25560 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

1See Guides for the Luggage and Related

Products Industry, 16 CFR Part 24; Guides for Shoe

Content Labeling and Advertising, 16 CFR Part 231;

and Guides for the Ladies’ Handbag Industry, 16

CFR Part 247.

2The comments were submitted by Larry E.

Gundersen (1), a consumer, and Humphreys Inc.

(2), a manufacturer of leather belts.

3 Gundersen (1).

4Humphreys Inc. (2).

5This comment was submitted by Luggage and

Leather Goods Manufacturers of America, Inc.

(LLGMA). The comment also expressed no

objection to the inclusion of belts in the Guides for

Select Leather and Imitation Leather Products and

stated that LLGMA would publish the Guides in its

magazine when they are adopted.

P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124–

2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind

Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the

Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

(e) This amendment becomes effective on

June 26, 1996.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 14,

1996.

S.R. Miller,

Acting Manager,Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 96–12599 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–U

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 405

Trade Regulation Rule on Misbranding

and Deception as to Leather Content of

Waist Belts

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission announces the removal of

the Trade Regulation Rule concerning

Misbranding and Deception as to

Leather Content of Waist Belts (Leather

Belt Rule or Rule), 16 CFR Part 405. The

Commission has reviewed the

rulemaking record and determined that

the Leather Belt Rule is no longer

necessary. The proposed Guides for

Select Leather and Imitation Leather

Products will cover belts and the

benefits of the Rule are retained through

the inclusion of belts in the proposed

Guides. Repealing the Leather Belt Rule

eliminates unnecessary duplication.

Further, if necessary, the Commission

can address misrepresentations

involving leather belts on a case-by-case

basis, administratively under Section 5

of the Federal Trade Commission Act

(FTC Act), 15 U.S.C. 45, or through

enforcement actions under Section

13(b), 15 U.S.C. 53(b), in federal district

court. Such actions can provide

additional guidance to industry

members on what practices are unfair or

deceptive.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the

Statement of Basis and Purpose should

be sent to the FTC’s Public Reference

Branch, Room 130, 6th Street and

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20580; (202) 326–

2222; TTY for the hearing impaired

(202) 326–2502.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lemuel Dowdy or Edwin Rodriguez,

Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission,

Division of Enforcement, Bureau of

Consumer Protection, Sixth Street and

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20580, (202) 326–2981 or (202) 326–

3147.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statement of Basis and Purpose

I. Background

The Trade Regulation Rule

concerning Misbranding and Deception

as to Leather Content of Waist Belts, 16

CFR Part 405, was promulgated on June

27, 1964, to remedy deceptive practices

involving misrepresentations about the

leather content of waist belts that are

not offered for sale as part of a garment.

The Rule prohibits representations that

belts are made from the hide or skin of

an animal when such is not the case, or

that belts are made of a specified animal

hide or skin when such is not the case.

In addition, the Rule requires that belts

made of split leather, and ground,

pulverized or shredded leather bear a

label or tag disclosing the kind of

leather of which the belt is composed.

The Rule also requires that non-leather

belts having the appearance of leather

bear a tag or label disclosing their

composition or disclosing that they are

not leather.

As part of its continuing review of its

trade regulation rules to determine their

current effectiveness and impact, the

Commission published a Federal

Register notice on March 27, 1995, 60

FR 15725, asking questions about the

benefits and burdens of the Rule to

consumers and industry. On the same

date, the Commission published a

Federal Register notice, 60 FR 15724,

soliciting comment on its Industry

Guides for luggage, shoes, and ladies’

handbags.1 After reviewing the

comments received in response to these

two notices, on September 18, 1995, the

Commission published an Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)

seeking comment on its proposal to

repeal the Leather Belt Rule, 60 FR

48070. On the same day, the

Commission published two other

notices, one announcing the rescission

of the three separate guides for luggage,

shoes, and handbags, 60 FR 48027, and

the second seeking comment on one set

of proposed, consolidated guidelines,

entitled the Guides for Select Leather

and Imitation Leather Products, 60 FR

48056. The ANPR proposing the repeal

of the Rule stated that, because the

proposed Guides would cover belts, the

Commission had tentatively determined

that a separate Leather Belt Rule was no

longer necessary.

