66070 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

date and time will thereafter be continuously

published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

* * * * *

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace areas

designated as a surface area for an airport.

* * * * *

AWP NV E2 Elko, NV [Revised]

Elko Municipal-J.C. Harris Field, NV

(lat. 40°49′31′′N, long. 115°47′28′′W)

Within a 4.3-mile radius of the Elko

Municipal-J.C. Harris Field and within 1.8

miles each side of the 248° bearing from the

Elko Municipal-J.C. Harris Field, extending

from the 4.3-mile radius to 6 miles southwest

of the Elko Municipal-J.C. Harris Field and

within 1.8 miles each side of the 075° bearing

from the Elko Municipal-J.C. Harris Field,

extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 8.3

miles northeast of the airport. This Class E

airspace area is effective during the specific

dates and times established in advance by a

Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time

will thereafter be continuously published in

the Airport/Facility Directory.

* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AWP NV E5 Elko NV [Revised]

Elko Municipal-J.C. Harris Field, NV

(lat. 40°49′31′′N, long. 115°47′28′′W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within an 8.3-mile

radius of Elko Municipal-J.C. Harris Field

and within 1.8 miles either side of 248°

bearing from the Elko Municipal-J.C. Field,

extending from the 8.3-mile radius to the

11.7 miles southwest of the Elko MunicipalJ.C. Harris Field and within 3.9 miles east

and 8.3 miles west of the 161° bearing from

the Elko Municipal-J.C. Harris Field,

extending from the 8.3-mile radius to 21.7

miles south of Elko Municipal-J.C. Harris

Field and within 4.3 miles each side of the

075° bearing from the Elko Municipal-J.C.

Harris Field, extending from the 8.3-mile

radius to 17.8 miles northeast of the airport.

That airspace extending upward from 1,200

feet above the surface within an 18.7-mile

radius of Elko Municipal-J.C. Harris Field,

and that airspace bounded on the north by

the south edge of V–6, on the south by the

north edge of V–32, on the east by the 18.7-

mile radius west of the Elko Municipal-J.C.

Harris Field and that airspace bounded by a

line beginning at lat. 40°34′00′′N, long.

116°00′00′′W; to lat. 40°27′00′′N, long.

116°36′00′′W; to lat. 40°31′00′′N, long

116°38′00′′W; to lat. 40°32′00′′N, long.

116°33′00′′W; to lat. 40°33′30′′N, long.

116°33′30′′W; to lat. 40°38′00′′N, long.

116°07′00′′W, thence via the 18.7-mile radius

of Elko Municipal-J.C. Harris Field to the

point of beginning.

* * * * *

Issued in Los Angeles, California, on

December 6, 1995.

James H. Snow,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Western-Pacific Region.

[FR Doc. 95–31103 Filed 12–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 95–ANM–15]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Salt

Lake City, Utah

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action amends the salt

Lake City, Utah, Class E airspace to

accommodate a new instrument

approach procedure at Salt Lake City

International Airport. This amendment

brings publications up-to-date giving

continuous information to the aviation

public.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, February 29,

1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Riley, ANM–537, Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

95–ANM–15, 1601 Lind Avenue S.W.,

Renton, Washington, 98055–4056;

telephone number: 206 227–2537.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On October 10, 1995, the FAA

proposed to amend part 71 of Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71)

by amending the Salt Lake City, Utah,

Class airspace designation (60 FR

52639). Interested parties were invited

to participate in the rulemaking

proceeding by submitting written

comments on the proposal. No

comments were received.

This action is the same as the

proposal except for a typographical

error discovered (and corrected herein)

in the coordinates for the 1200-foot

airspace area. The coordinates for this

airspace docket are based on North

American Datum 83. Class E airspace is

published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA

Order 7400.9C dated August 17, 1995,

and effective September 16, 1995, which

is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class E airspace designation

listed in this document will be

published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

The amendment to part 71 of Federal

Aviation Regulations amends Class E

airspace at Salt Lake City, Utah. The

FAA has determined that this proposed

regulation only involves an established

body of technical regulations for which

frequent and routine amendments are

necessary to keep them operationally

current. It, therefore, (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)

does not warrant preparation of a

regulatory evaluation as the anticipated

impact is so minimal. Since this is a

routine matter that will only affect air

traffic procedures and air navigation, it

is certified that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, 14

CFR part 71 is amended as follows:

PART 71—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR

part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated August 17, 1995, and effective

September 16, 1995, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM UT E5 Salt Lake City, UT [Revised]

Salt Lake City International Airport, UT

(lat. 40°47′18′′N, long. 111°58′40′′W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface bounded by a line

beginning at lat. 41°00′00′′N, long.

111°45′03′′W, thence south along long.

111°45′03′′W, to lat. 40°22′30′′N, thence

southeast to lat. 40°10′20′′N, long.

111°35′03′′W, thence southwest to lat.

40°03′30′′N, long. 111°48′33′′W, thence

northwest to lat. 40°43′00′′N, long.

112°22′03′′W, thence north along long.

112°22′03′′W, to lat. 41°00′00′′N, thence east

along lat. 41°00′00′′N, to the point of

beginning; that airspace extending upward

from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded on

the north by lat. 41°00′00′′N, on the east by

long. 111°25′33′′W, thence south to lat.

40°11′00′′N, thence east to lat. 40°06′00′′N,

long. 110°15′00′′W, thence southwest to lat.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 245 / Thursday, December 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 66071

1 In accordance with Section 18 of the FTC Act,

15 U.S.C. 57a, the Commission submitted the NPR

to the Chairman of the Committee on Commerce,

Science and Transportation, United States Senate,

and the Chairman of the Subcommittee on

Commerce, Trade and Hazardous Materials, United

States House of Representatives, 30 days prior to its

publication.

