18170 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

• Federal e Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit electronic 

comments via the Federal e Rulemaking 

Portal rather than by e-mail; 

• Mail: Debra Malek, NOAA, Office of 

National Marine Sanctuaries, 1305 EastWest Highway, (N/NMS2), 11th Floor, 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. 

Copies of the interim policy and 

permit guidance for submarine cable 

projects may be viewed and 

downloaded at http:// 

sanctuaries.noaa.gov/. 

Paperwork burden: Submit written 

comments regarding the burden-hour 

estimates or other aspects of the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposed rule by email to Diana Hynek at 

dHynek@doc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Debra Malek, (301) 713–3125, ext. 262. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The NOAA Office of National Marine 

Sanctuaries (ONMS) manages a system 

of thirteen national marine sanctuaries 

(NMSs or sanctuaries) that protect 

special, nationally significant areas of 

the marine environment under the 

authority of the National Marine 

Sanctuaries Act (NMSA; 16 U.S.C. 1431 

et seq.). The ONMS, along with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and the State 

of Hawaii, also manages the 

Papahanaumokuakea Marine National 

Monument under the Antiquities Act. 

Sanctuaries and the monument protect 

a variety of marine habitats and cultural 

resources including coral reefs, 

mangrove forests, seagrass beds, deepsea canyons, kelp beds, marine mammal 

feeding and breeding grounds, and 

historic shipwrecks and other 

submerged cultural resources. 

In the late 1990s, the ONMS received 

applications to install and maintain 

telecommunication submarine cables 

through the Olympic Coast National 

Marine Sanctuary and the Stellwagen 

Bank National Marine Sanctuary. 

Experience gained through the 

consideration and issuance of permits 

for those projects highlighted the need 

for more clarity on how such projects 

would be handled in the future. 

The Department of Commerce 

convened a workshop in February 2000 

with representatives from the 

telecommunications and fishing 

industries, environmental and 

conservation organizations, and state 

agencies. A white paper with key issues 

and guiding principles was distributed 

prior to, and discussed at, the 

workshop. The proposed guiding 

principles included: Analysis of habitat 

types appropriate or inappropriate for 

cable laying, analysis of individual 

sanctuary regulations, and parameters 

for evaluating proposals for cable 

installations. 

In August 2000, NOAA published an 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPR) on Installing and Maintaining 

Commercial Submarine Cables in 

National Marine Sanctuaries in the 

Federal Register (65 FR 51264, Aug. 23, 

2000). A second ANPR was published in 

November 2000 at the request of the 

industry for additional time to comment 

(65 FR 70537, Nov. 24, 2000). The 

ANPR requested comments on both the 

guiding principles contained in the 

white paper and on the issues raised at 

the workshop. 

Specifically, the ANPR requested 

comments on: 

• Whether changes to existing ONMS 

regulations or some form of policy 

guidance was necessary to clarify 

NOAA’s decision-making process 

regarding the installation and 

maintenance of commercial submarine 

cables within NMSs; 

• If changes or additional guidance 

were appropriate, what those changes or 

guidance should contain; and 

• Whether there were comments on 

the proposed principles on the 

installation of commercial submarine 

cables with the marine and coastal 

environment. 

The ONMS received 36 comments 

from the telecommunications industry, 

the Department of Defense, the 

environmental community, State 

government, and various interested 

individuals. 

General comments on the ANPR 

included the following: 

• The telecommunications industry 

believed that existing regulations are 

adequate in NMSs. 

• The environmental community 

urged NOAA to prohibit cables within 

NMSs, and to develop stringent permit 

application criteria, including removal 

of out-of-service cables. 

• The industry and the environmental 

community did not a support a 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PETS) or the concept of 

approving projects in the planning 

stage. 

• The environmental community 

supported the idea of cable corridors 

while the industry opposed it. 

• The industry wanted improved 

consultation between NOAA and other 

cable permitting authorities, such as the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the 

Federal Communications Commission, 

etc., and more specific, user-friendly 

criteria for permit applications. 

These comments, in addition to direct 

experience related to cables installed in 

sanctuaries, were factors that led to 

NOAA’s decision not to pursue 

rulemaking at this time, but, rather to 

develop and issue interim permit 

guidelines. The ONMS believes that 

cable permit guidelines will ensure that 

applications to install and maintain 

submarine cables in sanctuaries are 

reviewed consistently and in a manner 

that adheres to the NMSA and ONMS 

regulations (15 CFR part 922). 

John Dunnigan, 

Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services 

and Coastal Zone Management. 

