[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 180 (Monday, September 18, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48073-48075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23044]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') announces the
commencement of a rulemaking proceeding for 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'' or ``Rule''), 16 CFR Part 417.
The proceeding will address whether or not the Quick-Freeze Spray Rule
should be repealed. This notice includes a description of the
procedures to be followed, an invitation to submit written comments, a
list of questions and issues upon which the Commission particularly
desires comments, and instructions for prospective witnesses and other
interested persons who desire to participate in the proceeding.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before October 18,
1995.
Notifications of interest in testifying must be submitted on or
before October 18, 1995. If interested parties request the opportunity
to present testimony, the Commission will publish a notice of the
Federal Register stating the time and place at which the hearings will
be held and describing the procedures that will be followed in
conducting the hearings. In addition to submitting a request to
testify, interested parties who wish to present testimony must submit,
on or before October 18, 1995, a written comment or statement that
describes the issues on which the party wishes to testify and the
nature of the testimony to be given.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests to testify should be submitted
to Office of the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-159, Sixth
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580, telephone
number (202) 326-2506. Comments and requests to testify should be
identified as ``16 CFR Part 417--Comment--Quick
[[Page 48074]]
Freeze Spray Rule'' and ``16 CFR Part 417--Request to Testify--Quick
Freeze Spray Rule,'' respectively. If possible, submit comments both in
writing and on a personal computer diskette in Word Perfect or other
word processing format (to assist in processing, please identify the
format and version used). Written comments should be submitted, when
feasible and not burdensome, in five copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lemuel W. Dowdy or George Brent Mickum
IV, Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection,
Division of Enforcement, 601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20004, (202) 326-2981 or (202) 326-3132.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
On May 23, 1995 the Commission published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (``ANR'') 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 Act (``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 of Commerce, Trade and Hazardous Materials, United
States House of Representatives. The ANR comment period closed on June
22, 1995. The Commission received no public comments.
Pursuant to the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 41-58, and the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551-59, 701-06, by this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (``NPR'') the Commission initiates a proceeding to consider
whether the Quick-Freeze Spray Rule should be repealed or remain in
effect.\1\ The Commission is undertaking this rulemaking proceeding as
part of the Commission's ongoing program of evaluating trade regulation
rules and industry guides to determine their effectiveness, impact,
cost and need. This proceeding also responds to President Clinton's
National Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, which, among other things,
urges agencies to eliminate obsolete or unnecessary regulations.
\1\ In accordance with section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a,
the Commission submitted this 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.
II. Background Information
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).
The Rule was promulgated on February 20, 1969 (34 FR 2417). The
Statement of Basis and Purpose for the Rule stated that, although the
product is not harmful when used as directed, there has 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 are 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.
Earlier in 1995, the Commission conducted an investigation to
determine if there was a continuing need for the Rule. Based on this
investigation, which was conducted prior to the issuance of the ANPR,
the Commission determined that glass frosting products are no longer
produced, can no longer be found in the marketplace, and are precluded
by the Clean Air Act from being reintroduced into the market place.\2\
\2\ 42 U.S.C.A. 7401, 7671i (West Supp. 1995). Regulations
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency implementing the
Clean Air Act ban chlorofluorocarbons in aerosols and foams for non-
essential uses. 40 CFR 82.64 (1994). The ban, which includes
fluorocarbon 12, became effective on January 17, 1994. See also
Rulemaking Record, Category B, Staff Submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Rulemaking Procedures
The Commission finds that the public interest will be served by
using expedited procedures in this proceeding. First, there do not
appear to be any material issues of disputed fact to resolve in
determining whether to repeal the Rule. Second, the use of expedited
procedures will support the Commission's goal of eliminating obsolete
or unnecessary regulations without an undue expenditure of resources,
while ensuring that the public has an opportunity to submit data, views
and arguments on whether the Commission should repeal the Rule.
The Commission therefore, has determined, pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20,
to use the procedures set forth in this notice. These procedures
include: (1) Publishing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; (2)
soliciting written comments on the Commission's proposal to repeal the
Rule; (3) holding an informal hearing, if requested by interested
parties; (4) obtaining a final recommendation from staff; and (5)
announcing final Commission action in a notice published in the Federal
Register.
IV. Invitation to Comment and Question for Comment
Interested persons are requested to submit written data, views or
arguments on any issue of fact, law or policy they believe may be
relevant to the Commission's decision on whether to repeal the Rule.
The Commission requests that commenters provide representative factual
data in support of their comments. Individual firms' experiences are
relevant to the extent they typify industry experience in general or
the experience of similar-sized firms. Commenters opposing the proposed
repeal of the Rule should explain the reasons they believe the Rule is
still needed and, if appropriate, suggest specific alternatives.
