Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules 27241

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.

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 violations of the rule’s

requirements. Finally, the Uniform

Packaging and Labeling Regulation,

which has been adopted by 47 states,

regulates the labeling of sleeping bags,

and appears to provide that these items

must be labeled with their finished size.

Part B—Objectives

Based on the review described above,

the Commission has determined that

there may no longer be a need to

continue the Sleeping Bag Rule in light

of the apparent changes in industry

practices and the existence of laws in

nearly all of the states that appear to

mandate point-of-sale disclosures

similar to those required by the rule.

The objective of this notice is to solicit

comment on whether the Commission

should initiate a rulemaking proceeding

to repeal the Sleeping Bag Rule.

Part C—Alternative Actions

The Commission is not aware of any

feasible alternatives to either repealing

or retaining the Sleeping Bag 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 Sleeping

Bag Rule. Comments submitted during

the regulatory review proceeding

described above will be made part of the

record, and need not be resubmitted. A

comment that includes the reasoning or

basis for a proposition will likely be

more persuasive than a comment

without supporting information. The

Commission requests that factual data

upon which the comments are based be

submitted with the comments. In this

section, the Commission identifies a

number of issues on which it solicits

public comment. The identification of

issues is designed to assist the public to

comment on relevant matters and

should not be construed as a limitation

on the issues on which public comment

may be submitted.

Questions

(1) Do manufacturers and sellers of

sleeping bags currently use ‘‘cut size’’ as

a means of marking the size of their

products for sale at retail to consumers?

(2) Does the fact that nearly all of the

states have adopted the Uniform

Packaging and Labeling Regulation,

which governs the labeling of sleeping

bags, eliminate or greatly lessen the

need for the Sleeping Bag Rule?

(3) What are the benefits to consumers

from the rule?

(4) What are the costs to industry

imposed by the rule?

(5) Is there a continuing need for the

rule or should the rule be repealed?

Authority: Sec. 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 400

Advertising, Trade practices, Sleeping

bags.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–12580 Filed 5–22–95; 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: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’)

proposed to repeal its Trade Regulation

Rule entitled ‘‘Deception as to NonPrismatic and Partially Prismatic

Instruments Being Prismatic

Binoculars’’ (‘‘Binocular Rule’’), 16

C.F.R. part 402. The proceeding will

address whether the Binocular 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 402’’ and

sent to Secretary, Federal Trade

Commission, Room 159, Sixth Street

and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Phillip S. Priesman, Attorney, Federal

Trade Commission, Division of

Advertising Practices, Bureau of

Consumer Protection, Washington, D.C.

20580. (202) 326–2484.

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 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.

The Binocular Rule was published in

final form in the Federal Register on

June 5, 1964, and became effective on

December 2, 1964. The Rule requires a

clear and conspicuous disclosure on any

advertising or packaging for nonprismatic 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 rightside 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.’’

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 The objective of this notice is to

solicit comment on whether the

Commission should initiate a

rulemaking proceeding to repeal the

Binocular Rule.

Part C—Alternative Actions

The Commission will consider

alternatives to repealing the Binocular

Rule if the comments indicate that the
27242 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 23, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Rule continues to serve its original

purpose.

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 Binocular

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 non-prismatic or

partially-prismatic binoculars?

(2) Is any individual or business

entity currently marketing nonprismatic or partially-prismatic

binoculars?

(3) Do any retail stores or suppliers

still maintain stocks of non-prismatic or

partially-prismatic binoculars?

(4) What benefits do consumers derive

from the Rule?

(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 Part 417

Binoculars, Trade practices.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–12583 Filed 5–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

16 CFR Part 404

Trade Regulation Rule: Deceptive

Advertising and Labeling as to Size of

Tablecloths and Related Products

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking (ANPR).

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) proposes

to repeal its Trade Regulations Rule

entitled ‘‘Deceptive Advertising and

Labeling as to Size of Tablecloths and

Related Products (‘‘Tablecloth Rule’’),

16 CFR part 404. The proceeding will

address whether the Tablecloth 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 404’’ 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 Tablecloth Rule, promulgated by

the Commission on August 5, 1964,

declares that in connection with the sale

or offering for sale of tablecloths and

related products such as doilies, table

mats, dresser scarves, place mats, table

runners, napkins and tea sets, any

representation of the cut size (that is,

the dimensions of materials used in the

construction of such products)

constitutes an unfair method of

competition and an unfair and

deceptive act or practice unless:

(a) ‘‘Such ‘cut size’ dimensions are

accompanied by the words ‘cut size’ ’’;

and

(b) ‘‘The ‘cut size’ is accompanied by

a clear and conspicuous disclosure of

the dimensions of the finished products

and by an explanation that such

dimensions constitute the finished

size.’’.

The Commission periodically reviews

the rules and guides it has promulgated,

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 the Tablecloth Rule. 58 FR 21124.

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 Commission received only one

comment specifically addressing this

rule along with a general comment

referring to several rules under review.

The comment specific to this rule was

submitted by a trade group representing

the textile rental, linen supply, uniform

rental, dust control and commercial

laundry services industries. In its onepage comment letter, the association

stated there is a continuing need for this

rule. The commenter believes that the

rule does not impose any additional

costs or burdens on entities subject to

the rule and that the rule raises the level

of professionalism in the industry.

In addition, one general comment,

applicable to several rules being

reviewed, was received from an

advertising agency association. This

organization recommends rescission of

the Tablecloth Rule because the general

prohibitions covering false and

deceptive advertising apply to the

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.

Prior to the request for comments,

Commission staff engaged in an

informal review of industry practices by

examining the marking of dimensions

on tablecloths and other items subject to

the rule available for retail sale at

several national chain stores. This

informal review revealed no instances of

rule violations. In fact, it appeared from

that limited review 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 violations of the rule’s

requirements. Finally, the Uniform

Packaging and Labeling Regulation,

which has been adopted by 47 states,

regulates the labeling of tablecloths,

providing that these items must be

labeled with their finished size.

Part B—Objectives

Based on the review described above,

the Commission has determined that

there may no longer be a need to

continue the Tablecloth Rule in light of

the apparent changes in industry

practices and the existence of laws in