[FR Doc. E9–8945 Filed 4–20–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–NK–M 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 429 

Trade Regulation Rule Concerning 

Cooling-Off Period for Sales Made at 

Homes or at Certain Other Locations 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’). 

ACTION: Request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: The Commission requests 

public comment on its Trade Regulation 

Rule Concerning Cooling-Off Period for 

Sales Made at Homes or at Certain Other 

Locations (‘‘Cooling-Off Rule’’ or 

‘‘Rule’’). The Commission is soliciting 

public comment as part of the FTC’s 

systematic review of all current 

Commission regulations and guides. 

DATES: Written comments concerning 

the Cooling-Off Rule must be received 

no later than June 22, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

invited to submit written comments 

electronically or in paper form. 

Comments should refer to ‘‘Cooling-Off 

Rule Regulatory Review, 16 CFR 429, 

Comment, Project No. P087109’’ to 

facilitate the organization of comments. 

Please note that your comment— 

including your name and your state— 

will be placed on the public record of 

this proceeding, including on the 

publicly accessible FTC website, at 

(http://ftc.gov/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm.) 

Because comments will be made 

public, they should not include any 

sensitive personal information, such as 

an individual’s Social Security Number; 

date of birth; driver’s license number or 

other state identification number, or 

foreign country equivalent; passport 

number; financial account number; or 

credit or debit card number. Comments 

also should not include any sensitive 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 18171 

1 See also FTC Rule 4.2(d), 16 CFR 4.2(d). The 

comment must be accompanied by an explicit 

request for confidential treatment, including the 

factual and legal basis for the request, and must 

identify the specific portions of the comment to be 

withheld from the public record. The request will 

be granted or denied by the Commission’s General 

Counsel, consistent with applicable law and the 

public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 

2 37 FR 22933 (Oct. 26, 1972); 60 FR 54180 (Oct. 

20, 1995). 

3 A ‘‘door-to-door sale’’ includes sales made at a 

place other than the place of business of the seller 

(e.g., sales at the buyer’s residence or at facilities 

rented on a temporary or short term basis, such as 

hotel or motel rooms, convention centers, 

fairgrounds and restaurants, or sales at the buyer’s 

workplace or in dormitory lounges). 16 CFR 

429.0(a). 

4 As a basis for promulgating the Rule, the 

Commission identified five categories of complaints 

directed to the industries utilizing door-to-door 

marketing techniques: (1) deceptive tactics for 

getting in the door; (2) high pressure sales tactics; 

(3) misrepresentation of price, quality, and 

characteristics of the product; (4) high prices for 

low quality merchandise; and (5) the nuisance 

created by the uninvited salesperson. 37 FR 22937- 

940 (Oct. 26, 1972). 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, comments should not include 

any ‘‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or 

financial information which is obtained 

from any person and which is privileged 

or confidential. . . ,’’ as provided in 

Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

46(f), and Commission Rule 4.10(a)(2), 

16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). Comments containing 

material for which confidential 

treatment is requested must be filed in 

paper form, must be clearly labeled 

‘‘Confidential,’’ and must comply with 

FTC Rule 4.9(c).1

A comment filed in paper form 

should include the ‘‘Cooling-Off Rule 

Regulatory Review, 16 CFR 429, 

Comment, Project No. P087109’’ 

reference both in the text and on the 

envelope, and should be mailed or 

delivered to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission/Office of the 

Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex M), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC is 

requesting that any comment filed in 

paper form be sent by courier or 

overnight service, if possible, because 

U.S. postal mail in the Washington area 

and at the Commission is subject to 

delay due to heightened security 

precautions. 

You also may consider submitting 

your comments in electronic form. 

Comments filed in electronic form 

should be submitted by following the 

instructions on the web-based form at 

the weblink (https:// 

secure.commentworks.com/ftc-coolingoffrulereview). To ensure that the 

Commission considers an electronic 

comment, you must file it on that webbased form. If this Notice appears at 

(http://www.regulations.gov/search/ 

index.jsp), you also may file an 

electronic comment through that 

website. The Commission will consider 

all comments that regulations.gov 

forwards to it. You also may visit the 

FTC website at http://www.ftc.gov to 

read the Notice and the news release 

describing it. 

