Rule review
comments are on the public record and are available for public
inspection in the Public Reference Room, Room 130, Federal Trade
Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, from
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays.
\2\ CEMA, (5), p. 2; Fultron, (2), p. 1.
\3\ CEMA, (5), p. 3.
\4\ Fultron, (2), p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The record also suggests that there have been technological and
marketplace changes that may warrant modifications to the Rule.
Accordingly, the Commission is publishing this ANPR seeking public
comment on whether it should initiate a rulemaking by publishing a
notice of proposed rulemaking (``NPR'') under section 18 of the FTC
Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a. The proceeding would address whether the Commission
should (1) Amend certain required test procedures that may impose
unnecessary costs on manufacturers; (2) eliminate certain disclosure
requirements in media advertising; and (3) clarify testing procedures
for self-powered speakers.
Part B--Objectives the Commission Seeks To Achieve and Possible
Regulatory Alternatives
1. Modifications to the Amplifier Rule Preconditioning Requirements
a. Background
Section 432.3(c) of the Rule specifies that an amplifier must be
preconditioned by simultaneously operating all channels at one-third of
rated power output for one hour using a sinusoidal wave at a frequency
of 1,000 Hz. The prior FRN questioned whether this preconditioning
requirement should be modified. One comment stated that the Rule's
preconditioning requirements do not reflect normal use conditions in
the home and are leading some manufacturers to design amplifiers with
excessively large and costly heat sinks, or to publish overly
conservative power ratings.\5\ Specifically, the commenter maintained
that operating a typical amplifier at one-third of rated power for an
hour represents a worst-case condition in terms of heat dissipation--
one that exceeds the thermal stress that would be placed on the
amplifier when operating at full rated power. The
[[Page 37239]]
commenter states that Sec. 432.3(c) is particularly burdensome for high
power solid-state amplifiers during performance tests into 4 ohm loads.
The commenter maintained that, as a result, many manufacturers must
either refrain from publishing 4-ohm power specifications, publish 4-
ohm power specifications that are lower than those the consumer could
achieve in typical home use, or provide otherwise unnecessary heat sink
capacity sufficient to protect the amplifier during preconditioning for
ratings at higher and more realistic power output levels.\6\ The
commenter also noted that existing industry standard test methods, such
as UL (Underwriters Laboratories) Standards 1492 and 6500, specify that
amplifiers be preconditioned at one-eighth of rated power.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CEMA, (5), p. 5.
\6\ Id. at 4-5.
\7\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Objectives and Regulatory Alternatives
The record suggests that Sec. 432.3(c) should be amended to reflect
more realistically the maximum thermal stress that amplifiers are
likely to encounter during actual in-home use. Accordingly, the
Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should amend the
rule to reduce the preconditioning power output requirement from one-
third of rated power to a lower figure, such as one-eighth of rated
power.
2. Amendment to Required Disclosures Section of the Amplifier Rule
a. Background
Section 432.2 of the Rule requires disclosure of maximum harmonic
distortion, power bandwidth, and impedance whenever a power claim is
made in any advertising, including advertising by retail stores, direct
mail merchants, and manufacturers. In the FRN, the Commission solicited
comment on whether there was a continuing need for the Rule to require
disclosure of maximum harmonic distortion in media advertising, or
whether such disclosure would be required only when maximum rated
harmonic distortion exceeds a specified threshold level, such as one
percent. In addition, the Commission solicited comment on whether
certain types of advertising, such as that commonly used by retail
stores to present basic price and feature information in a limited
amount of space, should be exempted from some or all of the power
bandwidth, distortion, and impedance disclosures.
The one comment that addressed this issue stated that total
harmonic distortion below one percent has little meaning to consumers
because it is inaudible, and it recommended that the Commission
consider an exemption from disclosure of maximum rated harmonic
distortion when rated distortion is at or below one percent.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ID. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission's own review of published specifications for
currently marketed power amplification equipment for use in the home
indicates that total harmonic distortion ratings in excess of one
percent are very rare. The few exceptions are associated primarily with
expensive vacuum tube power amplifiers occupying a highly specialized
segment of the high fidelity market.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Commission staff consulted the October, 1997 issue of Audio
magazine to obtain the manufacturer's rating of total harmonic
distortion for all receivers and separate power amplifiers included
in the magazine's annual equipment directory. The published ratings
show no receivers with total harmonic distortion exceeding one
percent. Among separate power amplifiers, 11 models from 5
manufacturers, out of approximately 1000 models from nearly 200
manufacturers, carry total harmonic distortion ratings exceeding one
percent. These 11 models range in price from $550 to $12,345. The
average price of the 11 models is about $3,700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Objectives and Regulatory Alternatives
It appears that improvements in amplifier technology since the
Rule's promulgation in 1974 have reduced the benefits to consumers of
disclosure in media advertising of total rated harmonic distortion. It
also appears that an insufficient number of consumers would understand
the meaning and significance of the remaining triggered disclosures
concerning power bandwidth and impedance to justify their publication
in media advertising. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on
whether the Commission should initiate a rulemaking to amend the Rule
to exempt media advertising, including advertising on the Internet,
from disclosure of total rated harmonic distortion and the associated
power bandwidth and impedance ratings when a power output claim is
made.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\The record indicates, however, that maximum harmonic
distortion ratings in excess of one percent are not sufficiently
prevalent that the use of this figure as a threshold to govern
disclosure requirements in media advertising would be meaningful.
