Rules and Regulations Under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 32157-32164 [2014-12736]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
32157
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 79, No. 107
Wednesday, June 4, 2014
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 121
[Docket No. FAA–2013–0944]
Pilot Assigned as Second in
Command; Legal Interpretation
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
On November 13, 2013, the
FAA sought comment on a proposed
legal interpretation intended to clarify
the qualification requirements for the
pilot assigned as second in command on
a flight in part 121 operations that
require three or more pilots and the
pilot who provides relief to the assigned
second in command during the en route
cruise portion of the flight. On April 29,
2014, the FAA issued a legal
interpretation on these issues. This legal
interpretation is available on the
agency’s Web site and in the docket for
the proposed legal interpretation.
DATES: June 4, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may review the public
docket for the proposed legal
interpretation (Docket No. FAA–2013–
0944) on the Internet at
www.regulations.gov. You may also
review the public docket at the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12–
140, of the West Building Ground Floor
at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara
Mikolop, Attorney, Regulations
Division, Office of the Chief Counsel,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202
267–3073.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:52 Jun 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
On
November 13, 2013, the FAA sought
comment on a proposed legal
interpretation intended to clarify the
qualification requirements for (1) the
pilot assigned as second in command
(SIC) on a flight in part 121 operations
that require three or more pilots and (2)
the pilot who provides relief to the
assigned SIC during the en route cruise
portion of the flight. See 78 FR 67983
(Nov. 13, 2013). The agency received 15
comments on the proposed legal
interpretation.
On April 29, 2014, the FAA issued a
legal interpretation on these issues. The
legal interpretation was adopted as
proposed with minimal clarifying
information. It is available on the
agency’s Web site 1 and in docket FAA–
2013–0944.2 (A related legal
interpretation provided to Southern Air
Inc. can also be found on the agency’s
Web site and in docket FAA–2013–
0944.) This legal interpretation reaffirms
Legal Interpretation 1978–27, which
stated § 121.432(a) requires a pilot who
serves as SIC of an operation that
requires three or more pilots to meet all
pilot in command (PIC) qualification
requirements except for PIC operating
experience. This legal interpretation
also clarifies that the pilot relieving the
assigned SIC during the en route portion
of the flight need not meet the
additional SIC qualification
requirements identified in § 121.432(a).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 29,
2014.
Mark W. Bury,
Assistant Chief Counsel for International Law,
Legislation and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2014–12982 Filed 6–3–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 300
[RIN 3084–AB29]
Rules and Regulations Under the Wool
Products Labeling Act of 1939
AGENCY:
Federal Trade Commission.
1 www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_
offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/
interpretations.
2 Instructions for access to docket FAA–2013–
0944 can be found in the ADDRESSES section of this
document.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ACTION:
Final rule.
The Commission amends its
rules and regulations under the Wool
Products Labeling Act of 1939 (‘‘Wool
Rules’’ or ‘‘Rules’’) to conform to the
requirements of the Wool Suit Fabric
Labeling Fairness and International
Standards Conforming Act, which
revised the labeling requirements for
cashmere and certain other wool
products, and align with the amended
rules and regulations under the Textile
Fiber Products Identification Act
(‘‘Textile Rules’’).
DATES: The amended Rules are effective
on July 7, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert M. Frisby, Attorney, (202) 326–
2098, Federal Trade Commission,
Division of Enforcement, Bureau of
Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Introduction
As part of its ongoing regulatory
review program, the Commission
published an Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Request for
Public Comment (‘‘ANPR’’) in January
2012 1 seeking comment on the
economic impact of, and the continuing
need for, the Wool Rules. The ANPR
sought comment generally on the Rules’
benefits to consumers and burdens on
businesses. It also asked about specific
issues, including how to modify the
Rules to implement the Wool Suit
Fabric Labeling Fairness and
International Standards Conforming Act
(‘‘Conforming Act’’),2 and the costs and
benefits of certain provisions of the
Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939
(‘‘Wool Act’’).3
The Wool Act and Rules 4 require
marketers to, among other things, attach
a label to each covered wool product
disclosing: (1) The percentages by
weight of the wool, recycled wool, and
other fibers accounting for 5% or more
of the product, and the aggregate of all
other fibers; (2) the maximum
percentage of the total weight of the
wool product of any non-fibrous matter;
(3) the name under which the
1 77
FR 4498 (Jan. 30, 2012).
Law 109–428, 120 Stat. 2913.
3 15 U.S.C. 68–68j.
4 Commission’s Rules and Regulations under the
Wool Products Labeling Act, 16 CFR Part 300,
which implement the Wool Act.
2 Public
E:\FR\FM\04JNR1.SGM
04JNR1
32158
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
manufacturer or other responsible
company does business or, in lieu
thereof, the registered identification
number (‘‘RN number’’) of such
company; and (4) the name of the
country where the wool product was
processed or manufactured.5
The Commission received six
comments 6 in response to its ANPR.
Based on these comments, the
Commission issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’)
proposing amendments to conform to
the requirements of the Conforming Act
and to align with the proposed
amendments to the Textile Rules.7
The Commission received seven
comments 8 in response: a joint
comment from the Cashmere and Camel
Hair Manufacturers Institute,
International Wool Textile Organization,
and the National Council of Textile
Organizations; 9 and one each from the
American Apparel & Footwear
Association; 10 the International Wool
Textile Organization; 11 the United
States Fashion Industry Association; 12
the Australian Government; 13 James
Francis Casale of The Detweiler
House; 14 and David Trumbull of
Agathon Associates.15 This Federal
Register Notice summarizes the
comments, explains the amendments to
the Wool Rules, provides the analyses
required by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act,
and sets forth the amended Rule
provisions.
II. Summary of Comments
In this section, the Commission
summarizes the main points made by
the comments. Comments addressing
the issue favored amending the Rules to
implement the Conforming Act but
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
5 15
U.S.C. 68b(a).
6 The comments are posted at https://www.ftc.gov/
policy/public-comments/initiative-418. The
Commission also considered one comment filed in
the Textile rulemaking by Adam Varley. See https://
www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/comment00003-30.
7 78 FR 57808 (Sept. 20, 2013). The Commission
amended the Textile Rules in March 2014. The
amendments take effect on May 5, 2014. See 79 FR
18766 (Apr 4, 2014).
8 These comments are posted at https://
www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-507.
The Commission has assigned each comment a
number appearing after the name of the commenter
and the date of submission. This notice cites
comments using the last name of the individual
submitter or the name of the organization or
country, followed by the number assigned by the
Commission.
9 Joint Comment (3).
10 AAFA (14).
11 IWTO (12).
12 USFIA (8).
13 Australia (7).
14 Casale (11).
15 Trumbull (13).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:52 Jun 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
urged the Commission to limit the use
of ‘‘Super’’ and ‘‘S’’ to describe certain
very fine wool products. The comments
also generally favored aligning the Rules
with the amended Textile Rules or were
silent on this issue.16 Moreover, the
comments generally agreed with the
proposed amendments relating to hangtags, with the exception of the proposed
hang-tag disclosures. One comment
opposed the proposed annual renewal
for continuing guaranties.
A. Very Fine Wool Products
Four comments addressed
implementation of the Conforming Act
by adding the Act’s definitions of very
fine wool. The Conforming Act provides
that wool products described by certain
terms (e.g., ‘‘Super 80’s’’ or ‘‘80’s,’’
‘‘Super 90’s’’ or ‘‘90’s,’’ etc.) are
misbranded unless the wool fibers are a
certain average diameter or finer. The
commenters urged the Commission to
limit the use of ‘‘Super’’ and ‘‘S’’
numbers.17 Three comments urged the
Commission to study how consumers
interpret ‘‘Super’’ and ‘‘S’’ numbers.18
The Joint comment also argued that
consumers interpret ‘‘Super’’ numbers
to mean that the garment contains wool
of the corresponding diameter, and that
the Conforming Act prohibits labeling
that describes suits containing no wool
as ‘‘Super.’’ 19 IWTO stated that ‘‘S’’
numbers should not be used to describe
non-wool products. Two comments
favored amending the Rules to allow the
use of the word ‘‘Super’’ to describe
only pure wool because this practice is
common in the weaving industry and
the use of ‘‘Super’’ to describe blends
could cause confusion.20
16 For example, AAFA and USFIA supported the
proposal to amend the Rules to state that an
imported product’s country of origin as determined
under the laws and regulations enforced by U.S.
