Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 61225

Note 1: This AD applies to each helicopter

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

helicopters that have been modified, altered,

or repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must use the authority

provided in paragraph (b) to request approval

from the FAA. This approval may address

either no action, if the current configuration

eliminates the unsafe condition, or different

actions necessary to address the unsafe

condition described in this AD. Such a

request should include an assessment of the

effect of the changed configuration on the

unsafe condition addressed by this AD. In no

case does the presence of any modification,

alteration, or repair remove any helicopter

from the applicability of this AD.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent failure of the link assembly,

which could result in loss of control of the

helicopter, accomplish the following:

(a) Before further flight, remove the link

assembly, P/N 900C2010233–103 or –105,

and replace with link assembly, P/N

900C2010233–107.

(b) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,

who may concur or comment and then send

it to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Los Angeles Aircraft

Certification Office.

(c) Special flight permits will not be

issued.

(d) This amendment becomes effective on

December 2, 1997.

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November

6, 1997.

Eric Bries,

Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 97–30058 Filed 11–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 403

Deceptive Use of ‘‘Leakproof,’’

‘‘Guaranteed Leakproof,’’ Etc., As

Descriptive of Dry Cell Batteries

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; removal.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (the ‘‘FTC’’ or

‘‘Commission’’) announces the repeal of

the Trade Regulation Rule on Deceptive

Use of ‘‘Leakproof,’’ ‘‘Guaranteed

Leakproof,’’ Etc., as Descriptive of Dry

Cell Batteries (‘‘the Dry Cell Battery

Rule’’ or ‘‘the Rule’’), 16 CFR Part 403.

The rulemaking record, changes in

industry practice, and general voluntary

compliance by the industry with the

requirements of an American National

Standards Institute standard for dry cell

batteries, which has provisions similar

to the Rule’s, indicate that the Dry Cell

Battery Rule is no longer necessary or in

the public interest and should be

repealed. This document contains a

Statement of Basis and Purpose for

repeal of the rule.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the

Statement of Basis and Purpose should

be sent to the Public Reference Branch,

Room 130, Federal Trade Commission,

Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Ave.,

N.W., Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Neil Blickman, Attorney, Federal Trade

Commission, Bureau of Consumer

Protection, Division of Enforcement,

Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Ave.,

N.W., Washington, DC 20580, (202)

326–3038.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statement of Basis and Purpose

I. Background

On May 20, 1964, the Commission

promulgated a trade regulation rule that

states that in connection with the sale

of dry cell batteries in commerce, the

use of the word ‘‘leakproof,’’ the term

‘‘guaranteed leakproof,’’ or any other

word or term of similar import, or any

abbreviation thereof, in advertising,

labeling, marking or otherwise, as

descriptive of dry cell batteries,

constitutes an unfair method of

competition and an unfair or deceptive

act or practice in violation of section 5

of the FTC Act (16 CFR 403.4). This rule

was based on the Commission’s finding

that, despite efforts by dry cell battery

manufacturers to eliminate electrolyte

leakage, battery leakage and damage

therefrom occurs from the use to which

consumers ordinarily subject dry cell

batteries.

The rule provides that manufacturers

or marketers are not prohibited from

offering or furnishing guarantees that

provide for restitution in the event of

damage from battery leakage, provided

no representation is made, directly or

indirectly, that dry cell batteries will not

leak (16 CFR 403.5). The Rule further

provides that in the event any person

develops a new dry cell battery that he

believes is in fact leakproof, he may

apply to the Commission for an

amendment to the rule, or other

appropriate relief (16 CFR 403.6).

The Commission conducted an

informal review of industry practices by

examining the advertising, labeling and

marketing of dry cell batteries available

for retail sale. This review revealed no

representations that the batteries were

leakproof. The Commission’s review,

therefore, indicated general compliance

with the Rule’s provisions. Moreover,

the Commission has no record of

receiving any complaints regarding noncompliance with the Rule, or of

initiating any law enforcement actions

alleging violations of the Rule.

Additionally, the Commission’s

review indicated general voluntary

compliance by the industry with the

requirements of American National

Standards Institute (‘‘ANSI’’) Standard

C18.1M–1992 Dry Cells and Batteries—

Specifications. The ANSI standard

contains specifications for dry cell

batteries, and requirements for labeling

the products and their packages. The

ANSI standard requires the following

information to be printed on the outside

of each battery (when necessary, the

standard permits some of this

information to be applied to the unit

package): (1) The name or trade name of

the manufacturer; (2) the ANSI/National

Electronic Distributors Association

number, or some other identifying

designation; (3) year and month, week

or day of manufacture, which may be a

code, or the expiration of a guarantee

period, in a clear readable form; (4) the

nominal voltage; (5) terminal polarity;

and (6) warnings or cautionary notes

where applicable. See section 8.1 of

ANSI Standard C18.1M–1992.

