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rule or should the rule be repealed?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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27247

9, 1994, issue letter. OSM and North

Dakota met on April 11, 1995

(administrative record No. ND–U–16).

North Dakota, by letter dated May 11,

1995 (administrative record No. ND–U–

17), submitted, at its own initiative,

additional revisions and explanatory

information to its revegetation success

document.

In its May 11, 1995, revised

amendment, North Dakota proposes (1)

A county-wide correction factor to be

used with the U.S. Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) yield

information to adjust for climatic yield

conditions on land reclaimed for use as

cropland or prime farmland, (2) deletion

of the allowance for ‘‘auxiliary

shelterbelts’’ without revegetation

success standards on land reclaimed for

use as shelterbelts, (3) addition of the

ability for North Dakota to require, by

permit condition, shelterbelts as a

postmining land use that meet the

success standards in its revegetation

success document, (4) addition of the

allowance for tree and shrub stocking

standards approved by the State Game

and Fish Department and the State

Forest Service, as well as by the U.S.

NRCS, on land reclaimed for use as

shelterbelts, (5) addition of the

requirement that all species in the

approved seed mixture must be present

at the time of final bond release on land

reclaimed for use as tame pastureland,

(6) clarification that actual sample

means must be used in formulas that

determine sample size when measuring

success of revegetation for bond release,

(7) addition of specifications for size

and location of representative strips

used to demonstrate the restoration of

soil productivity on land reclaimed for

use as cropland and prime farmland, (8)

deletion of the State wetland

classification system and retention of

the Stewart and Kantrud system of

wetland classification for premining

assessments on land to be reclaimed for

use as fish and wildlife habitat, (9)

clarification of the requirement that

sampling techniques for measuring

success of woody plant density use a 90-

percent statistical confidence interval,

(10) allowance as a normal conservation

practice the voluntary planting of trees

and shrubs on agricultural land at the

request of the land owner or for fish and

wildlife enhancement, and (11)

clarification that a single reinforced

interseeding may be allowed without

restarting the liability period on land

reclaimed for use as native grazing land.

III. Public Comment Procedures

OSM is reopening the comment

period on the proposed North Dakota

program amendment to provide the

public an opportunity to reconsider the

adequacy of the proposed amendment

in light of the additional materials

submitted. In accordance with the

provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), OSM is

seeking comments on whether the

proposed amendment satisfies the

applicable program approval criteria of

30 CFR 732.15. If the amendment is

deemed adequate, it will become part of

the North Dakota program.

Written comments should be specific,

pertain only to the issues proposed in

this rulemaking, and include

explanations in support of the

commenter’s recommendations.

Comments received after the time

indicated under DATES or at locations

other than the Casper Field Office will

not necessarily be considered in the

final rulemaking or included in the

administrative record.

IV. Procedural Determinations

1. Executive Order 12866

This rule is exempted from review by

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866

(Regulatory Planning and Review).

2. Executive Order 12778

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 2 of Executive Order 12778

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State regulatory

programs and program amendments

since each such program is drafted and

promulgated by a specific State, not by

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 12550) and

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

that is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 934

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: May 17, 1995.

Richard J. Seibel,

Regional Director, Western Regional

Coordinating Center.

[FR Doc. 95–12574 Filed 5–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

Office of the Secretary

43 CFR Part 11

RIN 1090–AA43

Natural Resource Damage

Assessments; Type B—Nonuse Values

AGENCY: Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Notice of correction to

semiannual regulatory agenda.

SUMMARY: On May 8, 1995, the

semiannual regulatory agenda was

published. The agenda incorrectly listed

the Department of the Interior’s Natural

Resource Damage Assessments; Type

B—Nonuse Values rulemaking as a

completed/long-term action that had

been withdrawn on March 31, 1995. 60

FR 23408, 23419. This rulemaking has

neither been withdrawn nor completed.

A proposed rule was issued on May 4,

1994. 59 FR 23097. The comment period

closed on October 7, 1994. 59 FR 32175.

The Department is currently reviewing

and considering the comments received.