Thus, the suggested amendment does not limit the exemption to a
maximum harmonic distortion rating of one percent or less, as
previously proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to ensure that consumers would not be misled by
noncomparable power output claims that were based on differing
impedance ratings, the exemption for media advertising would be
conditioned on the requirement that the primary power output
specification disclosed in any media advertising be the manufacturer's
rated minimum sine wave continuous average power output, per channel
(such as might be true for certain amplifiers used in self-powered
speaker systems), at an impedance of 8 ohms, or, if the amplifier is
not designed for an 8-ohm load impedance, at the impedance for which
the amplifier is primarily designed.
All other power output claims currently subject to the Rule,
however, including those appearing in manufacturer specification sheets
that are either in print or reproduced on the Internet, would continue
to trigger the requirement that the seller provide the full complement
of disclosures concerning power bandwidth, maximum harmonic distortion,
and impedance, so that interested consumers could obtain this
information prior to purchase.
3. Rule Coverage of Self-Powered Loudspeakers for Use in the Home
a. Background
When the FRN was published, the Rule did not specifically mention
self-powered speakers as an example of sound amplification equipment
manufactured or sold for home entertainment purposes. In the FRN, the
Commission solicited comment on its tentative conclusion that the Rule
covers: (A) self-powered speakers for use with (i) home computers, (ii)
home sound systems, (iii) home multimedia systems; and (B) other sound
power amplification equipment for home computers. The Commission also
solicited comment on additional issues related to coverage of self-
powered speakers under the Rule, including whether the standard test
conditions set out in the Rule are appropriate for such equipment.
In a Notice of Final Action published separately in this Federal
Register, the Commission discusses the comments relating to the
threshold question of Rule coverage of self-powered speakers, and
issues a non-substantive amendment clarifying that the Rule applies to
self-powered loudspeakers for use in the home.
The Commission received two comments that addressed the additional
issue of whether or not the Rule's standard test conditions are
appropriate for self-powered speakers. The principal trade association
of the U.S. electronics industry (CEMA) supported applying the Rule to
self-powered speakers. CEMA recommended, however, that the
[[Page 37240]]
Rule be amended at a future date to incorporate a standard for
measuring the volume of sound that a powered speaker can deliver into
the listening environment, rather than the power that the amplifier can
deliver to the speaker. This commenter stated that a voluntary industry
standard for measuring the loudness of powered speakers was currently
under development and could be incorporated into the Rule.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ CEMA, (5), p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second commenter (Labtec) expressed concern that the Rule's
current testing protocol is not compatible with combination speaker
systems consisting of two or more amplifiers. For this reason, the
commenter proposed that the Commission amend the Rule to specify a
separate testing protocol and disclosure format for three-piece
multimedia speaker systems comprised of a subwoofer and two or more
satellite speakers that are powered by separate amplifiers that share a
common power supply.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Labtec, (6), p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to this commenter, the subwoofer and satellite amplifiers
in such combination systems are usually of different wattage per
channel and are dedicated to different frequency bandwidths. The
commenter stated further that if the Rule were interpreted to mean that
power tests for these systems be conducted over the entire frequency
bandwidth from 20Hz to 20kHz, with all channels of all amplifiers
driven simultaneously, limitations in the common power supply would
lower the maximum power output of the subwoofer and satellite
amplifiers at test frequencies near the crossover frequency, where both
sets of amplifiers would be operating near full capacity.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter also stated that the most conservative industry
practice today is to measure the subwoofer and satellite amplifiers
separately, and to disclose the maximum per-channel continuous power
output of each amplifier over the bandwidth for which it was designed
to operate. In this test protocol, the commenter stated, the two
channels of the satellite amplifier are driven simultaneously, but
without the subwoofer amplifier in operation. Similarly, the test for
the subwoofer amplifier are conducted alone, with the satellite
amplifier at idle. These ratings are then disclosed in a format such
as: ``20 watts RMS subwoofer, 10 watts RMS satellite (5w + 5w).''