Proposals for alternative requirements should include reasons and data
that indicate why the alternatives would better protect consumers from
unfair or deceptive acts or practices under section 5 of the FTC Act,
15 U.S.C. 45.
Although the Commission welcomes comments on any aspect of the
proposed repeal of the Rule, the Commission is particularly interested
in comments on questions and issues raised in this notice. All written
comments should state clearly the question or issue that the commenter
is addressing.
Before taking final action, the Commission will consider all
written comments timely submitted to the Secretary of the Commission
and testimony given on the record at any hearings scheduled in response
to requests to testify. Written comments submitted will be available
for public inspection in accordance with the Freedom of Information
Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and Commission regulations, on normal business days
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Federal Trade
Commission, Pubic Reference Room, Room H-130, Federal Trade
[[Page 48075]]
Commission, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20580, telephone number (202) 326-2222.
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 are the benefits and the costs of the Rule to firms
subject to the Rule's requirements?
(5) What are the benefits and the costs of the Rule to consumers?
(6) Has technology changed so that the Rule is no longer needed?
(7) Does regulation of this product by the Environmental Protection
Agency render the Rule unnecessary?
(8)Are there any other federal or state laws or regulations, or
private industry standards, that eliminate the need for the Rule?
(9) Should the Rule be kept in effect or should it be repealed?
V. Request for Public Hearings
Because there does not appear to be any dispute as to the material
facts or issues raised by this proceeding and because written comments
appear adequate to present the views of all interested parties, a
public hearing has not been scheduled. If any person would like to
present testimony at a public hearing, he or she should follow the
procedures set forth in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this
Notice.
VI. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601-11, requires
an analysis of the anticipated impact of the proposed repeal of the
Rule on small businesses.\3\ The analysis must contain, as applicable,
a description of the reasons why action is being considered, the
objectives of and legal basis for the proposed action, the class and
number of small entities affected, the projected reporting,
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements being proposed, any
existing federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or conflict with
the proposed action, and any significant alternatives to the proposed
action that accomplish its objectives and, at the same time, minimize
its impact on small entities.
\3\ Section 22 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b-3, also requires
the Commission to perform ''regulatory impact analyses'' of proposed
rule, but only if the rule will have certain ``significant''
economic or regulatory effects. The commission has determined that a
preliminary regulatory analysis is not required by section 22 in
this proceeding because the Commission has no reason to believe that
repealing the Rule will have a ``significant'' economic or
regulatory impact, either beneficial or detrimental, upon persons
subject to the Rule or upon consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A description of the reasons why action is being considered and the
objectives of the proposed repeal of the Rule have been explained
elsewhere in this Notice. Repeal of the Rule would appear to have
little or no effect on any small business. The Commission is not aware
of any existing federal laws or regulations that would conflict with
repeal of the Rule.
For all these reasons the Commission certifies, pursuant to section
605 of RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, that, if the Commission determines to repeal
the Rule, that action will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. To ensure that no substantial
economic impact is being overlooked, however, the Commission requests
comments on this issue. After reviewing any comments received, the
Commission will determine whether it is necessary to prepare a final
regulatory flexibility analysis.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Quick-Freeze Spray Rule does not impose ``information
collection requirements'' under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''),
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Although the Rule contains disclosure
requirements, these disclosures are not covered under the Act because
the disclosure language is mandatory and provided by the government.
Repeal of the Rule, however, would eliminate any burdens on the public
imposed by these disclosure requires.
VIII. Additional Information For Interested Persons
A. Motions or Petitions
Any motions or petitions in connection with this proceeding must be
filed with the Secretary of the Commission.
B. Communications by Outside Parties to Commissioners or Their Advisors
Pursuant to Rule 1.18(c) of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16
CFR 1.18(c), communications with respect to the merits of this
proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's
advisor during the course of this rulemaking shall be subject to the
following treatment. Written communications, including written
communications from members of Congress, shall be forwarded promptly to
the Secretary for placement on the public record. Oral communications,
not including oral communications from members of Congress, are
permitted only when such oral communications are transcribed verbatim
or summarized at the discretion of the Commissioner or Commissioner's
advisor to whom such oral communications are made, and are promptly
placed on the public record, together with any written communications
relating to such oral communications. Memoranda prepared by a
Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor setting forth the contents of
any oral communications from members of Congress shall be placed
promptly on the public record. If the communication with a member of
Congress is transcribed verbatim or summarized, the transcript or
summary will be placed promptly on the public record.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 417
Quick-freeze aerosol spray trade practices.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-23044 Filed 9-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
