| Comment Number: | 522418-00550 |
| Received: | 6/2/2006 3:03:31 PM |
| Organization: | The Herb Hut |
| Commenter: | Brewster Andrews |
| State: | TX |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Dear Sir or Madam, After reviewing what I was able of your NPR I can't believe you are really trying to include our (my wife id the owner) little business. My wife and I are, and have been for 15 years, Nature's Sunshine Products distributors and we are very concerned about this proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993 in its present form and what it might do to our little business and our ability to serve ourselves and our customers. We, June and I, remain our biggest customer. Nearly all our customers are our neighbors, friends and relatives. It seems like somebody in government is always trying to mess things up because of some type of special interest group pressuring to change the rules — for their, usually hidden agenda, benefit. Why is government always trying to jump in and interfere in the free enterprise process? The FTC needs to be aware of the dangers of ill considered action. What good is there to the public in the FTC's overregulating an industry that is causing absolutely no harm and more than adequately polices itself? Our history is one of remedying any and all complaints by members of the public. Nature's Sunshine complies with all applicable buy back requirements and always makes it easy for individuals to exit the Company, if the business opportunity is not right for them. I am a 12 year survivor of inoperable prostate cancer (Gleason score of 9), and if it were not for modern drugs and natural remedies, I should have died 5 to 7 years ago. Most of the (not-covered-by-insurance) expenses of the natural products I use are covered by the discounts and profits from our Nature's Sunshine Products business. I don't really understand all of what you are proposing in R511993, but from those who do, this is what it seems to be saying to me: While the FTC needs to protect the public where necessary, this proposed rule is hopelessly overbroad and misguided. The seven-day waiting period is unnecessary and will interfere with my ability to enter into lawful transactions and enroll new distributors. People buy TV's, cars, and other much more costly items without such a waiting period. This proposed waiting period gives the impression that something is wrong with the plan. And, the burdensome paperwork, which will not even be read by the public, makes it extremely difficult for the individual participant to fully comply, thereby risking fines and other penalties for such failures, however innocent. By these actions, the FTC does a disservice to the consuming public and Americans everywhere who are trying to get ahead by starting their own business, or earning necessary supplemental income to help support their family. While I appreciate the work of the FTC in protecting consumers, I believe this proposed new rule has many unintended consequences that could be avoided by a less burdensome approach. Thank you for your time in considering my comments. Sincerely yours, Brewster C. Andrews