Guides for Select Leather and Imitation Leather Products, 34626-34630 [E8-13656]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34626
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
(2) Falcon 2000EX airplanes, S/N 28
through 55 inclusive, on which Dassault
Service Bulletin F2000EX–61 has not been
implemented.
Subject
(d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of
America Code 35: Oxygen.
Reason
(e) The mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) states:
On early FALCON airplanes featuring the
EASy cockpit, a new oxygen controller has
been installed. An internal review has
determined that the passenger oxygen mask
boxes do not fit this new controller. In
OVERRIDE mode, that is to say, when the
internal pressure reducer is by-passed,
oxygen (O2) flow is nominal, while in
NORMAL mode O2 flow is reduced by half
compared to what it should be.
Consequently, in NORMAL mode the
minimum mass flow of supplemental O2 for
each passenger, as required by Certification
Specifications, is no longer met. This could
lead to passenger incommodation due to
insufficient body oxygenation.
The purpose of this Airworthiness
Directive (AD) is to mandate the replacement
of the passenger oxygen mask boxes by newdesigned ones [boxes] adapted to the
controller.
The unsafe condition is incorrectly fitted
passenger oxygen mask boxes for the new
controllers, which could result in
incapacitation of passengers due to
insufficient oxygen in the event of rapid
depressurization of the airplane when the
controller is in NORMAL mode.
Actions and Compliance
(f) Unless already done do the following
actions:
(1) Within 15 months after the effective
date of this AD, replace the passenger oxygen
mask boxes in accordance with Dassault
Service Bulletins F900EX–257 or F2000EX–
61, both Revision 1, both dated March 22,
2007, as applicable.
(2) Actions done before the effective date
of this AD in accordance with Dassault
Service Bulletins F900EX–257, dated March
15, 2006; and F2000EX–61, dated March 22,
2006; are acceptable for compliance with the
corresponding actions of this AD.
FAA AD Differences
Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/
or service information as follows: No
differences.
227–1137; fax (425) 227–1149. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify your
appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the
FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement
in this AD to obtain corrective actions from
a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective
actions are considered FAA-approved if they
are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required
to assure the product is airworthy before it
is returned to service.
(3) Reporting Requirements: For any
reporting requirement in this AD, under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
has approved the information collection
requirements and has assigned OMB Control
Number 2120–0056.
Related Information
(h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation
Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2007–
0073, dated March 22, 2007; and Dassault
Service Bulletins F900EX–257 and F2000EX–
61, both Revision 1, both dated March 22,
2007; for related information.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(i) You must use Dassault Service Bulletin
F900EX–257, Revision 1, dated March 22,
2007; or Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX–
61, Revision 1, dated March 22, 2007; as
applicable; to do the actions required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference of
this service information under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box
2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606.
(3) You may review copies at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202) 741–6030, or go to: https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 3,
2008.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8–13315 Filed 6–17–08; 8:45 am]
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Other FAA AD Provisions
(g) The following provisions also apply to
this AD:
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs): The Manager, International
Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
Send information to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Branch,
ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate,
FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057–3356; telephone (425)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:10 Jun 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 24
Guides for Select Leather and Imitation
Leather Products
Federal Trade Commission.
Confirmation of guides.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade
Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
has completed the regulatory review of
its Guides for Select Leather and
Imitation Leather Products (‘‘Leather
Guides’’ or ‘‘Guides’’) as part of its
systematic review of all current
Commission regulations and guides, and
has decided to retain the Guides in their
current form.
DATES: This action is effective as of June
18, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of this
notice should be sent to the Consumer
Response Center, Room 130, Federal
Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580.
The notice also is available on the
Internet at the Commission’s Web site,
https://www.ftc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Susan E. Arthur, Attorney, Southwest
Region, Federal Trade Commission,
1999 Bryan Street, Suite 2150, Dallas,
Texas 75201. E-mail: sarthur@ftc.gov,
telephone: (214) 979-9370.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The Commission has determined, as
part of its oversight responsibilities, to
review all Commission rules and guides
periodically. These reviews seek
information about the costs and benefits
of the Commission’s rules and guides
and their regulatory and economic
impact. The information obtained
during the reviews assists the
Commission in determining whether
rules and guides should be confirmed,
amended, or rescinded.
II. Background
The Commission’s Leather Guides
address misrepresentations regarding
the composition and characteristics of
specific leather and imitation leather
products.1 The Guides apply to the
manufacture, sale, distribution,
marketing, or advertising of leather or
simulated leather purses, luggage,
wallets, footwear, and other similar
products. Importantly, the Guides state
that disclosure of non-leather content
should be made for material which has
the appearance of leather but is not
leather.
The Commission adopted the Leather
Guides in 1996, as part of its periodic
review of its rules and guides.2 The
1 The Leather Guides ‘‘are administrative
interpretations of laws administered by the
Commission for the guidance of the public in
conducting its affairs in conformity with legal
requirements. They provide the basis for voluntary
and simultaneous abandonment of unlawful
practices by members of industry.’’ 16 C.F.R. 1.5.
Conduct inconsistent with the Guides may result in
corrective action by the Commission under
applicable statutory provisions.
2 61 Fed. Reg. 51577 (October 3, 1996).
E:\FR\FM\18JNR1.SGM
18JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Leather Guides consolidated portions of
the Guides for the Luggage and Related
Products Industry (‘‘Luggage Guides’’),
the Guides for Shoe Content Labeling
and Advertising (‘‘Shoe Guides’’), and
the Guides for the Ladies’ Handbag
Industry (‘‘Handbag Guides’’).3 The
Leather Guides also include provisions
previously contained in the
Commission’s Trade Regulation Rule
Concerning Misbranding and Deception
as to Leather Content of Waist Belts
(‘‘Waist Belt Rule’’).4
The language of the Luggage Guides,
the Shoe Guides, the Handbag Guides,
and the Waist Belt Rule was updated
and clarified in the Leather Guides, and
unnecessary provisions were deleted.
Further, the Leather Guides modified a
number of provisions from the older
guides and rule. Among these
modifications were an expansion of the
scope of the Guides to include
misrepresentations in marketing and
advertising, the removal of the
limitation that only top grain leather
should be called ‘‘leather’’ without
qualification, and the addition of a
provision regarding the disclosure of the
percentage of non-leather and leather
material contained in bonded leather.
On May 23, 2007, the Commission
published a Federal Register notice
(‘‘FRN’’) seeking public comment on the
Leather Guides.5 The FRN sought
comment concerning the continuing
need for the Leather Guides; industry
adoption of the Guides; costs and
benefits of the Guides; effects of the
modifications to the provisions
previously contained in the Luggage
Guides, the Shoe Guides, the Handbag
Guides, and the Waist Belt Rule; any
changes that should be made to the
Guides; conflicts or overlap between the
Guides and other laws or regulations;
changes in consumer perceptions and
preferences; and the effect that changes
in technology, economic conditions, or
environmental conditions have had on
the Guides.