Customs and Border Protection shall be the country
where the product was processed or manufactured.
Australia had no objection to this proposal, and
none of the other comments addressed it. This
amendment tracks the recent amendment to the
Textile Rules.
17 Two comments agreed with the Commission
that fiber from the cashmere goat should be labeled
as wool if it does not meet the Conforming Act’s
definition of ‘‘cashmere.’’ See Joint comment and
Trumbull. Three comments agreed with the
Commission’s decision not to propose additional
deviations or tolerances for ‘‘Super’’ or ‘‘S’’
numbers used to describe very fine wool products.
See Joint comment, IWTO, and Trumbull.
18 Joint comment, IWTO, and Trumbull. Trumbull
stated that he agreed with the Joint comment on
issues relating to the use of the term ‘‘super’’ to
describe wool.
19 The Joint comment also urged the Commission
to address in the Rules how one should label a wool
product where the warp yarn diameter differs from
the filler yarn diameter. It noted that many in the
wool trade average the diameters.
20 IWTO and Australia.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
B. Hang-Tag Disclosures
Three comments expressed support
for the Commission’s proposal to allow
certain hang-tags identifying a fiber
even though they do not disclose a
product’s full fiber content.21 Two of
these comments, however, questioned
or opposed a blanket requirement for
hang-tag disclosures (e.g., ‘‘See label for
the product’s full fiber content’’) for
products containing multiple fiber
types. AAFA questioned whether the
disclosure was necessary and requested
clarification on how to make the
disclosure clearly and conspicuously.
USFIA urged the Commission to
eliminate the disclosure requirement
unless there is a demonstrable danger of
deception, such as a circumstance
where a product contains only a small
amount of the fiber described in the
hang-tag.22
C. Continuing Guaranties
Two comments addressed issues
relating to continuing guaranties. AAFA
opposed the proposal to have
continuing guaranties expire after one
year unless revoked earlier. It disagreed
with the Commission’s assertion that
requiring annual renewal of continuing
guaranties would impose minimal costs
on industry. One AAFA member
estimates spending 5–8 hours on each
continuing guaranty it files. AAFA
explained that most companies file
dozens of such guaranties and many file
hundreds. As a result, AAFA argued,
the requirement may be unmanageable
for many companies. AAFA also noted
that filing guaranties is not the only
relevant cost. It stated that vendors face
a ‘‘clerical nightmare of keeping up with
the guaranties’’ and buyers have
difficulty obtaining guaranties from the
Commission in a timely fashion. None
of the comments expressed support for
amending the Rules to have continuing
guaranties expire after one year.
Another comment opposed the
automatic incorporation of a recent
amendment to the Textile Rules
replacing the requirement that
guarantors sign continuing guaranties
under penalty of perjury with a
certification requirement.23 The Wool
Rules reference the amended provision
of the Textile Rules, thereby
incorporating the change to the Textile
Rules without further action by the
21 AAFA, IWTO, and USFIA. Also, Australia
advised that it has no concerns about the hang-tag
proposal.
22 USFIA noted that, because fiber suppliers may
not know the product’s fiber content, they will have
to include the disclosure on all hang-tags, which
could mislead consumers if the fiber described in
the hang-tag is the only fiber type.
23 Casale.
E:\FR\FM\04JNR1.SGM
04JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Commission. Although the comment
favored the new certification
requirement, it opposed dropping the
signing under penalty of perjury
requirement because doing so would
dilute confidence in guaranties. The
comment argued that the certification
would not be as reliable or as well
understood as signing under penalty of
perjury, and that by its own terms it
does not apply to the initial product
submission. None of the other
comments addressed these issues.
III. Amendments
The record supports modifying and
clarifying the Rules as the Commission
proposed, except for the proposal that
continuing guaranties expire after one
year unless revoked earlier.24 In
particular, the Wool Rules should reflect
the Wool Act as amended in 2006 by the
Conforming Act and align with the
recently amended Textile Rules.25
Indeed, the Commission lacks the
discretion not to amend the Rules to
implement the Conforming Act.26
Accordingly, the Commission amends
the Rules regarding fiber content
disclosures, country-of-origin
disclosures, and wool guaranties.27
A. Fiber Content Disclosures
The Commission amends the Rules’
fiber content disclosure provisions to:
(1) Incorporate the Wool Act’s new
definitions for cashmere and very fine
wools; (2) clarify § 300.20’s descriptions
of products containing virgin or new
wool; and (3) revise §§ 300.8(d) and
300.24(b) to allow certain hang-tags
disclosing fiber trademarks and
performance even if they do not disclose
the product’s full fiber content.
1. Cashmere and Wool Products Made
From Very Fine Wool
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
The Conforming Act amended the
Wool Act by defining ‘‘cashmere’’ and
wool products composed of very fine
wool (e.g., ‘‘super 80s’’). The following
24 The Commission also amends § 300.3(a)(1) of
the Rules to correct a citation to the Wool Act.
25 78 FR 29263 (May 20, 2013).
26 15 U.S.C. 68d(a).
27 The Commission recently amended several
provisions of the Textile Rules that the Wool Rules
incorporate. For example, § 300.8(b) of the Wool
Rules incorporates by reference the generic names
and definitions for manufactured fibers in § 303.7
of the Textile Rules, including the names and
definitions in the International Organization for
Standardization (‘‘ISO’’) standard titled ‘‘Textiles—
Man-made fibres—Generic names,’’ 2076:1999(E).
The ISO standard has been updated and is now
identified as ISO 2076: 2010(E). The Commission
amended § 303.7 to incorporate the revised ISO
standard. See 79 FR 18766 (Apr. 4, 2014). AAFA,
IWTO, and Australia favored incorporation of the
revised ISO standard. None of the comments
opposed it.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:52 Jun 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
amendments conform the Wool Rules to
the amended Wool Act.
a. Cashmere
The Wool Act now provides that a
product ‘‘stamped, tagged, labeled, or
otherwise identified as cashmere’’ is
misbranded unless: (1) It is composed of
fine (dehaired) undercoat fibers from a
cashmere goat; (2) its fibers have an
average diameter of no more than 19
microns; and (3) it contains no more
than 3 percent cashmere fibers with
average diameters that exceed 30
microns.28 Accordingly, the
Commission proposed incorporating the
statutory definition of ‘‘cashmere’’ into
§ 300.19.29 The Commission adopts this
amendment.
In the NPRM, the Commission stated
that fibers from the cashmere goat
should be labeled as wool if they do not
meet the Conforming Act’s definition of
cashmere. The two comments
addressing this issue agreed with the
Commission.30
b. Very Fine Wools
The Conforming Act defined the
average diameter of fibers required
when labeling ‘‘very fine wools.’’ The
Commission proposed to add a new
§ 300.20a to incorporate these
definitions. Four commenters raised
additional issues regarding the labeling
of such wools, but the record provides
an insufficient basis for proposing
further changes to the Rules. The
Commission addresses the labeling of
very fine wool below.
(1) New § 300.20a
The Conforming Act provides that
wool products described by certain
terms (e.g., ‘‘Super 80’s’’ or ‘‘80’s,’’
‘‘Super 90’s’’ or ‘‘90’s,’’ ‘‘Super 100’s’’ or
‘‘100’s,’’ ‘‘Super 110’s’’ or ‘‘110’s,’’
‘‘Super 120’s’’ or ‘‘120’s,’’ ‘‘Super 130’s’’
or ‘‘130’s,’’ etc.) are misbranded unless
the wool fibers are of a certain average
diameter or finer. In essence, the
amendment provides that any wool
product described by one of these terms
is misbranded unless the average
diameter of the wool fiber is the number
of microns specified in the Wool Act or
finer.31
28 See 15 U.S.C. 68b(a)(6). The Act provides,
however, that the average fiber diameter may be
subject to a coefficient of variation around the mean
that shall not exceed 24 percent. Id.
29 The incorporated language appears as new
paragraph (a). The Commission also redesignates
the existing paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (b)
and (c), respectively, with a conforming change to
newly redesignated paragraph (b) to cross-reference
the definition of ‘‘cashmere’’ in new paragraph (a).
