Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65529

1The 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.

3These 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Sleeping Bag Rule should be repealed or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
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.

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.

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 NonPrismatic 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