III. Regulatory Review Comments
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
The Commission received four
comments in response to the FRN.6 The
3 The Luggage Guides, the Shoe Guides, and the
Handbag Guides were repealed in 1995. 60 Fed.
Reg. 48027 (September 18, 1995). On the same day,
the Commission requested public comment
regarding proposed Leather Guides. 60 Fed. Reg.
48056 (September 18, 1995).
4 The Commission repealed the Waist Belt Rule
earlier in 1996. 61 Fed. Reg. 25560 (May 22, 1996).
5 72 Fed. Reg. 28906 (May 23, 2007).
6 The comments are cited in this notice by the
name of the commenter. All comments are on the
public record and available for public inspection in
the Consumer Response Center, Room 130, Federal
Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20580, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:10 Jun 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
comments were submitted by the
Footwear Distributors and Retailers of
America (‘‘FDRA’’), an association of
retailers, distributors, importers, and
manufacturers of footwear; the Leather
Industries of America (‘‘LIA’’), which
represents a number of companies
engaged in the tanning and/or marketing
of leather and related companies; the
Sponge and Chamois Institute (‘‘SCI’’),
an organization comprised of producers
and distributors of sponges and chamois
products in the United States; and
Design Resources, Inc. (‘‘DRI’’), a
company engaged in the leather
products business.
A. Comments Concerning the
Usefulness of the Guides
Three of the comments support
continuing the Guides, and the other
commenter asks that its products be
removed from the coverage of the
Guides. LIA comments that the FTC
should retain the Guides and expand
them in a number of respects.7 DRI also
supports continuation of the Guides.8
SCI’s request that the Guides be
expanded to include chamois indicates
support for continuation of the Guides.9
FDRA requests that the Commission
abandon the Guides as they relate to
footwear, but does not comment on the
general need for the Guides in other
industries.10
In addressing industry adoption of the
Guides, LIA comments that it is
frequently asked to help members apply
the Guides to consumer products.11 DRI
says that the industry follows and
embraces the Guides and their current
labeling disclosure requirements,12 and
that companies ‘‘rely on the Guides and
factor them into their investment and
critical business decisions regarding
product development.’’ 13
Two comments address the Guides’
benefits to consumers. DRI states that
the Guides have a theme of avoiding
deception.14 In LIA’s comment, the
association says the Guides have
‘‘fundamental importance’’ as a
reference point for consumers.15
In response to the FRN questions
regarding costs and benefits of the
Guides for businesses, LIA comments
that ‘‘the Guides provide a framework
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The comments are also available on the Internet at
the Commission’s Web site, https://www.ftc.gov.
7 LIA at 5.
8 DRI at 1, 2, 6, and 11.
9 SCI at 1 and 5.
10 FDRA at 1-2.
11 LIA at 5.
12 DRI at 2.
13 Id. at 11.
14 Id. at 10.
15 LIA at 5.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
34627
for communicating truthful and nonmisleading messages to consumers’’
concerning industry products,16 inhibit
advertisers from making deceptive
claims, promote honest business
practices, and have ‘‘fundamental
importance’’ as a reference point for
U.S. businesses.17 LIA states that several
specific provisions are helpful to
industry because they encourage
companies to communicate information
that consumers may not be able to
determine on their own prior to
purchase.18 DRI also addressed this
issue, saying that the Guides provide
voluntary guidelines for the marketing
and sale of leather and imitation leather
products to members of the leather
industry that are promoting truthful,
non-misleading advertising to
consumers.19 Additionally, DRI
explains that leather businesses look to
the Guides to understand their
disclosure obligations for labels, tags,
and advertising, and to ensure that they
accurately represent their products to
consumers.20 With regard to bonded
leather and composition disclosures,
DRI’s comment says that the Guides
help businesses understand their
disclosure obligations and avoid
consumer deception and confusion.21
According to DRI, with regard to bonded
leather, the Guides ‘‘have worked well
for the past ten years and continue to do
so.’’22
B. Suggested Changes to the Guides
LIA suggests that the Commission
make numerous changes to the Guides.
LIA says that the Guides ‘‘require
expansion to make them more
comprehensive and consistent with
global industry practice.’’23 LIA
comments that the absence of the
information incorporated in its
suggested modifications will facilitate
‘‘an escalating trend of deceptive
practice’’ within the United States.24
SCI’s sole recommendation is that the
Commission add one definition to the
Guides.25 The comment from DRI
primarily relates to one of the changes
proposed by LIA and urges the
Commission to refuse to make that
requested change.26 FDRA asks that the
Id. at 2.
Id. at 5.
18 Id. at 5-6.
19 DRI at 1.
20 Id. at 11.
21 Id. at 1.
22 Id. at 11.
23 LIA at 6.
24 Id. at 6-7.
25 SCI at 1 and 5.
26 DRI at 1-12.
16
17
E:\FR\FM\18JNR1.SGM
18JNR1
34628
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
Guides be abandoned as they related to
footwear.27
1. Suggested Definitions and Disclosures
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
LIA proposes adding definitions for
the following terms to the Guides: (1)
top grain or full grain leather, (2)
corrected grain leather, (3) semi-aniline
leather, (4) leather, (5) coated leather, (6)
laminated leather, (7) split leather, (8)
leatherette, (9) bonded leather, and (10)
chamois.28 SCI asks that the
Commission add a definition of the term
‘‘chamois.’’29 DRI’s comment primarily
concerns its opposition to LIA’s
proposed definition of the term ‘‘bonded
leather,’’30 but DRI also states that LIA
is asking the FTC to make the Guides
‘‘even more complex by adopting a
number of complicated definitions that
are shrouded in industry jargon and
terminology.’’31
The definitions that LIA suggests for
the terms ‘‘top grain’’ or ‘‘full grain’’
leather, ‘‘corrected grain’’ leather, ‘‘split
leather,’’ and ‘‘semi-aniline’’ leather are
based on the presence or absence of
grain surface and the finishes used on
the material. These definitions are not
needed, as the Guides apply to all types
of leather, as well as non-leather
material with the appearance of leather.
Further, the record contains no evidence
regarding consumer understanding of
these terms, several of which may be
unfamiliar to many consumers. Absent
evidence as to how consumers would
understand these suggested terms, it is
difficult to determine whether adoption
of the definitions would assist or hinder
consumers. For these reasons, the
Commission is not adding these
suggested definitions. However, if
industry members desire to label their
products with these terms, they may do
so provided that the terms used are
truthful and non-deceptive.
