Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27245

assist the public and should not be

construed as a limitation on the issues

on which public comment may be

submitted.

Questions

(1) Is any manufacturer currently

manufacturing quick-freeze spray

products?

(2) Is any individual or business

entity currently marketing quick-freeze

spray products?

(3) Do any retail stores or suppliers

still maintain stocks of quick-freeze

spray products for resale?

(4) What benefits do consumers derive

from the Rule?

(5) Does regulation of this product by

the Environmental Protection Agency

render the Rule unnecessary?

(6) Should the Rule be kept in effect

or should it be repealed?

Authority: Section 18(d)(2)(B) of the

Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C.

57a(d)(2)(B).

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 417

Quick-freeze aerosol spray, Trade

practices.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–12582 Filed 5–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

16 CFR Part 418

Trade Regulation Rule: Deceptive

Advertising and Labeling as to Length

of Extension Ladders

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPR).

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) proposes

to repeal its Trade Regulation Rule

entitled ‘‘Deceptive Advertising and

Labeling as to Length of Extension

Ladders’’ (‘‘Extension Ladder Rule’’), 16

CFR part 418. The proceeding will

address whether the Extension Ladder

Rule should be repealed or remain in

effect. The Commission is soliciting

written comment, data and arguments

concerning this proposal.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before June 22, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be identified as ‘‘16 CFR Part 418’’ and

sent to Secretary, Federal Trade

Commission, 6th Street & Pennsylvania

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John A. Crowley, Esq., (202) 326–3280,

Division of Service Industry Practices,

Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal

Trade Commission, Washington, DC

20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Part A—Background Information

This notice is published pursuant to

Section 18 of the Federal Trade

Commission 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 Extension Ladder Rule,

promulgated by the Commission on

June 22, 1969, declares that it is an

unfair or deceptive act or practice and

an unfair method of competition to

represent the size or length of an

extension ladder, in terms of the total

length of the component sections

thereof, unless:

(a) Such size or length representation

is accompanied by the words ‘‘total

length of sections’’ or words with

similar meanings which clearly indicate

the basis of the representation; and,

(b) Such size or length representation

is accompanied by a statement in close

proximity which clearly and

conspicuously shows the maximum

length of the product when fully

extended for use (i.e., excluding the

footage lost in overlapping) along with

an explanation for the basis of such

representation.

The Commission periodically reviews

rules and guides seeking information

about the costs and benefits of such

rules and guides and their regulatory

and economic impact. The information

obtained assists the Commission in

identifying rules and guides that

warrant modification or rescission.

Pursuant to its review schedule, on

April 19, 1993, the Commission

published in the Federal Register a

request for public comments on its

Extension Ladder Rule. 58 FR 21125.

The Commission asked commenters to

address questions relating to the costs

and benefits of the rule, the burdens it

imposes, and the basis for assessing

whether it should be retained, or

amended.

The request for comments on the

Extension Ladder Rule elicited six

specific comments. One commenter, a

consumer, opined that the only label

that should be on ladders is the

‘‘maximum working length’’ since

consumers should not have to do any

figuring to determine the length of the

ladder that would meet their needs.

Of the other five commenters, four are

manufacturers or suppliers of ladders

and one is a trade association. A number

of these comments refer to ANSI

standard A14, which governs the

labeling of ladders. ANSI standard A14

details the requirements for labeling

portable wood ladders, portable metal

ladders, fixed ladders, job made ladders

and portable reinforced plastic ladders.

The ANSI standard requires

specification of the maximum working

length of extension ladders, as well as

several other pieces of information not

required by the Extension Ladder Rule,

including the total length of the ladder’s

sections and the highest standing level

of the ladder. Compliance with the

ANSI standard therefore ensures

compliance with the labeling

requirements of the Extension Ladder

Rule.

Several commenters noted this

overlap in the coverage of the Extension

Ladder Rule and ANSI standard A14,

and recommended that the rule be

retained unchanged.

Another commenter stated that the

rule has imposed minor, incremental

costs, but opined that the benefits have

been significant in that consumers have

a better understanding of extension

ladder length. The commenter

questioned whether there was a

continuing need for this rule given the

existence of ANSI standard A14 and UL

Standard 184.

In addition to this specific comment,

one general comment, applicable to

several rules being reviewed, was

received from an advertising agency

association. This organization

recommends rescission of the Extension

Ladder Rule because the general

prohibitions covering false and

deceptive advertising apply to the

ladder industry, and thus the Rule

creates unnecessary administrative costs

for the government, industry members

and consumers. The advertising

association did not submit any analysis

or data relating to the imposition of

unnecessary administrative costs on

affected industry members, government

or consumers.

Finally, Commission staff engaged in

an informal review of industry practices

by examining the marking of length on

extension ladders available for retail

sale at several chain stores. That review

indicated general compliance with the

requirements of the rule. Additionally,

the Commission has no record of

receiving any complaints regarding noncompliance with the rule, or of

initiating any law enforcement actions
27246 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules

alleging violations of the rule’s

requirements.