According to the commenter, such power ratings overstate somewhat the
maximum per-channel power capability of each amplifier when all
channels of both amplifiers are driven simultaneously at the crossover
frequency.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter recommended that the Rule be amended to specify that
power rating tests for combination subwoofer-satellite power speaker
systems be conducted at the crossover frequency with all channels of
all amplifiers operating simultaneously. The comment also suggested
that manufacturers be allowed to publish the combined power output of
the subwoofer and satellite amplifiers at this frequency, together with
the individual per-channel output of each amplifier, e.g., ``25 watts
total RMS power (17w+4w+4w) into 4 ohms @ 150 Hz with less than 1%
THD.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Objectives and Regulatory Alternatives
As discussed in the Notice of Final Action published separately in
this Federal Register, the Commission has concluded that Rule coverage
of self-powered speaker equipment for use in the home should not be
delayed until an industry standard is developed for measuring and
disclosing the volume of sound that such speaker systems can produce in
the listening environment.
The Commission has also tentatively determined on the basis of the
Rule review record that Sec. 432.2(a)(2) of the Rule does not currently
provide adequate guidance concerning the manner in which power ratings
for combination subwoofer and satellite self-powered speaker systems
should be conducted. Specifically, it may be insufficiently clear
whether the Rule's stipulation that power measurements be made ``with
all associated channels fully driven to rated per channel power''
requires manufacturers to conduct power ratings with all channels of
both the subwoofer and satellite amplifiers driven simultaneously, or
whether the Rule allows manufacturers of such equipment to test the
subwoofer and satellite amplifiers separately.
The Commission is not prepared at this time to recommend that the
Rule be amended to specify that per-channel power ratings for self-
powered combination subwoofer and satellite speaker systems be
conducted at the crossover frequency with all channels of all
amplifiers operating simultaneously, as proposed by Labtec. The
Commission does not have sufficient evidence to conclude that in-home
use, under even strenuous conditions, typically would place maximum
continuous power demands simultaneously on both the subwoofer and
satellite amplifiers at the crossover frequency. Rather, such demands
are more likely to occur in portions of the audio spectrum that would
be assigned primarily either to the subwoofer amplifier or the
satellite amplifier.
The Commission therefore believes that the most appropriate
application of the Rule to self-powered subwoofer-satellite
combinations would be to require simultaneous operation only of those
channels dedicated to the same portion of the audio frequency spectrum.
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on whether to initiate a
rulemaking proceeding to clarify the Amplifier Rule by amending
Sec. 432.2 to include a note stating that, for self-powered combination
speaker systems that employ two or more amplifiers dedicated to
different portions of the audio frequency spectrum, only those channels
dedicated to the same audio frequency spectrum need be fully driven to
rated per channel power under paragraph 432.2(a)(2).
4. Rule Coverage of Automotive Sound Amplification Products
a. Background
The scope of the Amplifier Rule currently is limited to sound power
amplification equipment intended for home entertainment purposes. The
Rule does not apply to automotive sound amplification products. The
Commission noted that promotional materials for these products appear
to contain power output claims based on a variety of rating procedures.
The Commission requested comment on the types of power rating and
disclosure protocols currently used by manufacturers of automotive
sound amplification products, and whether any of the sound power claims
being made in connection with the sale and advertising of such
equipment inhibit meaningful comparisons of performance attributes by
consumers. The Commission also solicited examples of such claims and
information establishing the scope and seriousness of the problem.
Finally, the Commission asked for comment on what, if any, form of
action was needed to increase the ability of consumers to make
meaningful product comparisons in this industry.
The Commission received three comments on these issues. The
commenters stated that power claims made for automotive sound
amplification equipment frequently are higher than the corresponding
RMS continuous power rating specified in the
[[Page 37241]]
Rule. The commenters recommended that the Rule be extended to cover
automotive sound amplification equipment.\16\ None of the commenters,
however, provided any specific examples of claims that might mislead
consumers and lead to poor purchase decisions. Nor was any information
provided on the prevalence or technical basis for claims that differ
from the corresponding continuous power output rating used in the Rule.
Finally, no evidence was provided indicating that the various power
ratings currently in use are inhibiting meaningful comparisons by
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Fulmer, (2), p. 1; Phillips, (1), p. 1; CEMA, (5), p.
9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission staff, prior to the issuance of the FRN, conducted a
brief examination of current power output claims for automotive stereo
equipment.\17\ This examination suggests that manufacturers of original
equipment and aftermarket dashboard radio-cassette or radio-CD players
generally employ a rating system that yields a ``peak'' power output
specification approximately twice as high as the continuous rating.