30 Joint comment and Trumbull.
31 See 15 U.S.C. 68b(a)(5)(A)–(R).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32159
To make the Rules consistent with the
amended Wool Act, the Commission
adds a new § 300.20a, entitled ‘‘Labeling
of very fine wool.’’ This section
provides that wool products described
by certain terms are misbranded unless
the wool fibers comport with the
amended Wool Act.
(2) Standards and Deviations
The Conforming Act provides that,
‘‘in each such case, the average fiber
diameter of such wool product may be
subject to such standards or deviations
as adopted by regulation by the
Commission.’’ 32 Based on the
comments filed in response to the
NPRM, the Commission did not propose
any additional standards or deviations.
The Joint comment and Trumbull
agreed with this decision. None of the
comments disagreed.
(3) Limiting the Use of ‘‘Super’’ and ‘‘S’’
Numbers
The Commission adopts the proposed
amendments implementing the
Conforming Act with regard to the use
of ‘‘Super’’ and ‘‘S’’ numbers.33 The
Commission declines the comments’
request to propose limits on the use of
‘‘Super’’ and ‘‘S’’ numbers to describe
non-wool products and wool blends for
several reasons. The Wool Act and
Rules apply to products containing wool
or purporting to contain wool.
Therefore, if the use of a ‘‘Super’’ or ‘‘S’’
number describing a product falsely
implies that the product contains wool,
the Act and Rules apply and the use of
the ‘‘Super’’ or ‘‘S’’ numbers on the
label would violate them. The
Commission lacks sufficient
information, however, to conclude that
the mere use of a ‘‘Super’’ or ‘‘S’’
number implies that a product contains
wool. Moreover, even if the Wool Act
and Rules do not apply to a suit or other
garment described using ‘‘Super’’ or ‘‘S’’
numbers, the Textile Act and Rules
would still require disclosure of the
product’s fiber content. Thus a
consumer could check the label to
determine the actual fiber content. The
record does not suggest that disclosure
of the product’s fiber content fails to
correct potential deception regarding
use of ‘‘Super’’ or ‘‘S’’ numbers. Thus
amendments to the Wool Rules are not
warranted.
The Commission also lacks authority
to prohibit the use of ‘‘Super’’ or ‘‘S’’
numbers where the wool fiber of a wool
32 See
15 U.S.C. 68b(a)(5).
Commission also declines to conduct a
workshop or a consumer perception study of
‘‘Super’’ and ‘‘S’’ numbers at this time. The
Commission currently lacks sufficient evidence of
deception to justify such a workshop or study.
33 The
E:\FR\FM\04JNR1.SGM
04JNR1
32160
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
blend product meets the ‘‘Super’’ or ‘‘S’’
criteria in the Act. As the Commission
explained in the NPRM, the Conforming
Act precisely defines the various
categories of superfine wool fibers
without distinguishing between pure
wool fabrics and fabrics containing wool
and other fibers. For example, the Act
allows marketers to describe a wool
product, which may include fibers other
than wool, as ‘‘Super 80’s’’ or ‘‘80’s’’
where the diameter of the wool fiber
averages 19.75 microns or finer,
regardless of whether the fabric is 100%
wool.
Of course, the use of ‘‘Super’’ or ‘‘S’’
numbers to deceptively describe the
fiber content of a wool product could
result in ‘‘misbranding’’ under the Wool
Act, which provides that a wool product
is misbranded if it is deceptively
stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise
identified.34 The Rules further require
that non-required information on labels,
including ‘‘Super’’ or ‘‘S’’ numbers to
indicate the fineness of the wool fibers
in the wool product, ‘‘shall not
minimize, detract from, or conflict with
required information and shall not be
false, deceptive, or misleading.’’ 35
However, none of the commenters
provided evidence that would support
limiting the use of ‘‘Super’’ or ‘‘S’’
numbers or to require disclosures to
prevent consumer deception.
In addition, the Commission declines
to amend the Rules to address wool
fibers of differing fineness used in the
warp and filling yarns of a fabric.36 The
Joint comment urged the Commission to
address how to determine ‘‘Super’’ or
‘‘S’’ numbers where the diameter of the
warp yarns differ from the diameter of
the filling yarns, and noted that many
industry members average the diameter
of the fibers to determine the fineness.
The record does not include any
evidence regarding consumer
understanding of ‘‘Super’’ or ‘‘S’’
numbers in this context. Moreover, the
Commission does not currently have
reason to believe that the practice of
averaging the diameter of warp and
filling yarns to determine overall
fineness is deceptive. Of course, the
Commission could challenge the
practice if it obtains evidence of
deception in a particular case.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
2. Clarification of § 300.20 on ‘‘Virgin’’
or ‘‘New’’ Wool
The Commission proposed amending
§ 300.20 so that it states that the terms
34 15
U.S.C. 68b(a)(1).
CFR 300.10(b).
36 In fabric, the warp yarns run vertically or
lengthwise, while the weft or filling yarns run
horizontally or crosswise.
35 16
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:52 Jun 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
‘‘virgin’’ or ‘‘new’’ shall not be used
when the product, fiber or part so
described is not composed wholly of
new or virgin fiber. None of the
comments opposed this proposal, which
involves a non-substantive clarification
of the provision. The Commission
recently adopted a similar amendment
to the Textile Rules.37 Accordingly, the
Commission adopts this amendment
without change for the reasons
explained in the NPRM.
3. Disclosure Requirements Applicable
To Hang-Tags
The Commission amends §§ 300.8(d)
and 300.24(b) as proposed to allow
certain hang-tags with fiber trademarks
and performance information, even if
they do not disclose the product’s full
fiber content. The Commission recently
adopted a similar amendment to the
Textile Rules.38 IWTO supported the
proposal and Australia had no concerns.
AAFA and USFIA generally supported
the proposal, but expressed concerns.
None of the remaining four comments
addressed the proposal.
AAFA and USFIA raised concerns
about the proposed requirement that
hang-tags for products with multiple
fiber types disclose clearly and
conspicuously that the hang-tag does
not provide the product’s full fiber
content. AAFA questioned whether the
disclosure is necessary, and sought
clarification regarding how companies
should make the disclosure clearly and
conspicuously. USFIA explained that,
in practice, all hang-tags will have to
make the disclosure because suppliers
will not know in advance whether the
product contains other fibers. It
suggested requiring the disclosure only
where there is a demonstrable danger of
deception, such as a circumstance
where the product contains only a small
amount of the fiber described in the
hang-tag.
Accordingly, the Commission adopts
the amendment to allow hang-tags that
do not disclose full fiber content, which
was unopposed, for two reasons. First,
requiring full fiber percentages on hangtags is redundant because the Rules
mandate this information on the
required textile label. Second, the
requirement likely impedes the flow of
truthful information to consumers
because it effectively prevents suppliers
and other marketers from identifying
fibers and describing their performance
on a hang-tag unless they know the full
fiber content of the finished product.
Although AAFA and USFIA
questioned the need for a disclosure on
37 See
79 FR 18766 (Apr. 4, 2014).
38 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
at least some hang-tags that do not
disclose full fiber content, neither
submitted any evidence regarding how
consumers would interpret such hangtags. The Commission continues to
believe that, without the disclosure,
some consumers would mistakenly
assume that the hang-tag discloses full
fiber content. Such consumers would
have no reason to search for and
examine the label disclosing full fiber
content if the hang-tag leads them to
believe that the product does not
contain fibers other than those touted on
the hang-tag. The Commission plans to
provide informal guidance on how to
make the disclosure clearly and
conspicuously through its business
education materials and by providing
staff advice.
B. Additional Proposed Amendments To
Align Wool and Textile Rules
The Commission amends the Wool
Rules as proposed to conform the
country of origin disclosures and
provisions discussing ‘‘invoice or other
paper’’ with the recently amended
Textile Rules. The Commission also
declines to adopt its proposed
amendment regarding the duration of
continuing guaranties, which will
conform the Wool Rules to the recently
amended Textile Rules, because the
Commission lacks sufficient evidence to
conclude that any benefits of the
amendment would exceed the costs.
Again, aligning the two Rules will serve
the public interest by reducing
compliance burdens and making fiber
content disclosures more consistent.