2These procedures included: publishing a Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking; soliciting written

comments on the Commission’s proposal to repeal

the Rule; holding an informal hearing, if requested

by interested parties; receiving a final

recommendation from Commission staff; and

announcing final Commission action in the Federal

Register.

3 40 CFR 82.64 (1994).

4See Rulemaking Record, Staff Submissions:

Letter from Donna Wellington, Executive Vice

President, Ronco, Inc., dated April 18, 1995, to Mr.

Lemuel W. Dowdy.

5See Rulemaking Record, Staff Submissions:

Memorandum to File, George Brent Mickum IV,

dated April 18, 1995.

6 Id.

39°33′00′′N, long. 110°55′00′′W, thence

southwest to lat. 39°04′00′′N, long.

112°27′30′′W, thence northwest to lat.

39°48′00′′N, long. 112°50′00′′W, thence west

via lat. 39°48′00′′N, to the east edge of

Restricted Area R–6402A, and on the west by

the east edge of Restricted Area R–6402A,

Restricted Area R–6402B and Restricted Area

R–6406B and long. 113°00′03′′W; excluding

the portion within the Price, UT and the

Delta, UT, airspace areas; that airspace east

of Salt Lake City extending upward from

11,000 feet MSL bounded on the northwest

by the southeast edge of V–32, on the

southeast by the northwest edge of V–235, on

the southwest by the northeast edge of V–101

and on the west by long. 111°25′33′′W;

excluding that airspace within the Evanston,

WY, 1,200-foot Class E airspace area; that

airspace southeast of Salt Lake City

extending upward from 13,500 feet MSL

bounded on the northeast by the southwest

edge of V–484, on the south by the north

edge of V–200 and on the west by long.

111°25′33′′W; excluding the portion within

Restricted Area R–6403 and the Bonneville,

UT Class E airspace area.

* * * * *

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on

December 8, 1995.

Richard E. Prang,

Acting Assistant Manager, Air Traffic

Division, Northwest Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 95–31101 Filed 12–20–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

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: Repeal of rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission announces the repeal of the

Trade Regulation Rule concerning the

Failure to Disclose the Lethal Effects of

Inhaling Quick-Freeze Aerosol Spray

Products Used for Frosting Cocktail

Glasses. The Commission has reviewed

the rulemaking record and determined

that, because federal law prohibits the

sale or distribution of the products that

were the subject of the Quick-Freeze

Spray Rule, the Rule no longer serves

the public interest and should be

repealed. This document contains a

Statement of Basis and Purpose for

repeal of the Rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the

Statement of Basis and Purpose should

be sent to Public Reference Branch,

Room 130, Federal Trade Commission,

6th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.,

Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lemuel W. Dowdy or George Brent

Mickum IV, Federal Trade Commission,

Division of Enforcement, Bureau of

Consumer Protection, Washington, D.C.

20580, (202) 326–2981, (202) 326–3132.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statement of Basis and Purpose

I. Background

The Trade Regulation Rule

concerning the 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, was

promulgated on February 20, 1969 (34

FR 2417). 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.

On May 23, 1995, the Commission

published an Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking

comment on the proposed repeal of the

Quick-Freeze Spray Rule (60 FR 27244).

In accordance with Section 18 of the

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act,

15 U.S.C. 57a, the ANPR was sent to the

Chairman of the Committee on

Commerce, Science and Transportation,

United States Senate, and the Chairman

of the Subcommittee on Commerce,

Trade and Hazardous Materials, United

States House of Representatives. The

comment period closed on June 22,

1995. The Commission received no

comments.

On September 18, 1995, the

Commission published a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) initiating a

proceeding to consider whether the

Quick-Freeze Spray Rule should be

repealed or remain in effect (60 FR

48073).1 This rulemaking proceeding

was undertaken as part of the

Commission’s ongoing program of

evaluating trade regulation rules and

industry guides to ascertain their

effectiveness, impact, cost and need.

This proceeding also responded to

President Clinton’s National Regulatory

Reinvention Initiative, which, among

other things, urges agencies to eliminate

obsolete or unnecessary regulations. In

the NPR, the Commission announced its

determination, pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20,

to use expedited procedures in this

proceeding.2 The comment period

closed on October 18, 1995. The

Commission received no comments and

no requests to hold an informal hearing.

II. Basis for Repeal of Rule

The Commission has determined to

repeal the Quick-Freeze Spray Rule for

the following reasons:

1. The active ingredient in quickfreeze spray products was Fluorocarbon

12. The Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401

et seq., and its implementing

regulations, ban chlorofluorocarbons in

aerosols and foams for non-essential

uses because they are ozone depleting

agents. The ban, which includes

Fluorocarbon 12, became effective on

January 17, 1994.3 A number of aerosol

products containing fluorocarbons have

been exempted from the ban, but glassfrosting aerosols are not among them.

2. Based on a 1989 review of the Rule,

the Commission determined that the last

known producer of glass-frosting

products was Ronco, Inc. Ronco last

produced its glass-frosting machines in

1980. The product was last sold to

retailers in 1982. Ronco has none of the

product in its warehouse and has sold

the tooling machinery that was used to

manufacture the product.4

3. Commission staff was unable to

locate any glass-frosting products for

sale anywhere in the country.5

4. Poison treatment centers have

reported no cases involving the

product.6

Because the products addressed by

this Rule are no longer available and

cannot be sold or distributed legally, the

Quick-Freeze Spray Rule has become

obsolete and should be repealed.

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

5 U.S.C. 601–11, requires an analysis of

the anticipated impact of the repeal of

the Rule on small businesses. The

reasons for repeal of the Rule have been

explained in this Notice. Repeal of the