The ANSI standard recommends that

dry cell battery manufacturers and

sellers include on their products and

packages several battery user guidelines

and warnings that are relevant to this

proceeding. They are: (1) Although

batteries basically are trouble-free

products, conditions of abuse or misuse

can cause leakage; (2) failure to replace

all batteries in a unit at the same time

may result in battery leakage; (3) mixing

batteries of various chemical systems,

ages, applications, types or

manufacturers may result in poor device

performance and battery leakage; (4)

attempting to recharge a nonrechargeable battery is unsafe because it

could cause leakage; (5) reverse

insertion of batteries may cause

charging, which may result in leakage;

(6) devices that operate on either

household current or battery power may

subject batteries to a charging current,

which may cause leakage; (7) do not

store batteries or battery-powered

equipment in high-temperature areas;
61226 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 221 / Monday, November 17, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1The comment submitted in response to the

ANPR was placed on the public record, and filed

as document number B21969700001. In today’s

notice, the comment is cited as NEMA, #1.

2NEMA, #1.

3 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 Committee on Commerce,

United States House of Representatives, 30 days

prior to its publication in the Federal Register.

4These 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.

and (8) do not dispose of batteries in

fire. See section 7.5 of ANSI Standard

C18.1M–1992. At a minimum, each dry

cell battery and battery package

inspected by Commission staff informed

consumers that the batteries may

explode or leak if recharged, inserted

improperly, disposed of in fire, or

mixed with different battery types.

Based on the foregoing, on March 25,

1997, the Commission published an

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’) tentatively

concluding that industry members that

comply with the ANSI standard’s pointof-sale disclosure requirements also

comply with the Rule. Accordingly, the

Commission tentatively determined that

the Dry Cell Battery Rule is no longer

necessary, and sought comments on the

proposed repeal of the Rule until April

24, 1997. 62 FR 14050.

The only comment received in

response to the ANPR was submitted by

the National Electrical Manufacturers

Association (‘‘NEMA’’), a trade

association representing all major U.S.

manufacturers of dry cell batteries.1

NEMA supported repeal of the

Commission’s Dry Cell Battery Rule,

indicating that it has been superseded

effectively in the marketplace by ANSI

Standard C18.1M–1992.2

After reviewing the comment

submitted in response to the ANPR, and

in light of ANSI Standard C18.1M–1992,

on August 19, 1997, pursuant to the

Federal Trade Commission Act (‘‘FTC

Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 41–58, and the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

551–59, 701–06, the Commission

published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) initiating a

proceeding to consider whether the Dry

Cell Battery Rule should be repealed or

remain in effect (62 FR 44099).3 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.4 The NPR comment period

closed on September 18, 1997. The

Commission received no comments and

no requests to hold an informal hearing.

II. Basis for Repeal of Rule

The Commission has decided to

repeal the Dry Cell Battery Rule for the

reasons discussed in the NPR. In sum,

the Commission has reviewed the

rulemaking record and determined that

the practices that brought about the

Rule, labeling or advertising dry cell

batteries as being ‘‘leakproof,’’ are no

longer common industry practices. In

addition, general voluntary compliance

by the industry with the requirements of

ANSI Standard C18.1M–1992 Dry Cells

and Batteries—Specifications assures

compliance with the Rule. Although

repealing the Dry Cell Battery Rule

would eliminate the Commission’s

ability to obtain civil penalties for any

future misrepresentations that dry cell

batteries are leakproof, the Commission

has determined that, in these

circumstances, repealing the Rule

would not impair the Commission’s

ability to act effectively. Any significant

problems that might arise could be

addressed on a case-by-case basis under

section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45,

either administratively or through

section 13(b) actions, 15 U.S.C. 53(b),

filed in federal district court.

Prosecuting serious misrepresentations

in district court allows the Commission

to obtain injunctive relief as well as

equitable remedies, such as redress or

disgorgement. Accordingly, the

Commission hereby announces the

repeal of the Dry Cell Battery Rule.

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–12, 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 Dry

Cell Battery Rule. Further, no comments

suggested any adverse effect on small

business from repeal. For these reasons,

the Commission certifies, pursaunt 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 Dry Cell Battery Rule imposes no

third-party disclosure requirements that

constitute ‘‘information collection

requirements’’ under the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

Since 1964, therefore, the Rule has

imposed no paperwork burdens on

marketers of dry cell batteries. In any

event, repeal of the Dry Cell Battery

Rule will permanently eliminate any

burdens on the public imposed by the

Rule.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 403

Advertising, Dry cell batteries,

Labeling, Trade practices.

PART 403—[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

403.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–30111 Filed 11–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 15

Changes in Reporting Levels for Large

Trader Reports

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures

Trading Commission (Commission) is

amending its regulations to raise the

nominal reporting level at which futures

commission merchants, clearing

members, foreign brokers, and traders

must file large trader reports in

Standard and Poors (S&P) 500 futures

from 300 to 600 contracts. Levels for

filing reports in the E-mini S&P 500

futures will remain at 300 contracts. The

effect of this rule amendment is to

maintain at current levels the amount of

information the Commission receives

concerning large traders in these

contracts.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 17, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lamont L. Reese, Commodity Futures

Trading Commission, Division of