1. Country-of-Origin Disclosures
To promote consistency with the
Textile Rules, the Commission proposed
to update § 300.25(d) to state that an
imported product’s country of origin as
determined under the laws and
regulations enforced by U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (‘‘Customs’’) shall
be the country where the product was
processed or manufactured. The
Commission also proposed to update
§ 300.25(f) by removing the outdated
reference to the Treasury Department
and instead referencing any Tariff Act
and the regulations promulgated
thereunder.
AAFA and USFIA supported this
proposal, and Australia had no
objection to it. None of the four
remaining comments addressed it.
Accordingly, the Commission adopts
this amendment for the reasons
explained in the NPRM.
2. Invoice or Other Paper
To conform the Wool Rules to the
amended Textile Rules, the Commission
E:\FR\FM\04JNR1.SGM
04JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
adopts its proposed revisions of the
definition of ‘‘invoice or other paper’’
and the guaranty provisions that
reference this term—300.1(j), 300.32(a),
and 300.33(c). Furthermore, the
Commission’s amendments to the
Textile Rules pertaining to guaranties
and documents transmitted and
preserved electronically affect the Wool
Rules because the Wool Rules
incorporate those sections by reference.
The Commission proposed amending
the definition of ‘‘invoice or other
paper’’ in Wool Rules § 300.1(j) by
changing it to ‘‘invoice or other
document.’’ The Commission also
proposed amending §§ 300.32(a) and
300.33(c), which relate to guaranties, to
replace ‘‘invoice or other paper’’ with
‘‘invoice or other document’’ where
these terms appear. These amendments
clarify the fact that the Rules apply to
electronic as well as paper documents.
Finally, § 300.1(j), which defines the
above terms, currently incorporates the
definition in § 303.1(h) of the Textile
Rules and would continue to do so. The
Commission recently amended the
definition in Textile Rules § 303.1(h) to
clarify that invoices and other
documents may be preserved
electronically. None of the comments
addressed these issues. Accordingly, the
Commission adopts these amendments
for the reasons explained in the NPRM.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
3. Continuing Guaranties
As in the final Textile Rules, the
Commission declines to amend the
duration of continuing guaranties in
§ 300.33(a)(3).39 Furthermore, although
the Commission is not amending the
Wool Rules to revise the continuing
guaranty form, it recently amended the
Textile Rules form (FTC Form 31–A)
referenced by § 300.33 of the Wool
Rules by replacing the requirement that
filers sign under penalty of perjury with
a certification requirement. Because the
form set forth in the Textile Rules is also
used for Wool guaranties, this
amendment to the Textile Rules
automatically revised the Wool Rules
continuing guaranty form by
incorporation.
The Commission proposed amending
§ 300.33(a)(3) to provide that continuing
guaranties remain in effect for one year
unless revoked earlier.40 AAFA strongly
39 See 79 FR 18766 at 18768–18769 (Apr. 4,
2014). In addition, § 300.33(b) states that the
continuing guaranty form is found in § 303.38(b) of
the Textile Rules.
40 The Wool Act provides that a business can
avoid liability for selling a misbranded wool
product if it in good faith receives a guaranty from
a domestic supplier that the product is not
misbranded. 15 U.S.C. 68g. One form of such
guaranty is a continuing guaranty. These guaranties
are set forth in a form filed with the Commission
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:52 Jun 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
opposed this proposal. None of the
other comments addressed it.
Specifically, AAFA disputed the
Commission’s assertion that requiring
annual renewal of continuing guaranties
would impose minimal costs on
industry. One AAFA member company
reported spending five to eight hours on
each continuing guaranty that it files.
AAFA explained that most companies
file dozens of continuing guaranties and
many file hundreds. As a result, AAFA
argued, the requirement may be
unmanageable for many companies.
AAFA also noted that filing guaranties
is not the only relevant cost. It stated
that vendors face a ‘‘clerical nightmare
of keeping up with the guaranties,’’ and
buyers have difficulty obtaining
guaranties from the Commission in a
timely fashion.41
As noted above, the Commission
decided not to adopt a similar
amendment to the Textile Rules. As was
the case for the Textile Rules, the
Commission lacks sufficient evidence to
conclude that annual renewal would
increase the reliability of continuing
guaranties. Assuming, arguendo, that
the requirement would increase the
reliability of continuing guaranties, the
Commission lacks sufficient evidence to
conclude that the benefits of imposing
this requirement would exceed the
costs. Accordingly, the Commission has
decided not to adopt the proposed
amendment.
The Commission amended § 303.38(b)
of the Textile Rules to modify the
continuing guaranty form by replacing
the requirement that sellers sign under
penalty of perjury with a requirement
that they certify that they will actively
monitor and ensure compliance with
the applicable Act and Rules (the
Textile, Wool, and/or Fur Acts).42
Because § 300.33(b) of the Wool Rules
stating that the supplier guarantees that none of the
wool products it handles are misbranded under the
Wool Act and Rules. Like § 303.38(a)(2) of the
Textile Rules, § 300.33(a)(3) of the Wool Rules
provides that guaranties filed with the Commission
continue in effect until revoked.
41 The Commission strives to process such
requests promptly. Unfortunately, the Commission
cannot respond to this complaint because AAFA
did not identify the guaranties at issue or the dates
that its members requested assistance.
42 The certification provides: ‘‘Under the Wool
Products Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 68–68j): The
company named above, which manufactures,
markets, or handles wool products: (1) Guarantees
that any wool product it sells, ships, or delivers will
not be misbranded; (2) acknowledges that
furnishing a false guaranty is an unlawful unfair
and deceptive act or practice pursuant to the
Federal Trade Commission Act; and (3) certifies
that it will actively monitor and ensure compliance
with the Wool Products Labeling Act and rules and
regulations issued under the Act during the
duration of the guaranty.’’ See 79 FR 18766 at 18773
(Apr. 4, 2014).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32161
incorporates this form, this amendment
effectively revised the Wool Rules.43
One comment addressed this
certification requirement. It supported
the requirement, but opposed dropping
the requirement that guarantors sign
under penalty of perjury.44 It argued
that doing so would dilute confidence
in guaranties. It stated that the
certification would not be as reliable or
as well understood as signing under
penalty of perjury, and that by its own
terms it does not apply to the initial
product submission. The Commission
disagrees with the statement that the
certification does not apply to an initial
product submission. The certification
states that the guarantor ‘‘guarantees
that any wool product it sells, ships, or
delivers will not be misbranded.’’ Any
wool product means all wool products,
regardless of the date of sale or
shipment.
Nonetheless, the Commission
continues to share the commenter’s
concern about the reliability of
continuing guaranties once guarantors
no longer sign them under penalty of
perjury. If the Commission obtains
evidence that continuing guaranties
have become less reliable, it will revisit
this issue and consider amending the
Rules’ continuing guaranty provisions
accordingly.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(‘‘RFA’’) 45 requires that the Commission
conduct an initial and final analysis of
the anticipated economic impact of the
amendments on small entities. Section
605 of the RFA 46 provides that such an
analysis is not required if the agency
head certifies that the regulatory action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
The Commission believes that the
amendments will not have a significant
economic impact upon small entities
that manufacture or import wool
products, although they may affect a
substantial number of small businesses.
The amendments conform the Rules to
the Wool Act as amended by the
Conforming Act, clarify the Rules,
provide more options for disclosing
fiber trademarks and performance
information on hang-tags, and update
the Rules’ guaranty provisions.
Therefore, the Commission certifies that
amending the Rules will not have a
43 Id. The Commission also revised the form to
include similar certifications for products subject to
the Textile Act and the Fur Products Labeling Act.
15 U.S.C. 69–69k.
44 Casale.
45 5 U.S.C. 601–612
46 5 U.S.C. 605.
E:\FR\FM\04JNR1.SGM
04JNR1
32162
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small businesses.
The Commission has nonetheless
determined that it is appropriate to
publish the following final regulatory
flexibility analysis in order to ensure
that the impact of the Rules on small
entities is fully addressed.