The Commission received two

comments in response to the ANPR.2

One of these comments supported

retention of the existing Leather Belt

Rule because the commenter believed

that rescission of the Rule may decrease

the accuracy of the labeling of waist

belts.3 The other comment supported

consolidating the Rule into one set of

guidelines governing disclosures of the

content of leather products.4

After reviewing the comments

submitted, on March 5, 1996, the

Commission published a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPR), 61 FR

8499, initiating a rulemaking proceeding

to consider whether the Leather Belt

Rule should be repealed or remain in

effect. The Commission stated it would

hold a public hearing for the

presentation of testimony, if there was

interest. No one requested that the

Commission hold a hearing. In response

to the NPR, the Commission received

one comment, which expressed no

objection to the repeal of the Leather

Belt Rule.5

II. Basis for Repeal of Rule

The Commission has decided to

repeal the Leather Belt Rule for the

reasons discussed in the NPR. In sum,

the Commission has determined that the

benefits of the Rule are retained through

the inclusion of belts in the proposed

Guides for Select Leather and Imitation

Leather Products. While repealing the

Rule would eliminate the Commission’s

ability to obtain civil penalties for any

future misrepresentations of the leather

content of belts, the Commission has

determined that this action would not

seriously jeopardize the Commission’s

ability to act effectively to prevent the

mislabeling of leather belts. Any

significant problems that might arise

could be addressed on a case-by-case

basis, administratively under Section 5

of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, or through

enforcement actions under Section

13(b), 15 U.S.C. 53(b), in federal district

court. Prosecuting serious or knowing

misrepresentations in district court

allows the Commission to seek

injunctive relief as well as equitable
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 25561

remedies, such as redress or

disgorgement. Any necessary

administrative or district court actions

would also serve to provide industry

members with additional guidance

about what practices are unfair or

deceptive.

In addition, the Commission has

concluded that including belts in the

proposed Guides and eliminating the

Rule reduces duplication and

streamlines the regulatory scheme,

thereby responding to President

Clinton’s National Regulatory

Reinvention Initiative, which, among

other things, urges agencies to eliminate

obsolete or unnecessary regulations.

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined that a separate Leather Belt

Rule is not necessary and hereby

announces the repeal of the 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 business. The

Commission did not receive any

information in response to the ANPR

and NPR that supports a different

conclusion. Moreover, the commission

is not aware of any existing federal laws

and 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 Leather Belt 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 405

Advertising, Clothing, Labeling,

Leather and leather products industry,

Trade practices.

PART 405—[REMOVED]

The Commission, under authority of

Section 18 of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, amends

chapter 1 of title 16 of the Code of

Federal Regulations by removing Part

405.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41–58.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–12817 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Finance and Accounting

Service

32 CFR Part 324

[DFAS Reg. 5400.11–R]

DFAS Privacy Act Program

AGENCY: Defense Finance and

Accounting Service, DOD.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule establishes the

Defense Finance and Accounting

Service Privacy Act Program. The

Defense Finance and Accounting

Service (DFAS) was established to

provide finance and accounting services

for the DoD Components and other

Federal activities, as designated by the

Comptroller, DoD.

The Defense Finance and Accounting

Service was activated on January 15,

1991, to improve the overall

effectiveness of DoD financial

management through the consolidation,

standardization and integration of

finance and accounting systems,

procedures and operations. DFAS is also

responsible for identifying and

implementing finance and accounting

requirements, systems and functions for

appropriated and non-appropriated

funds, as well as working capital,

revolving funds and trust fund

activities--including security assistance.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Genevieve Turney (703) 607–5165 or

DSN 327–5165.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive

Order 12866. The Director,

Administration and Management, Office

of the Secretary of Defense has

determined that this Privacy Act rule for

the Department of Defense does not

constitute ‘significant regulatory action’.

Analysis of the rule indicates that it

does not have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more; does

not create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency; does not

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; does not raise novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in Executive

Order 12866 (1993).

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. The

Director, Administration and

Management, Office of the Secretary of

Defense certifies that this Privacy Act

rule for the Department of Defense does

not have significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

because it is concerned only with the

administration of Privacy Act systems of

records within the Department of

Defense.

Paperwork Reduction Act. The

Director, Administration and

Management, Office of the Secretary of

Defense certifies that this Privacy Act

rule for the Department of Defense

imposes no information requirements

beyond the Department of Defense and

that the information collected within

the Department of Defense is necessary

and consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a,

known as the Privacy Act of 1974.

This rule establishes the Defense

Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)

Privacy Act Program. DFAS was

established to provide finance and

accounting services for the DoD

Components and other Federal

activities, as designated by the

Comptroller, DoD. The proposed rule

was previously published on March 1,

1996, at 61 FR 8003. No comments were

received resulting in any contrary

determinations, therefore, DFAS is

adopting the rule as published.

List of subjects in 32 CFR part 324

Privacy.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 324 is

added to read as follows:

PART 324–DFAS PRIVACY ACT

PROGRAM

Subpart A–General Information

324.1 Issuance and purpose.

324.2 Applicability and scope.

324.3 Policy.

324.4 Responsibilities.

Subpart B–Systems of Records

324.5 General information.

324.6 Procedural rules.

324.7 Exemption rules.

Subpart C–Individual Access to Records

324.8 Right of access.

324.9 Notification of record’s existence.

324.10 Individual requests for access.

324.11 Denials.

324.12 Granting individual access to records

324.13 Access to medical and psychological

records.

324.14 Relationship between the Privacy Act

and the Freedom of Information Act.

Appendix A to part 324 – DFAS Reporting

Requirements