Staff found no evidence, however, that this rating system misrepresents
the relative power output of competing amplifiers, or that any
confusion resulting from the system has led to a breakdown in the
correspondence between the prices charged for competing amplifiers and
their power output capabilities. Staff's inquiry also indicates that
the FTC continuous rating protocol is the most common method of
measuring the power output of specialized and generally more expensive
aftermarket automotive sound reproduction equipment, such as separate
power amplifiers and powered subwoofers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Staff's inquiry included visits to several area auto stereo
dealers, an inspection of retailer ads in the Washington Post, and
an analysis of power output specifications published in recent
catalogues for Crutchfield, a large mail-order retailer of auto
stereo equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Objectives and Regulatory Alternatives
The Rule review record suggests that certain power output ratings
for automotive sound amplification equipment may differ from the
ratings that would be obtained using a continuous power testing
procedure similar to that specified in the Rule. As indicated, the
record contains no evidence regarding whether such power output claims
could impede the ability of consumers to make meaningful comparisons,
or that the various ratings systems currently in use have significantly
reduced the correspondence between the prices charged for competing
auto sound amplification equipment and the power output of this
equipment. In addition, staff's inquiry did not indicate that consumers
may currently pay more for amplification equipment that is actually
less powerful, or no more powerful, than competing equipment advertised
with power disclosures that are derived using more rigorous test
procedures. Thus, the record and Commission staff's inquiry uncovered
no basis for concluding that consumers currently are unable to make
meaningful comparisons in the automotive sound reproduction market. The
Commission has concluded, therefore, that the existence of dissimilar
power output rating methods by itself does not provide a sufficient
showing of probable consumer injury to justify again seeking comment on
this issue in this APNR.
Part C--Request for Comments
Members of the public are invited to comment on any issues or
concerns they believe are relevant or appropriate to the Commission's
consideration of whether to publish an NPR initiating a rulemaking
proceeding to consider the previously discussed proposed amendments to
the Amplifier Rule. The Commission requests that factual data upon
which the comments are based be submitted with the comments. In
addition to the issues raised above, the Commission solicits public
comment on the specific questions identified below. These questions are
designed to assist the public and should not be construed as a
limitation on the issues on which public comment may be submitted.
After considering the responses to this ANPR, if the Commission decides
to commence a rulemaking proceeding, it must, under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-12, determine whether the proposed
amendments would have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small businesses. The Commission includes in this ANPR questions that
will assist it in making such analysis.
The written comments submitted will be available for public
inspection in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
552, and Commission regulations on normal business days from 8:30 a.m.
to 5:00 p.m. at the Federal Trade Commission, 6th St. and Pennsylvania
Ave., N.W., Room 130, Washington, D.C. 20580.
Questions
A. Section 432.3(c) Preconditioning Requirement
(1) Should the Commission amend the Rule to reduce the
preconditioning power output requirement from one-third of rated power
to a lower figure, such as one-eighth of rated power?
B. Exemption From Required Disclosures
(2) Have post-1974 improvements in amplifier design and consequent
reductions in typical levels of total harmonic distortion reduced the
benefit to consumers of disclosure of rated total harmonic distortion
in media advertising that contains a power output claim?
(3) Should the Commission amend the Rule to exempt disclosure of
total rated harmonic distortion and the associated power bandwidth and
impedance ratings when a power output claim is made in media
advertising?
(4) If the Commission amends the rule to allow the above exemption,
should this exemption be conditioned on the requirement that the
primary power output specification disclosed in any media advertising
be the manufacturer's rated minimum sine wave continuous average power
output, per channel, at an impedance of 8 ohms, or, if the amplifier is
not designed primarily for an 8-ohm impedance, at the impedance for
which the amplifier is primarily designed?
C. Rule Coverage of Self-Powered Loudspeakers for Use in the Home
(5) Should the Commission clarify the Rule to specify that, for
self-powered combination speaker systems that employ two or more
amplifiers dedicated to different portions of the audio frequency
spectrum, only those channels dedicated to the same audio frequency
spectrum need be fully driven to rated per channel power under
Sec. 432.2(a)(2)? If not, should the Commission amend the Rule to
specify that per-channel power ratings for such combination speaker
systems be conducted at the crossover frequency with all channels of
all amplifiers operating simultaneously?
D. Economic Effect, If Any, of the Proposed Amendments
(6) What costs and benefits to consumers and businesses, including
manufacturers, retailers, or other sellers, would accrue from each of
the three proposed Rule amendments?
(7) Would any of the proposed Rule amendments have a significant
[[Page 37242]]
economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses?
(8) Can that impact be quantified?
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 432
Amplifiers, Electronic products, Home entertainment products, Trade
practices.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.
Benjamin I. Berman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-18204 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M