A. Need for and Objective of the
Amendments
The objective of the amendments is to
conform the Rules to the Wool Act as
amended by the Conforming Act; clarify
the Rules; allow manufacturers and
importers to disclose fiber trademarks
and information about fiber
performance on certain hang-tags
affixed to wool products without
including the product’s full fiber
content information on the hang-tag;
and clarify and update the Rules’
guaranty provisions. The Wool Act
authorizes the Commission to
implement its requirements through the
issuance of rules.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Significant Issues Raised in Public
Comments
In the NPRM’s Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, the Commission
concluded that the proposed
amendments would not have a
significant or disproportionate
economic impact upon small entities
that manufacture or import wool
products, including their compliance
costs. None of the comments disputed
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, with the exception of one
comment from AAFA objecting to the
proposal to amend § 300.33(a)(3) to
provide that continuing guaranties are
effective for one year unless revoked
earlier. AAFA questioned the
Commission’s assertion that the
proposed amendment would enhance
the reliability of guaranties and
contended that it would impose
substantial unnecessary costs on
industry. For the reasons explained
above, the Commission has decided not
to adopt this proposal. The Commission
did not receive any comments from the
Small Business Administration.
C. Small Entities to Which the
Amendments Will Apply
The Rules apply to various segments
of the wool product industry, including
manufacturers and wholesalers of wool
products. Under the Small Business
Size Standards issued by the Small
Business Administration, wool apparel
manufacturers qualify as small
businesses if they have 500 or fewer
employees. Clothing wholesalers qualify
as small businesses if they have 100 or
fewer employees.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:52 Jun 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
The Commission’s staff has estimated
that approximately 8,000 wool product
manufacturers and importers are
covered by the Rules’ disclosure
requirements.47 A substantial number of
these entities likely qualify as small
businesses. The Commission estimates
that the amendments will not have a
significant impact on small businesses
because they have an existing obligation
to comply with statutory labeling
requirements, and the amendments
provide covered entities with additional
labeling options without imposing new
burdens or additional costs. For
example, businesses that prefer not to
affix a hang-tag disclosing a fiber
trademark without disclosing the
product’s full fiber content need not do
so. The change from ‘‘invoice or other
paper’’ to ‘‘invoice or other document’’
makes the affected sections of the Rules
format-neutral and gives covered
entities, including small businesses,
more flexibility in terms of compliance.
D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping,
and Other Compliance Requirements,
Including Classes of Covered Small
Entities and Professional Skills Needed
To Comply
As noted earlier, the amendments
conform the Rules to the Wool Act as
amended by the Conforming Act, clarify
the Rules, provide more options for
disclosing fiber trademarks and
performance information on hang-tags,
and update the Rules’ guaranty
provisions. They do not impose any
new reporting, recordkeeping, or
disclosure requirements. The small
entities potentially covered by the
amendments will include all such
entities subject to the Rules. The
professional skills necessary for
compliance with the Rules as modified
by the amendments would include
office and administrative support
supervisors to determine label content
and clerical personnel to draft and
obtain labels and keep records.
E. Significant Alternatives to the
Amendments
The Commission has not proposed
any specific small entity exemption or
other significant alternatives, as the
amendments simply conform the Rules
to the Wool Act as amended by the
Conforming Act; clarify the Rules; allow
manufacturers and importers to disclose
fiber trademarks and information about
fiber performance on certain hang-tags
affixed to wool products without
47 Federal Trade Commission: Agency
Information Collection Activities; Proposed
Collection; Comment Request, 76 FR 77230 (Dec.
12, 2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
including the product’s full fiber
content information on the hang-tag;
and clarify and update the Rules’
guaranty provisions. The amendment
relating to hang-tags will allow greater
compliance flexibility, and might
reduce the cost of providing consumers
with truthful, non-deceptive
information about fiber content and
performance. Under these limited
circumstances, the Commission does
not believe a special exemption for
small entities or significant compliance
alternatives are necessary or appropriate
to minimize the compliance burden, if
any, on small entities while achieving
the intended purposes of the
amendments.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Rules contain various ‘‘collection
of information’’ (e.g., disclosure and
recordkeeping) requirements for which
the Commission has obtained OMB
clearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’).48 As discussed
above, the amendments: (a) Conform the
Rules to the Wool Act as amended by
the Conforming Act by revising § 300.19
and adding § 300.20a; (b) clarify the
Rules, including §§ 300.1(j), 300.20,
300.25(d) and (f), 300.32(a), and
300.33(c); and (c) amend §§ 300.8(d) and
300.24(b) to allow manufacturers and
importers to disclose fiber generic
names and trademarks and information
about fiber performance on certain
hang-tags affixed to wool products
without including the product’s full
fiber content information on the hangtag.
These amendments do not impose any
additional collection of information
requirements. For example, amending
the Rules to conform to the Wool Act,
as amended by the Conforming Act,
would not impose any new
requirements because businesses
already must comply with the Wool Act.
Businesses that prefer not to affix a
hang-tag disclosing a fiber name or
trademark without disclosing the
product’s full fiber content need not do
so.
Rule Language
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 300
Labeling, Trade practices, Wool
Products Labeling Act.
For the reasons set forth above, the
Commission amends 16 CFR Part 300 as
follows:
48 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. On March 26, 2012, OMB
granted clearance through March 31, 2015, for these
requirements and the associated PRA burden
estimates. The OMB control number is 3084–0100.
E:\FR\FM\04JNR1.SGM
04JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
PART 300—RULES AND
REGULATIONS UNDER THE WOOL
PRODUCTS LABELING ACT OF 1939
1. Revise the authority citation for Part
300 to read as follows:
■
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 68–68j.
2. Amend § 300.1 by revising
paragraphs (a) and (j) to read as follows:
■
§ 300.1
Terms defined.
(a) The term Act means the Wool
Products Labeling Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C.
68 et seq., as amended by Public Law
96–242, 94 Stat. 344, and Public Law
109–428, 120 Stat. 2913.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) The terms invoice and invoice or
other document have the meaning set
forth in § 303.1(h) of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 300.3 by revising
paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
§ 300.3
Required label information.
(a) * * *
(1) The fiber content of the product
specified in section 4(a)(2)(A) of the Act.
The generic names and percentages by
weight of the constituent fibers present
in the wool product, exclusive of
permissive ornamentation, shall appear
on such label with any percentage of
fiber or fibers designated as ‘‘other
fiber’’ or ‘‘other fibers’’ as provided by
section 4(a)(2)(A)(4) of the Act
appearing last.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 300.8 by revising
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 300.8 Use of fiber trademark and generic
names.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Where a generic name or a fiber
trademark is used on any label, whether
required or non-required, a full fiber
content disclosure with percentages
shall be made in accordance with the
Act and regulations. Where a generic
name or a fiber trademark is used on
any hang-tag attached to a wool product
that has a label providing required
information and the hang-tag provides
non-required information, such as a
hang-tag stating only a generic fiber
name or trademark or providing
information about a particular fiber’s
characteristics, the hang-tag need not
provide a full fiber content disclosure;
however, if the wool product contains
any fiber other than the fiber identified
by the generic fiber name or trademark,
the hang-tag must disclose clearly and
conspicuously that it does not provide
the product’s full fiber content; for
example:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:52 Jun 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
‘‘This tag does not disclose the
product’s full fiber content.’’ or
‘‘See label for the product’s full fiber
content.’’
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. Revise § 300.19 to read as follows:
§ 300.19 Use of terms ‘‘mohair’’ and
‘‘cashmere.’’
(a)(1) In setting forth the required
fiber content of a wool product, the term
‘‘cashmere’’ may be used for such fiber
content only if:
(i) Such fiber consists of the fine
(dehaired) undercoat fibers produced by
a cashmere goat (capra hircus laniger);
(ii) The average diameter of such
cashmere fiber does not exceed 19
microns; and
(iii) The cashmere fibers in such wool
product contain no more than 3 percent
(by weight) of cashmere fibers with
average diameters that exceed 30
microns.
(2) The average fiber diameter may be
subject to a coefficient of variation
around the mean that shall not exceed
24 percent.
