27244 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1 In a memorandum to all federal departments

and agencies dated March 4, 1995, the President

requested all agencies to review their regulations

and to initiate proceedings to eliminate those they

determined were obsolete or unnecessary. In 1992,

the Commission adopted a plan to review all its

rules and guides at least once during a ten-year

period. In response to the President’s request, the

Commission accelerated its scheduled review of

certain rules to identify any that might be

appropriate candidates for repeal or amendment.

For example, under the ten-year plan, the QuickFreeze Rule was scheduled for review in 1999, ten

years after its last review.

2 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7671i. Regulations promulgated

by the Environmental Protection Agency

implementing the Clean Air Act ban

chlorofluorocarbons in aerosols and foams for nonessential uses. 40 CFR 82.64. The ban, which

includes fluorocarbon 12, became effective on

January 17, 1994.

Part C—Alternative Actions

The Commission is not aware of any

feasible alternatives to repealing the

Fiberglass Curtain 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 Fiberglass

Curtain Rule. The Commission requests

that factual data upon which the

comments are based be submitted with

the comments. In this section, the

Commission identifies the issues on

which it solicits public comment. The

identification of issues is designed to

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 and marketing fiberglass

fabric for decorative use, as opposed to

industrial use such as electronic circuit

boards, joint tape, and insulation?

(2) Is any individual or business

entity currently marketing fiberglass

curtains or drapes?

(3) What benefits do consumers derive

from the Rule?

(4) Have there been any technological

or other changes that have reduced or

eliminated the possibility of skin

irritation from contact from glass fiber

material?

(5) 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or should it be repealed?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 413

Fiberglass curtains and curtain fabric,

Trade practices.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–12584 Filed 5–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

16 CFR Part 417

Trade Regulation Rule Concerning the

Failure To Disclose the Lethal Effects

of Inhaling Quick-Freeze Aerosol Spray

Products Used for Frosting Cocktail

Glasses

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’)

proposes to commence a rulemaking

proceeding to repeal its Trade

Regulation Rule entitled ‘‘Failure to

Disclose the Lethal Effects of Inhaling

Quick-Freeze Aerosol Spray Products

Used for Frosting Cocktail Glasses’’

(‘‘Quick-Freeze Spray Rule’’), 16 CFR

part 417. The proceeding will address

whether the Quick-Freeze Spray 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 417’’ and

sent to Secretary, Federal Trade

Commission, Room 159, Sixth Street

and Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lemuel W. Dowdy or George Brent

Mickum IV, Attorneys, Federal Trade

Commission, Division of Enforcement,

Bureau of Consumer Protection,

Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–2981

or (202) 326–3132.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Part A—Background Information

This notice is being published

pursuant to Section 18 of the Federal

Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) Act, 15

U.S.C. 57a et seq., the provisions of part

1, subpart B of 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.

The Quick-Freeze Spray Rule requires

a clear and conspicuous warning on

aerosol spray products used for frosting

beverage glasses. The warning states

that the contents should not be inhaled

in concentrated form and that doing so

may cause injury or death. Glass frosting

products contain a compound known as

Fluorocarbon 12

(dichlorodifluoromethane), which is

also the principal ingredient used in

coolants for automobile air conditioners

and refrigerators.

The Rule was promulgated on

February 20, 1969 (34 FR 2417 (1969)).

The Statement of Basis and Purpose for

the Rule stated that, although the

product is not harmful when used as

directed, there had been several

instances where the intentional misuse

of this product by inhaling its vapors

resulted in death. Consequently, the

Commission concluded that it was in

the public interest to caution purchasers

who may not otherwise be aware of the

lethal effects of inhaling the product.

On October 25, 1989, the Commission

published a notice in the Federal

Register soliciting public comments on

the Rule’s impact on small entities. (54

FR 43435). No comments were received

in response to the notice. The

Commission determined, however, that

a small amount of quick freeze aerosol

products were still available for sale.

Therefore, the Commission determined

that because the Rule’s safety warnings,

if followed, could prevent physical

harm and loss of life, the Rule should

be retained.

Part B—Objectives

As part of its continuing review of its

trade regulation rules to determine their

current effectiveness and impact, the

Commission recently obtained

information bearing on the need for this

Rule.1 Based on this review, the

Commission has determined that glass

frosting products are no longer

produced and that they are precluded

by the Clean Air Act from being

reintroduced into the market place.2

The objective of this notice is to solicit

comment on whether the Commission

should initiate a rulemaking proceeding

to repeal the Quick-Freeze Spray Rule.

Part C—Alternative Actions

The Commission is not aware of any

feasible alternatives to repealing the

Quick-Freeze Spray 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 QuickFreeze Spray Rule. The Commission

requests that factual data upon which

the comments are based be submitted

with the comments. In this section, the

Commission identifies the issues on

which it solicits public comment. The

identification of issues is designed to
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