LIA also recommends that the
Commission modify the Guides to
include a lengthy definition of the term
‘‘leather.’’32 Like the proposed
definitions discussed above, there are
portions of this definition that are not
needed because of the Guides’ broad
coverage of all types of leather, as well
as non-leather material with the
appearance of leather. A portion of the
suggested definition dealing with
disintegrated hide or skin is not needed
because Section 24.2(f) of the Guides
FDRA at 1-2.
LIA at 3-4 and 7-21.
29 SCI at 1.
30 DRI at 1.
31 Id. at 7.
32 LIA at 3 and 12.
27
already provides guidance relating to
ground leather and similar materials.
Also included within LIA’s proposed
definition of the term ‘‘leather’’ is a
provision that would allow use of the
term without qualification for leather
with a finish if the thickness of the
finish is 0.15 mm or less. According to
LIA, a ‘‘finish comprising a pigmented
polyurethane, acrylic resin, or other
polymer-based paint protects the grain
surface of most types of leather.’’33 LIA
further explains that the thickness of the
finish depends upon the desired
aesthetics and intended use of the
leather. The comment describes the
differences in performance and quality
of material with various thicknesses of
coatings, cites the British Standards
Institution as support for LIA’s position,
and states that the threshold is
commonly understood by most leather
producers.34 However, the record
developed during this review contains
no information regarding whether, or to
what extent, consumers expect that
coatings have been applied to products
labeled as ‘‘leather’’ without
qualification. Without such information,
it is difficult to determine whether
adoption of the proposed definition
would result in consumer deception or
confusion. Therefore, the Commission is
not adopting the provision proposed by
LIA. For similar reasons, the
Commission is not adding LIA’s
proposed definitions of ‘‘coated leather’’
and ‘‘laminated leather’’ to the Guides,
nor are those terms being added as
examples of appropriate disclosures in
Section 24.2(e) of the Guides (dealing
with misrepresentations that a product
is wholly of a particular composition) as
recommended by LIA.
LIA also recommends that the
Commission add a definition of the term
‘‘leatherette’’ to refer to material made of
paper, cloth, or synthetic material and
finished to simulate the appearance of
leather.35 Further, LIA asks that the
Commission add the term ‘‘leatherette
(not leather)’’ to Section 24.2(a) of the
Guides, which provides examples of
terms that may be used to describe nonleather material with the appearance of
leather. LIA claims that the definition
and disclosure are needed because the
term ‘‘leatherette’’ is misleading and
potentially deceptive to consumers.36
LIA provides no evidence concerning
consumer understanding of the term
‘‘leatherette.’’ It should be noted that
when the word ‘‘leather’’ is included
within the name or description of a non-
28
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:10 Jun 17, 2008
Id. at 10.
Id. at 10–12.
35 Id. at 4, 12, and 13.
36 Id. at 12.
33
34
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
leather material or product in a manner
that indicates that the material or
product is made of leather or contains
leather, there is a strong possibility that
use of the word may cause consumer
deception. Section 24.2(d) of the Guides
states that a word, term, depiction, or
device should not be used if it
misrepresents, directly or by
implication, that an industry product is
made in whole or in part from animal
skin or hide, or that material in an
industry product is leather or other
material. Although the Commission
agrees with LIA that the term
‘‘leatherette’’ may be deceptive, the
suggested change is not being made
because the Guides in their current form
address non-leather material with the
appearance of leather. There is no need
for the specific definition endorsed by
LIA. The type of material that LIA seeks
to define as ‘‘leatherette’’ is not leather,
so Section 24.2(a) provides guidance for
content disclosure. Further, it should be
noted that the list of examples of
appropriate disclosure contained in
Section 24.2(a) is not an exhaustive list,
so there is no need to add additional
terms.
LIA’s next suggestion is that the
Guides more specifically define the term
‘‘bonded leather.’’37 In support of its
suggestion, LIA says that it has analyzed
material that it claims is erroneously
labeled as bonded leather because the
material is 80 percent synthetic material
with an insubstantial coating of leather
fibers on the underside.38 LIA argues
that this material is not bonded leather
because the leather fibers are not
bonded to each other to form an
independent, continuous layer, but are
merely glued to the underside of an
entirely different, synthetic product.
LIA asserts that leather fibers in this
material offer no utility or aesthetic
value, and that manufacturers would
likely include minor amounts of leather
fibers to give the appearance of leather
when inspected from the underside,
thereby deceiving purchasers. To
address these concerns, LIA suggests a
definition of bonded leather that states
that the product is made by forming
leather fragments and fibers into a single
homogenous sheet or roll with the aid
of adhesives, resins, or similar bonding
agents.39
Id. at 4 and 13–15.
Id. at 14.
39 Id. at 15. In its comment, LIA cites the
definition used by the International Union of
Leather Technologists and Chemists Societies
(‘‘IULTCS’’) to describe ‘‘reconstituted leather.’’
IULTCS’s definition is ‘‘Made by forming leather
fragments and fibres into sheet material with the aid
of adhesives, resins, etc.’’ LIA asks that the
Commission further refine the IULTCS definition by
adopting LIA’s proposal.
37
38
E:\FR\FM\18JNR1.SGM
18JNR1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
With regard to LIA’s proposed
definition of bonded leather, DRI states
that consumers have not been harmed or
deceived in the absence of this
definition because ‘‘the Guides already
require disclosure of the percentage of
leather and non-leather substances
found in bonded leather used in
consumer products.’’40 DRI maintains
that LIA’s proposed definition would
drive up costs to bonded leather
manufacturers and businesses without
any benefit to consumers, would be
confusing both to businesses and
consumers, and would have significant
anti-competitive impacts on the bonded
leather goods industry and marketplace.
DRI asks that the FTC retain the Guides
and their current labeling disclosure
requirements.
The current Guides do not set a
minimum leather fiber content for
bonded leather material. Instead,
Section 24.2(f) of the Guides states that
if a term such as ‘‘bonded leather’’ is
used, either a disclosure that the
material is not leather or a disclosure of
the percentage of leather fibers and the
percentage of non-leather substances
contained in the material should be
made. An example of a proper
disclosure provided in the Guides is
‘‘Bonded Leather Containing 60%
Leather Fibers and 40% Non-leather
Substances.’’ Such a disclosure
effectively prevents deception which
could be caused by the term ‘‘bonded
leather.’’ Use of the term ‘‘bonded
leather’’ without a truthful content
disclosure is not in compliance with the
Guides, regardless of the percentage of
leather fiber content in the material so
described. If a product is labeled in
compliance with Section 24.2(f),
consumers are made aware of the true
composition of the product and are not
deceived.
The Guides’ provision relating to
bonded leather and similar material
focuses on disclosure of the percentage
of leather fibers and non-leather
substances contained in the material,
rather than on the method used to place
leather fibers into the material as urged
by LIA. There is insufficient information
in the record to justify a distinction
based upon the method by which
leather fibers are placed into the
material. Truthful content information,
as outlined in the Guides, gives
consumers the facts they need to make
an informed decision regarding bonded
leather and similar materials. For these
reasons, the Commission is not adopting
LIA’s proposed definition of ‘‘bonded
leather.’’
40
DRI at 2.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:10 Jun 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
The last of LIA’s suggested definitions
is for the word ‘‘chamois.’’41 SCI also
requests a ‘‘chamois’’ definition.42 The
LIA and SCI comments refer to an FTC
advisory opinion issued in 1964 that
addressed the use of the word
‘‘chamois,’’ stating that it was deceptive
to use the word ‘‘chamois’’ for a product
not made from (a) the skin of the Alpine
antelope or (b) sheepskin fleshers which
have been oil-tanned after removal of
the grain layer.43 The comments also
discuss in detail the need for a
definition, as well as the history and
properties of chamois,44 but do not
provide specific evidence regarding
current consumer understanding of the
term ‘‘chamois.’’ The most common use
of chamois as described in these
comments is for drying polished
surfaces, glass, and car bodywork. Such
drying products are outside of the scope
of these Guides. There may be instances
in which chamois is used in industry
products covered by the Guides, but, as
discussed above, there is no need to
more specifically define different types
of leather because the Guides apply to
all types of leather. There are already
provisions in the Guides to address
misrepresentations and deceptive
omissions. Under Section 24.1 of the
current Guides, it is unfair or deceptive
to misrepresent any material aspect of
an industry product. As discussed
above, Section 24.2(a) provides
guidance about disclosures to be made
for synthetic products with the
appearance of leather. Also, under
Section 24.2(b) of the Guides, a
disclosure should be made of the type
of leather in a product that is made of
leather which has been processed to
simulate the appearance of a different
kind of leather. The requested definition
has not been added to the Guides.
In summary, the Commission has
decided that it will not add the
suggested definitions to the Guides.
However, the Commission would
encourage industry efforts to inform
consumers of the meaning of many of
the proposed definitions, provided that
LIA at 4, 15, and 21.
SCI at 1.
43 FTC Advisory Opinion No. 1, 66 F.T.C. 1593
(1964). A portion of this opinion relating to proper
use of the term ‘‘chamois’’ was published in the
Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘C.F.R.’’) until 1989,
when the Commission deleted Part 15 of Title 16
of the C.F.R. that contained the text of advisory
opinions issued from November 1965 until June
1974. At the time that the provisions were deleted,
the Commission noted that it was not required to
publish the materials in the C.F.R. and that more
complete versions of the materials were available
elsewhere. The Commission concluded that there
was little, if any, public benefit to justify the costs
of publication. 50 Fed. Reg. 26187 (June 22, 1989).
44 LIA at 15-21; SCI at 1-5.
41
42
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
34629
the definitions are not misleading to
consumers.
2. Scope of the Guides
LIA suggests that the scope of the
Guides be enlarged to include
automotive and furniture upholstery
products, stating that these products
‘‘represent a significant portion of the
leather industry, and the clear majority
of finished leather produced in the
United States.’’45 LIA argues that
enlarging the Guides to cover these
products would reduce potential
deception and confusion regarding these
products.46 In addressing LIA’s
suggestion, the Commission notes that
when the Leather Guides were adopted
in 1996, it considered expansion of the
Guides to cover additional products and
decided that the record developed
during that review did not warrant
expansion of the Guides. As in the
earlier review, the current record leaves
unanswered questions regarding the
extent of misrepresentations in other
industries, consumer interpretation of
the appearance of leather for products in
other industries, and any special
considerations for other industries. For
these reasons, the Commission is not
enlarging the scope of the Guides in the
manner suggested by LIA. However, all
members of the leather and imitation
leather products industries can obtain
useful guidance from the Guides. The
Guides are interpretive of laws enforced
by the Commission, which may take
action against companies engaged in
deception regardless of whether they
fall within the scope of the Guides.
FDRA asks that the Guides be
abandoned as they relate to footwear,
arguing that there is no consumer
preference for leather in the current
footwear market and that consumer
choice is instead based upon
functionality and value.47 FDRA reasons
that ‘‘the Guides are based on the
assumption that consumers believe all
parts of shoes with an ‘appearance’ of
leather, are made of leather, regardless
of what the distributor says or does not
say in labeling or advertising about
leather content.’’48 FDRA argues that
‘‘appearance’’ is not defined, and that
the Guides’ emphasis on the
assumed preference for leather is so
great that the effect is that any shoe
which does not disclose its contents
‘‘appears’’ to be leather. In essence,
the Guides convert silence about
shoe content into a claim of leather
content and then require disclosure
Id. at 7.
Id.
47 FDRA at 1-2.
48 Id. at 2.
45
46
E:\FR\FM\18JNR1.SGM
18JNR1
34630
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 118 / Wednesday, June 18, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
to cure the ‘‘misrepresentation’’
created only by the Guides
themselves.
Id. FDRA urges the Commission to
reconsider this approach, which it
claims is flawed.
In its comment, FDRA touts the
enormous strides made in the
development of synthetic materials,
which it claims have replaced leather in
many facets of footwear construction.49
Further, the association states that
synthetic materials, which in some
instances are more expensive than
leather, have been developed to be light
in weight and provide strength and
durability which is superior to leather.
In describing today’s footwear styles,
FDRA explains that such products ‘‘are
typically made from a variety of
materials fitted together with leather
and man-made overlays, interspersed
with light, breathable textile materials,
combined to create the comfort, fit, and
‘breathability’ preferred by
consumers.’’50 Additionally, FDRA
states that low priced synthetic shoes
are widely accepted by consumers
because they have many of the same
comfort and performance characteristics
as leather footwear at a fraction of the
price.51
The basic premise of the Guides is the
Commission’s long-standing position
that when a product has the appearance
of leather, its appearance makes an
implied representation that the product
is made of leather. Clearly, a deceptive
omission can arise from the physical
appearance of a product, and the
Guides’ disclosure provisions are
designed to correct such an omission.
Despite FDRA’s claims to the contrary,
a product does not ‘‘appear’’ to be
leather solely because of the absence of
a content disclosure for the product. A
synthetic product must first appear to be
leather before the Guides’ disclosure
provisions would become applicable to
the product. Thus, the Guides’
disclosure provisions are limited to
situations where consumers are likely to
be misled as to a product’s composition.
While FDRA cites statistics regarding
the percentages of leather and nonleather footwear for the U.S. footwear
market and the types of footwear sold in
the market,52 it does not provide
evidence regarding consumer
Id.
Id. at 1.
51 Id. at 2. FDRA claims that, because of the low
price, consumers have no expectation that these
items are made of leather. However, as discussed
above, FDRA indicates that synthetic materials are
more expensive than leather in some instances.
Therefore, consumers cannot rely upon price to
determine the true composition of a product.
52 Id. at 1.
49
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
50
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:10 Jun 17, 2008
Jkt 214001
expectations regarding footwear with
the appearance of leather. Whether or
not there have been tremendous
advances in synthetic materials, the
record does not support a reversal of the
Commission’s long-standing position
related to synthetic material with the
appearance of leather.
FDRA asks that, if the Guides remain
applicable to footwear, the Commission
make clear that the look or mere
appearance of the shoe does not
constitute a representation that the shoe
is leather, either in whole or in part, and
to make the Guides applicable only to
misrepresentations of leather content.53
As discussed above, the implied
representation made by the appearance
of leather is a fundamental premise of
the Guides. FDRA’s suggested changes
would thwart the primary goals of the
Guides. Therefore, the Commission is
not making the changes suggested by
FDRA.
IV. Conclusion
Based upon the review discussed
above, the Commission concludes that
there is a continuing need for the
Leather Guides, which are beneficial to
consumers and industry members, and
has decided to retain the Guides in their
current form.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 24
Advertising, Belts, Distribution,
Footwear, Imitation leather products,
Labeling, Ladies’ handbags, Leather and
leather products industry, Luggage and
related products, Shoes, Trade practices,
Waist belts.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark
Secretary
[FR Doc. E8–13656 Filed 6–17–08: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service
30 CFR Part 291
[Docket ID: MMS–2008–PMI–0024]
RIN 1010–AD17
Open and Nondiscriminatory
Movement of Oil and Gas as Required
by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act
Minerals Management Service
(MMS), Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
53
PO 00000
Id. at 2.
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SUMMARY: The Minerals Management
Service (MMS) is promulgating new
regulations that establish a process for a
shipper transporting oil or gas
production from Federal leases on the
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to follow
if it believes it has been denied open
and nondiscriminatory access to
pipelines on the OCS. The rule provides
MMS with tools to ensure that pipeline
companies provide open and
nondiscriminatory access to their
pipelines.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 18, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Ellis, Policy and Appeals Division,
at (303) 231–3652, FAX: (303) 233–
2225, or e-mail at Scott.Ellis@mms.gov.
The principal authors of this rule are
Alex Alvarado and Robert Mense of
Offshore Minerals Management (OMM);
and Scott Ellis of Policy and
Management Improvement (PMI), MMS,
Interior.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 5(e) of the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C.
1334(e), provides that ‘‘[r]ights-of-way
through the submerged lands of the
outer Continental Shelf, whether or not
such lands are included in a mineral
lease maintained or issued pursuant to
this subchapter, may be granted by the
Secretary for pipeline purposes for the
transportation of oil, natural gas,
sulphur, or other minerals or under
such regulations and upon such
conditions as may be prescribed by the
Secretary. * * * upon the express
condition that oil or gas pipelines shall
transport or purchase, without
discrimination, oil or natural gas
produced from submerged lands or
outer Continental Shelf lands. * * *’’
43 U.S.C. 1334(e).
Section 5(f) of the OCSLA mandates
that every permit, license, easement, or
right-of-way granted to a pipeline for
transportation of oil or gas on or across
the OCS must require that the pipeline
‘‘provide open and nondiscriminatory
access to both owner and nonowner
shippers.’’ 43 U.S.C. 1334(f).
The Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC), exercising
authority it claimed under the OCSLA,
issued regulations requiring companies
providing natural gas transportation
service to periodically file information
with FERC concerning their pricing and
service structures. See Order No. 639,
FERC Stats. & Regs. (CCH) ¶ 31,097 at
31,514 (April 10, 2000); Order No. 639–
A, FERC Stats. & Regs. (CCH) ¶ 31,103
(July 26, 2000). FERC believed that the
resulting transparency would enhance
E:\FR\FM\18JNR1.SGM
18JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 18, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34626-34630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-13656]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 24
Guides for Select Leather and Imitation Leather Products
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Confirmation of guides.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'') has
completed the regulatory review of its Guides for Select Leather and
Imitation Leather Products (``Leather Guides'' or ``Guides'') as part
of its systematic review of all current Commission regulations and
guides, and has decided to retain the Guides in their current form.
DATES: This action is effective as of June 18, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of this notice should be sent to the
Consumer Response Center, Room 130, Federal Trade Commission, 600
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580. The notice also is
available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site, https://
www.ftc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan E. Arthur, Attorney, Southwest
Region, Federal Trade Commission, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 2150,
Dallas, Texas 75201. E-mail: sarthur@ftc.gov, telephone: (214) 979-
9370.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The Commission has determined, as part of its oversight
responsibilities, to review all Commission rules and guides
periodically. These reviews seek information about the costs and
benefits of the Commission's rules and guides and their regulatory and
economic impact. The information obtained during the reviews assists
the Commission in determining whether rules and guides should be
confirmed, amended, or rescinded.
II. Background
The Commission's Leather Guides address misrepresentations
regarding the composition and characteristics of specific leather and
imitation leather products.\1\ The Guides apply to the manufacture,
sale, distribution, marketing, or advertising of leather or simulated
leather purses, luggage, wallets, footwear, and other similar products.
Importantly, the Guides state that disclosure of non-leather content
should be made for material which has the appearance of leather but is
not leather.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Leather Guides ``are administrative interpretations of
laws administered by the Commission for the guidance of the public
in conducting its affairs in conformity with legal requirements.
They provide the basis for voluntary and simultaneous abandonment of
unlawful practices by members of industry.'' 16 C.F.R. 1.5. Conduct
inconsistent with the Guides may result in corrective action by the
Commission under applicable statutory provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission adopted the Leather Guides in 1996, as part of its
periodic review of its rules and guides.\2\ The
[[Page 34627]]
Leather Guides consolidated portions of the Guides for the Luggage and
Related Products Industry (``Luggage Guides''), the Guides for Shoe
Content Labeling and Advertising (``Shoe Guides''), and the Guides for
the Ladies' Handbag Industry (``Handbag Guides'').\3\ The Leather
Guides also include provisions previously contained in the Commission's
Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Misbranding and Deception as to
Leather Content of Waist Belts (``Waist Belt Rule'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 61 Fed. Reg. 51577 (October 3, 1996).
\3\ The Luggage Guides, the Shoe Guides, and the Handbag Guides
were repealed in 1995. 60 Fed. Reg. 48027 (September 18, 1995). On
the same day, the Commission requested public comment regarding
proposed Leather Guides. 60 Fed. Reg. 48056 (September 18, 1995).
\4\ The Commission repealed the Waist Belt Rule earlier in 1996.
61 Fed. Reg. 25560 (May 22, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The language of the Luggage Guides, the Shoe Guides, the Handbag
Guides, and the Waist Belt Rule was updated and clarified in the
Leather Guides, and unnecessary provisions were deleted. Further, the
Leather Guides modified a number of provisions from the older guides
and rule. Among these modifications were an expansion of the scope of
the Guides to include misrepresentations in marketing and advertising,
the removal of the limitation that only top grain leather should be
called ``leather'' without qualification, and the addition of a
provision regarding the disclosure of the percentage of non-leather and
leather material contained in bonded leather.
On May 23, 2007, the Commission published a Federal Register notice
(``FRN'') seeking public comment on the Leather Guides.\5\ The FRN
sought comment concerning the continuing need for the Leather Guides;
industry adoption of the Guides; costs and benefits of the Guides;
effects of the modifications to the provisions previously contained in
the Luggage Guides, the Shoe Guides, the Handbag Guides, and the Waist
Belt Rule; any changes that should be made to the Guides; conflicts or
overlap between the Guides and other laws or regulations; changes in
consumer perceptions and preferences; and the effect that changes in
technology, economic conditions, or environmental conditions have had
on the Guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 72 Fed. Reg. 28906 (May 23, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Regulatory Review Comments
The Commission received four comments in response to the FRN.\6\
The comments were submitted by the Footwear Distributors and Retailers
of America (``FDRA''), an association of retailers, distributors,
importers, and manufacturers of footwear; the Leather Industries of
America (``LIA''), which represents a number of companies engaged in
the tanning and/or marketing of leather and related companies; the
Sponge and Chamois Institute (``SCI''), an organization comprised of
producers and distributors of sponges and chamois products in the
United States; and Design Resources, Inc. (``DRI''), a company engaged
in the leather products business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The comments are cited in this notice by the name of the
commenter. All comments are on the public record and available for
public inspection in the Consumer Response Center, Room 130, Federal
Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580,
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The comments are also available on the Internet at the
Commission's Web site, https://www.ftc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Comments Concerning the Usefulness of the Guides
Three of the comments support continuing the Guides, and the other
commenter asks that its products be removed from the coverage of the
Guides. LIA comments that the FTC should retain the Guides and expand
them in a number of respects.\7\ DRI also supports continuation of the
Guides.\8\ SCI's request that the Guides be expanded to include chamois
indicates support for continuation of the Guides.\9\ FDRA requests that
the Commission abandon the Guides as they relate to footwear, but does
not comment on the general need for the Guides in other industries.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ LIA at 5.
\8\ DRI at 1, 2, 6, and 11.
\9\ SCI at 1 and 5.
\10\ FDRA at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addressing industry adoption of the Guides, LIA comments that it
is frequently asked to help members apply the Guides to consumer
products.\11\ DRI says that the industry follows and embraces the
Guides and their current labeling disclosure requirements,\12\ and that
companies ``rely on the Guides and factor them into their investment
and critical business decisions regarding product development.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ LIA at 5.
\12\ DRI at 2.
\13\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two comments address the Guides' benefits to consumers. DRI states
that the Guides have a theme of avoiding deception.\14\ In LIA's
comment, the association says the Guides have ``fundamental
importance'' as a reference point for consumers.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Id. at 10.
\15\ LIA at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the FRN questions regarding costs and benefits of
the Guides for businesses, LIA comments that ``the Guides provide a
framework for communicating truthful and non-misleading messages to
consumers'' concerning industry products,\16\ inhibit advertisers from
making deceptive claims, promote honest business practices, and have
``fundamental importance'' as a reference point for U.S.
businesses.\17\ LIA states that several specific provisions are helpful
to industry because they encourage companies to communicate information
that consumers may not be able to determine on their own prior to
purchase.\18\ DRI also addressed this issue, saying that the Guides
provide voluntary guidelines for the marketing and sale of leather and
imitation leather products to members of the leather industry that are
promoting truthful, non-misleading advertising to consumers.\19\
Additionally, DRI explains that leather businesses look to the Guides
to understand their disclosure obligations for labels, tags, and
advertising, and to ensure that they accurately represent their
products to consumers.\20\ With regard to bonded leather and
composition disclosures, DRI's comment says that the Guides help
businesses understand their disclosure obligations and avoid consumer
deception and confusion.\21\ According to DRI, with regard to bonded
leather, the Guides ``have worked well for the past ten years and
continue to do so.''\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id. at 2.
\17\ Id. at 5.
\18\ Id. at 5-6.
\19\ DRI at 1.
\20\ Id. at 11.
\21\ Id. at 1.
\22\ Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Suggested Changes to the Guides
LIA suggests that the Commission make numerous changes to the
Guides. LIA says that the Guides ``require expansion to make them more
comprehensive and consistent with global industry practice.''\23\ LIA
comments that the absence of the information incorporated in its
suggested modifications will facilitate ``an escalating trend of
deceptive practice'' within the United States.\24\ SCI's sole
recommendation is that the Commission add one definition to the
Guides.\25\ The comment from DRI primarily relates to one of the
changes proposed by LIA and urges the Commission to refuse to make that
requested change.\26\ FDRA asks that the
[[Page 34628]]
Guides be abandoned as they related to footwear.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ LIA at 6.
\24\ Id. at 6-7.
\25\ SCI at 1 and 5.
\26\ DRI at 1-12.
\27\ FDRA at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Suggested Definitions and Disclosures
LIA proposes adding definitions for the following terms to the
Guides: (1) top grain or full grain leather, (2) corrected grain
leather, (3) semi-aniline leather, (4) leather, (5) coated leather, (6)
laminated leather, (7) split leather, (8) leatherette, (9) bonded
leather, and (10) chamois.\28\ SCI asks that the Commission add a
definition of the term ``chamois.''\29\ DRI's comment primarily
concerns its opposition to LIA's proposed definition of the term
``bonded leather,''\30\ but DRI also states that LIA is asking the FTC
to make the Guides ``even more complex by adopting a number of
complicated definitions that are shrouded in industry jargon and
terminology.''\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ LIA at 3-4 and 7-21.
\29\ SCI at 1.
\30\ DRI at 1.
\31\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The definitions that LIA suggests for the terms ``top grain'' or
``full grain'' leather, ``corrected grain'' leather, ``split leather,''
and ``semi-aniline'' leather are based on the presence or absence of
grain surface and the finishes used on the material. These definitions
are not needed, as the Guides apply to all types of leather, as well as
non-leather material with the appearance of leather. Further, the
record contains no evidence regarding consumer understanding of these
terms, several of which may be unfamiliar to many consumers. Absent
evidence as to how consumers would understand these suggested terms, it
is difficult to determine whether adoption of the definitions would
assist or hinder consumers. For these reasons, the Commission is not
adding these suggested definitions. However, if industry members desire
to label their products with these terms, they may do so provided that
the terms used are truthful and non-deceptive.
LIA also recommends that the Commission modify the Guides to
include a lengthy definition of the term ``leather.''\32\ Like the
proposed definitions discussed above, there are portions of this
definition that are not needed because of the Guides' broad coverage of
all types of leather, as well as non-leather material with the
appearance of leather. A portion of the suggested definition dealing
with disintegrated hide or skin is not needed because Section 24.2(f)
of the Guides already provides guidance relating to ground leather and
similar materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ LIA at 3 and 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also included within LIA's proposed definition of the term
``leather'' is a provision that would allow use of the term without
qualification for leather with a finish if the thickness of the finish
is 0.15 mm or less. According to LIA, a ``finish comprising a pigmented
polyurethane, acrylic resin, or other polymer-based paint protects the
grain surface of most types of leather.''\33\ LIA further explains that
the thickness of the finish depends upon the desired aesthetics and
intended use of the leather. The comment describes the differences in
performance and quality of material with various thicknesses of
coatings, cites the British Standards Institution as support for LIA's
position, and states that the threshold is commonly understood by most
leather producers.\34\ However, the record developed during this review
contains no information regarding whether, or to what extent, consumers
expect that coatings have been applied to products labeled as
``leather'' without qualification. Without such information, it is
difficult to determine whether adoption of the proposed definition
would result in consumer deception or confusion. Therefore, the
Commission is not adopting the provision proposed by LIA. For similar
reasons, the Commission is not adding LIA's proposed definitions of
``coated leather'' and ``laminated leather'' to the Guides, nor are
those terms being added as examples of appropriate disclosures in
Section 24.2(e) of the Guides (dealing with misrepresentations that a
product is wholly of a particular composition) as recommended by LIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Id. at 10.
\34\ Id. at 10-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIA also recommends that the Commission add a definition of the
term ``leatherette'' to refer to material made of paper, cloth, or
synthetic material and finished to simulate the appearance of
leather.\35\ Further, LIA asks that the Commission add the term
``leatherette (not leather)'' to Section 24.2(a) of the Guides, which
provides examples of terms that may be used to describe non-leather
material with the appearance of leather. LIA claims that the definition
and disclosure are needed because the term ``leatherette'' is
misleading and potentially deceptive to consumers.\36\ LIA provides no
evidence concerning consumer understanding of the term ``leatherette.''
It should be noted that when the word ``leather'' is included within
the name or description of a non-leather material or product in a
manner that indicates that the material or product is made of leather
or contains leather, there is a strong possibility that use of the word
may cause consumer deception. Section 24.2(d) of the Guides states that
a word, term, depiction, or device should not be used if it
misrepresents, directly or by implication, that an industry product is
made in whole or in part from animal skin or hide, or that material in
an industry product is leather or other material. Although the
Commission agrees with LIA that the term ``leatherette'' may be
deceptive, the suggested change is not being made because the Guides in
their current form address non-leather material with the appearance of
leather. There is no need for the specific definition endorsed by LIA.
The type of material that LIA seeks to define as ``leatherette'' is not
leather, so Section 24.2(a) provides guidance for content disclosure.
Further, it should be noted that the list of examples of appropriate
disclosure contained in Section 24.2(a) is not an exhaustive list, so
there is no need to add additional terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Id. at 4, 12, and 13.
\36\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIA's next suggestion is that the Guides more specifically define
the term ``bonded leather.''\37\ In support of its suggestion, LIA says
that it has analyzed material that it claims is erroneously labeled as
bonded leather because the material is 80 percent synthetic material
with an insubstantial coating of leather fibers on the underside.\38\
LIA argues that this material is not bonded leather because the leather
fibers are not bonded to each other to form an independent, continuous
layer, but are merely glued to the underside of an entirely different,
synthetic product. LIA asserts that leather fibers in this material
offer no utility or aesthetic value, and that manufacturers would
likely include minor amounts of leather fibers to give the appearance
of leather when inspected from the underside, thereby deceiving
purchasers. To address these concerns, LIA suggests a definition of
bonded leather that states that the product is made by forming leather
fragments and fibers into a single homogenous sheet or roll with the
aid of adhesives, resins, or similar bonding agents.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Id. at 4 and 13-15.
\38\ Id. at 14.
\39\ Id. at 15. In its comment, LIA cites the definition used by
the International Union of Leather Technologists and Chemists
Societies (``IULTCS'') to describe ``reconstituted leather.''
IULTCS's definition is ``Made by forming leather fragments and
fibres into sheet material with the aid of adhesives, resins, etc.''
LIA asks that the Commission further refine the IULTCS definition by
adopting LIA's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34629]]
With regard to LIA's proposed definition of bonded leather, DRI
states that consumers have not been harmed or deceived in the absence
of this definition because ``the Guides already require disclosure of
the percentage of leather and non-leather substances found in bonded
leather used in consumer products.''\40\ DRI maintains that LIA's
proposed definition would drive up costs to bonded leather
manufacturers and businesses without any benefit to consumers, would be
confusing both to businesses and consumers, and would have significant
anti-competitive impacts on the bonded leather goods industry and
marketplace. DRI asks that the FTC retain the Guides and their current
labeling disclosure requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ DRI at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current Guides do not set a minimum leather fiber content for
bonded leather material. Instead, Section 24.2(f) of the Guides states
that if a term such as ``bonded leather'' is used, either a disclosure
that the material is not leather or a disclosure of the percentage of
leather fibers and the percentage of non-leather substances contained
in the material should be made. An example of a proper disclosure
provided in the Guides is ``Bonded Leather Containing 60% Leather
Fibers and 40% Non-leather Substances.'' Such a disclosure effectively
prevents deception which could be caused by the term ``bonded
leather.'' Use of the term ``bonded leather'' without a truthful
content disclosure is not in compliance with the Guides, regardless of
the percentage of leather fiber content in the material so described.
If a product is labeled in compliance with Section 24.2(f), consumers
are made aware of the true composition of the product and are not
deceived.
The Guides' provision relating to bonded leather and similar
material focuses on disclosure of the percentage of leather fibers and
non-leather substances contained in the material, rather than on the
method used to place leather fibers into the material as urged by LIA.
There is insufficient information in the record to justify a
distinction based upon the method by which leather fibers are placed
into the material. Truthful content information, as outlined in the
Guides, gives consumers the facts they need to make an informed
decision regarding bonded leather and similar materials. For these
reasons, the Commission is not adopting LIA's proposed definition of
``bonded leather.''
The last of LIA's suggested definitions is for the word
``chamois.''\41\ SCI also requests a ``chamois'' definition.\42\ The
LIA and SCI comments refer to an FTC advisory opinion issued in 1964
that addressed the use of the word ``chamois,'' stating that it was
deceptive to use the word ``chamois'' for a product not made from (a)
the skin of the Alpine antelope or (b) sheepskin fleshers which have
been oil-tanned after removal of the grain layer.\43\ The comments also
discuss in detail the need for a definition, as well as the history and
properties of chamois,\44\ but do not provide specific evidence
regarding current consumer understanding of the term ``chamois.'' The
most common use of chamois as described in these comments is for drying
polished surfaces, glass, and car bodywork. Such drying products are
outside of the scope of these Guides. There may be instances in which
chamois is used in industry products covered by the Guides, but, as
discussed above, there is no need to more specifically define different
types of leather because the Guides apply to all types of leather.
There are already provisions in the Guides to address
misrepresentations and deceptive omissions. Under Section 24.1 of the
current Guides, it is unfair or deceptive to misrepresent any material
aspect of an industry product. As discussed above, Section 24.2(a)
provides guidance about disclosures to be made for synthetic products
with the appearance of leather. Also, under Section 24.2(b) of the
Guides, a disclosure should be made of the type of leather in a product
that is made of leather which has been processed to simulate the
appearance of a different kind of leather. The requested definition has
not been added to the Guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ LIA at 4, 15, and 21.
\42\ SCI at 1.
\43\ FTC Advisory Opinion No. 1, 66 F.T.C. 1593 (1964). A
portion of this opinion relating to proper use of the term
``chamois'' was published in the Code of Federal Regulations
(``C.F.R.'') until 1989, when the Commission deleted Part 15 of
Title 16 of the C.F.R. that contained the text of advisory opinions
issued from November 1965 until June 1974. At the time that the
provisions were deleted, the Commission noted that it was not
required to publish the materials in the C.F.R. and that more
complete versions of the materials were available elsewhere. The
Commission concluded that there was little, if any, public benefit
to justify the costs of publication. 50 Fed. Reg. 26187 (June 22,
1989).
\44\ LIA at 15-21; SCI at 1-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, the Commission has decided that it will not add the
suggested definitions to the Guides. However, the Commission would
encourage industry efforts to inform consumers of the meaning of many
of the proposed definitions, provided that the definitions are not
misleading to consumers.
2. Scope of the Guides
LIA suggests that the scope of the Guides be enlarged to include
automotive and furniture upholstery products, stating that these
products ``represent a significant portion of the leather industry, and
the clear majority of finished leather produced in the United
States.''\45\ LIA argues that enlarging the Guides to cover these
products would reduce potential deception and confusion regarding these
products.\46\ In addressing LIA's suggestion, the Commission notes that
when the Leather Guides were adopted in 1996, it considered expansion
of the Guides to cover additional products and decided that the record
developed during that review did not warrant expansion of the Guides.
As in the earlier review, the current record leaves unanswered
questions regarding the extent of misrepresentations in other
industries, consumer interpretation of the appearance of leather for
products in other industries, and any special considerations for other
industries. For these reasons, the Commission is not enlarging the
scope of the Guides in the manner suggested by LIA. However, all
members of the leather and imitation leather products industries can
obtain useful guidance from the Guides. The Guides are interpretive of
laws enforced by the Commission, which may take action against
companies engaged in deception regardless of whether they fall within
the scope of the Guides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Id. at 7.
\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDRA asks that the Guides be abandoned as they relate to footwear,
arguing that there is no consumer preference for leather in the current
footwear market and that consumer choice is instead based upon
functionality and value.\47\ FDRA reasons that ``the Guides are based
on the assumption that consumers believe all parts of shoes with an
`appearance' of leather, are made of leather, regardless of what the
distributor says or does not say in labeling or advertising about
leather content.''\48\ FDRA argues that ``appearance'' is not defined,
and that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ FDRA at 1-2.
\48\ Id. at 2.
the Guides' emphasis on the assumed preference for leather is so
great that the effect is that any shoe which does not disclose its
contents ``appears'' to be leather. In essence, the Guides convert
silence about shoe content into a claim of leather content and then
require disclosure
[[Page 34630]]
to cure the ``misrepresentation'' created only by the Guides
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
themselves.
Id. FDRA urges the Commission to reconsider this approach, which it
claims is flawed.
In its comment, FDRA touts the enormous strides made in the
development of synthetic materials, which it claims have replaced
leather in many facets of footwear construction.\49\ Further, the
association states that synthetic materials, which in some instances
are more expensive than leather, have been developed to be light in
weight and provide strength and durability which is superior to
leather. In describing today's footwear styles, FDRA explains that such
products ``are typically made from a variety of materials fitted
together with leather and man-made overlays, interspersed with light,
breathable textile materials, combined to create the comfort, fit, and
`breathability' preferred by consumers.''\50\ Additionally, FDRA states
that low priced synthetic shoes are widely accepted by consumers
because they have many of the same comfort and performance
characteristics as leather footwear at a fraction of the price.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Id.
\50\ Id. at 1.
\51\ Id. at 2. FDRA claims that, because of the low price,
consumers have no expectation that these items are made of leather.
However, as discussed above, FDRA indicates that synthetic materials
are more expensive than leather in some instances. Therefore,
consumers cannot rely upon price to determine the true composition
of a product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The basic premise of the Guides is the Commission's long-standing
position that when a product has the appearance of leather, its
appearance makes an implied representation that the product is made of
leather. Clearly, a deceptive omission can arise from the physical
appearance of a product, and the Guides' disclosure provisions are
designed to correct such an omission. Despite FDRA's claims to the
contrary, a product does not ``appear'' to be leather solely because of
the absence of a content disclosure for the product. A synthetic
product must first appear to be leather before the Guides' disclosure
provisions would become applicable to the product. Thus, the Guides'
disclosure provisions are limited to situations where consumers are
likely to be misled as to a product's composition.
While FDRA cites statistics regarding the percentages of leather
and non-leather footwear for the U.S. footwear market and the types of
footwear sold in the market,\52\ it does not provide evidence regarding
consumer expectations regarding footwear with the appearance of
leather. Whether or not there have been tremendous advances in
synthetic materials, the record does not support a reversal of the
Commission's long-standing position related to synthetic material with
the appearance of leather.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDRA asks that, if the Guides remain applicable to footwear, the
Commission make clear that the look or mere appearance of the shoe does
not constitute a representation that the shoe is leather, either in
whole or in part, and to make the Guides applicable only to
misrepresentations of leather content.\53\ As discussed above, the
implied representation made by the appearance of leather is a
fundamental premise of the Guides. FDRA's suggested changes would
thwart the primary goals of the Guides. Therefore, the Commission is
not making the changes suggested by FDRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Conclusion
Based upon the review discussed above, the Commission concludes
that there is a continuing need for the Leather Guides, which are
beneficial to consumers and industry members, and has decided to retain
the Guides in their current form.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 24
Advertising, Belts, Distribution, Footwear, Imitation leather
products, Labeling, Ladies' handbags, Leather and leather products
industry, Luggage and related products, Shoes, Trade practices, Waist
belts.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark
Secretary
[FR Doc. E8-13656 Filed 6-17-08: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-S