(b) In setting forth the required fiber
content of a product containing hair of
the Angora goat known as mohair or
containing cashmere (as defined in
paragraph (a) of this section), the term
‘‘mohair’’ or ‘‘cashmere,’’ respectively,
may be used for such fiber in lieu of the
word ‘‘wool,’’ provided the respective
percentage of each such fiber designated
as ‘‘mohair’’ or ‘‘cashmere’’ is given, and
provided further that such term
‘‘mohair’’ or ‘‘cashmere’’ where used is
qualified by the word ‘‘recycled’’ when
the fiber referred to is ‘‘recycled wool’’
as defined in the Act. The following are
examples of fiber content designations
permitted under this section:
50% mohair-50% wool
60% recycled mohair-40% cashmere
60% cotton-40% recycled cashmere
(c) Where an election is made to use
the term ‘‘mohair’’ or ‘‘cashmere’’ in
lieu of the term ‘‘wool’’ as permitted by
this section, the appropriate designation
of ‘‘mohair’’ or ‘‘cashmere’’ shall be
used at any time reference is made to
such fiber in either required or
nonrequired information. The term
‘‘mohair’’ or ‘‘cashmere’’ or any words,
coined words, symbols or depictions
connoting or implying the presence of
such fibers shall not be used in nonrequired information on the required
label or on any secondary or auxiliary
label attached to the wool product if the
term ‘‘mohair’’ or ‘‘cashmere,’’ as the
case may be, does not appear in the
required fiber content disclosure.
■ 6. Revise § 300.20 to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
§ 300.20
‘‘new.’’
32163
Use of the terms ‘‘virgin’’ or
The terms ‘‘virgin’’ or ‘‘new’’ as
descriptive of a wool product, or any
fiber or part thereof, shall not be used
when the product, fiber or part so
described is not composed wholly of
new or virgin fiber which has never
been reclaimed from any spun, woven,
knitted, felted, braided, bonded, or
otherwise manufactured or used
product.
■ 7. Add § 300.20a to read as follows:
§ 300.20a
Labeling of very fine wool.
A wool product stamped, tagged,
labeled, or otherwise identified in the
manner described below is mislabeled:
(a) ‘‘Super 80’s’’ or ‘‘80’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 19.75
microns or finer;
(b) ‘‘Super 90’s’’ or ‘‘90’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 19.25
microns or finer;
(c) ‘‘Super 100’s’’ or ‘‘100’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 18.75
microns or finer;
(d) ‘‘Super 110’s’’ or ‘‘110’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 18.25
microns or finer;
(e) ‘‘Super 120’s’’ or ‘‘120’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 17.75
microns or finer;
(f) ‘‘Super 130’s’’ or ‘‘130’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 17.25
microns or finer;
(g) ‘‘Super 140’s’’ or ‘‘140’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 16.75
microns or finer;
(h) ‘‘Super 150’s’’ or ‘‘150’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 16.25
microns or finer;
(i) ‘‘Super 160’s’’ or ‘‘160’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 15.75
microns or finer;
(j) ‘‘Super 170’s’’ or ‘‘170’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 15.25
microns or finer;
(k) ‘‘Super 180’s’’ or ‘‘180’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 14.75
microns or finer;
(l) ‘‘Super 190’s’’ or ‘‘190’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 14.25
microns or finer;
(m) ‘‘Super 200’s’’ or ‘‘200’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 13.75
microns or finer;
E:\FR\FM\04JNR1.SGM
04JNR1
32164
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 107 / Wednesday, June 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
(n) ‘‘Super 210’s’’ or ‘‘210’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 13.25
microns or finer;
(o) ‘‘Super 220’s’’ or ‘‘220’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 12.75
microns or finer;
(p) ‘‘Super 230’s’’ or ‘‘230’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 12.25
microns or finer;
(q) ‘‘Super 240’s’’ or ‘‘240’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 11.75
microns or finer; and
(r) ‘‘Super 250’s’’ or ‘‘250’s,’’ if the
average diameter of wool fiber of such
wool product does not average 11.25
microns or finer.
■ 8. Amend § 300.24 by revising
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 300.24 Representations as to fiber
content.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Where a word, coined word,
symbol, or depiction which connotes or
implies the presence of a fiber is used
on any label, whether required or nonrequired, a full fiber content disclosure
with percentages shall be made on such
label in accordance with the Act and
regulations. Where a word, coined
word, symbol, or depiction which
connotes or implies the presence of a
fiber is used on any hang-tag attached to
a wool product that has a label
providing required information and the
hang-tag provides non-required
information, such as a hang-tag
providing information about a particular
fiber’s characteristics, the hang-tag need
not provide a full fiber content
disclosure; however, if the wool product
contains any fiber other than the fiber
identified on the hang-tag, the hang-tag
must disclose clearly and conspicuously
that it does not provide the product’s
full fiber content; for example:
‘‘This tag does not disclose the
product’s full fiber content.’’ or
‘‘See label for the product’s full fiber
content.’’
■ 9. Amend § 300.25 by revising
paragraphs (d) and (f) to read as follows:
§ 300.25 Country where wool products are
processed or manufactured.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The country of origin of an
imported wool product as determined
under the laws and regulations enforced
by United States Customs and Border
Protection shall be considered to be the
country where such wool product was
processed or manufactured.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Nothing in this rule shall be
construed as limiting in any way the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:52 Jun 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
information required to be disclosed on
labels under the provisions of any Tariff
Act of the United States or regulations
promulgated thereunder.
■
10. Revise § 300.32 to read as follows:
§ 300.32
Form of separate guaranty.
(a) The following are suggested forms
of separate guaranties under section 9 of
the Act which may be used by a
guarantor residing in the United States
on or as part of an invoice or other
document relating to the marketing or
handling of any wool products listed
and designated therein and showing the
date of such invoice or other document
and the signature and address of the
guarantor:
(1) General form.
‘‘We guarantee that the wool products
specified herein are not misbranded
under the provisions of the Wool
Products Labeling Act and rules and
regulations thereunder.’’
(2) Guaranty based on guaranty.
‘‘Based upon a guaranty received, we
guarantee that the wool products
specified herein are not misbranded
under the provisions of the Wool
Products Labeling Act and rules and
regulations thereunder.’’
Note to paragraph (a): The printed
name and address on the invoice or
other document will suffice to meet the
signature and address requirements.
(b) The mere disclosure of required
information including the fiber content
of wool products on a label or on an
invoice or other document relating to its
marketing or handling shall not be
considered a form of separate guaranty.
11. Amend § 300.33 by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 300.33 Continuing guaranty filed with
Federal Trade Commission.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Any person who has a continuing
guaranty on file with the Commission
may, during the effective dates of the
guaranty, give notice of such fact by
setting forth on the invoice or other
document covering the marketing or
handling of the product guaranteed the
following:
Continuing Guaranty under the Wool
Products Labeling Act filed with the
Federal Trade Commission.
*
*
*
*
*
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–12736 Filed 6–3–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[Docket Number USCG–2014–0097]
RIN 1625–AA08
Special Local Regulations; ODBA
Draggin’ on the Waccamaw, Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SC
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is
establishing a special local regulation on
the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in
Bucksport, South Carolina during the
Outboard Drag Boat Association (ODBA)
Draggin’ on the Waccamaw, a series of
high-speed boat races. The event will
take place on Saturday, June 21, 2014
and Sunday, June 22, 2014.
Approximately 50 high-speed race boats
are anticipated to participate in the
races. This special local regulation is
necessary to provide for the safety of life
and property on navigable waters of the
United States during the event. This
special local regulation will temporarily
restrict vessel traffic in a portion of the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Persons
and vessels that are not participating in
the races will be prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring
in, or remaining within the regulated
area unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Charleston or a designated
representative.
SUMMARY:
This rule is effective from 11:00
a.m. on June 21, 2014 until 8:00 p.m. on
June 22, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in
this preamble are part of docket USCG–
2014–0097. To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type the docket
number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rulemaking. You may also visit the
Docket Management Facility in Room
W12–140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Chief Warrant Officer Christopher
Ruleman, Sector Charleston Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone (843) 740–3184, email
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\04JNR1.SGM
04JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 4, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32157-32164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12736]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 300
[RIN 3084-AB29]
Rules and Regulations Under the Wool Products Labeling Act of
1939
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission amends its rules and regulations under the Wool
Products Labeling Act of 1939 (``Wool Rules'' or ``Rules'') to conform
to the requirements of the Wool Suit Fabric Labeling Fairness and
International Standards Conforming Act, which revised the labeling
requirements for cashmere and certain other wool products, and align
with the amended rules and regulations under the Textile Fiber Products
Identification Act (``Textile Rules'').
