| Comment Number: | 522418-00397 |
| Received: | 6/1/2006 7:45:54 PM |
| Organization: | |
| Commenter: | Lamb |
| State: | HI |
| Subject: | Business Opportunity Rule |
| Title: | Notice of Proposed Rulemaking |
| CFR Citation: | 16 CFR Part 437 |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing this letter because I am concerned that if proposed Business Opportunity Rule R511993 is adopted in its present form, my livelihood as a Nature's Sunshine distributor will be significantly undermined. The very thought of governmental interference in the free enterprise process strikes fear in the hearts of Americans everywhere. Cherished values are a stake, and the FTC needs to be aware of the dangers of ill considered action. The public is not well served by the FTC's over-regulation of an industry that is causing absolutely no harm and more than adequately polices itself by 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. 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. I have 27 years of working with Nature’s Sunshine products and it contributes enough income to my 66 year old wife and myself (age 70) to keep off the welfare rolls. This job has taken me all over the world (Europe/Asia/etc) and we have learned how to do public speaking, to work with the public and most of all I believe we have assisted persons to help improve their lot in life, as well. That of course, has brought us great satisfaction. In fact, I had previously been a college instructor and my wife a school teacher, and this present job lasting 27 years, has brought us great satisfaction. We have been able to spend quality time together and are still active and taking no drugs for health reason during this time, I might add. And if these restriction will soon apply, I would have to retire. I would not be able to fulfill the paperwork phase of the new requirements, nor would I want to do so. 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, Mr. B. Lamb