Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Deception as to Non-Prismatic and Partially Prismatic Instruments Being Prismatic Binoculars
Page 1
65529 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 1 The Rule then gives an example of proper size marking: ‘‘Finished size 33′′ × 68′′; cut size 36′′ × 72′′.’’ 2 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.
3 These 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.
size’’ of the materials from which a sleeping bag is made to describe the size of a sleeping bag in advertising, labeling or marking unless:
(1) ‘‘The dimensions of the cut size are accurate measurements of the yard goods used in construction of the sleeping bags’’; and (2) ‘‘Such ‘cut size’ dimensions are accompanied by the words ‘cut size’ ’’; and (3) The reference to ‘‘cut size’’ is ‘‘accompanied by a clear and conspicuous disclosure of the length and width of the finished products and by an explanation that such dimensions constitute the finished size’’.1 On May 23, 1995, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking comment on proposed repeal of the Sleeping Bag Rule (60 FR 27240). 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a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) initiating a proceeding to consider whether the Sleeping Bag Rule should be repealed or remain in effect (60 FR 48063).2 This rulemaking proceeding was undertaken as part of the Commission’s ongoing program of evaluating trade regulation rules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.3 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 periodically reviews its rules and guides, seeking information about their costs and benefits and their regulatory and economic impact. The information obtained assists the Commission in identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission. Accordingly, on April 19, 1993, the Commission published in the Federal Register a request for public comments on its Sleeping Bag Rule (58 FR 21095). The Commission asked commenters to address the costs and benefits of the Rule, whether there was a continuing need for this regulation, the burdens placed on businesses subject to this regulation, whether changes should be made, any conflicts with other laws, and whether changes in technology affected the Rule. Only one specific comment relating to the Sleeping Bag Rule was received, which generally supported a continuation of this regulation. In addition to this specific comment, one general comment, applicable to several rules being reviewed, was received from an advertising agency association. This organization recommended rescission of the Sleeping Bag Rule because the general prohibitions of the FTC Act covering false and deceptive advertising apply to the sleeping bag industry. Thus, the commenter concluded that the Rule creates unnecessary administrative costs for the government, industry members and consumers.
Commission staff also conducted an informal inquiry and inspected sleeping bags at several national chain stores. This inquiry found no violations of the Rule on either the sleeping bag packaging materials or the labels affixed to the products themselves. In fact, it appeared from that limited inquiry that industry products were marked with only the finished size. Additionally, the Commission has no record of receiving any complaints regarding noncompliance with the Rule, or of initiating any law enforcement actions alleging violation of the Rule’s requirements. Finally, the National Conference on Weights and Measures’ Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation, which has been adopted by 47 States, regulates the labeling of sleeping bags, and provides that these items must be labeled with their finished size. Accordingly, due to changes in industry practice, and the existence of laws in most States that mandate point-of-sale disclosures similar to those required by the Rule, the Commission has determined to repeal the Sleeping Bag Rule. 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 Rule would appear to have little or no effect on small businesses. Moreover, the Commission is not aware of any existing Federal laws or regulations that would conflict with repeal of the Rule. For these reasons, the Commission certifies, pursuant to section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act The Sleeping Bag Rule imposes thirdparty disclosure requirements that constitute ‘‘information collection requirements’’ under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Accordingly, repeal of the Rule would eliminate any burdens on the public imposed by these disclosure requirements.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 400 Advertising, Sleeping bags, Trade practices.
PART 400—[REMOVED] The Commission, under authority of section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, amends chapter I of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by removing part 400.
By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95–31010 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750–01–M 16 CFR Part 402 Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Deception as to Non-Prismatic and Partially Prismatic Instruments Being Prismatic Binoculars AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Repeal of rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission announces the repeal of the Trade Regulation Rule concerning Deception as to Non-Prismatic and Partially Prismatic Instruments Being
Page 2
65530 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 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.
2 These 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.
Prismatic Binoculars. The Commission has reviewed the rulemaking record and determined that due to changes in technology, the Rule no longer serves the public interest and should be repealed. This notice contains a Statement of Basis and Purposes for repeal of the Rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 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, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phillip Priesman, Attorney, Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Division of Advertising Practices, Washington, DC 20580, telephone number (202) 326–2484. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Statement of Basis and Purpose I. Background The Trade Regulation Rule concerning Deception as to Non- Prismatic and Partially Prismatic Instruments Being Prismatic Binoculars (Binocular Rule), 16 CFR Part 402, was promulgated in 1964 (29 FR 7316). The Rule requires a clear and conspicuous disclosure on any advertising or packaging for non-prismatic or partially prismatic binoculars that the instruments are not fully prismatic. Fully prismatic binoculars rely on a prism within the instrument to reverse the visual image entering the lens so that it appears right-side up to the user. Other binoculars rely partially or entirely on mirrors to reverse the visual image. When the rule was promulgated, the Commission was concerned that consumers could be misled into believing that non-prismatic binoculars were in fact prismatic, absent such a disclosure.
To prevent consumer deception, the rule proscribed the use of the term ‘‘binocular’’ to describe anything other than a fully prismatic instrument, unless the term was modified to indicate the true nature of the item. Under the Rule, non-prismatic instruments could be identified as binoculars only if they incorporated a descriptive term such as ‘‘binocularnonprismatic,’’ ‘‘binocular-mirror prismatic,’’ or ‘‘binocular-nonprismatic mirror,’’ On May 23, 1995, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking comment on proposed repeal of the Binocular Rule (60 FR 27241). 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 one comment suggesting that there may be a continuing need for the Rule because field glasses and opera glasses, both of which are non-prismatic, are still advertised and sold today. The comment acknowledged, however, that present-day binoculars are fully prismatic, while the non-prismatic instruments are identified as either field glasses or opera glasses rather than binoculars.
On September 18, 1995, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) initiating a proceeding to consider whether the Binocular Rule should be repealed or remain in effect (60 FR 48065).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 Since the Rule was promulgated, technological advances have reduced the cost of prisms to the point that almost all binoculars sold today are fully prismatic. Those that are not fully prismatic are marketed and sold as field glasses or opera glasses rather than binoculars. Thus, there does not appear to be any continuing need for the Rule. Repeal of the Rule will also further the objective of reducing obsolete government regulation.
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 Rule would appear to have little or no effect on small businesses. Moreover, the Commission is not aware of any existing federal laws or regulations that would conflict with repeal of the Rule. For these reasons, the Commission certifies, pursuant to Section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act The Binocular Rule does not impose ‘‘information collection requirements’’ under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 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 requirements. List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 402 Binoculars, Trade practices. PART 402—[REMOVED] The Commission, under authority of Section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, amends chapter I of title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations by removing Part 402.
By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95–31014 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750–01–M 16 CFR Part 404 Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Deceptive Advertising and Labeling as to Size of Tablecloths and Related Products AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Repeal of rule. SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission announces the repeal of the Trade Regulation Rule concerning Deceptive Advertising and Labeling as to Size of Tablecloths and Related