The Federal Trade Commission Act 

(‘‘FTC Act’’) and other laws the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives, 

whether filed in paper or electronic 

form. Comments received will be 

available to the public on the FTC 

website, to the extent practicable, at 

(http://www.ftc.gov/os/ 

publiccomments.shtm.) As a matter of 

discretion, the FTC makes every effort to 

remove home contact information for 

individuals from the public comments it 

receives before placing those comments 

on the FTC website. To read our policy 

on how we handle the information you 

submit—including routine uses 

permitted by the Privacy Act—please 

review the FTC’s privacy policy, at 

(http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sana Coleman Chriss, Attorney, (404) 

656-1364, Federal Trade Commission, 

Southeast Region, 225 Peachtree Street, 

NE, Suite 1500, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Cooling-Off Rule was 

promulgated by the Commission on 

October 26, 1972, and it was last 

amended on October 20, 1995.2 The 

Rule, as amended, declares it an unfair 

and deceptive practice for a seller 

engaged in a ‘‘door-to-door sale’’3 of 

consumer goods or services, with a 

purchase price of $25 or more, to fail to 

provide the buyer with certain oral and 

written disclosures regarding the 

buyer’s right to cancel the contract 

within three business days from the date 

of the sales transaction.4 The Rule also 

requires such sellers, within 10 business 

days after receipt of a valid cancellation 

notice from a buyer, to honor the 

buyer’s cancellation by refunding all 

payments made under the contract, 

returning any traded-in property, 

cancelling and returning any security 

interests created in the transaction, and 

notifying the buyer whether the seller 

intends to repossess or abandon any 

shipped or delivered goods. 

In addition, the Rule requires door-todoor sellers to furnish the buyer with a 

completed receipt, or a copy of the sales 

contract, containing a summary notice 

informing the buyer of the right to 

cancel the transaction, which must be in 

the same language as that principally 

used in the oral sales presentation. 

Door-to-door sellers also must provide 

the buyer with a completed cancellation 

form, in duplicate, captioned either 

‘‘Notice of Right to Cancel’’ or ‘‘Notice 

of Cancellation,’’ one copy of which can 

be returned by the buyer to the seller to 

effect cancellation. 

The Rule provides for certain 

exemptions and excludes certain 

transactions from the definition of the 

term ‘‘door-to-door sale.’’ Specifically, 

the Rule exempts: (1) sellers of 

automobiles, vans, trucks or other motor 

vehicles sold at auctions, tent sales or 

other temporary places of business, 

provided that the seller is a seller of 

vehicles with a permanent place of 

business; and (2) sellers of arts and 

crafts sold at fairs or similar places. The 

Rule also excludes certain transactions, 

including, for example, transactions 

conducted and consummated entirely 

by mail or telephone, and without any 

other contact between the buyer and 

seller or its representative prior to the 

delivery of goods or performance of 

services; transactions pertaining to the 

sale or rental of real property, to the sale 

of insurance, or to the sale of securities 

or commodities by a broker-dealer 

registered with the Securities and 

Exchange Commission; and transactions 

in which the consumer is accorded the 

right of rescission by the provisions of 

the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 

U.S.C. 1635) or its regulations. 

Finally, the Rule expressly preempts 

any state laws or municipal ordinances 

that are directly inconsistent with the 

Rule, including, for example, state laws 

or ordinances that impose a fee or 

penalty on the buyer for exercising his 

or her right under the Rule, or that do 

not require the buyer to receive a notice 

of his or her right to cancel the 

transaction in substantially the same 

form as provided in the Commission’s 

Rule. 

II. Regulatory Review of the Cooling-Off 

Rule 

The Commission periodically reviews 

each of its rules and guides to seek 

information about their costs and 

benefits and their regulatory and 

economic impact. The information 

obtained during these periodic reviews 

assists the Commission in identifying 

rules and guides that either should be 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
18172 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 21, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

retained without modification, 

amended, or rescinded. This Notice 

commences the Commission’s review of 

the Cooling-Off Rule. 

As part of its review, the Commission 

seeks comment on a number of general 

issues, including the continuing need 

for the Rule, its economic impact, and 

the effect of any technological, 

economic, or industry changes on the 

Rule. 

III. Issues for Comment 

The Commission requests written 

comment on any or all of the following 

questions. The Commission asks 

commenters to make their responses as 

specific as possible and to include both 

a reference to the question being 

answered and any references to 

empirical data or other evidence 

wherever available and appropriate. 

(1) Is there a continuing need for the 

Rule? Why or why not? 

(2) Are there practices addressed by 

the Rule for which regulation is no 

longer needed? If so, explain and 

provide supporting evidence. 

(3) What benefits has the Rule 

provided to consumers? What evidence 

supports the asserted benefits? 

(4) What modifications, if any, should 

be made to the Rule to increase its 

benefits to consumers? 

(a) What evidence supports the 

proposed modifications? 

(b) How would these modifications 

affect the costs and benefits of the Rule 

for consumers? 

(c) How would these modifications 

affect the costs and benefits of the Rule 

for businesses, and in particular for 

small businesses? 