DATES: The amended Rules are effective on July 7, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert M. Frisby, Attorney, (202) 326-
2098, Federal Trade Commission, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of
Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
As part of its ongoing regulatory review program, the Commission
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Request for
Public Comment (``ANPR'') in January 2012 \1\ seeking comment on the
economic impact of, and the continuing need for, the Wool Rules. The
ANPR sought comment generally on the Rules' benefits to consumers and
burdens on businesses. It also asked about specific issues, including
how to modify the Rules to implement the Wool Suit Fabric Labeling
Fairness and International Standards Conforming Act (``Conforming
Act''),\2\ and the costs and benefits of certain provisions of the Wool
Products Labeling Act of 1939 (``Wool Act'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 77 FR 4498 (Jan. 30, 2012).
\2\ Public Law 109-428, 120 Stat. 2913.
\3\ 15 U.S.C. 68-68j.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wool Act and Rules \4\ require marketers to, among other
things, attach a label to each covered wool product disclosing: (1) The
percentages by weight of the wool, recycled wool, and other fibers
accounting for 5% or more of the product, and the aggregate of all
other fibers; (2) the maximum percentage of the total weight of the
wool product of any non-fibrous matter; (3) the name under which the
[[Page 32158]]
manufacturer or other responsible company does business or, in lieu
thereof, the registered identification number (``RN number'') of such
company; and (4) the name of the country where the wool product was
processed or manufactured.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Commission's Rules and Regulations under the Wool Products
Labeling Act, 16 CFR Part 300, which implement the Wool Act.
\5\ 15 U.S.C. 68b(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission received six comments \6\ in response to its ANPR.
Based on these comments, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (``NPRM'') proposing amendments to conform to the
requirements of the Conforming Act and to align with the proposed
amendments to the Textile Rules.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The comments are posted at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-418. The Commission also considered one comment
filed in the Textile rulemaking by Adam Varley. See https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/comment-00003-30.
\7\ 78 FR 57808 (Sept. 20, 2013). The Commission amended the
Textile Rules in March 2014. The amendments take effect on May 5,
2014. See 79 FR 18766 (Apr 4, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission received seven comments \8\ in response: a joint
comment from the Cashmere and Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute,
International Wool Textile Organization, and the National Council of
Textile Organizations; \9\ and one each from the American Apparel &
Footwear Association; \10\ the International Wool Textile Organization;
\11\ the United States Fashion Industry Association; \12\ the
Australian Government; \13\ James Francis Casale of The Detweiler
House; \14\ and David Trumbull of Agathon Associates.\15\ This Federal
Register Notice summarizes the comments, explains the amendments to the
Wool Rules, provides the analyses required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act, and sets forth the
amended Rule provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ These comments are posted at https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-507. The Commission has assigned each
comment a number appearing after the name of the commenter and the
date of submission. This notice cites comments using the last name
of the individual submitter or the name of the organization or
country, followed by the number assigned by the Commission.
\9\ Joint Comment (3).
\10\ AAFA (14).
\11\ IWTO (12).
\12\ USFIA (8).
\13\ Australia (7).
\14\ Casale (11).
\15\ Trumbull (13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary of Comments
In this section, the Commission summarizes the main points made by
the comments. Comments addressing the issue favored amending the Rules
to implement the Conforming Act but urged the Commission to limit the
use of ``Super'' and ``S'' to describe certain very fine wool products.
The comments also generally favored aligning the Rules with the amended
Textile Rules or were silent on this issue.\16\ Moreover, the comments
generally agreed with the proposed amendments relating to hang-tags,
with the exception of the proposed hang-tag disclosures. One comment
opposed the proposed annual renewal for continuing guaranties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For example, AAFA and USFIA supported the proposal to amend
the Rules to state that an imported product's country of origin as
determined under the laws and regulations enforced by U.S. Customs
and Border Protection shall be the country where the product was
processed or manufactured. Australia had no objection to this
proposal, and none of the other comments addressed it. This
amendment tracks the recent amendment to the Textile Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Very Fine Wool Products
Four comments addressed implementation of the Conforming Act by
adding the Act's definitions of very fine wool. The Conforming Act
provides that wool products described by certain terms (e.g., ``Super
80's'' or ``80's,'' ``Super 90's'' or ``90's,'' etc.) are misbranded
unless the wool fibers are a certain average diameter or finer. The
commenters urged the Commission to limit the use of ``Super'' and ``S''
numbers.\17\ Three comments urged the Commission to study how consumers
interpret ``Super'' and ``S'' numbers.\18\ The Joint comment also
argued that consumers interpret ``Super'' numbers to mean that the
garment contains wool of the corresponding diameter, and that the
Conforming Act prohibits labeling that describes suits containing no
wool as ``Super.'' \19\ IWTO stated that ``S'' numbers should not be
used to describe non-wool products. Two comments favored amending the
Rules to allow the use of the word ``Super'' to describe only pure wool
because this practice is common in the weaving industry and the use of
``Super'' to describe blends could cause confusion.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Two comments agreed with the Commission that fiber from the
cashmere goat should be labeled as wool if it does not meet the
Conforming Act's definition of ``cashmere.'' See Joint comment and
Trumbull. Three comments agreed with the Commission's decision not
to propose additional deviations or tolerances for ``Super'' or
``S'' numbers used to describe very fine wool products. See Joint
comment, IWTO, and Trumbull.
\18\ Joint comment, IWTO, and Trumbull. Trumbull stated that he
agreed with the Joint comment on issues relating to the use of the
term ``super'' to describe wool.
\19\ The Joint comment also urged the Commission to address in
the Rules how one should label a wool product where the warp yarn
diameter differs from the filler yarn diameter. It noted that many
in the wool trade average the diameters.
\20\ IWTO and Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Hang-Tag Disclosures
Three comments expressed support for the Commission's proposal to
allow certain hang-tags identifying a fiber even though they do not
disclose a product's full fiber content.\21\ Two of these comments,
however, questioned or opposed a blanket requirement for hang-tag
disclosures (e.g., ``See label for the product's full fiber content'')
for products containing multiple fiber types. AAFA questioned whether
the disclosure was necessary and requested clarification on how to make
the disclosure clearly and conspicuously. USFIA urged the Commission to
eliminate the disclosure requirement unless there is a demonstrable
danger of deception, such as a circumstance where a product contains
only a small amount of the fiber described in the hang-tag.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ AAFA, IWTO, and USFIA. Also, Australia advised that it has
no concerns about the hang-tag proposal.
\22\ USFIA noted that, because fiber suppliers may not know the
product's fiber content, they will have to include the disclosure on
all hang-tags, which could mislead consumers if the fiber described
in the hang-tag is the only fiber type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Continuing Guaranties
Two comments addressed issues relating to continuing guaranties.
AAFA opposed the proposal to have continuing guaranties expire after
one year unless revoked earlier. It disagreed with the Commission's
assertion that requiring annual renewal of continuing guaranties would
impose minimal costs on industry. One AAFA member estimates spending 5-
8 hours on each continuing guaranty it files. AAFA explained that most
companies file dozens of such guaranties and many file hundreds. As a
result, AAFA argued, the requirement may be unmanageable for many
companies. AAFA also noted that filing guaranties is not the only
relevant cost. It stated that vendors face a ``clerical nightmare of
keeping up with the guaranties'' and buyers have difficulty obtaining
guaranties from the Commission in a timely fashion. None of the
comments expressed support for amending the Rules to have continuing
guaranties expire after one year.
Another comment opposed the automatic incorporation of a recent
amendment to the Textile Rules replacing the requirement that
guarantors sign continuing guaranties under penalty of perjury with a
certification requirement.\23\ The Wool Rules reference the amended
provision of the Textile Rules, thereby incorporating the change to the
Textile Rules without further action by the
[[Page 32159]]
Commission. Although the comment favored the new certification
requirement, it opposed dropping the signing under penalty of perjury
requirement because doing so would dilute confidence in guaranties. The
comment argued that the certification would not be as reliable or as
well understood as signing under penalty of perjury, and that by its
own terms it does not apply to the initial product submission. None of
the other comments addressed these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Casale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Amendments
The record supports modifying and clarifying the Rules as the
Commission proposed, except for the proposal that continuing guaranties
expire after one year unless revoked earlier.\24\ In particular, the
Wool Rules should reflect the Wool Act as amended in 2006 by the
Conforming Act and align with the recently amended Textile Rules.\25\
Indeed, the Commission lacks the discretion not to amend the Rules to
implement the Conforming Act.\26\ Accordingly, the Commission amends
the Rules regarding fiber content disclosures, country-of-origin
disclosures, and wool guaranties.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The Commission also amends Sec. 300.3(a)(1) of the Rules
to correct a citation to the Wool Act.