Part B—Objectives

Based on the review described above,

the Commission has determined that

there may no longer be a need to

continue the Extension Ladder Rule in

light of the apparent changes in industry

practices and the existence of standards

mandating the point-of-sale disclosures

required by the rule. The objective of

this notice is to solicit comment on

whether the Commission should initiate

a rulemaking proceeding to repeal the

Extension Ladder Rule.

Part C—Alternative Actions

The Commission is not aware of any

feasible alternatives to either repealing

or retaining the Extension Ladder Rule.

Part D—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 review of the Extension

Ladder Rule. Comments submitted

during the regulatory review proceeding

described above will be made part of the

record, and need not be resubmitted. A

comment that includes the reasoning or

basis for a proposition will likely be

more persuasive than a comment

without supporting information. The

Commission requests that factual data

upon which the comments are based be

submitted with the comments. In this

section, the Commission identifies a

number of issues on which it solicits

public comment. The identification of

issues is designed to assist the public to

comment on relevant matters and

should not be construed as a limitation

on the issues on which public comment

may be submitted.

Questions

(1) Does the existence of the ANSI

standard governing the labeling of

extension ladders eliminate or greatly

lessen the need for the rule?

(2) What are the benefits to consumers

from the rule?

(3) What are the costs to industry

imposed by the rule?

(4) Is there a continuing need for the

rule or should the rule be repealed?

Authority: Sec. 18(d)(2)(B) of the Federal

Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C.

57a(d)(2)(B).

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 418

Advertising, Trade practices,

extension ladders.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–12581 Filed 5–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 934

North Dakota Regulatory Program

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening and

extension of public comment period on

proposed amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of

revisions and additional explanatory

information pertaining to a previously

proposed amendment to the North

Dakota regulatory program (hereinafter,

the ‘‘North Dakota program’’) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The

revisions and additional explanatory

information pertain to North Dakota’s

‘‘Standards for Evaluation of

Revegetation Success and

Recommended Procedures for Pre- and

Postmining Vegetation Assessments.’’

The amendment is intended to revise

this document to be consistent with the

Federal regulations and to improve

operational efficiency.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by 4:00 p.m., m.d.t., June 7,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed or hand delivered to Guy

Padgett at the address listed below.

Copies of the North Dakota program,

the proposed amendment, and all

written comments received in response

to this document will be available for

public review at the addresses listed

below during normal business hours,

Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays. Each requester may receive

one free copy of the proposed

amendment by contacting OSM’s Casper

Field Office.

Guy Padgett, Director, Casper Field

Office, Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 100

East B Street, Room 2128, Casper, WY

82601–1918, Telephone: (307) 261–

5776

Edward J. Englerth, Director,

Reclamation Division, North Dakota

Public Service Commission, Capitol

Building, Bismarck, ND 58505–0165,

Telephone: (701) 224–4092

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Guy Padgett, Telephone: (307) 261–

5776.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the North Dakota

Program

On December 15, 1980, the Secretary

of the Interior conditionally approved

the North Dakota program. General

background information on the North

Dakota program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and the conditions of

approval of the North Dakota program

can be found in the December 15, 1980,

Federal Register (45 FR 82214).

Subsequent actions concerning North

Dakota’s program and program

amendments can be found at 30 CFR

934.12, 934.13, 934.15, 934.16, and

934.30.

II. Proposed Amendment

By letter dated February 17, 1994,

North Dakota submitted a proposed

amendment to its program pursuant to

SMCRA (administrative record No. ND–

U–01). North Dakota submitted the

proposed revisions to its ‘‘Standards for

Evaluation of Revegetation Success and

Recommended Procedures for Pre- and

Postmining Vegetation Assessments’’

(hereinafter, the ‘‘revegetation success

document’’) in response to required

program amendments at 30 CFR 934.16

(b) through (i), (w), and (x), and at its

own initiative.

OSM announced receipt of the

proposed amendment in the March 14,

1994, Federal Register (49 FR 11744),

provided an opportunity for a public

hearing or meeting on its substantive

adequacy, and invited public comment

on its adequacy (administrative record

No. ND–U–05). Because no one

requested a public hearing or meeting,

none was held. The public comment

period ended on April 13, 1994.

During its review of the amendment,

OSM identified concerns and notified

North Dakota of these concerns by letter

dated September 9, 1994 (administrative

record No. ND–U–10). North Dakota

responded in a letter dated December

21, 1994, by submitting a revised

amendment and additional explanatory

information (administrative record No.

ND–U–14) that addressed the concerns

identified by OSM.

OSM announced receipt of the

December 21, 1994, revised amendment

in the January 19, 1995, Federal

Register (60 FR 3790) and invited public

comment on its adequacy

(administrative record No. ND–U–15).

The public comment period ended on

February 3, 1995.

Subsequently, North Dakota requested

a meeting with OSM to discuss its

December 21, 1994, revisions that were

made in response to OSM’s September