(5) What impact has the Rule had on 

the flow of truthful information to 

consumers and on the flow of deceptive 

information to consumers? What 

evidence supports the impact that you 

have identified? 

(6) What significant costs has the Rule 

imposed on consumers? What evidence 

supports the asserted costs? 

(7) Should any modifications be made 

to the Rule to reduce the costs imposed 

on consumers? 

(a) What evidence supports the 

proposed modifications? 

(b) How would these modifications 

affect the costs and benefits of the Rule 

for consumers? 

(c) How would these modifications 

affect the costs and benefits of the Rule 

for businesses, and in particular for 

small businesses? 

(8) Is the cancellation notice language 

provided in the Rule easy for consumers 

to read and understand? Why or why 

not? Should the language be modified in 

any way to improve consumers’ 

understanding of their rights and 

obligations under the Rule? If so, how? 

(9) What benefits has the Rule 

provided to businesses, and in 

particular to small businesses? What 

evidence supports the asserted benefits? 

(10) Should any modifications be 

made to the Rule to increase its benefits 

to businesses, and in particular to small 

businesses? 

(a) What evidence supports your 

proposed modifications? 

(b) How would these modifications 

affect the costs and benefits of the Rule 

for consumers? 

(c) How would these modifications 

affect the costs and benefits of the Rule 

for businesses? 

(11) What significant costs, including 

costs of compliance, has the Rule 

imposed on businesses, and in 

particular on small businesses? What 

evidence supports the asserted costs? 

(12) Should any modifications be 

made to the Rule to reduce the costs 

imposed on businesses, and in 

particular on small businesses? 

(a) What evidence supports the 

proposed modifications? 

(b) How would these modifications 

affect the costs and benefits of the Rule 

for consumers? 

(c) How would these modifications 

affect the costs and benefits of the Rule 

for businesses? 

(13) What evidence is available 

concerning the degree of industry 

compliance with the Rule? 

(14) Should the Rule be modified to 

reflect any technological changes in 

communications methods or methods 

for buying and selling goods and 

services, including, for example, 

changes in the use of the Internet, 

electronic mail, or mobile 

communications? If so, how? What 

evidence supports the proposed 

modification? 

(15) Have there been any significant 

industry or economic changes since 

1995 that warrant modifying the types 

of sellers that are exempt from the Rule? 

(16) What potentially unfair or 

deceptive door-to-door sales practices, if 

any, are not covered by the Rule that 

should be? Provide evidence to support 

the assertion. 

(17) Does the Rule overlap or conflict 

with other federal, state, or local laws or 

regulations? If so, how? 

(a) What evidence supports the 

asserted conflicts? 

(b) With reference to the asserted 

conflicts, should the Rule be modified? 

If so, why, and how? If not, why not? 

(c) Is there evidence concerning 

whether the Rule has assisted in 

promoting national consistency with 

respect to the regulation of door-to-door 

sales? If so, please provide that 

evidence. 

(18) Have there been any significant 

changes since 1995 in U.S. consumer 

credit protection laws or other laws that 

warrant modification of the Rule? If so, 

explain and provide evidence to support 

the proposed modification. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 429 

Sales Made at Homes or at Certain 

Other Locations; Trade practices. 

Authority: Sections 1-23, FTC Act, 15 

U.S.C. 41-58. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary 

[FR Doc. E9–9135 Filed 4–20–09: 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–S 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of Labor-Management 

Standards 

29 CFR Parts 403 and 408 

RIN 1215–AB62 

Labor Organization Annual Financial 

Reports 

AGENCY: Office of Labor-Management 

Standards, Employment Standards 

Administration, Department of Labor. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

request for comments. 

SUMMARY: This Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking proposes to withdraw a rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 21, 2009, pertaining to the filing 

by labor organizations of the Form LM– 

2, an annual financial report required by 

the Labor-Management Reporting and 

Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended 

(LMRDA). On February 3, 2009, the 

Department’s Employment Standards 

Administration (ESA) Office of LaborManagement Standards (OLMS) 

published a request for comments about 

issues of law and policy raised by this 

rule (74 FR 5899), consistent with 

directions from the new Administration 

to review all regulations that had not yet 

become effective. On February 20, 2009, 

the Department of Labor postponed the 

effective date of this rule until April 21, 

2009, to allow additional time for the 

Department to review comments 

received pursuant to the earlier notice, 

which were due by March 5, 2009, and 

to permit labor unions to delay 

development and implementation of 

costly changes to their accounting and 

recordkeeping systems and procedures 

pending this review. A further extension 

of the rule’s effective date and an 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS