Regulations Under the Fur Products Labeling Act, 57043-57055 [2012-22568]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
email: alan.strom@faa.gov; phone: 781–238–
7143; fax: 781–238–7199.
(2) Refer to MCAI Airworthiness Directive
No. 2012–0116, dated July 3, 2012, and
Thielert Aircraft Engines Service Bulletin TM
TAE 000–0007, Revision 19, dated August
31, 2012, for related information.
(3) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Thielert Aircraft Engines
GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14 D–09350,
Lichtenstein, Germany, phone: +49–37204–
696–0; fax: +49–37204–696–55; email:
info@centurion-engines.com. You may view
this service information at the FAA, Engine
& Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
September 5, 2012.
Colleen M. D’Alessandro,
Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–22528 Filed 9–14–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 301
Regulations Under the Fur Products
Labeling Act
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking;
request for comment.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Federal Trade
Commission proposes to amend its
Regulations under the Fur Products
Labeling Act to update its Fur Products
Name Guide, provide more labeling
flexibility, incorporate recently enacted
Truth in Fur Labeling Act provisions,
and eliminate unnecessary
requirements. The Commission does not
propose changing or providing
alternatives to the required name on
labels for nyctereutes procyonoides fur
products. The Commission also does not
propose changing the Rules’ product
coverage scope or continuing guaranty
provisions.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November 16, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are
invited to submit written comments
electronically or in paper form by
following the instructions in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below. Comments in electronic form
should be submitted by using the
following Web link: https://
ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/
furrulesreviewnprm (and following the
instructions on the web-based form).
Comments filed in paper form should be
mailed or delivered to the following
address: Federal Trade Commission,
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Sep 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
Office of the Secretary, Room H–113
(Annex O), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Washington, DC 20580, in the
manner detailed in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Matthew Wilshire, (202) 326–2976,
Attorney, Division of Enforcement,
Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal
Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
On March 14, 2011, the Federal Trade
Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’)
invited comment on its Rules and
Regulations (‘‘Fur Rules’’ or ‘‘Rules’’)
under the Fur Products Labeling Act
(‘‘Fur Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’), including its Fur
Products Name Guide (‘‘Name Guide’’).1
After considering the comments and
holding a public hearing, the
Commission proposes updating the
Name Guide, providing greater labeling
flexibility, incorporating provisions of
the recently enacted Truth in Fur
Labeling Act (‘‘TFLA’’), and, on its own
initiative, deleting unnecessary
requirements.
The Commission declines to propose
other amendments suggested by
commenters. Although some supported
changing the Name Guide’s required
name for nyctereutes procyonoides, the
Commission proposes retaining ‘‘Asiatic
Raccoon’’ as the only name for that
species. As discussed below, the record
shows that ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ is the best
name to identify the animal for
consumers. Furthermore, alternative
names suggested by commenters either
risk misleading consumers or cannot be
used to identify the animal.
This supplementary information
section first provides background on the
Fur Act and Rules, the Name Guide,
TFLA, and this rulemaking. Next, it
summarizes the comments. Finally, it
analyzes those comments and discusses
the proposed amendments.
II. Background
A. The Fur Act and Rules
The Fur Act prohibits misbranding
and false advertising of fur products,
and requires labeling of most fur
products.2 Pursuant to this Act, the
Commission promulgated the Fur Rules.
These Rules set forth disclosure
requirements that assist consumers in
making informed purchasing decisions.3
Specifically, the Fur Act and Rules
1 76 FR 13550 (Mar. 14, 2011). The Name Guide
lists the English animal names that must appear on
fur-product labels.
2 15 U.S.C. 69 et seq.
3 16 CFR part 301.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57043
require fur manufacturers, dealers, and
retailers to label products made entirely
or partly of fur. These labels must
disclose: (1) The animal’s name as
provided in the Name Guide; (2) the
presence of any used, bleached, dyed, or
otherwise artificially colored fur; (3)
that the garment is composed of, among
other things, paws, tails, bellies, sides,
flanks, or waste fur, if that is the case;
(4) the name or Registered Identification
Number of the manufacturer or other
party responsible for the garment; and
(5) the product’s country of origin.4 In
addition, manufacturers must include
an item number or mark on the label for
identification purposes.5
The Rules also include detailed
labeling specifications. For example, the
Rules specify an exact label size of 1.75
inches by 2.75 inches,6 require
disclosures on the label in a particular
order,7 and prohibit non-FTC
information on the front of the label.8
Finally, the Fur Act requires the Rules
to provide for separate and continuing
guaranties.9 These documents allow an
entity to provide a guarantee to another
entity that the fur products it
manufactures or transfers are not
mislabeled or falsely advertised or
invoiced. Separate guaranties
specifically designate particular fur
products.10 Continuing guaranties,
which guarantors file with the
Commission, apply to ‘‘any fur product
or fur handled by a guarantor.’’ 11 The
Act provides that a guaranty recipient
will not generally be liable for violations
related to the guaranteed goods.12
B. The Name Guide
The Fur Act requires the Commission
to maintain ‘‘a register setting forth the
names of hair, fleece, and fur-bearing
animals.’’ 13 The Act further requires
that these names ‘‘be the true English
names for the animals in question, or in
the absence of a true English name for
an animal, the name by which such
animal can be properly identified in the
United States.’’ 14 For example, the
4 15
U.S.C. 69b(2); 16 CFR 301.2(a).
CFR 301.40.
6 16 CFR 301.27.
7 16 CFR 301.30.
8 16 CFR 301.29(a). By contrast, the Commission’s
Rules and Regulations (‘‘Textile Rules’’) under the
Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (‘‘Textile
Act’’), which apply to clothing generally, do not
have such restrictions.
9 15 U.S.C. 69h; 16 CFR 301.46; 301.47; 301.48;
and 301.48a.
10 15 U.S.C. 69h(a)(1).
11 15 U.S.C. 69h(a)(2).
12 15 U.S.C. 69h(a).
13 15 U.S.C. 69e(a).
14 Id.
5 16
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
57044
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Name Guide requires covered entities to
label mustela vison as ‘‘mink.’’ 15
The Commission first published the
Name Guide in 1952. Under the Fur Act,
the Commission can amend the Name
Guide only ‘‘with the assistance and
cooperation of the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of the
Interior’’ and ‘‘after holding public
hearings.’’ 16 Prior to this rulemaking,
the Commission had amended the Name
Guide twice, most recently in 1967.17
C. TFLA
In 2010, Congress enacted TFLA,18
which revoked one Fur Act exemption
and replaced it with another.
Specifically, TFLA deleted a Fur Act
provision that authorized the
Commission to exempt fur products of
relatively low value from labeling
requirements. Under that authority, the
Fur Rules exempted products with a fur
component valued at less than $150.19
TFLA eliminated this de minimis
exemption 20 and enacted a new, more
limited exemption for furs sold directly
by trappers and hunters to end-use
customers in certain face-to-face
transactions (‘‘hunter/trapper
exemption’’). The new exemption
provides:
The Commission received 15
comments.25
The Commission also held a public
hearing on December 6, 2011. The
hearing was in roundtable format with
an opportunity for audience
participation. Four commenters
participated in the roundtable: The
Humane Society of the United States
(‘‘HSUS’’); the Fur Information Council
of America (‘‘FICA’’); the National Retail
Federation (‘‘NRF’’); and Finnish Fur
Sales (‘‘Finnish Fur’’). In addition, the
hearing included representatives from
the United States Department of
Agriculture (‘‘USDA’’), the United States
Geological Survey (‘‘USGS’’), and the
Fish and Wildlife Service (‘‘FWS’’).26
III. The Record
Commenters disagreed about whether
and how to amend the Name Guide,
particularly the name for nyctereutes
procyonoides. Several commenters also
proposed eliminating unnecessary
disclosure requirements and increasing
labeling flexibility. In addition, HSUS
urged the Commission to limit the use
of continuing guaranties. Finally, two
commenters suggested changes to the
Fur Rules’ product coverage.
A. The Name Guide
No provision of [the Fur Act] shall apply
to a fur product—(1) the fur of which was
obtained from an animal through trapping or
hunting; and (2) when sold in a face to face
transaction at a place such as a residence,
craft fair, or other location used on a
temporary or short term basis, by the person
who trapped or hunted the animal, where the
revenue from the sale of apparel or fur
products is not the primary source of income
of such person.21
In addition, TFLA required the
Commission to initiate a review of the
Name Guide.22
Commenters focused on whether the
Commission should continue to require
labeling nyctereutes procyonoides as
‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ or change the name
to ‘‘Raccoon Dog.’’ Commenters also
discussed whether the Name Guide
should allow ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ as an
alternate name for nyctereutes
procyonoides that are raised in Finland,
and suggested amendments regarding
other species.
1. ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ Versus ‘‘Asiatic
Raccoon’’
D. Procedural Background
In March 2011, as part of its
comprehensive program to review all
FTC rules and guides and in response to
TFLA, the Commission opened a review
of the Name Guide by seeking comment.
As part of its regulatory review
program,23 the Commission also sought
comment on the Fur Rules generally.24
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
15 16
CFR 301.0.
U.S.C. 69e(b).
17 32 FR 6023 (Apr. 15, 1967).
18 Public Law 111–113.
19 16 CFR 301.39(a).
20 Public Law 111–113, § 2.
21 Id. at § 3.
22 Id. at § 4.
23 For further discussion of the program, see
www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/07/regreview.shtm.
24 76 FR 13550.
16 15
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Sep 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
All who addressed the subject agreed
that nyctereutes procyonoides’
taxonomic classification is in the
canidae family, which includes foxes,
wolves, and domestic dogs.27 All
commenters further agreed that
raccoons are not closely related to
nyctereutes procyonoides. Although
both species are in the same order
(carnivora), raccoons are in a different
25 The comments, along with a transcript of the
Name Guide hearing, are available at: https://ftc.gov/
os/comments/furlabeling/. Citations to comments
will identify the commenter name and comment
page number containing the relevant discussion
(e.g., ‘‘FICA at 8.’’). Citations to one page comments
will only state the commenter name. Citations to
the hearing transcript will identify the relevant page
and line (e.g., ‘‘Tr. at 9, ln. 2.’’).
26 USGS and FWS are agencies within the
Department of the Interior.
27 See, e.g., attachment to HSUS comment at 31.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
family (Procyonidae).28 Despite agreeing
about the animal’s taxonomy,
commenters sharply disagreed about
whether the Name Guide should require
entities to label it ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ or
‘‘Raccoon Dog.’’
a. Support for ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’
HSUS recommended eliminating
‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ and replacing it with
‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ for three reasons. First,
it asserted that ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ is the
Ascientifically accepted common
name.’’ 29 Specifically, HSUS noted that
the Integrated Taxonomic Information
System (‘‘ITIS’’) lists nyctereutes
procyonoides’ common name as
‘‘Raccoon Dog.’’ 30 At the hearing, HSUS
explained that ITIS is ‘‘a result of a
partnership of federal government
agencies formed to satisfy the need for
scientifically credible taxonomic
information.’’ 31 HSUS described ITIS
members, which include FWS, the
Smithsonian Institute, and USGS, as
‘‘neutral on the issue of how a particular
industry, including the fur industry,
identifies its products.’’ 32 In addition,
HSUS asserted that requiring ITIS’s
common names would assist consumers
because the ITIS ‘‘Web site contains an
easily accessible database with reliable
information on species names and their
hierarchical classification.’’ 33
Second, HSUS asserted that ‘‘Raccoon
Dog’’ has long been the ‘‘most widelyaccepted common name of the
species.’’ 34 As support, HSUS
submitted a letter from biologist Lauren
Nolfo-Clements attesting that scientists
have used ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ to describe
nyctereutes procyonoides for ‘‘well over
a century.’’ 35 In addition, HSUS cited
references to the animal as ‘‘RaccoonLike Dog’’ and ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ in
literature predating the Name Guide,
including one encyclopedia claiming
that the term ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ was a
‘‘guise’’ to obscure the animal’s
relationship to dogs.36 HSUS also
pointed to recent uses of ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’
in an FWS press release and in an
official publication.37 HSUS did not,
however, provide evidence that
28 See the Smithsonian’s Mammal Species of the
World entry for ‘‘Raccoon,’’ available at https://www.
vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/taxon_
browser.cfm?msw_id=12300.
29 HSUS at 7.
30 See the ITIS Report for nyctereutes
procyonoides, available at https://www.itis.gov/
servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&
search_value=183821.
31 Tr. at 9, ln. 2–5.
32 Tr. at 9, ln. 16–21.
33 HSUS at 7.
34 HSUS. at 8.
35 HSUS at 13 (letter attachment).
36 HSUS at 8–9.
37 HSUS at 9.
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
consumers are more familiar with, or
more likely to recognize, ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’
than ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon.’’ 38
Finally, HSUS contended that
‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ is confusing and
misleading, while ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ is not.
HSUS observed that ‘‘the species is not
a raccoon’’ and ‘‘is not just found in
Asia, but * * * in numerous European
countries.’’ 39 Thus, HSUS asserted,
‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ could mislead
consumers about the species of the
animal that produced the fur and its
geographic origin.40 At the hearing,
HSUS also asserted that ‘‘Raccoon Dog,’’
by contrast, would not mislead
consumers because dogs are members of
the canidae family, and therefore more
closely related to nyctereutes
procyonoides than raccoons.41
b. Support for ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’
Other commenters opposed replacing
‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ with ‘‘Raccoon Dog.’’
They argued that ITIS or other scientific
sources should not determine an
animal’s name for labeling purposes,
that ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ better describes
the animal, and that ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’
labels would mislead consumers and
harm retail sales.
Several hearing participants,
including government representatives,
asserted that ITIS is not a commonname repository. For example, FICA
described ITIS as ‘‘a tool used internally
within the government by scientists
involved in wildlife regulatory issue[s]
* * * [and] not intended to regulate the
sale of fur in the retail marketplace.’’ 42
Significantly, hearing participants from
the government agreed that ITIS is not
necessarily authoritative on common
names. Specifically, Dr. Alfred Gardner
from USGS, whom ITIS lists as an
expert on nyctereutes procyonoides’
taxonomy, explained that ‘‘[t]he primary
function of ITIS is to keep abreast of the
changes in scientific names * * * [and]
not * * * to establish common
names.’’ 43 Dr. Gardner further stated
that the use of common names listed in
scientific guides is ‘‘not very consistent’’
outside of the wildlife management
field.44 Ms. Sharon Lynn, Senior
Wildlife Inspector for FWS, agreed that
ITIS does not reflect a scientific
consensus regarding species’ common
names.45
More generally, some commenters
criticized HSUS’s proposal to rely on
38 Tr.
at 56, ln. 1–7.
at 9.
40 HSUS at 9.
41 Tr. at 48, ln. 21–23.
42 Tr. at 15, ln. 9–12.
43 Tr. at 26, ln. 5–8.
44 Tr. at 14, ln. 5–6.
45 Tr. at 13, ln. 6–9.
39 HSUS
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Sep 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
‘‘scientific consensus’’ rather than
consumer perception.46 Consistent with
that view, a representative from Finnish
Fur attested that, in his experience,
consumers would not be familiar with
ITIS.47 NRF further observed, ‘‘how a
product is marketed ought to be a
critical factor in deciding’’ the animal’s
name because marketing often
establishes commercial names for
unfamiliar products.48
Indeed, two commenters noted that
consumers have familiarity with
‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ through marketplace
exposure. Specifically, FICA and
Finnish Fur stated that, prior to TFLA’s
enactment, most nyctereutes
procyonoides garments did not meet the
now-defunct de minimis exemption
and, therefore, would have been labeled
as ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon.’’ 49 HSUS also
acknowledged that ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’
appears on labels ‘‘fairly often.’’ 50
Moreover, several commenters
asserted that ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ is
superior to ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ because it
provides more information to
consumers. For example, FICA stated
that the term ‘‘Raccoon’’ accurately
describes nyctereutes procyonoides
because it has ‘‘rings around its eyes,
[so] it clearly looks like a raccoon.’’ 51 In
addition, Ms. Lynn of FWS noted that
the word ‘‘Asiatic’’ is helpful, despite
the existence of European nyctereutes
procyonoides, because it ‘‘gives you an
idea where the animal originated
naturally.’’ 52 Ms. Lynn further
explained that Asia is the species’
‘‘native habitat’’ and, therefore, ‘‘the
Asiatic name would be a neutral’’
description.53 Ms. Lynn observed that
using ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ to refer to
European nyctereutes procyonoides is
like the common practice of using
‘‘African Lion’’ to refer to lions raised in
America.54
Furthermore, some commenters
criticized ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ as inaccurate,
asserting that nyctereutes procyonoides
is not closely related to domestic dog
and does not exhibit dog-like behavior.
For example, NRF noted that the animal
is ‘‘not a true-dog or dog-like canine
within the genus Canis * * * Other
canids, * * * such as wolves, coyotes,
and jackals, are much more closely
46 Tr.
at 16, ln. 16–25, Tr. at 17, ln. 1–6.
at 17, ln. 11–14.
48 Tr. at 28, ln. 19–21. NRF gave the example of
‘‘Kiwi’’ fruit as an English name established by
marketing. Tr. at 28, ln. 22–25.
49 Tr. at 79, ln. 14–16.
50 Tr. at 79, ln. 2.
51 Tr. at 42, ln. 12–13.
52 Tr. at 38, ln. 22–23.
53 Tr. at 39, ln. 6, 11–12.
54 Tr. at 39, ln. 15–19.
47 Tr.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57045
related to domestic dogs * * *’’ 55
Moreover, according to FICA, ‘‘[t]he
Asiatic/Finnraccoon exhibits vastly
different behaviors than the dog. For
example, it hibernates, climbs trees, and
it participates in social grooming * * *
[It] cannot bark, and it does not wag its
tail.’’ 56 In support, FICA submitted a
report from wildlife biologist Robert
Byrne confirming those behavioral
differences and noting other contrasts,
including diet (omnivore versus
carnivore) and gait (clumsy versus
‘‘often very swift’’).57
Finally, commenters warned that
requiring ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ on a label
would mislead consumers into thinking
that the species either was, or was
closely related to, domestic dog, thereby
harming nyctereutes procyonoides fur
sales. FICA, citing news reports,
suggested that the term ‘‘has had a
devastating impact * * * by causing
consumers to believe mistakenly that
the product is related to domestic
dog.’’ 58 NRF concurred, opining that
using ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ to describe the
species creates ‘‘a huge risk of
misinformation.’’ 59 As evidence, FICA
and Finnish Fur reported that consumer
exposure to the name ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’
has harmed sales. Specifically, major
retailers Federated Department Stores
and Lord & Taylor no longer sell the furs
made from the animal because
consumers mistake it for domestic
dog.60 Thus, they asserted requiring
‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ would essentially ‘‘ban’’
nyctereutes procyonoides fur ‘‘because
[it] will no longer exist in the
marketplace * * *’’.61
c. Alternatives to ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ and
‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’
NRF suggested ‘‘Tanuki’’ and
‘‘Magnut’’ as alternative names for
nyctereutes procyonoides.62 Dr. Gardner
supported ‘‘Tanuki’’ because it ‘‘doesn’t
carry any baggage.’’ 63 HSUS, however,
objected to both names because they are
foreign words and, therefore, not true
English names.64 Furthermore, HSUS
55 NRF at 4. FICA similarly observed that
‘‘[a]lthough the Asiatic Raccoon * * * is part of the
family Canidae, like many other animals (e.g., fox,
wolves, coyotes), it is completely different from a
domestic dog.’’ FICA at 5.
56 FICA at 5.
57 FICA, Attachment 2 at 3–4.
58 FICA at 6.
59 Tr. at 36, ln. 7–10.
60 Tr. at 60, ln. 1–7.
61 Tr. at 59, ln. 21; Tr. at 43, ln. 19–21.
62 NRF at 4. At the hearing, NRF clarified that it
supported the current designation of ‘‘Asiatic
Raccoon’’ and had proposed the alternatives only in
the event that the Commission deleted ‘‘Asiatic
Raccoon.’’ Tr. at 69, ln. 13–14.
63 Tr. at 71, ln. 19–20.
64 Tr. at 82, ln. 14–17.
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
57046
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
represented that Internet searches for
‘‘Tanuki’’ and ‘‘Magnut’’ showed less
usage than ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ or
‘‘Raccoon Dog.’’ 65
2. ‘‘Finnraccoon’’
FICA, Finnish Fur, and Finland’s
Ministries for Foreign Affairs and of
Agriculture and Forestry urged the
Commission to allow labeling
nyctereutes procyonoides raised in
Finland as ‘‘Finnraccoon.’’ These
commenters did not assert that those
animals differ in characteristics from
nyctereutes procyonoides raised in Asia.
Rather, they advocated adding the name
because ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ would alert
consumers that the animal had been
raised under European regulations,
which they described as stricter and
more humane than in Asia. For
example, the Finnish Ministries stated:
[European regulation is] one of the strictest
in the world. The EU is party to the European
Convention for the protection of animals kept
for farming purposes. The Convention aims
to protect animals against any unnecessary
suffering or injury.
*
*
*
*
*
As the animal welfare standards in place
in Asian countries producing Nyctereutes
procyonoidos are, unfortunately, not as high
level as those in place in Finland/Europe, the
situation is confusing also to the consumers;
the term ‘‘Asiatic raccoon’’ implies
misleadingly that the Nyctereutes
procyonoidos fur originates from Asia, when
in fact, [the] main part of the world trade
originates from Finland.66
However, these commenters did not
provide evidence that consumers were
familiar with ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ or that
‘‘Finnraccoon’’ fur differs materially
from other nyctereutes procyonoides
fur.67
HSUS, by contrast, opposed the name,
describing it as ‘‘industry-coined.’’ 68 It
further pointed out that fur labels would
disclose the country of origin in any
event.69
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Other Suggested Name Guide
Amendments
Commenters also suggested several
miscellaneous revisions to the Name
Guide. First, HSUS recommended
adding a large number of specific
common names so that each fur-bearing
species has its own common name. For
example, HSUS suggested replacing
‘‘chipmunk’’ with specific names for 25
65 Tr.
at 82, ln. 20–24.
for Foreign Affairs at 1; Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry at 1.
67 Tr. at 87, ln. 4–7; Tr. at 95, ln. 2–3 (Finnish
Fur representative conceding that ‘‘from a scientific
point of view, I don’t know if there is a difference
between Finnish and Asiatic’’).
68 Tr. at 90, ln. 19–20.
69 Tr. at 91, ln. 20–24.
66 Ministry
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Sep 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
chipmunk species, such as ‘‘California
Chipmunk,’’ ‘‘Cliff Chipmunk,’’ etc.70
HSUS stated that the Commission
should not use one name for multiple
species because ‘‘[d]ifferent animals
experience different sorts of welfare
problems in fur production’’ and
different conservation statuses.71 In
addition, FICA and HSUS suggested
changing several Name Guide entries to
reflect updated taxonomy and to correct
errors.72
Second, FICA recommended
removing names of animals prohibited
for sale as furs, such as domestic dog
and cat, because including them is
‘‘confusing given their illegal status.’’ 73
HSUS disagreed, pointing out that:
One of the FTC’s purposes here is
enforcement * * * [Having the names listed]
adds additional layers of enforcement. * * *
And to have that additional ability to enforce
is important. Quite honestly, I don’t think a
retailer should escape liability if the retailer
is failing to label dog fur as dog when * * *
domestic dog is not allowed to be sold in the
United States.74
Commenter AAW agreed, noting that
the Fur Rules help enforce the cat and
dog fur prohibition ‘‘by ensuring that all
furs are properly identified and
labeled.’’ 75
Finally, Deckers Outdoor Corporation
(‘‘Deckers’’) suggested the Name Guide
allow the term ‘‘Sheepskin’’ in lieu of
‘‘Sheep’’ and ‘‘Lambskin’’ in lieu of
‘‘Lamb.’’ Deckers asserted that the
required names are confusing to
consumers.76 HSUS disagreed, however,
noting the existence of serious problems
in sheep-fur labeling prior to issuance of
the Fur Rules and that sheepskin is not
‘‘skin’’ but rather fur.77
B. Requests for Increased Labeling
Flexibility
Six commenters 78 criticized the Fur
Rules’ labeling provisions as overly
prescriptive. Specifically, they argued
that many labeling requirements
provide no consumer benefits while
imposing significant burdens. They
further noted that TFLA’s elimination of
the de minimis exemption required
labeling more fur products. As
70 HSUS
at 56 (attachment).
at 19, ln. 17–18; Tr. at 20, ln. 4–5.
72 FICA at 7. For example, both commenters
reported that the Name Guide provides the wrong
scientific name for ocelot. FICA at 8; HSUS at 61.
73 FICA at 8.
74 Tr. at 117, ln. 12–21; Tr. at 118, ln. 2–8.
75 AAW at 1. ‘‘AAW’’ did not otherwise identify
him, her, or itself.
76 Deckers 2–3.
77 Tr. at 123, ln. 13–19; Tr. at 124, ln. 5–7.
78 Deckers, FICA, NRF, the Footwear Distributors
and Retailers of America (‘‘FDRA’’), McNeese
Customs and Commerce (‘‘McNeese’’), and Stephen
Zelman & Associates (‘‘Zelman’’).
71 Tr.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
discussed below, these commenters
recommended more limited disclosures
and greater labeling flexibility.
1. Required Information
All commenters who addressed the
subject urged the Commission to reduce
the amount of required information. For
example, Deckers stated that ‘‘some of
the required information * * * is not of
interest to the consumer, and * * * may
* * * obscure the information in which
the consumer is really interested
* * *’’.79 Deckers, therefore, urged the
Commission to no longer require
disclosure of whether fur is natural,
pointed, dyed, bleached, or artificially
colored, at least for sheepskins, because
an altered sheepskin ‘‘still looks like
sheepskin.’’ 80 Deckers also urged no
longer requiring disclosure of ‘‘sides’’ or
‘‘flanks.’’ It asserted that ‘‘the term ‘side’
is used in the industry to describe one
half of an animal hide and is not a term
used to describe a part of the animal’’
and that ‘‘a flank is considered the same
as the belly, and thus its inclusion is
redundant.’’ 81
Other commenters requested limited
disclosures for items containing small
amounts of fur. FICA requested that
labels for products with only a ‘‘small
strip’’ of fur disclose only ‘‘fur’’ and no
other information because consumers
would not want that additional
information.82 FICA did not, however,
provide any evidence substantiating that
assertion. FDRA similarly urged the
Commission to revoke the requirement
to disclose that the fur consists of paws
and tails where the fur is limited to
trim, which it suggested be defined as
fifteen percent of the item or less.83
2. Label Specifications
Commenters also urged greater
flexibility regarding the labels’ size, the
sequence and location of disclosures,
and the requirements for attaching a
single label to paired items like shoes.
Several commenters criticized the
requirement in § 301.27 that all labels
measure 1.75 inches by 2.75 inches.84
For example, Deckers noted that,
‘‘[w]hile the label size currently
mandated by the Rules may be
appropriate for larger apparel items
* * * they are impossible to affix to
smaller items * * *. The Rules should
either exempt smaller products from the
size requirements, or simply mandate
that the information be no smaller than
79 Deckers
at 2.
at 3.
81 Deckers at 3.
82 FICA at 10.
83 FDRA comment (single page).
84 16 CFR 301.27.
80 Deckers
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
information provided on other labels
found on the product * * *’’.85 NRF
agreed, explaining
These requirements are simply not
appropriate for the range of smaller garments
that are now subject to this law, and would
increase costs to retailers and consumers.
Specific requirements on label dimensions
also limit a retailer’s ability to make a label
with a dimension that is suitable to the
product, for example narrow belts and gloves
* * *. Moreover, consumers are not likely to
want large, permanent labels on these small
products.86
To address the issue, NRF suggested
requiring ‘‘that the label be
‘conspicuous, legible, and durable,’ ’’ a
standard that it described as ‘‘well
understood in the industry’’ and
consistent with labeling requirements in
the Textile Act, Wool Act, and Care
Labeling Rule.87
Commenters also criticized the Rules’
strict requirements for the order and
placement of information on the labels.
Regarding § 301.30’s requirement that
disclosures must be in a specified order,
Deckers argued:
The specific order should be determined
by the manufacturer, and not by regulation.
As all required information must be the same
size type, it is unclear why the Rules need
to mandate the order of information
supplied. Many footwear manufactures [sic],
including Deckers Outdoor Corporation, need
the flexibility to properly design a label so
that it fits a wide range of products.88
Commenters also favored lifting
§ 301.29’s prohibition against disclosing
on the front of a label any information
other than FTC disclosures. Deckers
noted that this prohibition may result in
requiring multiple labels to comply with
the Rules and state regulations.89 NRF
also requested more flexibility to decide
what information appears on the fronts
and backs of labels.90
Finally, several commenters
recommended amending § 301.31,
which requires that items sold in pairs,
like shoes, must be ‘‘firmly attached to
85 Deckers
at 6.
at 2.
87 NRF at 2. See also FICA at 10; FDRA comment;
Zelman at 2–3. NRF and FDRA criticized the Rules
for requiring sewn-in labels. NRF at 3; FDRA
comment. In fact, as discussed below, the Rules do
not require sewn-in labels. Nevertheless, the
Commission proposes an amendment making this
clear.
88 Deckers at 6.
89 Deckers at 6–7. See also FICA at 9; McNeese
at 3 (urging the Commission to allow labels that
will accommodate disclosures required by foreign
governments).
90 NRF at 2–3. FDRA recommended eliminating a
requirement to disclose fur origin for items that
already disclose the garment’s country of origin on
a different label. FDRA comment. Zelman likewise
urged not requiring any information on a fur label
that is otherwise provided on another conspicuous
label. Zelman at 3.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
86 NRF
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Sep 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
each other’’ until reaching the ultimate
consumer or have a separate label
attached to each item.91 McNeese
asserted that requiring firm attachment
was ‘‘inconsistent with the manner in
which footwear is sold’’: 92
Footwear is sold to consumers in boxes,
and only properly labeled samples are
available for review prior to the consumer
trying on a particular shoe/boot * * * Both
the left and right shoe/boot is presented to
the consumer at the point of sale.
McNeese submits that labeling only one
shoe/boot with the required [Fur Act]
information satisfies the purpose of the
statute, which is to inform the consumer of
the type of fur, method of treatment (if any),
and country of harvest.93
Zelman likewise objected to the
attachment requirement, asserting that it
would ‘‘hurt the trade.’’ 94
C. Proposal To Restrict Continuing
Guaranties
As discussed above, entities generally
are not liable under the Fur Act if they
receive a document guaranteeing that all
products manufactured or transferred by
the guarantor are not misbranded or
falsely advertised or invoiced.95 One
commenter, HSUS, expressed concern
that these guaranty programs ‘‘are not
sufficient to ensure that consumers
receive accurate information about the
fur content of garments.’’ 96 HSUS
further asserted that ‘‘[n]othing in the
[Fur Act] prohibits the FTC from
requiring that continuing guarantees
[sic] specifically designate the fur
products or furs guaranteed, as is
required of separate guarantees [sic].’’ 97
Therefore, HSUS recommended that the
Commission require that ‘‘all guarantees
[sic] * * * specifically designate the
type of fur contained in the fur products
or furs guaranteed,’’ which ‘‘would
ensure that retailers * * * know exactly
where they need to go for the
information they should rely on in
generating new labels and
advertisements.’’ 98
D. The Rules’ Coverage
Two commenters recommended
altering the scope of the Fur Rules’
labeling requirements, which apply to
‘‘wearing apparel.’’ The Rules define
‘‘wearing apparel’’ as including ‘‘[a]ny
articles of clothing or covering for any
part of the body.’’ 99 FICA recommended
91 16
CFR 301.31(b).
at 3.
93 McNeese at 4.
94 Zelman at 4.
95 15 U.S.C. 69h(a).
96 HSUS at 10.
97 HSUS at 10.
98 HSUS at 11.
99 16 CFR 301.1(b)(1).
92 McNeese
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57047
amending the definition to exclude
small items, such as shoes.100 FICA
argued that these items have an
‘‘insignificant amount of fur’’ and would
be difficult to label because of their
small size.101 FICA further noted that
excluding small objects would align the
scope of the Fur Rules with the Textile
Act,102 which exempts handbags and
shoes.103 In contrast to FICA’s request
for narrower requirements, Deckers
favored expanding the Rules’ coverage
to include faux-fur products. According
to Deckers, doing so would ‘‘ensure that
the consumer knows whether [he or she]
is purchasing real or fake fur prior to
making the purchase.’’ 104
IV. Analysis
After considering the record, the
Commission proposes the following
amendments: Updating the Name Guide
while retaining ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ as
nyctereutes procyonoides’ only name;
providing more labeling flexibility;
conforming the Rules with TFLA; and
eliminating unnecessary provisions. The
Commission does not propose changing
the Rules’ scope or continuing guaranty
provisions.
A. Name Guide
This section first discusses why the
Commission is retaining the name
‘‘Asiatic Racoon.’’ It then explains why
it will not add ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ to the
Name Guide. Finally, it discusses
proposed amendments to update the
Name Guide.
1. The Commission Does Not Propose
Replacing ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’
The Fur Act requires the Name Guide
to prescribe ‘‘the true English names for
the animals in question, or in the
absence of a true English name for an
animal, the name by which such animal
100 FICA
at 9.
at 9.
102 15 U.S.C. 70 et seq.
103 15 U.S.C. 70j. FICA also cited the Textile Act’s
legislative history regarding its coverage. FICA at 9,
n. 18.
104 Deckers at 2. In addition to proposing
amendments, some commenters submitted more
general views. FICA requested a process for
obtaining ‘‘interpretations from the Commission’’
regarding technical requirements and complying
with overlapping state and federal regulations.
FICA at 10. The Commission’s rules already provide
such a mechanism. See 16 CFR 1.1 through 1.4
(procedure for requesting advisory opinions).
Deckers asked for clarification that the Rules do not
apply to advertisements not linked to point of sale.
Deckers at 7–8. Section 301.38(c) makes clear that
the requirements do not apply to advertisements
‘‘not intended to aid, promote, or assist directly or
indirectly in the sale or offering for sale of any
specific fur products or furs.’’ 16 CFR 301.38(c).
Finally, several individual commenters voiced
support for requiring fur disclosures generally. See,
e.g., Karol comment at 1.
101 FICA
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
57048
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
can be properly identified in the United
States.’’ 105 In 1961, the Commission
applied that standard and determined
that ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ was the
appropriate name for nyctereutes
procyonoides.106 Here, the record
confirms that ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’
continues to be appropriate for two
reasons. First, it describes the animal in
a way that consumers in the United
States can properly identify it. Ms. Lynn
from FWS explained that the word
‘‘Asiatic’’ ‘‘gives you an idea where the
animal originated naturally.’’ 107
Critically, Ms. Lynn did not agree with
HSUS that ‘‘Asiatic’’ is misleading. In
fact, she described the term as
‘‘neutral.’’ 108 In addition, as FICA
observed, nyctereutes procyonoides has
a raccoon-like fur pattern around its
eyes. Indeed, Dr. Nolfo-Clements’ letter
supporting HSUS’s comment
acknowledged that the animal
‘‘superficially resembles the racoons
* * * that are native to the
Americas.’’ 109
Second, the record indicates that
consumers likely have become familiar
with the name ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’
through fur labels. Based on its own
investigations, HSUS noted that
‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ appears on fur labels
‘‘fairly often.’’ 110 Consistent with that
statement, FICA and Finnish Fur
explained that products using
nyctereutes procyonoides as trim
usually did not meet the now-defunct
de minimis exemption, and therefore
would have been labeled as ‘‘Asiatic
Raccoon.’’ 111 Because ‘‘Asiatic
Raccoon’’ is the name that consumers
have used to identify the animal since
1961, consumers likely understand this
term. In addition, if the term confused
or otherwise harmed consumers,
evidence of such confusion should
exist. The record, however, does not
contain any such evidence.
Furthermore, HSUS’s arguments
against ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ are not
persuasive. The Commission does not
agree that it should defer to ITIS in this
instance. FWS and USGS
representatives, including an ITIS-cited
expert, agreed that ITIS is not intended
as a source for common names.112
105 15
U.S.C. 69e(a).
FR 10446 (Nov. 4, 1961).
107 Tr. at 38, ln. 22–23.
108 Tr. at 39, ln. 6, 11–12.
109 HSUS at 14 (attached letter of Dr. Lauren
Nolfo-Clements).
110 Tr. at 79, ln. 2.
111 Tr. at 79, ln. 14–16.
112 HSUS suggested that ITIS could serve as a
consumer resource for information about the
animal, but comments at the hearing indicated that
consumers would not be familiar with ITIS. To the
extent consumers would be inclined to research the
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
106 26
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Sep 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
Furthermore, scientific consensus is not
the best measure of an animal’s true
English name or the name by which
American consumers identify it.
Scientists develop taxonomic schemes
like ITIS for many purposes, but
assisting with purchasing decisions is
not one of them. The Commission
likewise does not find dispositive the
use of ‘‘Racoon Dog’’ in literature
predating the Name Guide.113 Rather,
the more relevant consideration is
consumers’ current familiarity with the
term, based on more than 50 years of
use. Finally, the Commission does not
find ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ misleading,
even though some of those animals are
raised in Europe. As discussed above,
‘‘Asiatic’’ refers, accurately, to the
animal’s native habitat. For consumers
interested in where the fur originated,
the labels separately provide that
information.
Moreover, other names suggested by
commenters have significant problems.
‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ could significantly
mislead consumers about the animal’s
relationship to domestic dog.
Specifically, industry commenters
reported that two major department
stores had stopped carrying items with
such fur because consumers confused it
with domestic dog.114 The suggested
names ‘‘Tanuki’’ and ‘‘Magnut’’ are
foreign words and are not names by
which the animal can be identified in
the United States as required by the Act.
Although Dr. Gardner of the
Smithsonian gave some support to
‘‘Tanuki,’’ HSUS reported that the term
is not prevalent in the United States.
Furthermore, there is no evidence
establishing that consumers understand
the term. No comments supported
changing the name to ‘‘Magnut.’’
2. The Commission Does Not Propose
Allowing ‘‘Finnraccoon’’
The current Name Guide specifies
‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ as the sole name for
nyctereutes procyonoides. Two
commenters suggested the Name Guide
list ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ as an alternative to
‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ for Finnish-farmed
nyctereutes procyonoides. They argued
term ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ online, a google.com search
performed on June 20, 2012, for example, shows
that the first 17 results related to nyctereutes
procyonoides.
113 HSUS’s repeated references to ‘‘Asiatic
Raccoon’’ as a ‘‘trade name’’ appear to be based on
speculation. Tr. at 63, ln. 13–16 (HSUS
representative explaining the basis for the ‘‘trade
name’’ assertion as ‘‘[t]he fact that [‘Asiatic
Raccoon’] isn’t listed anywhere reputable or
scientific as being an accepted common name,
[means that] I have to assume that some interest
pushed it onto the list at some point’’).
114 As discussed in section III.A.1.b, supra, the
record indicates that nyctereutes procyonoides
differs significantly from domestic dog.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
that ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ would help
consumers differentiate between
nyctereutes procyonoides raised
according to stricter European
regulatory standards and those raised in
Asia. As discussed above, the Fur Act
requires Name Guide names to be the
animal’s ‘‘true English name’’ or a name
by which the animal can be identified
in the United States. The record
indicates that ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ satisfies
neither criteria. Thus, the Commission
declines to propose it as an alternative
name.
Despite some use of the term in
marketing, there is no evidence that
consumers understand that
‘‘Finnraccoon’’ is nyctereutes
procyonoides and that it is the same
animal currently labeled as ‘‘Asiatic
Raccoon.’’ In addition, the commenters’
basis for the alternate name depends on
purportedly superior European furfarming practices, which can change
and which the Commission cannot
verify. In any event, the country of
origin disclosure will alert consumers
that the animal was raised in Europe.
Accordingly, the Commission does not
propose adding ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ to the
Name Guide.115
3. Proposed Name Guide Updates
Commenters made several suggestions
for revising other Name Guide entries.
HSUS and FICA pointed to several
entries that appeared to reference the
wrong species or contained
typographical errors. In addition, HSUS
suggested that the Name Guide provide
a different common name for each
species of fur-bearing animal. Finally,
FICA requested removal of prohibited
species, and Deckers requested
‘‘sheepskin’’ as a new name.
In light of the record, the Commission
proposes updating the Name Guide to
correct typographical errors and species
misidentification. The Commission has
not updated the Name Guide since
1967, and the taxonomic classifications
for some animals have changed.
Accordingly, the Commission proposes
several corrections, such as changing
the scientific name for ‘‘Ocelot’’ from
felis pardalis to leopardus pardalis. The
following chart lists the amended Name
115 As an alternative to amending the Name
Guide, FICA proposed an additional regulation
allowing the name ‘‘Finnraccoon,’’ as the Rules
allow for certain types of lamb fur. FICA at 5.
However, those regulations require the fur to have
certain characteristics affecting its appearance as
wearing apparel. See, e.g., 16 CFR 301.9(a)
(allowing term ‘‘Mouton Lamb’’ for fur that has
been ‘‘straightened, chemically treated, and
thermally set to produce a moisture repellant
finish’’). There is no evidence that ‘‘Finnraccoon’’
fur significantly differs in characteristics from other
Asiatic Raccoon fur.
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Guide entries, with the new text in bold.
Notably, the amended entries correct a
57049
misspelling of nyctereutes
procyonoides.116
Order
Family
Genus-species
Alpaca ..................................
Antelope ...............................
Bear, Polar ...........................
Calf ......................................
Cat, Leopard ........................
Cat, Lynx .............................
Cat, Margay .........................
Chipmunk .............................
Civet .....................................
Artiodactyla ........................
Ungulata ............................
......do .................................
Artiodactyla ........................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Carnivora ...........................
Camelidae .........................
Bovidae ..............................
......do .................................
Bovidae ..............................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Sciuridae ............................
Viverridae ..........................
Desman ...............................
Fox .......................................
Fox, Blue .............................
Fox, White ...........................
Goat .....................................
Jaguar ..................................
Jaguarundi ...........................
Kangaroo .............................
Kangaroo-rat ........................
Kid ........................................
Koala ....................................
Lamb ....................................
Leopard ................................
Llama ...................................
Marmot .................................
Mole .....................................
Monkey ................................
Nutria ...................................
Ocelot ..................................
Opossum .............................
Opossum, Australian ...........
Opossum, Ringtail ...............
Opossum, South American
Otter .....................................
Soricomorpha ....................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Carnivora ...........................
Artiodactyla ........................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Diprotodontia .....................
......do .................................
Artiodactyla ........................
Diprotodontia .....................
Artiodactyla ........................
Carnivora ...........................
Artiodactyla ........................
Rodentia ............................
Soricomorpha ....................
Primates ............................
......do .................................
Carnivora ...........................
Didelphimorphia .................
Diprotodontia .....................
......do .................................
Didelphimorphia .................
Carnivora ...........................
Talpidae .............................
Canidae .............................
......do .................................
Canidae .............................
Bovidae ..............................
Felidae ...............................
......do .................................
Macropodidae ....................
Potoroidae .........................
Bovidae ..............................
Phascolarctidae .................
Bovidae ..............................
Felidae ...............................
Camelidae .........................
Sciuridae ............................
Talpidae .............................
Cercopithecidae .................
Myocastoridae .. ................
Felidae ...............................
Didelphidae ........................
Phalangeridae ...................
Pseudocheiridae ................
Didelphidae ........................
Mustelidae .........................
Panda ..................................
Pony .....................................
Rabbit ..................................
Raccoon, Asiatic ..................
Raccoon, Mexican ...............
Reindeer ..............................
Seal, Fur ..............................
Sheep ..................................
Skunk ...................................
Carnivora ...........................
Perissodactyla ...................
Lagomorpha ......................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Artiodactyla ........................
Carnivora ...........................
Artiodactyla ........................
Carnivora ...........................
Ailuridae .............................
Equidae .............................
Leporidae ...........................
Canidae .............................
Procyonidae .......................
Cervidae ............................
Otariidae ............................
Bovidae ..............................
Mephitidae .........................
Vicuna ..................................
Viscacha ..............................
Wallaby ................................
Weasel, Manchurian ............
Wolf ......................................
Wolverine .............................
Wombat ...............................
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Name
Artiodactyla ........................
Rodentia ............................
Diprotodontia .....................
Carnivora ...........................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Diprotodontia .....................
Camelidae .........................
Chinchillidae ......................
Macropodidae ....................
Mustelidae .........................
Canidae .............................
Mustelidae .........................
Vombatidae .......................
Lama pacos.
Hippotragus niger and Antilope cervicapra.
Ursus maritimus.
Bos taurus.
Prionailurus bengalensis.
Lynx rufus.
Leopardus wiedii.
Tamias sp.
Viverra sp., Viverricula sp., Paradoxurus sp., and
Paguma sp.
Desmana moschata and Galemys pyrenaicus.
Vulpes vulpes, Vulpes macrotis.
Vulpes lagopus.
Vulpes lagopus.
Capra hircus.
Panthera onca.
Puma yagouaroundi.
Marcopus sp.
Bettongia sp.
Capra hircus.
Phascolarctos cinereus.
Ovis aries.
Panthera pardus.
Lama glama.
Marmota bobak.
Talpa sp.
Colobus polykomos.
Myocastor coypus.
Leopardus pardalis
Didelphis sp.
Trichosurus vulpecula.
Pseudocheirus sp.
Lutreolina crassicaudata.
Lontra canadensis, Pteronura brasiliensis, and Lutra
lutra.
Ailurus fulgens.
Equus caballus.
Oryctolagus cuniculus.
Nyctereutes procyonoides.
Nasua sp.
Rangifer tarandus.
Callorhinus ursinus.
Ovis aries.
Mephitis mephitis, Mephitis macroura, Conepatus
semistriatus and Conepatus sp.
Vicugna vicugna.
Lagidium sp.
Wallabia sp., Petrogale sp., and Thylogale sp.
Mustela altaica and Mustela nivalis rixosa.
Canis lupus.
Gulo gulo.
Vombatus sp.
The Commission does not propose
separate names for each species because
doing so would add significant burdens
without providing any apparent
consumer benefits. Requiring different
names for each fur-bearing species, such
as the 25 species of chipmunk suggested
by HSUS, would require entities to
create many additional labels for
products. Against this burden, HSUS
did not provide any evidence of ongoing
consumer harm from the current
practice of grouping similar animals
under one common name. Although
HSUS stated at the hearing that
consumers might want to know about
particular species because of varying
levels of endangerment or treatment, it
did not identify evidence that a
significant number of consumers valued
that information. Moreover, the record
does not demonstrate that such
information would influence
consumers’ purchasing decisions.
The Commission also declines to
propose removing ‘‘dog,’’ ‘‘cat,’’ or other
names of prohibited species because, as
HSUS and AAW explained, leaving
these names provides another means of
enforcing the Rules as to those furs.
116 Because commenters did not provide any
evidence substantiating what they described as
errors, the Commission proposes corrections only
for errors it has independently verified with the
assistance of FWS. In addition, the Commission
declines to change the genus-species listing for
‘‘dog’’ from ‘‘canis familiaris’’ to ‘‘canis lupus
familiaris’’ because doing so would conflict with
the Dog and Cat Protection Act’s definition of ‘‘dog
fur.’’ See 19 U.S.C. 1308(a)(5) (defining ‘‘dog fur’’
as ‘‘the pelt or skin of any animal of the species
Canis familiaris’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Sep 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
57050
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
will provide additional flexibility.
Furthermore, fur-trim product labels
only need to disclose ‘‘paws, tails,
bellies, sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats,
heads, scrap pieces, or waste fur’’ if fur
from those parts makes up at least ten
percent of the product.120
Specifically, retaining the names of
prohibited species in the Name Guide
helps to ensure that mislabeling and
falsely advertising dog, cat, and other
prohibited species remain Fur Rules
violations.
Finally, the Commission does not
propose amendments to allow
‘‘sheepskin’’ or ‘‘lambskin,’’ as
requested by Deckers. The Fur Act
limits Name Guide names to the
common name of ‘‘animals,’’ not
products,117 and ‘‘sheepskin’’ and
‘‘lambskin’’ refer to products.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Labeling Amendments
Several commenters objected to the
Rules’ labeling requirements as
unnecessarily complex and inconsistent
with the Commission’s textile labeling
requirements. These commenters argued
that such specifications impose
significant costs on consumers and
businesses without corresponding
benefits to consumers. They also posited
that the elimination of the de minimis
exemption has substantially increased
these costs. Thus, commenters made
several suggestions for reducing the
required information and labeling
specifications. As explained below, the
Commission agrees with most of these
suggestions and, therefore, proposes
several amendments to: (1) Reduce the
amount of required information; and (2)
provide more labeling flexibility.
1. Required Information
As discussed above, fur labels must
disclose pointed, dyed, bleached, or
artificially colored fur and fur consisting
of, among other things, ‘‘sides’’ or
‘‘flanks.’’ 118 In light of the
uncontroverted evidence that the
‘‘sides’’ and ‘‘flanks’’ disclosures either
provide information already disclosed
or do not provide consumers with
meaningful information, the
Commission proposes eliminating
§ 301.20(a)’s disclosure requirement.
The Commission declines, however,
to further limit the required disclosures.
The Commission cannot amend the
Rules to eliminate disclosures of
bleached, dyed, or artificially colored
fur because the Fur Act requires
them.119 In addition, Deckers has not
provided evidence establishing that
disclosures of pointed fur fail to benefit
consumers. Moreover, FICA and FDRA
likewise failed to present any evidence
showing consumers’ lack of interest in
the disclosures for items with small
amounts of fur. In any event, the
proposed amendments detailed below
117 15
U.S.C. 69e(a).
CFR 301.19; 301.20.
119 15 U.S.C. 69b(2)(C).
118 16
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Sep 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
2. Label Specifications
Commenters requested several
changes to the Rules’ labeling
specifications, including elimination of
requirements that the labels be a certain
size; that disclosures be of a certain font
size, in a set order, and limited to FTCrequired information on the front; and
that items sold in pairs must be
physically attached to each other to
have only one label. The Commission
agrees with these comments. In its
experience enforcing the Textile Rules,
the Commission has found it effective to
require that disclosures be ‘‘clearly
legible, conspicuous, and readily
accessible to the prospective
purchaser.’’121 Accordingly, the
Commission proposes amendments to
provide more flexibility regarding label
size, text, and use for items sold in pairs
or groups.
a. Deleting Label Size Requirements
The Rules currently require that labels
measure 1.75 inches by 2.75 inches.122
The Commission agrees that this size is
impractical for smaller items, a
consideration that carries greater
significance now that TFLA has
eliminated the de minimis exemptions.
Furthermore, the Commission’s textile
labeling enforcement experience
demonstrates that specifying exact label
dimensions is unnecessary to inform
consumers about wearing apparel, so
long as the required disclosures are
conspicuous. Therefore, the
Commission proposes eliminating the
size requirement. Consistent with the
Textile Rules,123 the proposed new
§ 301.27 would require labels to be
‘‘conspicuous and of such durability as
to remain attached to the product
throughout any distribution, sale or
120 16 CFR 301.20. FDRA also requested that the
Commission not require a fur origin disclosure for
shoes because the disclosure is, in most instances,
redundant. FDRA comment. However, FDRA did
not explain why such a disclosure is redundant,
particularly considering that the Textile Act, which
requires country of origin disclosure, does not
apply to shoes. 15 U.S.C. 70j(a)(10).
121 16 CFR 303.16(b).
122 16 CFR 301.27. Commenters NRF and FDRA
asserted that § 301.27 requires a sewn-in label. The
Commission does not agree with this reading
because, unlike a textile care label, that section
requires only that the label remain affixed until it
reaches the consumer. Nevertheless, the
Commission’s proposed revision to § 301.27 makes
clear that labels need not be sewn-in.
123 16 CFR 303.15(a).
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
resale, and until sold and delivered to
the ultimate consumer.’’
b. Deleting Label Text Requirements
Section 301.29 requires label text to
be 12-point or ‘‘pica’’ font size. It also
prohibits non-FTC information on the
front of the label, while § 301.30
prescribes a specific order for
disclosures. The Commission agrees that
these requirements create substantial
burdens, such as forcing marketers to
use multiple labels to comply with FTC,
state, and international fur regulations.
Furthermore, the Commission finds
that, based on its experience enforcing
the Textile Rules, these requirements
are unnecessary to disclose relevant
information effectively. Accordingly,
the Commission proposes:
• Replacing § 301.29(a)’s 12-point or
‘‘pica’’ type font-size requirement with
a requirement to disclose information
‘‘in such a manner as to be clearly
legible, conspicuous, and readily
accessible to the prospective
purchaser’’;
• Removing § 301.29(a)’s limits on
information appearing on the front of
the label, thereby allowing entities to
include true and non-deceptive
information on either side; and
• Deleting § 301.30, which specifies a
particular order for FTC disclosures.
These proposed amendments should
give marketers needed flexibility to
convey effective disclosures without
imposing unnecessary burdens.124
c. Revising Requirements for Labels for
Items Sold in Pairs or Groups
Section 301.31 requires that items
‘‘manufactured for use in pairs or
groups’’ be ‘‘firmly attached to each
other when marketed and delivered in
the channels of trade and to the
purchaser.’’ 125 Commenters explained
that this requirement interferes with
marketing smaller items like shoes and
gloves, which are typically sold in pairs.
Furthermore, there is no apparent
benefit, and likely some inconvenience,
to consumers from requiring actual
attachment of items through the point of
sale. To address this issue, the
Commission proposes eliminating the
requirement and incorporating the
Textile Rules’ provision allowing a
single label for items ‘‘marketed or
handled in pairs or ensembles,’’
regardless of whether they are attached
at the point-of-sale.126 Thus, if the items
are sold as pairs or ensembles and each
124 Allowing different information to appear on
fur labels should prevent the redundant disclosures
noted by Deckers, FDRA, and Zelman.
125 16 CFR 301.31(b).
126 16 CFR 303.29(b).
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
item contains the same fur with the
same country of origin, retailers can use
a single label for all items.
C. Amendments Required by TFLA
TFLA’s amendments require
conforming changes to the Fur Rules.
Accordingly, the Commission proposes
replacing the de minimis exemption
(§ 301.39), as well as all related
provisions,127 with TFLA’s hunter/
trapper exemption.
D. Proposed Amendments Eliminating
Unnecessary Provisions
The Commission also proposes
eliminating three sections to simplify
the Rules. First, it proposes eliminating
§ 301.19(l)(1) through (7). These
subsections provide a suggested, but not
required, method for determining
whether a fur has been treated with iron
or copper and, therefore, requires a
‘‘color altered’’ or ‘‘color added’’
disclosure. The suggestion appears
unnecessary because Section 301.19
requires that an entity coloring furs
must disclose the treatment on an
invoice.128
Second, the Commission proposes
deleting § 301.28, which provides
further guidance on attaching labels.
Because the proposed new § 301.27
clarifies the method for attaching labels,
§ 301.28 is now redundant.
Third, § 301.40 requires entities to
assign an ‘‘item number or mark’’ to furs
and to disclose it on invoices and
labels.129 In the Commission’s
experience, it does not need this
information to enforce the Fur Act and
Rules. Furthermore, it does not provide
any meaningful information to
consumers. Therefore, the Commission
proposes eliminating this provision and
the internal references to it.
E. Retaining the Rules’ Continuing
Guaranty Provisions and Product
Coverage
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
HSUS urged the Commission to
require guarantors to designate specific
fur products guaranteed, ‘‘as is required
127 Because TFLA eliminated the de minimis
exemption, it also eliminated the provision that
excepted dog and cat fur from that exemption (i.e.,
a savings clause to require labeling of all dog and
cat fur). Accordingly, the Commission proposes
deleting the Rules’ definitions of ‘‘cat fur,’’ ‘‘dog
fur,’’ and ‘‘dog or cat fur products,’’ as well as the
Rules’ cat and dog fur exceptions in § 301.39(a),
because those terms are used only in the de minimis
exemption provision. As discussed above, the Name
Guide will continue to list ‘‘dog’’ and ‘‘cat’’ as
required names. Similarly, the Commission
proposes several non-substantive amendments to
ensure that references to other provisions and the
Act are accurate and to correct typographical errors.
128 16 CFR 301.19(h).
129 16 CFR 301.40(a).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Sep 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
of separate guarantees [sic].’’ 130 HSUS’s
proposal, however, conflicts with the
Fur Act. Specifically, the Act provides
that continuing guaranties will apply
‘‘to any fur product or fur handled by
a guarantor.’’ 131 The Act provides no
limitation on the fur products covered
by continuing guaranties. Thus, the Act
requires the Commission’s current
provisions allowing a continuing
guaranty to cover all fur products
handled by the guarantor.
In addition, Deckers asked the
Commission to expand the Rules’ scope
to cover fake fur products, while FICA
requested narrowing it to exclude items
like shoes and handbags. The
Commission declines to do either. The
Commission cannot expand the
coverage to include faux fur because the
Fur Act applies only to ‘‘furs’’ or ‘‘fur
products,’’ which are defined as
‘‘animal skin * * * with hair, fleece, or
fur fibers attached thereto’’ and
‘‘wearing apparel’’ made of or
containing ‘‘fur or used fur,’’
respectively.132 Faux fur is not such an
item. Likewise, FICA’s complaints do
not justify reducing the Rules’ coverage.
As an initial matter, handbags are
already excluded because the Fur Act’s
labeling provisions apply to wearing
apparel, which the Rules define as
‘‘clothing or covering for any part of the
body.’’ 133 In addition, the proposed
amendments give ample flexibility to
place smaller, more practical labels on
small items. Thus, there is no need to
reduce the Rules’ scope and deny
consumers useful information.134
V. Request for Comment
Interested parties are invited to
submit comments online or on paper.
For the Commission to consider your
comment, we must receive it on or
before November 16, 2012. Write ‘‘Fur
Rules Review, Matter No. P074201’’ on
your comment. Your comment—
including your name and your state—
will be placed on the public record of
this proceeding, including, to the extent
practicable, on the public Commission
Web site, at https://www.ftc.gov/os/
publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of
discretion, the Commission tries to
remove individuals’ home contact
information from comments before
130 HSUS
at 10.
U.S.C. 69h(a)(2) (emphasis added).
132 15 U.S.C. 69(b) and (d).
133 16 CFR 301.1(b).
134 FICA noted that textile labeling requirements
do not apply to shoes and, therefore, the Textile
Rules and the Fur Rules treat those items
inconsistently. FICA at 9. However, the Textile Act
specifically exempts shoes. 15 U.S.C. 70j(a)(10). The
Fur Act, by contrast, does not contain a shoe
exemption.
131 15
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57051
placing them on the Commission Web
site. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible
for making sure that your comment does
not include any sensitive personal
information, such as anyone’s Social
Security Number, date of birth, driver’s
license number or other state
identification number or foreign country
equivalent, passport number, financial
account number, or credit or debit card
number. You are also solely responsible
for making sure that your comment does
not include any sensitive health
information, such as medical records or
other individually-identifiable health
information, such as medical records or
other individually-identifiable health
information. In addition, do not include
any ‘‘trade secret or any commercial or
financial information which is * * *
privileged or confidential’’ as discussed
in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C.
46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR
4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include
competitively sensitive information
such as costs, sales statistics,
inventories, formulas, patterns, devices,
manufacturing processes, or customer
names.
If you want the Commission to give
your comment confidential treatment,
you must file it in paper form, with a
request for confidential treatment, and
you must follow the procedure
explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR
4.9(c).135 Your comment will be kept
confidential only if the FTC General
Counsel, in his or her sole discretion,
grants your request in accordance with
the law and the public interest.
Postal mail addressed to the
Commission is subject to delay due to
heightened security screening.
Accordingly, we encourage you to
submit your comments online. To make
sure that the Commission considers
your online comment, you must file it
at: https://
ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/
furrulesreviewnprm by following the
instructions on the Web-based form. If
this Notice appears at https://
www.regulations.gov, you may also file
a comment through that Web site.
If you file your comment on paper,
write ‘‘Fur Rules Review, Matter No.
P074201’’ on your comment and on the
envelope, and mail or deliver it to the
following address: Federal Trade
Commission, Office of the Secretary,
Room H–113 (Annex O), 600
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,
135 In particular, the written request for
confidential treatment that accompanies the
comment must include the factual and legal basis
for the request and must identify the specific
portions of the comment to be withheld from the
public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
57052
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
DC 20580. If possible, submit your
paper comment to the Commission by
courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at
https://ftc.gov to read this Notice and the
news release describing it. The FTC Act
and other laws that the Commission
administers permit the collection of
public comments to consider and use in
this proceeding as appropriate. The
Commission will consider all timely
and responsive public comments that it
receives on or before November 16,
2012. You can find more information,
including routine uses permitted by the
Privacy Act, in the Commission’s
privacy policy at https://www.ftc.gov/ftc/
privacy.shtm.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed amendments do not
constitute a ‘‘collection of information’’
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501–3521). The labeling
amendments provide greater flexibility
and, as such, potentially reduce
disclosure burdens. The changes to the
Name Guide simply alter the required,
but Government-supplied information
on some labels.136 Deleting the de
minimis exemption will increase burden
for some entities to the extent they will
have to make disclosures regarding
previously exempt products, but this
has already been accounted for in the
Commission’s most recently approved
clearance request and burden estimates
for the Fur Rule.137
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act 138
requires an agency to provide an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with a
proposed rule unless the agency
certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.139
As part of the Commission’s recent PRA
clearance request, the Commission
estimated that 1,230 retailers, 90
manufacturers, and 1,200 importers are
subject to the Rules.140 The Commission
further estimated that these entities
incur a total recordkeeping burden of
51,870 hours and a total disclosure
burden of 116,228 hours.141 The entities
subject to these burdens will be
classified as small businesses if they
satisfy the Small Business
Administration’s relevant size
standards, as determined by the Small
Business Size Standards component of
the North American Industry
Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’ ).142
The relevant NAICS size standards,
which are either minimum annual
receipts or number of employees, are as
follows:
Small business size
standard
NAICS industry title
Fur-Bearing Animal and Rabbit Production .............................................................................................................................
Fur and Leather Apparel Manufacturing .................................................................................................................................
Men’s Clothing Stores .............................................................................................................................................................
Women’s Clothing Stores ........................................................................................................................................................
Department Stores ...................................................................................................................................................................
The Commission is unable to
determine how many of the above-listed
entities qualify as small businesses.
Neither the record in this proceeding
nor in the recent PRA clearance
proceeding contains information
regarding the size of entities subject to
the Fur Rules. Moreover, the relevant
NAICS categories include many entities
that are not in the fur industry.
Therefore, estimates of the percentage of
small businesses in those categories
would not necessarily reflect the
percentage of small businesses subject
to the Fur Rules in those categories.
Accordingly, the Commission invites
comments regarding the number of
entities in each NAICS category that are
subject to the Fur Rules, and revenue
and employee data for those entities.
Even absent this data, however, the
Commission does not expect that the
proposed amendments will have a
significant economic impact on small
entities. As discussed above in Section
VI, the amendments do not impose any
new costs. The greater flexibility
provided by the labeling amendments
should reduce disclosure burdens, and
the changes to the Name Guide simply
alter the required information on some
labels. Furthermore, businesses should
not have to remove labels from existing
fur products, which are mostly seasonal
items, because they can continue to sell
those products with old labels until the
amendments’ effective date.
This document serves as notice to the
Small Business Administration of the
agency’s certification of no effect.
VIII. Communications by Outside
Parties to the Commissioners or Their
Advisors
Written communications and
summaries or transcripts of oral
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Name
Order
Artiodactyla ........................
Ungulata ............................
Carnivora ...........................
......do .................................
Camelidae .........................
Bovidae ..............................
Mustelidae .........................
Procyonidae .......................
communications respecting the merits
of this proceeding from any outside
party to any Commissioner or
Commissioner’s advisor will be placed
on the public record.143
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 301
Furs, Labeling, Trade practices.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Trade
Commission is proposing to amend Title
16, Chapter I, Subchapter C, of the Code
of Federal Regulations, part 301, as
follows:
PART 301 [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 301
continues to read:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 69 et seq.
2. Revise § 301.0 to read as follows:
§ 301.0
Family
Alpaca ..................................
Antelope ...............................
Badger .................................
Bassarisk .............................
136 According to OMB, ‘‘[t]he public disclosure of
information originally supplied by the Federal
Government to the recipient for the purpose of
disclosure to the public is not included’’ within in
the definition of a PRA ‘‘collection of information.’’
5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Sep 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Fur products name guide.
Genus-species
Lama pacos.
Hippotragus niger and Antilope cervicapra.
Taxida sp. and Meles sp.
Bassariscus astutus.
137 OMB Control No. 3084–0099 (clearance
granted April 3, 2012, through April 30, 2015).
138 5 U.S.C. 601–612.
139 See 5 U.S.C. 603–605.
140 77 FR 10744, 10745 (Feb. 23, 2012).
PO 00000
$750,000.
500 employees.
$10,000,000.
$25,000,000.
$30,000,000.
141 Id.
142 The standards are available at https://
www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/
Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
143 See 16 CFR 1.26(b)(5).
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
57053
Order
Family
Genus-species
Bear .....................................
Bear, Polar ...........................
Beaver .................................
Burunduk .............................
Calf ......................................
Cat, Caracal .........................
Cat, Domestic ......................
Cat, Leopard ........................
Cat, Lynx .............................
Cat, Manul ...........................
Cat, Margay .........................
Cat, Spotted .........................
Cat, Wild ..............................
Cheetah ...............................
Chinchilla .............................
Chipmunk .............................
Civet .....................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Rodentia ............................
......do .................................
Artiodactyla ........................
Carnivora ...........................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Rodentia ............................
......do .................................
Carnivora ...........................
Ursidae ..............................
......do .................................
Castoridae .........................
Sciuridae ............................
Bovidae ..............................
Felidae ...............................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Chinchillidae ......................
Sciuridae ............................
Viverridae ..........................
Desman ...............................
Dog ......................................
Ermine .................................
Fisher ...................................
Fitch .....................................
Fox .......................................
Fox, Blue .............................
Fox, Grey .............................
Fox, Kit ................................
Fox, White ...........................
Genet ...................................
Goat .....................................
Guanaco, or its young, the
Guanaquito.
Hamster ...............................
Hare .....................................
Jackal ...................................
Jackal, Cape ........................
Jaguar ..................................
Jaguarundi ...........................
Kangaroo .............................
Kangaroo-rat ........................
Kid ........................................
Kinkajou ...............................
Koala ....................................
Lamb ....................................
Leopard ................................
Llama ...................................
Marmot .................................
Marten, American ................
Marten, Baum ......................
Marten, Japanese ................
Marten, Stone ......................
Mink .....................................
Mole .....................................
Monkey ................................
Muskrat ................................
Nutria ...................................
Ocelot ..................................
Opossum .............................
Opossum, Australian ...........
Opossum, Ringtail ...............
Opossum, South American
Opossum, Water ..................
Otter .....................................
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Name
Soricomorpha ....................
Carnivora ...........................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Carnivora ...........................
......do .................................
Artiodactyla ........................
......do .................................
Talpidae .............................
Canidae .............................
Mustelidae .........................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Canidae .............................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Canidae .............................
Viverridae ..........................
Bovidae ..............................
Camelidae .........................
Ursus sp.
Ursus maritimus.
Castor canadensis.
Eutamias asiaticus.
Bos taurus.
Caracal caracal.
Felis catus.
Prionailurus bengalensis.
Lynx rufus.
Felis manul.
Leopardus wiedii.
Felis sp. (South America).
Felis catus and Felis lybica.
Acinonyx jubatus.
Chinchilla chinchilla.
Tamias sp.
Viverra sp., Viverricula sp., Paradoxurus sp., and
Paguma sp.
Desmana moschata and Galemys pyrenaicus.
Canis familiaris.
Mustela erminea.
Martes pennanti.
Mustela putorius.
Vulpes vulpes, Vulpes macrotis.
Vulpes lagopus.
Urocyon cinereoargenteus and Urocyon littoralis.
Vulpes velox.
Vulpes lagopus.
Genetta genetta.
Capra hircus.
Lama guanicoe.
Rodentia ............................
......do .................................
Carnivora ...........................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Diprotodontia .....................
......do .................................
Artiodactyla ........................
Carnivora ...........................
Diprotodontia .....................
Artiodactyla ........................
Carnivora ...........................
Artiodactyla ........................
Rodentia ............................
Carnivora ...........................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Soricomorpha ....................
Primates ............................
Rodentia ............................
......do .................................
Carnivora ...........................
Didelphimorphia .. .............
Diprotodontia .....................
......do .................................
Didelphimorphia .. .............
......do .................................
Carnivora ...........................
Cricetidae ..........................
Leporidae ...........................
Canidae .............................
......do .................................
Felidae ...............................
......do .................................
Macropodidae ....................
Potoroidae .........................
Bovidae ..............................
Procyonidae .......................
Phascolarctidae .. ..............
Bovidae ..............................
Felidae ...............................
Camelidae .........................
Sciuridae ............................
Mustelidae .........................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Talpidae .............................
Cercopithecidae .................
Muridae ..............................
Myocastoridae ...................
Felidae ...............................
Didelphidae ........................
Phalangeridae ...................
Pseudocheiridae ................
Didelphidae ........................
......do .................................
Mustelidae .........................
Otter, Sea ............................
Pahmi ...................................
Panda ..................................
Peschanik ............................
Pony .....................................
Rabbit ..................................
Raccoon ...............................
Raccoon, Asiatic ..................
Raccoon, Mexican ...............
Reindeer ..............................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Carnivora ...........................
Rodentia ............................
Perissodactyla ...................
Lagomorpha ......................
Carnivora ...........................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Artiodactyla ........................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Ailuridae .............................
Sciuridae ............................
Equidae .............................
Leporidae ...........................
Procyonidae .......................
Canidae .............................
Procyonidae .......................
Cervidae ............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Sep 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Cricetus cricetus.
Lepus sp. and Lepus europaeus occidentalis.
Canis aureus and Canis adustus.
Canis mesomelas.
Panthera onca.
Puma yagouaroundi.
Marcopus sp.
Bettongia sp.
Capra hircus.
Potos flavus.
Phascolarctos cinereus.
Ovis aries.
Panthera pardus.
Lama glama.
Marmota bobak.
Martes americana and Martes caurina.
Martes martes.
Martes melampus.
Martes foina.
Mustela vison and Mustela lutreola.
Talpa sp.
Colobus polykomos.
Ondatra zibethicus.
Myocastor coypus.
Leopardus pardalis.
Didelphis sp.
Trichosurus vulpecula.
Pseudocheirus sp.
Lutreolina crassicaudata.
Chironectes minimus.
Lontra canadensis, Pteronura brasiliensis, and Lutra
lutra.
Enhydra lutris.
Helictis moschata and Helictis personata.
Ailurus fulgens.
Citellus fulvus.
Equus caballus.
Oryctolagus cuniculus.
Procyon lotor and Procyon cancrivorus.
Nyctereutes procyonoides.
Nasua sp.
Rangifer tarandus.
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
57054
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Name
Order
Family
Genus-species
Sable ....................................
Sable, American ..................
Seal, Fur ..............................
Seal, Hair .............................
Seal, Roc .............................
Sheep ..................................
Skunk ...................................
Carnivora ...........................
......do .................................
Carnivora ...........................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Artiodactyla ........................
Carnivora ...........................
Mustelidae .........................
......do .................................
Otariidae ............................
Phocidae ............................
Otariidae ............................
Bovidae ..............................
Mephitidae .........................
Skunk, Spotted .. .................
Squirrel ................................
Squirrel, Flying .....................
......do .................................
Rodentia ............................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Sciuridae ............................
......do .................................
Susilk ...................................
Vicuna ..................................
Viscacha ..............................
Wallaby ................................
Weasel .................................
Weasel, Chinese .................
Weasel, Japanese ...............
Weasel, Manchurian ............
Wolf ......................................
Wolverine .............................
Wombat ...............................
Woodchuck ..........................
......do .................................
Artiodactyla ........................
Rodentia ............................
Diprotodontia .....................
Carnivora ...........................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Carnivora ...........................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Diprotodontia .....................
Rodentia ............................
......do .................................
Camelidae .........................
Chinchillidae ......................
Macropodidae ....................
Mustelidae .........................
......do .................................
......do .................................
Mustelidae .........................
Canidae .............................
Mustelidae .........................
Vombatidae .......................
Sciuridae ............................
Martes zibellina.
Martes americana and Martes caurina.
Callorhinus ursinus.
Phoca sp.
Otaria flavescens.
Ovis aries.
Mephitis mephitis, Mephitis macroura, Conepatus
semistriatus and Conepatus sp.
Spilogale sp.
Sciurus vulgaris.
Eupetaurus cinereus, Pteromys volans and Petaurista
leucogenys.
Citellus citellus, Citellus rufescens and Citellus suslica.
Vicugna vicugna.
Lagidium sp.
Wallabia sp., Petrogale sp., and Thylogale sp.
Mustela frenata.
Mustela sibirica.
Mustela itatsi (also classified as Mustela sibirica itatsi).
Mustela altaica and Mustela nivalis rixosa.
Canis lupus.
Gulo gulo.
Vombatus sp.
Marmota monax.
3. Amend § 301.1 by removing
paragraphs (a)(6), (a)(7) and (a)(8) and
by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as
follows:
§ 301.1
Terms defined.
(a) * * *
(4) The terms Fur Products Name
Guide and Name Guide mean the
register of names of hair, fleece, and furbearing animals issued and amended by
the Commission pursuant to the
provisions of section 7 of the act.
*
*
*
*
*
4. Amend § 301.2, by revising
paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
§ 301.2
General requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Each and every fur, except those
exempted under § 301.39 of this part,
shall be invoiced in conformity with the
requirements of the act and rules and
regulations.
(c) Any advertising of fur products or
furs, except those exempted under
§ 301.39 of this part, shall be in
conformity with the requirements of the
act and rules and regulations.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 301.19
[Amended]
5. Amend § 301.19 by removing
paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(7).
6. Revise § 301.20 paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
§ 301.20
pieces.
Fur products composed of
(a) Where fur products, or fur mats
and plates, are composed in whole or in
substantial part of paws, tails, bellies,
gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces,
or waste fur, such fact shall be disclosed
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:01 Sep 14, 2012
Jkt 226001
as a part of the required information in
labeling, invoicing, and advertising.
Where a fur product is made of the
backs of skins, such fact may be set out
in labels, invoices, and advertising.
*
*
*
*
*
7. Revise § 301.27 to read as follows:
§ 301.27
Labels and method of affixing.
At all times during the marketing of
a fur product the required label shall be
conspicuous and of such durability as to
remain attached to the product
throughout any distribution, sale, or
resale, and until sold and delivered to
the ultimate consumer.
§§ 301.28, 301.30, and 301.40
and reserved]
[Removed
8. Remove and reserve §§ 301.28,
301.30, and 301.40.
9. Revise § 301.29 paragraph (a) to
read as follows:
§ 301.29 Requirements in respect to
disclosure on label.
(a) The required information shall be
set forth in such a manner as to be
clearly legible, conspicuous, and readily
accessible to the prospective purchaser,
and all parts of the required information
shall be set out in letters of equal size
and conspicuousness. All of the
required information with respect to the
fur product shall be set out on one side
of the label. The label may include any
nonrequired information which is true
and non-deceptive and which is not
prohibited by the act and regulations,
but in all cases the animal name used
shall be that set out in the Name Guide.
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10. Revise § 301.31 paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
§ 301.31 Labeling of fur products
consisting of two or more units.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) In the case of fur products that are
marketed or handled in pairs or
ensembles, only one label is required if
all units in the pair or group are of the
same fur and have the same country of
origin. The information set out on the
label must be applicable to each unit
and supply the information required
under the act and rules and regulations.
11. Amend § 301.35, by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 301.35
Substitution of labels.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The original label may be used as
a substitute label provided the name or
registered number of the person making
the substitution is inserted thereon
without interfering with or obscuring in
any manner other required information.
In connection with such substitution the
name or registered number as well as
any record numbers appearing on the
original label may be removed.
*
*
*
*
*
12. Revise § 301.39 to read as follows:
§ 301.39
Exempted fur products.
The requirements of the act and
regulations in this part do not apply to
fur products that consist of fur obtained
from an animal through trapping or
hunting and that are sold in a face-toface transaction at a place such as a
residence, craft fair, or other location
used on a temporary or short-term basis,
by the person who trapped or hunted
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 180 / Monday, September 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules
the animal, where the revenue from the
sale of apparel or fur products is not the
primary source of income of such
person.
13. Amend § 301.41 by removing
paragraph (a)(7) and by revising
paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
§ 301.41
Maintenance of Records.
(a) * * *
(4) That the fur product is composed
in whole or in substantial part of paws,
tails, bellies, gills, ears, throats, heads,
scrap pieces, or waste fur, when such is
the fact;
*
*
*
*
*
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–22568 Filed 9–14–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Parts 16, 801, 803, 806, 810,
814, 820, 821, 822, and 830
[Docket No. FDA–2011–N–0090]
RIN 0910–AG31
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection;
Unique Device Identification System;
Extension of Comment Period
AGENCY:
mark your comment to the FDA desk
officer and reference this rule.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay
Crowley, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–
796–5995, email: cdrhudi@fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In the Federal Register of July 10,
2012 (77 FR 40736), FDA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking with a
60-day comment period concerning the
proposed information collection.
Comments on the proposed rulemaking
will inform FDA’s rulemaking to
establish regulations for Unique Device
Identification System.
The Agency has received requests for
a 45-day extension of the comment
period for the information collection.
Each request conveyed concern that the
current 60-day comment period does
not allow sufficient time to develop a
meaningful or thoughtful response to
the information collection.
FDA has considered the requests and
is extending the comment period for the
information collection for 45 days, until
October 25, 2012. The Agency believes
that a 45-day extension allows adequate
time for interested persons to submit
comments without significantly
delaying rulemaking on these important
issues.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
[FR Doc. 2012–22793 Filed 9–14–12; 8:45 am]
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is extending the
comment period pertaining to
information collection issues under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the
PRA) associated with the proposed rule,
Unique Device Identification System,
that appeared in the Federal Register of
July 10, 2012 (77 FR 40736). The
Agency is taking this action in response
to requests for an extension to allow
interested persons additional time to
submit comments.
DATES: Submit either electronic or
written comments on the proposed
collection of information by October 25,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit electronic
comments on the collection of
information to the Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) at FAX: 202–395–7285,
or email comments to
OIRA_submissions@omb.eop.gov. Please
Dated: September 12, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Secretary
SUMMARY:
Jkt 226001
Dated: September 11, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
Notification; extension of
comment period.
ACTION:
17:54 Sep 14, 2012
Review: Solutions for Study Data
Exchange Standards.’’ The document
was published with an incorrect email
address. This document corrects that
error.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron
Fitzmartin, Office of Planning &
Informatics, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1160, Silver Spring,
MD 20993–0002, 301–796–5333, FAX:
301–847–8443, email:
CDERDataStandards@fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc.
2012–19748, appearing on page 48491
in the Federal Register of August 14,
2012, the following corrections are
made:
1. On page 48491, in the first column,
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section, the email address
‘‘CDERDataStandards@hhs.fda.gov’’ is
corrected to read
‘‘CDERDataStandards@fda.hhs.gov.’’
2. On page 48491, in the second
column, in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section, under
‘‘Registration,’’ the email address
‘‘CDERDataStandards@hhs.fda.gov’’ is
corrected to read
‘‘CDERDataStandards@fda.hhs.gov.’’
[FR Doc. 2012–22821 Filed 9–14–12; 8:45 am]
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
57055
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
31 CFR Part 10
[REG–138367–06]
RIN 1545–BF96
21 CFR Chapter I
Regulations Governing Practice Before
the Internal Revenue Service
[Docket No. FDA–2012–N–0780]
AGENCY:
Regulatory New Drug Review:
Solutions for Study Data Exchange
Standards; Notice of Meeting; Request
for Comments; Correction
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
Announcement of meeting;
request for comments; correction.
ACTION:
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is correcting a
document that appeared in the Federal
Register of August 14, 2012 (77 FR
48491). The document announced a
meeting entitled ‘‘Regulatory New Drug
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Office of the Secretary,
Treasury.
ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of
proposed rulemaking; notice of
proposed rulemaking and notice of
public hearing.
This document proposes
modifications of the regulations
governing practice before the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS). These proposed
regulations affect individuals who
practice before the IRS. These proposed
regulations modify the standards
governing written advice and update
certain provisions as appropriate. This
document also provides notice of a
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17SEP1.SGM
17SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57043-57055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22568]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 301
Regulations Under the Fur Products Labeling Act
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission proposes to amend its Regulations
under the Fur Products Labeling Act to update its Fur Products Name
Guide, provide more labeling flexibility, incorporate recently enacted
Truth in Fur Labeling Act provisions, and eliminate unnecessary
requirements. The Commission does not propose changing or providing
alternatives to the required name on labels for nyctereutes
procyonoides fur products. The Commission also does not propose
changing the Rules' product coverage scope or continuing guaranty
provisions.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 16, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments
electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Comments in electronic form
should be submitted by using the following Web link: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/furrulesreviewnprm (and following the
instructions on the web-based form). Comments filed in paper form
should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade
Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex O), 600
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, in the manner detailed
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Wilshire, (202) 326-2976,
Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection,
Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
On March 14, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or
``Commission'') invited comment on its Rules and Regulations (``Fur
Rules'' or ``Rules'') under the Fur Products Labeling Act (``Fur Act''
or ``Act''), including its Fur Products Name Guide (``Name Guide'').\1\
After considering the comments and holding a public hearing, the
Commission proposes updating the Name Guide, providing greater labeling
flexibility, incorporating provisions of the recently enacted Truth in
Fur Labeling Act (``TFLA''), and, on its own initiative, deleting
unnecessary requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 76 FR 13550 (Mar. 14, 2011). The Name Guide lists the
English animal names that must appear on fur-product labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission declines to propose other amendments suggested by
commenters. Although some supported changing the Name Guide's required
name for nyctereutes procyonoides, the Commission proposes retaining
``Asiatic Raccoon'' as the only name for that species. As discussed
below, the record shows that ``Asiatic Raccoon'' is the best name to
identify the animal for consumers. Furthermore, alternative names
suggested by commenters either risk misleading consumers or cannot be
used to identify the animal.
This supplementary information section first provides background on
the Fur Act and Rules, the Name Guide, TFLA, and this rulemaking. Next,
it summarizes the comments. Finally, it analyzes those comments and
discusses the proposed amendments.
II. Background
A. The Fur Act and Rules
The Fur Act prohibits misbranding and false advertising of fur
products, and requires labeling of most fur products.\2\ Pursuant to
this Act, the Commission promulgated the Fur Rules. These Rules set
forth disclosure requirements that assist consumers in making informed
purchasing decisions.\3\ Specifically, the Fur Act and Rules require
fur manufacturers, dealers, and retailers to label products made
entirely or partly of fur. These labels must disclose: (1) The animal's
name as provided in the Name Guide; (2) the presence of any used,
bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur; (3) that the
garment is composed of, among other things, paws, tails, bellies,
sides, flanks, or waste fur, if that is the case; (4) the name or
Registered Identification Number of the manufacturer or other party
responsible for the garment; and (5) the product's country of
origin.\4\ In addition, manufacturers must include an item number or
mark on the label for identification purposes.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 69 et seq.
\3\ 16 CFR part 301.
\4\ 15 U.S.C. 69b(2); 16 CFR 301.2(a).
\5\ 16 CFR 301.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rules also include detailed labeling specifications. For
example, the Rules specify an exact label size of 1.75 inches by 2.75
inches,\6\ require disclosures on the label in a particular order,\7\
and prohibit non-FTC information on the front of the label.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 16 CFR 301.27.
\7\ 16 CFR 301.30.
\8\ 16 CFR 301.29(a). By contrast, the Commission's Rules and
Regulations (``Textile Rules'') under the Textile Fiber Products
Identification Act (``Textile Act''), which apply to clothing
generally, do not have such restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Fur Act requires the Rules to provide for separate and
continuing guaranties.\9\ These documents allow an entity to provide a
guarantee to another entity that the fur products it manufactures or
transfers are not mislabeled or falsely advertised or invoiced.
Separate guaranties specifically designate particular fur products.\10\
Continuing guaranties, which guarantors file with the Commission, apply
to ``any fur product or fur handled by a guarantor.'' \11\ The Act
provides that a guaranty recipient will not generally be liable for
violations related to the guaranteed goods.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 15 U.S.C. 69h; 16 CFR 301.46; 301.47; 301.48; and 301.48a.
\10\ 15 U.S.C. 69h(a)(1).
\11\ 15 U.S.C. 69h(a)(2).
\12\ 15 U.S.C. 69h(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The Name Guide
The Fur Act requires the Commission to maintain ``a register
setting forth the names of hair, fleece, and fur-bearing animals.''
\13\ The Act further requires that these names ``be the true English
names for the animals in question, or in the absence of a true English
name for an animal, the name by which such animal can be properly
identified in the United States.'' \14\ For example, the
[[Page 57044]]
Name Guide requires covered entities to label mustela vison as
``mink.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 15 U.S.C. 69e(a).
\14\ Id.
\15\ 16 CFR 301.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission first published the Name Guide in 1952. Under the
Fur Act, the Commission can amend the Name Guide only ``with the
assistance and cooperation of the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of the Interior'' and ``after holding public hearings.''
\16\ Prior to this rulemaking, the Commission had amended the Name
Guide twice, most recently in 1967.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 15 U.S.C. 69e(b).
\17\ 32 FR 6023 (Apr. 15, 1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. TFLA
In 2010, Congress enacted TFLA,\18\ which revoked one Fur Act
exemption and replaced it with another. Specifically, TFLA deleted a
Fur Act provision that authorized the Commission to exempt fur products
of relatively low value from labeling requirements. Under that
authority, the Fur Rules exempted products with a fur component valued
at less than $150.\19\ TFLA eliminated this de minimis exemption \20\
and enacted a new, more limited exemption for furs sold directly by
trappers and hunters to end-use customers in certain face-to-face
transactions (``hunter/trapper exemption''). The new exemption
provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Public Law 111-113.
\19\ 16 CFR 301.39(a).
\20\ Public Law 111-113, Sec. 2.
No provision of [the Fur Act] shall apply to a fur product--(1)
the fur of which was obtained from an animal through trapping or
hunting; and (2) when sold in a face to face transaction at a place
such as a residence, craft fair, or other location used on a
temporary or short term basis, by the person who trapped or hunted
the animal, where the revenue from the sale of apparel or fur
products is not the primary source of income of such person.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id. at Sec. 3.
In addition, TFLA required the Commission to initiate a review of the
Name Guide.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id. at Sec. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Procedural Background
In March 2011, as part of its comprehensive program to review all
FTC rules and guides and in response to TFLA, the Commission opened a
review of the Name Guide by seeking comment. As part of its regulatory
review program,\23\ the Commission also sought comment on the Fur Rules
generally.\24\ The Commission received 15 comments.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ For further discussion of the program, see www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/07/regreview.shtm.
\24\ 76 FR 13550.
\25\ The comments, along with a transcript of the Name Guide
hearing, are available at: https://ftc.gov/os/comments/furlabeling/.
Citations to comments will identify the commenter name and comment
page number containing the relevant discussion (e.g., ``FICA at
8.''). Citations to one page comments will only state the commenter
name. Citations to the hearing transcript will identify the relevant
page and line (e.g., ``Tr. at 9, ln. 2.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also held a public hearing on December 6, 2011. The
hearing was in roundtable format with an opportunity for audience
participation. Four commenters participated in the roundtable: The
Humane Society of the United States (``HSUS''); the Fur Information
Council of America (``FICA''); the National Retail Federation
(``NRF''); and Finnish Fur Sales (``Finnish Fur''). In addition, the
hearing included representatives from the United States Department of
Agriculture (``USDA''), the United States Geological Survey (``USGS''),
and the Fish and Wildlife Service (``FWS'').\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ USGS and FWS are agencies within the Department of the
Interior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The Record
Commenters disagreed about whether and how to amend the Name Guide,
particularly the name for nyctereutes procyonoides. Several commenters
also proposed eliminating unnecessary disclosure requirements and
increasing labeling flexibility. In addition, HSUS urged the Commission
to limit the use of continuing guaranties. Finally, two commenters
suggested changes to the Fur Rules' product coverage.
A. The Name Guide
Commenters focused on whether the Commission should continue to
require labeling nyctereutes procyonoides as ``Asiatic Raccoon'' or
change the name to ``Raccoon Dog.'' Commenters also discussed whether
the Name Guide should allow ``Finnraccoon'' as an alternate name for
nyctereutes procyonoides that are raised in Finland, and suggested
amendments regarding other species.
1. ``Raccoon Dog'' Versus ``Asiatic Raccoon''
All who addressed the subject agreed that nyctereutes procyonoides'
taxonomic classification is in the canidae family, which includes
foxes, wolves, and domestic dogs.\27\ All commenters further agreed
that raccoons are not closely related to nyctereutes procyonoides.
Although both species are in the same order (carnivora), raccoons are
in a different family (Procyonidae).\28\ Despite agreeing about the
animal's taxonomy, commenters sharply disagreed about whether the Name
Guide should require entities to label it ``Asiatic Raccoon'' or
``Raccoon Dog.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See, e.g., attachment to HSUS comment at 31.
\28\ See the Smithsonian's Mammal Species of the World entry for
``Raccoon,'' available at https://www.vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=12300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Support for ``Raccoon Dog''
HSUS recommended eliminating ``Asiatic Raccoon'' and replacing it
with ``Raccoon Dog'' for three reasons. First, it asserted that
``Raccoon Dog'' is the Ascientifically accepted common name.'' \29\
Specifically, HSUS noted that the Integrated Taxonomic Information
System (``ITIS'') lists nyctereutes procyonoides' common name as
``Raccoon Dog.'' \30\ At the hearing, HSUS explained that ITIS is ``a
result of a partnership of federal government agencies formed to
satisfy the need for scientifically credible taxonomic information.''
\31\ HSUS described ITIS members, which include FWS, the Smithsonian
Institute, and USGS, as ``neutral on the issue of how a particular
industry, including the fur industry, identifies its products.'' \32\
In addition, HSUS asserted that requiring ITIS's common names would
assist consumers because the ITIS ``Web site contains an easily
accessible database with reliable information on species names and
their hierarchical classification.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ HSUS at 7.
\30\ See the ITIS Report for nyctereutes procyonoides, available
at https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=183821.
\31\ Tr. at 9, ln. 2-5.
\32\ Tr. at 9, ln. 16-21.
\33\ HSUS at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, HSUS asserted that ``Raccoon Dog'' has long been the ``most
widely-accepted common name of the species.'' \34\ As support, HSUS
submitted a letter from biologist Lauren Nolfo-Clements attesting that
scientists have used ``Raccoon Dog'' to describe nyctereutes
procyonoides for ``well over a century.'' \35\ In addition, HSUS cited
references to the animal as ``Raccoon-Like Dog'' and ``Raccoon Dog'' in
literature predating the Name Guide, including one encyclopedia
claiming that the term ``Asiatic Raccoon'' was a ``guise'' to obscure
the animal's relationship to dogs.\36\ HSUS also pointed to recent uses
of ``Raccoon Dog'' in an FWS press release and in an official
publication.\37\ HSUS did not, however, provide evidence that
[[Page 57045]]
consumers are more familiar with, or more likely to recognize,
``Raccoon Dog'' than ``Asiatic Raccoon.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ HSUS. at 8.
\35\ HSUS at 13 (letter attachment).
\36\ HSUS at 8-9.
\37\ HSUS at 9.
\38\ Tr. at 56, ln. 1-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, HSUS contended that ``Asiatic Raccoon'' is confusing and
misleading, while ``Raccoon Dog'' is not. HSUS observed that ``the
species is not a raccoon'' and ``is not just found in Asia, but * * *
in numerous European countries.'' \39\ Thus, HSUS asserted, ``Asiatic
Raccoon'' could mislead consumers about the species of the animal that
produced the fur and its geographic origin.\40\ At the hearing, HSUS
also asserted that ``Raccoon Dog,'' by contrast, would not mislead
consumers because dogs are members of the canidae family, and therefore
more closely related to nyctereutes procyonoides than raccoons.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ HSUS at 9.
\40\ HSUS at 9.
\41\ Tr. at 48, ln. 21-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Support for ``Asiatic Raccoon''
Other commenters opposed replacing ``Asiatic Raccoon'' with
``Raccoon Dog.'' They argued that ITIS or other scientific sources
should not determine an animal's name for labeling purposes, that
``Asiatic Raccoon'' better describes the animal, and that ``Raccoon
Dog'' labels would mislead consumers and harm retail sales.
Several hearing participants, including government representatives,
asserted that ITIS is not a common-name repository. For example, FICA
described ITIS as ``a tool used internally within the government by
scientists involved in wildlife regulatory issue[s] * * * [and] not
intended to regulate the sale of fur in the retail marketplace.'' \42\
Significantly, hearing participants from the government agreed that
ITIS is not necessarily authoritative on common names. Specifically,
Dr. Alfred Gardner from USGS, whom ITIS lists as an expert on
nyctereutes procyonoides' taxonomy, explained that ``[t]he primary
function of ITIS is to keep abreast of the changes in scientific names
* * * [and] not * * * to establish common names.'' \43\ Dr. Gardner
further stated that the use of common names listed in scientific guides
is ``not very consistent'' outside of the wildlife management
field.\44\ Ms. Sharon Lynn, Senior Wildlife Inspector for FWS, agreed
that ITIS does not reflect a scientific consensus regarding species'
common names.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Tr. at 15, ln. 9-12.
\43\ Tr. at 26, ln. 5-8.
\44\ Tr. at 14, ln. 5-6.
\45\ Tr. at 13, ln. 6-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More generally, some commenters criticized HSUS's proposal to rely
on ``scientific consensus'' rather than consumer perception.\46\
Consistent with that view, a representative from Finnish Fur attested
that, in his experience, consumers would not be familiar with ITIS.\47\
NRF further observed, ``how a product is marketed ought to be a
critical factor in deciding'' the animal's name because marketing often
establishes commercial names for unfamiliar products.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Tr. at 16, ln. 16-25, Tr. at 17, ln. 1-6.
\47\ Tr. at 17, ln. 11-14.
\48\ Tr. at 28, ln. 19-21. NRF gave the example of ``Kiwi''
fruit as an English name established by marketing. Tr. at 28, ln.
22-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, two commenters noted that consumers have familiarity with
``Asiatic Raccoon'' through marketplace exposure. Specifically, FICA
and Finnish Fur stated that, prior to TFLA's enactment, most
nyctereutes procyonoides garments did not meet the now-defunct de
minimis exemption and, therefore, would have been labeled as ``Asiatic
Raccoon.'' \49\ HSUS also acknowledged that ``Asiatic Raccoon'' appears
on labels ``fairly often.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Tr. at 79, ln. 14-16.
\50\ Tr. at 79, ln. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, several commenters asserted that ``Asiatic Raccoon'' is
superior to ``Raccoon Dog'' because it provides more information to
consumers. For example, FICA stated that the term ``Raccoon''
accurately describes nyctereutes procyonoides because it has ``rings
around its eyes, [so] it clearly looks like a raccoon.'' \51\ In
addition, Ms. Lynn of FWS noted that the word ``Asiatic'' is helpful,
despite the existence of European nyctereutes procyonoides, because it
``gives you an idea where the animal originated naturally.'' \52\ Ms.
Lynn further explained that Asia is the species' ``native habitat''
and, therefore, ``the Asiatic name would be a neutral''
description.\53\ Ms. Lynn observed that using ``Asiatic Raccoon'' to
refer to European nyctereutes procyonoides is like the common practice
of using ``African Lion'' to refer to lions raised in America.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Tr. at 42, ln. 12-13.
\52\ Tr. at 38, ln. 22-23.
\53\ Tr. at 39, ln. 6, 11-12.
\54\ Tr. at 39, ln. 15-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, some commenters criticized ``Raccoon Dog'' as
inaccurate, asserting that nyctereutes procyonoides is not closely
related to domestic dog and does not exhibit dog-like behavior. For
example, NRF noted that the animal is ``not a true-dog or dog-like
canine within the genus Canis * * * Other canids, * * * such as wolves,
coyotes, and jackals, are much more closely related to domestic dogs *
* *'' \55\ Moreover, according to FICA, ``[t]he Asiatic/Finnraccoon
exhibits vastly different behaviors than the dog. For example, it
hibernates, climbs trees, and it participates in social grooming * * *
[It] cannot bark, and it does not wag its tail.'' \56\ In support, FICA
submitted a report from wildlife biologist Robert Byrne confirming
those behavioral differences and noting other contrasts, including diet
(omnivore versus carnivore) and gait (clumsy versus ``often very
swift'').\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ NRF at 4. FICA similarly observed that ``[a]lthough the
Asiatic Raccoon * * * is part of the family Canidae, like many other
animals (e.g., fox, wolves, coyotes), it is completely different
from a domestic dog.'' FICA at 5.
\56\ FICA at 5.
\57\ FICA, Attachment 2 at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, commenters warned that requiring ``Raccoon Dog'' on a
label would mislead consumers into thinking that the species either
was, or was closely related to, domestic dog, thereby harming
nyctereutes procyonoides fur sales. FICA, citing news reports,
suggested that the term ``has had a devastating impact * * * by causing
consumers to believe mistakenly that the product is related to domestic
dog.'' \58\ NRF concurred, opining that using ``Raccoon Dog'' to
describe the species creates ``a huge risk of misinformation.'' \59\ As
evidence, FICA and Finnish Fur reported that consumer exposure to the
name ``Raccoon Dog'' has harmed sales. Specifically, major retailers
Federated Department Stores and Lord & Taylor no longer sell the furs
made from the animal because consumers mistake it for domestic dog.\60\
Thus, they asserted requiring ``Raccoon Dog'' would essentially ``ban''
nyctereutes procyonoides fur ``because [it] will no longer exist in the
marketplace * * *''.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ FICA at 6.
\59\ Tr. at 36, ln. 7-10.
\60\ Tr. at 60, ln. 1-7.
\61\ Tr. at 59, ln. 21; Tr. at 43, ln. 19-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Alternatives to ``Raccoon Dog'' and ``Asiatic Raccoon''
NRF suggested ``Tanuki'' and ``Magnut'' as alternative names for
nyctereutes procyonoides.\62\ Dr. Gardner supported ``Tanuki'' because
it ``doesn't carry any baggage.'' \63\ HSUS, however, objected to both
names because they are foreign words and, therefore, not true English
names.\64\ Furthermore, HSUS
[[Page 57046]]
represented that Internet searches for ``Tanuki'' and ``Magnut'' showed
less usage than ``Asiatic Raccoon'' or ``Raccoon Dog.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ NRF at 4. At the hearing, NRF clarified that it supported
the current designation of ``Asiatic Raccoon'' and had proposed the
alternatives only in the event that the Commission deleted ``Asiatic
Raccoon.'' Tr. at 69, ln. 13-14.
\63\ Tr. at 71, ln. 19-20.
\64\ Tr. at 82, ln. 14-17.
\65\ Tr. at 82, ln. 20-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. ``Finnraccoon''
FICA, Finnish Fur, and Finland's Ministries for Foreign Affairs and
of Agriculture and Forestry urged the Commission to allow labeling
nyctereutes procyonoides raised in Finland as ``Finnraccoon.'' These
commenters did not assert that those animals differ in characteristics
from nyctereutes procyonoides raised in Asia. Rather, they advocated
adding the name because ``Finnraccoon'' would alert consumers that the
animal had been raised under European regulations, which they described
as stricter and more humane than in Asia. For example, the Finnish
Ministries stated:
[European regulation is] one of the strictest in the world. The
EU is party to the European Convention for the protection of animals
kept for farming purposes. The Convention aims to protect animals
against any unnecessary suffering or injury.
* * * * *
As the animal welfare standards in place in Asian countries
producing Nyctereutes procyonoidos are, unfortunately, not as high
level as those in place in Finland/Europe, the situation is
confusing also to the consumers; the term ``Asiatic raccoon''
implies misleadingly that the Nyctereutes procyonoidos fur
originates from Asia, when in fact, [the] main part of the world
trade originates from Finland.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Ministry for Foreign Affairs at 1; Ministry of Agriculture
and Forestry at 1.
However, these commenters did not provide evidence that consumers were
familiar with ``Finnraccoon'' or that ``Finnraccoon'' fur differs
materially from other nyctereutes procyonoides fur.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Tr. at 87, ln. 4-7; Tr. at 95, ln. 2-3 (Finnish Fur
representative conceding that ``from a scientific point of view, I
don't know if there is a difference between Finnish and Asiatic'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HSUS, by contrast, opposed the name, describing it as ``industry-
coined.'' \68\ It further pointed out that fur labels would disclose
the country of origin in any event.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Tr. at 90, ln. 19-20.
\69\ Tr. at 91, ln. 20-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Other Suggested Name Guide Amendments
Commenters also suggested several miscellaneous revisions to the
Name Guide. First, HSUS recommended adding a large number of specific
common names so that each fur-bearing species has its own common name.
For example, HSUS suggested replacing ``chipmunk'' with specific names
for 25 chipmunk species, such as ``California Chipmunk,'' ``Cliff
Chipmunk,'' etc.\70\ HSUS stated that the Commission should not use one
name for multiple species because ``[d]ifferent animals experience
different sorts of welfare problems in fur production'' and different
conservation statuses.\71\ In addition, FICA and HSUS suggested
changing several Name Guide entries to reflect updated taxonomy and to
correct errors.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ HSUS at 56 (attachment).
\71\ Tr. at 19, ln. 17-18; Tr. at 20, ln. 4-5.
\72\ FICA at 7. For example, both commenters reported that the
Name Guide provides the wrong scientific name for ocelot. FICA at 8;
HSUS at 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, FICA recommended removing names of animals prohibited for
sale as furs, such as domestic dog and cat, because including them is
``confusing given their illegal status.'' \73\ HSUS disagreed, pointing
out that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ FICA at 8.
One of the FTC's purposes here is enforcement * * * [Having the
names listed] adds additional layers of enforcement. * * * And to
have that additional ability to enforce is important. Quite
honestly, I don't think a retailer should escape liability if the
retailer is failing to label dog fur as dog when * * * domestic dog
is not allowed to be sold in the United States.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Tr. at 117, ln. 12-21; Tr. at 118, ln. 2-8.
Commenter AAW agreed, noting that the Fur Rules help enforce the cat
and dog fur prohibition ``by ensuring that all furs are properly
identified and labeled.'' \75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ AAW at 1. ``AAW'' did not otherwise identify him, her, or
itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, Deckers Outdoor Corporation (``Deckers'') suggested the
Name Guide allow the term ``Sheepskin'' in lieu of ``Sheep'' and
``Lambskin'' in lieu of ``Lamb.'' Deckers asserted that the required
names are confusing to consumers.\76\ HSUS disagreed, however, noting
the existence of serious problems in sheep-fur labeling prior to
issuance of the Fur Rules and that sheepskin is not ``skin'' but rather
fur.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Deckers 2-3.
\77\ Tr. at 123, ln. 13-19; Tr. at 124, ln. 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Requests for Increased Labeling Flexibility
Six commenters \78\ criticized the Fur Rules' labeling provisions
as overly prescriptive. Specifically, they argued that many labeling
requirements provide no consumer benefits while imposing significant
burdens. They further noted that TFLA's elimination of the de minimis
exemption required labeling more fur products. As discussed below,
these commenters recommended more limited disclosures and greater
labeling flexibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Deckers, FICA, NRF, the Footwear Distributors and Retailers
of America (``FDRA''), McNeese Customs and Commerce (``McNeese''),
and Stephen Zelman & Associates (``Zelman'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Required Information
All commenters who addressed the subject urged the Commission to
reduce the amount of required information. For example, Deckers stated
that ``some of the required information * * * is not of interest to the
consumer, and * * * may * * * obscure the information in which the
consumer is really interested * * *''.\79\ Deckers, therefore, urged
the Commission to no longer require disclosure of whether fur is
natural, pointed, dyed, bleached, or artificially colored, at least for
sheepskins, because an altered sheepskin ``still looks like
sheepskin.'' \80\ Deckers also urged no longer requiring disclosure of
``sides'' or ``flanks.'' It asserted that ``the term `side' is used in
the industry to describe one half of an animal hide and is not a term
used to describe a part of the animal'' and that ``a flank is
considered the same as the belly, and thus its inclusion is
redundant.'' \81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Deckers at 2.
\80\ Deckers at 3.
\81\ Deckers at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters requested limited disclosures for items containing
small amounts of fur. FICA requested that labels for products with only
a ``small strip'' of fur disclose only ``fur'' and no other information
because consumers would not want that additional information.\82\ FICA
did not, however, provide any evidence substantiating that assertion.
FDRA similarly urged the Commission to revoke the requirement to
disclose that the fur consists of paws and tails where the fur is
limited to trim, which it suggested be defined as fifteen percent of
the item or less.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ FICA at 10.
\83\ FDRA comment (single page).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Label Specifications
Commenters also urged greater flexibility regarding the labels'
size, the sequence and location of disclosures, and the requirements
for attaching a single label to paired items like shoes. Several
commenters criticized the requirement in Sec. 301.27 that all labels
measure 1.75 inches by 2.75 inches.\84\ For example, Deckers noted
that, ``[w]hile the label size currently mandated by the Rules may be
appropriate for larger apparel items * * * they are impossible to affix
to smaller items * * *. The Rules should either exempt smaller products
from the size requirements, or simply mandate that the information be
no smaller than
[[Page 57047]]
information provided on other labels found on the product * * *''.\85\
NRF agreed, explaining
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ 16 CFR 301.27.
\85\ Deckers at 6.
These requirements are simply not appropriate for the range of
smaller garments that are now subject to this law, and would
increase costs to retailers and consumers. Specific requirements on
label dimensions also limit a retailer's ability to make a label
with a dimension that is suitable to the product, for example narrow
belts and gloves * * *. Moreover, consumers are not likely to want
large, permanent labels on these small products.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ NRF at 2.
To address the issue, NRF suggested requiring ``that the label be
`conspicuous, legible, and durable,' '' a standard that it described as
``well understood in the industry'' and consistent with labeling
requirements in the Textile Act, Wool Act, and Care Labeling Rule.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ NRF at 2. See also FICA at 10; FDRA comment; Zelman at 2-3.
NRF and FDRA criticized the Rules for requiring sewn-in labels. NRF
at 3; FDRA comment. In fact, as discussed below, the Rules do not
require sewn-in labels. Nevertheless, the Commission proposes an
amendment making this clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters also criticized the Rules' strict requirements for the
order and placement of information on the labels. Regarding Sec.
301.30's requirement that disclosures must be in a specified order,
Deckers argued:
The specific order should be determined by the manufacturer, and
not by regulation. As all required information must be the same size
type, it is unclear why the Rules need to mandate the order of
information supplied. Many footwear manufactures [sic], including
Deckers Outdoor Corporation, need the flexibility to properly design
a label so that it fits a wide range of products.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Deckers at 6.
Commenters also favored lifting Sec. 301.29's prohibition against
disclosing on the front of a label any information other than FTC
disclosures. Deckers noted that this prohibition may result in
requiring multiple labels to comply with the Rules and state
regulations.\89\ NRF also requested more flexibility to decide what
information appears on the fronts and backs of labels.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ Deckers at 6-7. See also FICA at 9; McNeese at 3 (urging
the Commission to allow labels that will accommodate disclosures
required by foreign governments).
\90\ NRF at 2-3. FDRA recommended eliminating a requirement to
disclose fur origin for items that already disclose the garment's
country of origin on a different label. FDRA comment. Zelman
likewise urged not requiring any information on a fur label that is
otherwise provided on another conspicuous label. Zelman at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, several commenters recommended amending Sec. 301.31,
which requires that items sold in pairs, like shoes, must be ``firmly
attached to each other'' until reaching the ultimate consumer or have a
separate label attached to each item.\91\ McNeese asserted that
requiring firm attachment was ``inconsistent with the manner in which
footwear is sold'': \92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ 16 CFR 301.31(b).
\92\ McNeese at 3.
Footwear is sold to consumers in boxes, and only properly
labeled samples are available for review prior to the consumer
trying on a particular shoe/boot * * * Both the left and right shoe/
boot is presented to the consumer at the point of sale.
McNeese submits that labeling only one shoe/boot with the
required [Fur Act] information satisfies the purpose of the statute,
which is to inform the consumer of the type of fur, method of
treatment (if any), and country of harvest.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ McNeese at 4.
Zelman likewise objected to the attachment requirement, asserting
that it would ``hurt the trade.'' \94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Zelman at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Proposal To Restrict Continuing Guaranties
As discussed above, entities generally are not liable under the Fur
Act if they receive a document guaranteeing that all products
manufactured or transferred by the guarantor are not misbranded or
falsely advertised or invoiced.\95\ One commenter, HSUS, expressed
concern that these guaranty programs ``are not sufficient to ensure
that consumers receive accurate information about the fur content of
garments.'' \96\ HSUS further asserted that ``[n]othing in the [Fur
Act] prohibits the FTC from requiring that continuing guarantees [sic]
specifically designate the fur products or furs guaranteed, as is
required of separate guarantees [sic].'' \97\ Therefore, HSUS
recommended that the Commission require that ``all guarantees [sic] * *
* specifically designate the type of fur contained in the fur products
or furs guaranteed,'' which ``would ensure that retailers * * * know
exactly where they need to go for the information they should rely on
in generating new labels and advertisements.'' \98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ 15 U.S.C. 69h(a).
\96\ HSUS at 10.
\97\ HSUS at 10.
\98\ HSUS at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. The Rules' Coverage
Two commenters recommended altering the scope of the Fur Rules'
labeling requirements, which apply to ``wearing apparel.'' The Rules
define ``wearing apparel'' as including ``[a]ny articles of clothing or
covering for any part of the body.'' \99\ FICA recommended amending the
definition to exclude small items, such as shoes.\100\ FICA argued that
these items have an ``insignificant amount of fur'' and would be
difficult to label because of their small size.\101\ FICA further noted
that excluding small objects would align the scope of the Fur Rules
with the Textile Act,\102\ which exempts handbags and shoes.\103\ In
contrast to FICA's request for narrower requirements, Deckers favored
expanding the Rules' coverage to include faux-fur products. According
to Deckers, doing so would ``ensure that the consumer knows whether [he
or she] is purchasing real or fake fur prior to making the purchase.''
\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ 16 CFR 301.1(b)(1).
\100\ FICA at 9.
\101\ FICA at 9.
\102\ 15 U.S.C. 70 et seq.
\103\ 15 U.S.C. 70j. FICA also cited the Textile Act's
legislative history regarding its coverage. FICA at 9, n. 18.
\104\ Deckers at 2. In addition to proposing amendments, some
commenters submitted more general views. FICA requested a process
for obtaining ``interpretations from the Commission'' regarding
technical requirements and complying with overlapping state and
federal regulations. FICA at 10. The Commission's rules already
provide such a mechanism. See 16 CFR 1.1 through 1.4 (procedure for
requesting advisory opinions). Deckers asked for clarification that
the Rules do not apply to advertisements not linked to point of
sale. Deckers at 7-8. Section 301.38(c) makes clear that the
requirements do not apply to advertisements ``not intended to aid,
promote, or assist directly or indirectly in the sale or offering
for sale of any specific fur products or furs.'' 16 CFR 301.38(c).
Finally, several individual commenters voiced support for requiring
fur disclosures generally. See, e.g., Karol comment at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Analysis
After considering the record, the Commission proposes the following
amendments: Updating the Name Guide while retaining ``Asiatic Raccoon''
as nyctereutes procyonoides' only name; providing more labeling
flexibility; conforming the Rules with TFLA; and eliminating
unnecessary provisions. The Commission does not propose changing the
Rules' scope or continuing guaranty provisions.
A. Name Guide
This section first discusses why the Commission is retaining the
name ``Asiatic Racoon.'' It then explains why it will not add
``Finnraccoon'' to the Name Guide. Finally, it discusses proposed
amendments to update the Name Guide.
1. The Commission Does Not Propose Replacing ``Asiatic Raccoon''
The Fur Act requires the Name Guide to prescribe ``the true English
names for the animals in question, or in the absence of a true English
name for an animal, the name by which such animal
[[Page 57048]]
can be properly identified in the United States.'' \105\ In 1961, the
Commission applied that standard and determined that ``Asiatic
Raccoon'' was the appropriate name for nyctereutes procyonoides.\106\
Here, the record confirms that ``Asiatic Raccoon'' continues to be
appropriate for two reasons. First, it describes the animal in a way
that consumers in the United States can properly identify it. Ms. Lynn
from FWS explained that the word ``Asiatic'' ``gives you an idea where
the animal originated naturally.'' \107\ Critically, Ms. Lynn did not
agree with HSUS that ``Asiatic'' is misleading. In fact, she described
the term as ``neutral.'' \108\ In addition, as FICA observed,
nyctereutes procyonoides has a raccoon-like fur pattern around its
eyes. Indeed, Dr. Nolfo-Clements' letter supporting HSUS's comment
acknowledged that the animal ``superficially resembles the racoons * *
* that are native to the Americas.'' \109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ 15 U.S.C. 69e(a).
\106\ 26 FR 10446 (Nov. 4, 1961).
\107\ Tr. at 38, ln. 22-23.
\108\ Tr. at 39, ln. 6, 11-12.
\109\ HSUS at 14 (attached letter of Dr. Lauren Nolfo-Clements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the record indicates that consumers likely have become
familiar with the name ``Asiatic Raccoon'' through fur labels. Based on
its own investigations, HSUS noted that ``Asiatic Raccoon'' appears on
fur labels ``fairly often.'' \110\ Consistent with that statement, FICA
and Finnish Fur explained that products using nyctereutes procyonoides
as trim usually did not meet the now-defunct de minimis exemption, and
therefore would have been labeled as ``Asiatic Raccoon.'' \111\ Because
``Asiatic Raccoon'' is the name that consumers have used to identify
the animal since 1961, consumers likely understand this term. In
addition, if the term confused or otherwise harmed consumers, evidence
of such confusion should exist. The record, however, does not contain
any such evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Tr. at 79, ln. 2.
\111\ Tr. at 79, ln. 14-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, HSUS's arguments against ``Asiatic Raccoon'' are not
persuasive. The Commission does not agree that it should defer to ITIS
in this instance. FWS and USGS representatives, including an ITIS-cited
expert, agreed that ITIS is not intended as a source for common
names.\112\ Furthermore, scientific consensus is not the best measure
of an animal's true English name or the name by which American
consumers identify it. Scientists develop taxonomic schemes like ITIS
for many purposes, but assisting with purchasing decisions is not one
of them. The Commission likewise does not find dispositive the use of
``Racoon Dog'' in literature predating the Name Guide.\113\ Rather, the
more relevant consideration is consumers' current familiarity with the
term, based on more than 50 years of use. Finally, the Commission does
not find ``Asiatic Raccoon'' misleading, even though some of those
animals are raised in Europe. As discussed above, ``Asiatic'' refers,
accurately, to the animal's native habitat. For consumers interested in
where the fur originated, the labels separately provide that
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ HSUS suggested that ITIS could serve as a consumer
resource for information about the animal, but comments at the
hearing indicated that consumers would not be familiar with ITIS. To
the extent consumers would be inclined to research the term
``Asiatic Raccoon'' online, a google.com search performed on June
20, 2012, for example, shows that the first 17 results related to
nyctereutes procyonoides.
\113\ HSUS's repeated references to ``Asiatic Raccoon'' as a
``trade name'' appear to be based on speculation. Tr. at 63, ln. 13-
16 (HSUS representative explaining the basis for the ``trade name''
assertion as ``[t]he fact that [`Asiatic Raccoon'] isn't listed
anywhere reputable or scientific as being an accepted common name,
[means that] I have to assume that some interest pushed it onto the
list at some point'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, other names suggested by commenters have significant
problems. ``Raccoon Dog'' could significantly mislead consumers about
the animal's relationship to domestic dog. Specifically, industry
commenters reported that two major department stores had stopped
carrying items with such fur because consumers confused it with
domestic dog.\114\ The suggested names ``Tanuki'' and ``Magnut'' are
foreign words and are not names by which the animal can be identified
in the United States as required by the Act. Although Dr. Gardner of
the Smithsonian gave some support to ``Tanuki,'' HSUS reported that the
term is not prevalent in the United States. Furthermore, there is no
evidence establishing that consumers understand the term. No comments
supported changing the name to ``Magnut.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ As discussed in section III.A.1.b, supra, the record
indicates that nyctereutes procyonoides differs significantly from
domestic dog.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Commission Does Not Propose Allowing ``Finnraccoon''
The current Name Guide specifies ``Asiatic Raccoon'' as the sole
name for nyctereutes procyonoides. Two commenters suggested the Name
Guide list ``Finnraccoon'' as an alternative to ``Asiatic Raccoon'' for
Finnish-farmed nyctereutes procyonoides. They argued that
``Finnraccoon'' would help consumers differentiate between nyctereutes
procyonoides raised according to stricter European regulatory standards
and those raised in Asia. As discussed above, the Fur Act requires Name
Guide names to be the animal's ``true English name'' or a name by which
the animal can be identified in the United States. The record indicates
that ``Finnraccoon'' satisfies neither criteria. Thus, the Commission
declines to propose it as an alternative name.
Despite some use of the term in marketing, there is no evidence
that consumers understand that ``Finnraccoon'' is nyctereutes
procyonoides and that it is the same animal currently labeled as
``Asiatic Raccoon.'' In addition, the commenters' basis for the
alternate name depends on purportedly superior European fur-farming
practices, which can change and which the Commission cannot verify. In
any event, the country of origin disclosure will alert consumers that
the animal was raised in Europe. Accordingly, the Commission does not
propose adding ``Finnraccoon'' to the Name Guide.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\115\ As an alternative to amending the Name Guide, FICA
proposed an additional regulation allowing the name ``Finnraccoon,''
as the Rules allow for certain types of lamb fur. FICA at 5.
However, those regulations require the fur to have certain
characteristics affecting its appearance as wearing apparel. See,
e.g., 16 CFR 301.9(a) (allowing term ``Mouton Lamb'' for fur that
has been ``straightened, chemically treated, and thermally set to
produce a moisture repellant finish''). There is no evidence that
``Finnraccoon'' fur significantly differs in characteristics from
other Asiatic Raccoon fur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Proposed Name Guide Updates
Commenters made several suggestions for revising other Name Guide
entries. HSUS and FICA pointed to several entries that appeared to
reference the wrong species or contained typographical errors. In
addition, HSUS suggested that the Name Guide provide a different common
name for each species of fur-bearing animal. Finally, FICA requested
removal of prohibited species, and Deckers requested ``sheepskin'' as a
new name.
In light of the record, the Commission proposes updating the Name
Guide to correct typographical errors and species misidentification.
The Commission has not updated the Name Guide since 1967, and the
taxonomic classifications for some animals have changed. Accordingly,
the Commission proposes several corrections, such as changing the
scientific name for ``Ocelot'' from felis pardalis to leopardus
pardalis. The following chart lists the amended Name
[[Page 57049]]
Guide entries, with the new text in bold. Notably, the amended entries
correct a misspelling of nyctereutes procyonoides.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ Because commenters did not provide any evidence
substantiating what they described as errors, the Commission
proposes corrections only for errors it has independently verified
with the assistance of FWS. In addition, the Commission declines to
change the genus-species listing for ``dog'' from ``canis
familiaris'' to ``canis lupus familiaris'' because doing so would
conflict with the Dog and Cat Protection Act's definition of ``dog
fur.'' See 19 U.S.C. 1308(a)(5) (defining ``dog fur'' as ``the pelt
or skin of any animal of the species Canis familiaris'').
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Order Family Genus-species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpaca............................. Artiodactyla.......... Camelidae............. Lama pacos.
Antelope........................... Ungulata.............. Bovidae............... Hippotragus niger and
Antilope cervicapra.
Bear, Polar........................ ......do.............. ......do.............. Ursus maritimus.
Calf............................... Artiodactyla.......... Bovidae............... Bos taurus.
Cat, Leopard....................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Prionailurus bengalensis.
Cat, Lynx.......................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Lynx rufus.
Cat, Margay........................ ......do.............. ......do.............. Leopardus wiedii.
Chipmunk........................... ......do.............. Sciuridae............. Tamias sp.
Civet.............................. Carnivora............. Viverridae............ Viverra sp., Viverricula
sp., Paradoxurus sp., and
Paguma sp.
Desman............................. Soricomorpha.......... Talpidae.............. Desmana moschata and
Galemys pyrenaicus.
Fox................................ ......do.............. Canidae............... Vulpes vulpes, Vulpes
macrotis.
Fox, Blue.......................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Vulpes lagopus.
Fox, White......................... Carnivora............. Canidae............... Vulpes lagopus.
Goat............................... Artiodactyla.......... Bovidae............... Capra hircus.
Jaguar............................. ......do.............. Felidae............... Panthera onca.
Jaguarundi......................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Puma yagouaroundi.
Kangaroo........................... Diprotodontia......... Macropodidae.......... Marcopus sp.
Kangaroo[dash]rat.................. ......do.............. Potoroidae............ Bettongia sp.
Kid................................ Artiodactyla.......... Bovidae............... Capra hircus.
Koala.............................. Diprotodontia......... Phascolarctidae....... Phascolarctos cinereus.
Lamb............................... Artiodactyla.......... Bovidae............... Ovis aries.
Leopard............................ Carnivora............. Felidae............... Panthera pardus.
Llama.............................. Artiodactyla.......... Camelidae............. Lama glama.
Marmot............................. Rodentia.............. Sciuridae............. Marmota bobak.
Mole............................... Soricomorpha.......... Talpidae.............. Talpa sp.
Monkey............................. Primates.............. Cercopithecidae....... Colobus polykomos.
Nutria............................. ......do.............. Myocastoridae ........ Myocastor coypus.
Ocelot............................. Carnivora............. Felidae............... Leopardus pardalis
Opossum............................ Didelphimorphia....... Didelphidae........... Didelphis sp.
Opossum, Australian................ Diprotodontia......... Phalangeridae......... Trichosurus vulpecula.
Opossum, Ringtail.................. ......do.............. Pseudocheiridae....... Pseudocheirus sp.
Opossum, South American............ Didelphimorphia....... Didelphidae........... Lutreolina crassicaudata.
Otter.............................. Carnivora............. Mustelidae............ Lontra canadensis,
Pteronura brasiliensis,
and Lutra lutra.
Panda.............................. Carnivora............. Ailuridae............. Ailurus fulgens.
Pony............................... Perissodactyla........ Equidae............... Equus caballus.
Rabbit............................. Lagomorpha............ Leporidae............. Oryctolagus cuniculus.
Raccoon, Asiatic................... ......do.............. Canidae............... Nyctereutes procyonoides.
Raccoon, Mexican................... ......do.............. Procyonidae........... Nasua sp.
Reindeer........................... Artiodactyla.......... Cervidae.............. Rangifer tarandus.
Seal, Fur.......................... Carnivora............. Otariidae............. Callorhinus ursinus.
Sheep.............................. Artiodactyla.......... Bovidae............... Ovis aries.
Skunk.............................. Carnivora............. Mephitidae............ Mephitis mephitis, Mephitis
macroura, Conepatus
semistriatus and Conepatus
sp.
Vicuna............................. Artiodactyla.......... Camelidae............. Vicugna vicugna.
Viscacha........................... Rodentia.............. Chinchillidae......... Lagidium sp.
Wallaby............................ Diprotodontia......... Macropodidae.......... Wallabia sp., Petrogale
sp., and Thylogale sp.
Weasel, Manchurian................. Carnivora............. Mustelidae............ Mustela altaica and Mustela
nivalis rixosa.
Wolf............................... ......do.............. Canidae............... Canis lupus.
Wolverine.......................... ......do.............. Mustelidae............ Gulo gulo.
Wombat............................. Diprotodontia......... Vombatidae............ Vombatus sp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission does not propose separate names for each species
because doing so would add significant burdens without providing any
apparent consumer benefits. Requiring different names for each fur-
bearing species, such as the 25 species of chipmunk suggested by HSUS,
would require entities to create many additional labels for products.
Against this burden, HSUS did not provide any evidence of ongoing
consumer harm from the current practice of grouping similar animals
under one common name. Although HSUS stated at the hearing that
consumers might want to know about particular species because of
varying levels of endangerment or treatment, it did not identify
evidence that a significant number of consumers valued that
information. Moreover, the record does not demonstrate that such
information would influence consumers' purchasing decisions.
The Commission also declines to propose removing ``dog,'' ``cat,''
or other names of prohibited species because, as HSUS and AAW
explained, leaving these names provides another means of enforcing the
Rules as to those furs.
[[Page 57050]]
Specifically, retaining the names of prohibited species in the Name
Guide helps to ensure that mislabeling and falsely advertising dog,
cat, and other prohibited species remain Fur Rules violations.
Finally, the Commission does not propose amendments to allow
``sheepskin'' or ``lambskin,'' as requested by Deckers. The Fur Act
limits Name Guide names to the common name of ``animals,'' not
products,\117\ and ``sheepskin'' and ``lambskin'' refer to products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ 15 U.S.C. 69e(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Labeling Amendments
Several commenters objected to the Rules' labeling requirements as
unnecessarily complex and inconsistent with the Commission's textile
labeling requirements. These commenters argued that such specifications
impose significant costs on consumers and businesses without
corresponding benefits to consumers. They also posited that the
elimination of the de minimis exemption has substantially increased
these costs. Thus, commenters made several suggestions for reducing the
required information and labeling specifications. As explained below,
the Commission agrees with most of these suggestions and, therefore,
proposes several amendments to: (1) Reduce the amount of required
information; and (2) provide more labeling flexibility.
1. Required Information
As discussed above, fur labels must disclose pointed, dyed,
bleached, or artificially colored fur and fur consisting of, among
other things, ``sides'' or ``flanks.'' \118\ In light of the
uncontroverted evidence that the ``sides'' and ``flanks'' disclosures
either provide information already disclosed or do not provide
consumers with meaningful information, the Commission proposes
eliminating Sec. 301.20(a)'s disclosure requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ 16 CFR 301.19; 301.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission declines, however, to further limit the required
disclosures. The Commission cannot amend the Rules to eliminate
disclosures of bleached, dyed, or artificially colored fur because the
Fur Act requires them.\119\ In addition, Deckers has not provided
evidence establishing that disclosures of pointed fur fail to benefit
consumers. Moreover, FICA and FDRA likewise failed to present any
evidence showing consumers' lack of interest in the disclosures for
items with small amounts of fur. In any event, the proposed amendments
detailed below will provide additional flexibility. Furthermore, fur-
trim product labels only need to disclose ``paws, tails, bellies,
sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces, or waste
fur'' if fur from those parts makes up at least ten percent of the
product.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ 15 U.S.C. 69b(2)(C).
\120\ 16 CFR 301.20. FDRA also requested that the Commission not
require a fur origin disclosure for shoes because the disclosure is,
in most instances, redundant. FDRA comment. However, FDRA did not
explain why such a disclosure is redundant, particularly considering
that the Textile Act, which requires country of origin disclosure,
does not apply to shoes. 15 U.S.C. 70j(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Label Specifications
Commenters requested several changes to the Rules' labeling
specifications, including elimination of requirements that the labels
be a certain size; that disclosures be of a certain font size, in a set
order, and limited to FTC-required information on the front; and that
items sold in pairs must be physically attached to each other to have
only one label. The Commission agrees with these comments. In its
experience enforcing the Textile Rules, the Commission has found it
effective to require that disclosures be ``clearly legible,
conspicuous, and readily accessible to the prospective
purchaser.''\121\ Accordingly, the Commission proposes amendments to
provide more flexibility regarding label size, text, and use for items
sold in pairs or groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ 16 CFR 303.16(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Deleting Label Size Requirements
The Rules currently require that labels measure 1.75 inches by 2.75
inches.\122\ The Commission agrees that this size is impractical for
smaller items, a consideration that carries greater significance now
that TFLA has eliminated the de minimis exemptions. Furthermore, the
Commission's textile labeling enforcement experience demonstrates that
specifying exact label dimensions is unnecessary to inform consumers
about wearing apparel, so long as the required disclosures are
conspicuous. Therefore, the Commission proposes eliminating the size
requirement. Consistent with the Textile Rules,\123\ the proposed new
Sec. 301.27 would require labels to be ``conspicuous and of such
durability as to remain attached to the product throughout any
distribution, sale or resale, and until sold and delivered to the
ultimate consumer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\122\ 16 CFR 301.27. Commenters NRF and FDRA asserted that Sec.
301.27 requires a sewn-in label. The Commission does not agree with
this reading because, unlike a textile care label, that section
requires only that the label remain affixed until it reaches the
consumer. Nevertheless, the Commission's proposed revision to Sec.
301.27 makes clear that labels need not be sewn-in.
\123\ 16 CFR 303.15(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Deleting Label Text Requirements
Section 301.29 requires label text to be 12-point or ``pica'' font
size. It also prohibits non-FTC information on the front of the label,
while Sec. 301.30 prescribes a specific order for disclosures. The
Commission agrees that these requirements create substantial burdens,
such as forcing marketers to use multiple labels to comply with FTC,
state, and international fur regulations. Furthermore, the Commission
finds that, based on its experience enforcing the Textile Rules, these
requirements are unnecessary to disclose relevant information
effectively. Accordingly, the Commission proposes:
Replacing Sec. 301.29(a)'s 12-point or ``pica'' type
font-size requirement with a requirement to disclose information ``in
such a manner as to be clearly legible, conspicuous, and readily
accessible to the prospective purchaser'';
Removing Sec. 301.29(a)'s limits on information appearing
on the front of the label, thereby allowing entities to include true
and non-deceptive information on either side; and
Deleting Sec. 301.30, which specifies a particular order
for FTC disclosures.
These proposed amendments should give marketers needed flexibility to
convey effective disclosures without imposing unnecessary burdens.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\124\ Allowing different information to appear on fur labels
should prevent the redundant disclosures noted by Deckers, FDRA, and
Zelman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Revising Requirements for Labels for Items Sold in Pairs or Groups
Section 301.31 requires that items ``manufactured for use in pairs
or groups'' be ``firmly attached to each other when marketed and
delivered in the channels of trade and to the purchaser.'' \125\
Commenters explained that this requirement interferes with marketing
smaller items like shoes and gloves, which are typically sold in pairs.
Furthermore, there is no apparent benefit, and likely some
inconvenience, to consumers from requiring actual attachment of items
through the point of sale. To address this issue, the Commission
proposes eliminating the requirement and incorporating the Textile
Rules' provision allowing a single label for items ``marketed or
handled in pairs or ensembles,'' regardless of whether they are
attached at the point-of-sale.\126\ Thus, if the items are sold as
pairs or ensembles and each
[[Page 57051]]
item contains the same fur with the same country of origin, retailers
can use a single label for all items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ 16 CFR 301.31(b).
\126\ 16 CFR 303.29(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Amendments Required by TFLA
TFLA's amendments require conforming changes to the Fur Rules.
Accordingly, the Commission proposes replacing the de minimis exemption
(Sec. 301.39), as well as all related provisions,\127\ with TFLA's
hunter/trapper exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ Because TFLA eliminated the de minimis exemption, it also
eliminated the provision that excepted dog and cat fur from that
exemption (i.e., a savings clause to require labeling of all dog and
cat fur). Accordingly, the Commission proposes deleting the Rules'
definitions of ``cat fur,'' ``dog fur,'' and ``dog or cat fur
products,'' as well as the Rules' cat and dog fur exceptions in
Sec. 301.39(a), because those terms are used only in the de minimis
exemption provision. As discussed above, the Name Guide will
continue to list ``dog'' and ``cat'' as required names. Similarly,
the Commission proposes several non-substantive amendments to ensure
that references to other provisions and the Act are accurate and to
correct typographical errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Proposed Amendments Eliminating Unnecessary Provisions
The Commission also proposes eliminating three sections to simplify
the Rules. First, it proposes eliminating Sec. 301.19(l)(1) through
(7). These subsections provide a suggested, but not required, method
for determining whether a fur has been treated with iron or copper and,
therefore, requires a ``color altered'' or ``color added'' disclosure.
The suggestion appears unnecessary because Section 301.19 requires that
an entity coloring furs must disclose the treatment on an invoice.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ 16 CFR 301.19(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Commission proposes deleting Sec. 301.28, which
provides further guidance on attaching labels. Because the proposed new
Sec. 301.27 clarifies the method for attaching labels, Sec. 301.28 is
now redundant.
Third, Sec. 301.40 requires entities to assign an ``item number or
mark'' to furs and to disclose it on invoices and labels.\129\ In the
Commission's experience, it does not need this information to enforce
the Fur Act and Rules. Furthermore, it does not provide any meaningful
information to consumers. Therefore, the Commission proposes
eliminating this provision and the internal references to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\129\ 16 CFR 301.40(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Retaining the Rules' Continuing Guaranty Provisions and Product
Coverage
HSUS urged the Commission to require guarantors to designate
specific fur products guaranteed, ``as is required of separate
guarantees [sic].'' \130\ HSUS's proposal, however, conflicts with the
Fur Act. Specifically, the Act provides that continuing guaranties will
apply ``to any fur product or fur handled by a guarantor.'' \131\ The
Act provides no limitation on the fur products covered by continuing
guaranties. Thus, the Act requires the Commission's current provisions
allowing a continuing guaranty to cover all fur products handled by the
guarantor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ HSUS at 10.
\131\ 15 U.S.C. 69h(a)(2) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, Deckers asked the Commission to expand the Rules'
scope to cover fake fur products, while FICA requested narrowing it to
exclude items like shoes and handbags. The Commission declines to do
either. The Commission cannot expand the coverage to include faux fur
because the Fur Act applies only to ``furs'' or ``fur products,'' which
are defined as ``animal skin * * * with hair, fleece, or fur fibers
attached thereto'' and ``wearing apparel'' made of or containing ``fur
or used fur,'' respectively.\132\ Faux fur is not such an item.
Likewise, FICA's complaints do not justify reducing the Rules'
coverage. As an initial matter, handbags are already excluded because
the Fur Act's labeling provisions apply to wearing apparel, which the
Rules define as ``clothing or covering for any part of the body.''
\133\ In addition, the proposed amendments give ample flexibility to
place smaller, more practical labels on small items. Thus, there is no
need to reduce the Rules' scope and deny consumers useful
information.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\132\ 15 U.S.C. 69(b) and (d).
\133\ 16 CFR 301.1(b).
\134\ FICA noted that textile labeling requirements do not apply
to shoes and, therefore, the Textile Rules and the Fur Rules treat
those items inconsistently. FICA at 9. However, the Textile Act
specifically exempts shoes. 15 U.S.C. 70j(a)(10). The Fur Act, by
contrast, does not contain a shoe exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Request for Comment
Interested parties are invited to submit comments online or on
paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it
on or before November 16, 2012. Write ``Fur Rules Review, Matter No.
P074201'' on your comment. Your comment--including your name and your
state--will be placed on the public record of this proceeding,
including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web
site, at https://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of
discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact
information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web
site. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely
responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any
sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security
Number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state
identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number,
financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also
solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include
any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other
individually-identifiable health information, such as medical records
or other individually-identifiable health information. In addition, do
not include any ``trade secret or any commercial or financial
information which is * * * privileged or confidential'' as discussed in
Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2),
16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively
sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories,
formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer
names.
If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential
treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for
confidential treatment, and you must follow the procedure explained in
FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).\135\ Your comment will be kept
confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole
discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ In particular, the written request for confidential
treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and
legal basis for the request and must identify the specific portions
of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule
4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to
heightened security screening. Accordingly, we encourage you to submit
your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your
online comment, you must file it at: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/furrulesreviewnprm by following the
instructions on the Web-based form. If this Notice appears at https://www.regulations.gov, you may also file a comment through that Web site.
If you file your comment on paper, write ``Fur Rules Review, Matter
No. P074201'' on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver
it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the
Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex O), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington,
[[Page 57052]]
DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by
courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at https://ftc.gov to read this Notice
and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the
Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to
consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will
consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on
or before November 16, 2012. You can find more information, including
routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy
policy at https://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm.
VI. Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed amendments do not constitute a ``collection of
information'' under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).
The labeling amendments provide greater flexibility and, as such,
potentially reduce disclosure burdens. The changes to the Name Guide
simply alter the required, but Government-supplied information on some
labels.\136\ Deleting the de minimis exemption will increase burden for
some entities to the extent they will have to make disclosures
regarding previously exempt products, but this has already been
accounted for in the Commission's most recently approved clearance
request and burden estimates for the Fur Rule.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ According to OMB, ``[t]he public disclosure of information
originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for
the purpose of disclosure to the public is not included'' within in
the definition of a PRA ``collection of information.'' 5 CFR
1320.3(c)(2).
\137\ OMB Control No. 3084-0099 (clearance granted April 3,
2012, through April 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act \138\ requires an agency to provide
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with a proposed rule unless
the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.\139\ As part of the
Commission's recent PRA clearance request, the Commission estimated
that 1,230 retailers, 90 manufacturers, and 1,200 importers are subject
to the Rules.\140\ The Commission further estimated that these entities
incur a total recordkeeping burden of 51,870 hours and a total
disclosure burden of 116,228 hours.\141\ The entities subject to these
burdens will be classified as small businesses if they satisfy the
Small Business Administration's relevant size standards, as determined
by the Small Business Size Standards component of the North American
Industry Classification System (``NAICS'' ).\142\ The relevant NAICS
size standards, which are either minimum annual receipts or number of
employees, are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
\139\ See 5 U.S.C. 603-605.
\140\ 77 FR 10744, 10745 (Feb. 23, 2012).
\141\ Id.
\142\ The standards are available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS industry title Small business size standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fur-Bearing Animal and Rabbit $750,000.
Production.
Fur and Leather Apparel 500 employees.
Manufacturing.
Men's Clothing Stores............... $10,000,000.
Women's Clothing Stores............. $25,000,000.
Department Stores................... $30,000,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission is unable to determine how many of the above-listed
entities qualify as small businesses. Neither the record in this
proceeding nor in the recent PRA clearance proceeding contains
information regarding the size of entities subject to the Fur Rules.
Moreover, the relevant NAICS categories include many entities that are
not in the fur industry. Therefore, estimates of the percentage of
small businesses in those categories would not necessarily reflect the
percentage of small businesses subject to the Fur Rules in those
categories. Accordingly, the Commission invites comments regarding the
number of entities in each NAICS category that are subject to the Fur
Rules, and revenue and employee data for those entities.
Even absent this data, however, the Commission does not expect that
the proposed amendments will have a significant economic impact on
small entities. As discussed above in Section VI, the amendments do not
impose any new costs. The greater flexibility provided by the labeling
amendments should reduce disclosure burdens, and the changes to the
Name Guide simply alter the required information on some labels.
Furthermore, businesses should not have to remove labels from existing
fur products, which are mostly seasonal items, because they can
continue to sell those products with old labels until the amendments'
effective date.
This document serves as notice to the Small Business Administration
of the agency's certification of no effect.
VIII. Communications by Outside Parties to the Commissioners or Their
Advisors
Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral
communications respecting the merits of this proceeding from any
outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor will be
placed on the public record.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ See 16 CFR 1.26(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 301
Furs, Labeling, Trade practices.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Trade
Commission is proposing to amend Title 16, Chapter I, Subchapter C, of
the Code of Federal Regulations, part 301, as follows:
PART 301 [AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 69 et seq.
2. Revise Sec. 301.0 to read as follows:
Sec. 301.0 Fur products name guide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Order Family Genus-species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpaca............................. Artiodactyla.......... Camelidae............. Lama pacos.
Antelope........................... Ungulata.............. Bovidae............... Hippotragus niger and
Antilope cervicapra.
Badger............................. Carnivora............. Mustelidae............ Taxida sp. and Meles sp.
Bassarisk.......................... ......do.............. Procyonidae........... Bassariscus astutus.
[[Page 57053]]
Bear............................... ......do.............. Ursidae............... Ursus sp.
Bear, Polar........................ ......do.............. ......do.............. Ursus maritimus.
Beaver............................. Rodentia.............. Castoridae............ Castor canadensis.
Burunduk........................... ......do.............. Sciuridae............. Eutamias asiaticus.
Calf............................... Artiodactyla.......... Bovidae............... Bos taurus.
Cat, Caracal....................... Carnivora............. Felidae............... Caracal caracal.
Cat, Domestic...................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Felis catus.
Cat, Leopard....................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Prionailurus bengalensis.
Cat, Lynx.......................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Lynx rufus.
Cat, Manul......................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Felis manul.
Cat, Margay........................ ......do.............. ......do.............. Leopardus wiedii.
Cat, Spotted....................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Felis sp. (South America).
Cat, Wild.......................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Felis catus and Felis
lybica.
Cheetah............................ ......do.............. ......do.............. Acinonyx jubatus.
Chinchilla......................... Rodentia.............. Chinchillidae......... Chinchilla chinchilla.
Chipmunk........................... ......do.............. Sciuridae............. Tamias sp.
Civet.............................. Carnivora............. Viverridae............ Viverra sp., Viverricula
sp., Paradoxurus sp., and
Paguma sp.
Desman............................. Soricomorpha.......... Talpidae.............. Desmana moschata and
Galemys pyrenaicus.
Dog................................ Carnivora............. Canidae............... Canis familiaris.
Ermine............................. ......do.............. Mustelidae............ Mustela erminea.
Fisher............................. ......do.............. ......do.............. Martes pennanti.
Fitch.............................. ......do.............. ......do.............. Mustela putorius.
Fox................................ ......do.............. Canidae............... Vulpes vulpes, Vulpes
macrotis.
Fox, Blue.......................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Vulpes lagopus.
Fox, Grey.......................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Urocyon cinereoargenteus
and Urocyon littoralis.
Fox, Kit........................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Vulpes velox.
Fox, White......................... Carnivora............. Canidae............... Vulpes lagopus.
Genet.............................. ......do.............. Viverridae............ Genetta genetta.
Goat............................... Artiodactyla.......... Bovidae............... Capra hircus.
Guanaco, or its young, the ......do.............. Camelidae............. Lama guanicoe.
Guanaquito.
Hamster............................ Rodentia.............. Cricetidae............ Cricetus cricetus.
Hare............................... ......do.............. Leporidae............. Lepus sp. and Lepus
europaeus occidentalis.
Jackal............................. Carnivora............. Canidae............... Canis aureus and Canis
adustus.
Jackal, Cape....................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Canis mesomelas.
Jaguar............................. ......do.............. Felidae............... Panthera onca.
Jaguarundi......................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Puma yagouaroundi.
Kangaroo........................... Diprotodontia......... Macropodidae.......... Marcopus sp.
Kangaroo[dash]rat.................. ......do.............. Potoroidae............ Bettongia sp.
Kid................................ Artiodactyla.......... Bovidae............... Capra hircus.
Kinkajou........................... Carnivora............. Procyonidae........... Potos flavus.
Koala.............................. Diprotodontia......... Phascolarctidae ...... Phascolarctos cinereus.
Lamb............................... Artiodactyla.......... Bovidae............... Ovis aries.
Leopard............................ Carnivora............. Felidae............... Panthera pardus.
Llama.............................. Artiodactyla.......... Camelidae............. Lama glama.
Marmot............................. Rodentia.............. Sciuridae............. Marmota bobak.
Marten, American................... Carnivora............. Mustelidae............ Martes americana and Martes
caurina.
Marten, Baum....................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Martes martes.
Marten, Japanese................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Martes melampus.
Marten, Stone...................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Martes foina.
Mink............................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Mustela vison and Mustela
lutreola.
Mole............................... Soricomorpha.......... Talpidae.............. Talpa sp.
Monkey............................. Primates.............. Cercopithecidae....... Colobus polykomos.
Muskrat............................ Rodentia.............. Muridae............... Ondatra zibethicus.
Nutria............................. ......do.............. Myocastoridae......... Myocastor coypus.
Ocelot............................. Carnivora............. Felidae............... Leopardus pardalis.
Opossum............................ Didelphimorphia ...... Didelphidae........... Didelphis sp.
Opossum, Australian................ Diprotodontia......... Phalangeridae......... Trichosurus vulpecula.
Opossum, Ringtail.................. ......do.............. Pseudocheiridae....... Pseudocheirus sp.
Opossum, South American............ Didelphimorphia ...... Didelphidae........... Lutreolina crassicaudata.
Opossum, Water..................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Chironectes minimus.
Otter.............................. Carnivora............. Mustelidae............ Lontra canadensis,
Pteronura brasiliensis,
and Lutra lutra.
Otter, Sea......................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Enhydra lutris.
Pahmi.............................. ......do.............. ......do.............. Helictis moschata and
Helictis personata.
Panda.............................. Carnivora............. Ailuridae............. Ailurus fulgens.
Peschanik.......................... Rodentia.............. Sciuridae............. Citellus fulvus.
Pony............................... Perissodactyla........ Equidae............... Equus caballus.
Rabbit............................. Lagomorpha............ Leporidae............. Oryctolagus cuniculus.
Raccoon............................ Carnivora............. Procyonidae........... Procyon lotor and Procyon
cancrivorus.
Raccoon, Asiatic................... ......do.............. Canidae............... Nyctereutes procyonoides.
Raccoon, Mexican................... ......do.............. Procyonidae........... Nasua sp.
Reindeer........................... Artiodactyla.......... Cervidae.............. Rangifer tarandus.
[[Page 57054]]
Sable.............................. Carnivora............. Mustelidae............ Martes zibellina.
Sable, American.................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Martes americana and Martes
caurina.
Seal, Fur.......................... Carnivora............. Otariidae............. Callorhinus ursinus.
Seal, Hair......................... ......do.............. Phocidae.............. Phoca sp.
Seal, Roc.......................... ......do.............. Otariidae............. Otaria flavescens.
Sheep.............................. Artiodactyla.......... Bovidae............... Ovis aries.
Skunk.............................. Carnivora............. Mephitidae............ Mephitis mephitis, Mephitis
macroura, Conepatus
semistriatus and Conepatus
sp.
Skunk, Spotted .................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Spilogale sp.
Squirrel........................... Rodentia.............. Sciuridae............. Sciurus vulgaris.
Squirrel, Flying................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Eupetaurus cinereus,
Pteromys volans and
Petaurista leucogenys.
Susilk............................. ......do.............. ......do.............. Citellus citellus, Citellus
rufescens and Citellus
suslica.
Vicuna............................. Artiodactyla.......... Camelidae............. Vicugna vicugna.
Viscacha........................... Rodentia.............. Chinchillidae......... Lagidium sp.
Wallaby............................ Diprotodontia......... Macropodidae.......... Wallabia sp., Petrogale
sp., and Thylogale sp.
Weasel............................. Carnivora............. Mustelidae............ Mustela frenata.
Weasel, Chinese.................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Mustela sibirica.
Weasel, Japanese................... ......do.............. ......do.............. Mustela itatsi (also
classified as Mustela
sibirica itatsi).
Weasel, Manchurian................. Carnivora............. Mustelidae............ Mustela altaica and Mustela
nivalis rixosa.
Wolf............................... ......do.............. Canidae............... Canis lupus.
Wolverine.......................... ......do.............. Mustelidae............ Gulo gulo.
Wombat............................. Diprotodontia......... Vombatidae............ Vombatus sp.
Woodchuck.......................... Rodentia.............. Sciuridae............. Marmota monax.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Amend Sec. 301.1 by removing paragraphs (a)(6), (a)(7) and
(a)(8) and by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 301.1 Terms defined.
(a) * * *
(4) The terms Fur Products Name Guide and Name Guide mean the
register of names of hair, fleece, and fur-bearing animals issued and
amended by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of section 7 of
the act.
* * * * *
4. Amend Sec. 301.2, by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 301.2 General requirements.
* * * * *
(b) Each and every fur, except those exempted under Sec. 301.39 of
this part, shall be invoiced in conformity with the requirements of the
act and rules and regulations.
(c) Any advertising of fur products or furs, except those exempted
under Sec. 301.39 of this part, shall be in conformity with the
requirements of the act and rules and regulations.
Sec. 301.19 [Amended]
5. Amend Sec. 301.19 by removing paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(7).
6. Revise Sec. 301.20 paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 301.20 Fur products composed of pieces.
(a) Where fur products, or fur mats and plates, are composed in
whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, gills, ears,
throats, heads, scrap pieces, or waste fur, such fact shall be
disclosed as a part of the required information in labeling, invoicing,
and advertising. Where a fur product is made of the backs of skins,
such fact may be set out in labels, invoices, and advertising.
* * * * *
7. Revise Sec. 301.27 to read as follows:
Sec. 301.27 Labels and method of affixing.
At all times during the marketing of a fur product the required
label shall be conspicuous and of such durability as to remain attached
to the product throughout any distribution, sale, or resale, and until
sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer.
Sec. Sec. 301.28, 301.30, and 301.40 [Removed and reserved]
8. Remove and reserve Sec. Sec. 301.28, 301.30, and 301.40.
9. Revise Sec. 301.29 paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 301.29 Requirements in respect to disclosure on label.
(a) The required information shall be set forth in such a manner as
to be clearly legible, conspicuous, and readily accessible to the
prospective purchaser, and all parts of the required information shall
be set out in letters of equal size and conspicuousness. All of the
required information with respect to the fur product shall be set out
on one side of the label. The label may include any nonrequired
information which is true and non-deceptive and which is not prohibited
by the act and regulations, but in all cases the animal name used shall
be that set out in the Name Guide.
* * * * *
10. Revise Sec. 301.31 paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 301.31 Labeling of fur products consisting of two or more units.
* * * * *
(b) In the case of fur products that are marketed or handled in
pairs or ensembles, only one label is required if all units in the pair
or group are of the same fur and have the same country of origin. The
information set out on the label must be applicable to each unit and
supply the information required under the act and rules and
regulations.
11. Amend Sec. 301.35, by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 301.35 Substitution of labels.
* * * * *
(b) The original label may be used as a substitute label provided
the name or registered number of the person making the substitution is
inserted thereon without interfering with or obscuring in any manner
other required information. In connection with such substitution the
name or registered number as well as any record numbers appearing on
the original label may be removed.
* * * * *
12. Revise Sec. 301.39 to read as follows:
Sec. 301.39 Exempted fur products.
The requirements of the act and regulations in this part do not
apply to fur products that consist of fur obtained from an animal
through trapping or hunting and that are sold in a face-to-face
transaction at a place such as a residence, craft fair, or other
location used on a temporary or short-term basis, by the person who
trapped or hunted
[[Page 57055]]
the animal, where the revenue from the sale of apparel or fur products
is not the primary source of income of such person.
13. Amend Sec. 301.41 by removing paragraph (a)(7) and by revising
paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 301.41 Maintenance of Records.
(a) * * *
(4) That the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial
part of paws, tails, bellies, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap
pieces, or waste fur, when such is the fact;
* * * * *
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22568 Filed 9-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
