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repealed.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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 244 / Wednesday, December 20, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 65531

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.

Products. The Commission has

reviewed the rulemaking record and

determined that due to changes in

industry practices and state laws, the

Rule no longer serves the public interest

and should be repealed. This notice

contains a Statement of Basis and

Purpose 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 N.W.,

Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Janice Podoll Frankle, Esq., (202) 326–

3022, Division of Enforcement, Bureau

of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade

Commission, Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statement of Basis and Purpose

I. Background

The Trade Regulation Rule

concerning Deceptive Advertising and

Labeling as to Size of Tablecloths and

Related Products (Tablecloth Rule), 16

CFR Part 404, was promulgated in 1964

(29 FR 11261). The Tablecloth Rule

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 unfinished 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.’’

On May 23, 1995, the Commission

published an Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking

comment on proposed repeal of the

Tablecloth Rule (60 FR 27242). 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

Tablecloth Rule should be repealed or

remain in effect (60 FR 48067).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 sue 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

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. 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 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 asserted 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 recommended rescission of

the Tablecloth Rule because the general

prohibitions covering false and

deceptive advertising apply to the

industry. Thus, the commenter

concluded that the Rule creates

unnecessary administrative costs for the

government, industry members or

consumers.

Prior to the 1993 request for

comments, Commission staff conducted

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 the 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 National

Conference on Weight and Measures’

Uniform Packaging and Labeling

Regulation, which has been adopted by

47 states, regulates the labeling of

tablecloths, and provides that these

items must be labeled with their

finished size.

Because the practices that brought

about the Tablecloth Rule are no longer

common industry practices and are

otherwise addressed by state law, the

Rule is no longer necessary and should

be repealed.

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 Tablecloth Rule imposes thirdparty disclosure requirements that
65532 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.

3See Rulemaking Record, Category B, Staff

Submissions.

4 Id.

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 404

Advertising, Tablecloths and related

products, Trade practices.

PART 404—[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

404.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–31012 Filed 12–19–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

16 CFR Part 413

Trade Regulation Rule Concerning the

Failure to Disclose That Skin Irritation

May Result from Washing or Handling

Glass Fiber Curtains and Draperies

and Glass Fiber Curtain and Drapery

Fabrics

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Repeal of rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission announces the repeal of the

Trade Regulation Rule concerning the

Failure to Disclose that Skin Irritation

May Result from Washing or Handling

Glass Fiber Curtains and Draperies and

Glass Fiber Curtain and Drapery Fabrics.

The Commission has received 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 Purpose 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 N.W.,

Washington, DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Edwin Rodriguez or Janice Podoll

Frankle, Attorneys, Federal Trade

Commission, Division of Enforcement,

Bureau of Consumer Protection,

Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326–3147

or (202) 326–3022.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: .

Statement of Basis and Purpose

I. Background

The Trade Regulation Rule

concerning the Failure to Disclose that

Skin Irritation May Result from Washing

or Handling Glass Fiber Curtains and

Draperies and Glass Fiber Curtain and

Drapery Fabrics (Fiberglass Curtain

Rule), 16 CFR Part 413, was

promulgated in 1967 (32 FR 11023). The

Fiberglass Curtain Rule requires

marketers of fiberglass curtains or

draperies and fiberglass curtain or

drapery cloth to disclose that skin

irritation may result from handling

fiberglass curtains or curtain cloth and

from contact with clothing or other

articles that have been washed (1) with

such glass fiber products, or (2) in a

container previously used for washing

such glass fiber products unless the

glass particles have been removed from

the container by cleaning.

On May 23, 1995, the Commission

published an Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking

comment on proposed repeal of the

Fiberglass Curtain Rule (60 FR 27243).

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,

Untied 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

Fiberglass Curtain Rule should be

repealed or remain in effect (60 FR

48071).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

The Statement of Basis and Purpose

for the Fiberglass Curtain Rule stated

that consumers had experienced skin

irritation after washing or handling glass

fiber curtains and draperies and glass

fiber curtain and drapery fabrics.

Consequently,the Commission

concluded that it was in the public

interest to caution consumers that skin

irritation could result from the direct

handling of fiberglass curtains,

draperies, and yard goods, and from

body contact with clothing or other

articles that had been washed with

fiberglass products or in a container

previously used to wash fiberglass

products and not cleaned of all glass

practicles.

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. Based on this review, the

Commission has determined that

fiberglass curtains and draperies and

fiberglass curtain or drapery fabric no

longer present a substantial threat of

skin irritation to the consumer.

Fiberglass was used in curtains

primarily because of its fire retardant

characteristic. Technological

developments in fire retardant fabrics

have caused fiberglass fabric to be

displaced by polyester and modacrylics

in the curtain and drapery industry.3

Fiberglass fabrics are now used almost

exclusively for very specialized

industrial uses.4 Because the products

are no longer sold for consumer use, the

Fiberglass Curtain Rule has become

obsolete and should be repealed.

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 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