\25\ 78 FR 29263 (May 20, 2013).
\26\ 15 U.S.C. 68d(a).
\27\ The Commission recently amended several provisions of the
Textile Rules that the Wool Rules incorporate. For example, Sec.
300.8(b) of the Wool Rules incorporates by reference the generic
names and definitions for manufactured fibers in Sec. 303.7 of the
Textile Rules, including the names and definitions in the
International Organization for Standardization (``ISO'') standard
titled ``Textiles--Man-made fibres--Generic names,'' 2076:1999(E).
The ISO standard has been updated and is now identified as ISO 2076:
2010(E). The Commission amended Sec. 303.7 to incorporate the
revised ISO standard. See 79 FR 18766 (Apr. 4, 2014). AAFA, IWTO,
and Australia favored incorporation of the revised ISO standard.
None of the comments opposed it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Fiber Content Disclosures
The Commission amends the Rules' fiber content disclosure
provisions to: (1) Incorporate the Wool Act's new definitions for
cashmere and very fine wools; (2) clarify Sec. 300.20's descriptions
of products containing virgin or new wool; and (3) revise Sec. Sec.
300.8(d) and 300.24(b) to allow certain hang-tags disclosing fiber
trademarks and performance even if they do not disclose the product's
full fiber content.
1. Cashmere and Wool Products Made From Very Fine Wool
The Conforming Act amended the Wool Act by defining ``cashmere''
and wool products composed of very fine wool (e.g., ``super 80s''). The
following amendments conform the Wool Rules to the amended Wool Act.
a. Cashmere
The Wool Act now provides that a product ``stamped, tagged,
labeled, or otherwise identified as cashmere'' is misbranded unless:
(1) It is composed of fine (dehaired) undercoat fibers from a cashmere
goat; (2) its fibers have an average diameter of no more than 19
microns; and (3) it contains no more than 3 percent cashmere fibers
with average diameters that exceed 30 microns.\28\ Accordingly, the
Commission proposed incorporating the statutory definition of
``cashmere'' into Sec. 300.19.\29\ The Commission adopts this
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See 15 U.S.C. 68b(a)(6). The Act provides, however, that
the average fiber diameter may be subject to a coefficient of
variation around the mean that shall not exceed 24 percent. Id.
\29\ The incorporated language appears as new paragraph (a). The
Commission also redesignates the existing paragraphs (a) and (b) as
paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively, with a conforming change to
newly redesignated paragraph (b) to cross-reference the definition
of ``cashmere'' in new paragraph (a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NPRM, the Commission stated that fibers from the cashmere
goat should be labeled as wool if they do not meet the Conforming Act's
definition of cashmere. The two comments addressing this issue agreed
with the Commission.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Joint comment and Trumbull.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Very Fine Wools
The Conforming Act defined the average diameter of fibers required
when labeling ``very fine wools.'' The Commission proposed to add a new
Sec. 300.20a to incorporate these definitions. Four commenters raised
additional issues regarding the labeling of such wools, but the record
provides an insufficient basis for proposing further changes to the
Rules. The Commission addresses the labeling of very fine wool below.
(1) New Sec. 300.20a
The Conforming Act provides that wool products described by certain
terms (e.g., ``Super 80's'' or ``80's,'' ``Super 90's'' or ``90's,''
``Super 100's'' or ``100's,'' ``Super 110's'' or ``110's,'' ``Super
120's'' or ``120's,'' ``Super 130's'' or ``130's,'' etc.) are
misbranded unless the wool fibers are of a certain average diameter or
finer. In essence, the amendment provides that any wool product
described by one of these terms is misbranded unless the average
diameter of the wool fiber is the number of microns specified in the
Wool Act or finer.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See 15 U.S.C. 68b(a)(5)(A)-(R).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To make the Rules consistent with the amended Wool Act, the
Commission adds a new Sec. 300.20a, entitled ``Labeling of very fine
wool.'' This section provides that wool products described by certain
terms are misbranded unless the wool fibers comport with the amended
Wool Act.
(2) Standards and Deviations
The Conforming Act provides that, ``in each such case, the average
fiber diameter of such wool product may be subject to such standards or
deviations as adopted by regulation by the Commission.'' \32\ Based on
the comments filed in response to the NPRM, the Commission did not
propose any additional standards or deviations. The Joint comment and
Trumbull agreed with this decision. None of the comments disagreed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See 15 U.S.C. 68b(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Limiting the Use of ``Super'' and ``S'' Numbers
The Commission adopts the proposed amendments implementing the
Conforming Act with regard to the use of ``Super'' and ``S''
numbers.\33\ The Commission declines the comments' request to propose
limits on the use of ``Super'' and ``S'' numbers to describe non-wool
products and wool blends for several reasons. The Wool Act and Rules
apply to products containing wool or purporting to contain wool.
Therefore, if the use of a ``Super'' or ``S'' number describing a
product falsely implies that the product contains wool, the Act and
Rules apply and the use of the ``Super'' or ``S'' numbers on the label
would violate them. The Commission lacks sufficient information,
however, to conclude that the mere use of a ``Super'' or ``S'' number
implies that a product contains wool. Moreover, even if the Wool Act
and Rules do not apply to a suit or other garment described using
``Super'' or ``S'' numbers, the Textile Act and Rules would still
require disclosure of the product's fiber content. Thus a consumer
could check the label to determine the actual fiber content. The record
does not suggest that disclosure of the product's fiber content fails
to correct potential deception regarding use of ``Super'' or ``S''
numbers. Thus amendments to the Wool Rules are not warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ The Commission also declines to conduct a workshop or a
consumer perception study of ``Super'' and ``S'' numbers at this
time. The Commission currently lacks sufficient evidence of
deception to justify such a workshop or study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also lacks authority to prohibit the use of
``Super'' or ``S'' numbers where the wool fiber of a wool
[[Page 32160]]
blend product meets the ``Super'' or ``S'' criteria in the Act. As the
Commission explained in the NPRM, the Conforming Act precisely defines
the various categories of superfine wool fibers without distinguishing
between pure wool fabrics and fabrics containing wool and other fibers.
For example, the Act allows marketers to describe a wool product, which
may include fibers other than wool, as ``Super 80's'' or ``80's'' where
the diameter of the wool fiber averages 19.75 microns or finer,
regardless of whether the fabric is 100% wool.
Of course, the use of ``Super'' or ``S'' numbers to deceptively
describe the fiber content of a wool product could result in
``misbranding'' under the Wool Act, which provides that a wool product
is misbranded if it is deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, or
otherwise identified.\34\ The Rules further require that non-required
information on labels, including ``Super'' or ``S'' numbers to indicate
the fineness of the wool fibers in the wool product, ``shall not
minimize, detract from, or conflict with required information and shall
not be false, deceptive, or misleading.'' \35\ However, none of the
commenters provided evidence that would support limiting the use of
``Super'' or ``S'' numbers or to require disclosures to prevent
consumer deception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 15 U.S.C. 68b(a)(1).
\35\ 16 CFR 300.10(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Commission declines to amend the Rules to address
wool fibers of differing fineness used in the warp and filling yarns of
a fabric.\36\ The Joint comment urged the Commission to address how to
determine ``Super'' or ``S'' numbers where the diameter of the warp
yarns differ from the diameter of the filling yarns, and noted that
many industry members average the diameter of the fibers to determine
the fineness. The record does not include any evidence regarding
consumer understanding of ``Super'' or ``S'' numbers in this context.
Moreover, the Commission does not currently have reason to believe that
the practice of averaging the diameter of warp and filling yarns to
determine overall fineness is deceptive. Of course, the Commission
could challenge the practice if it obtains evidence of deception in a
particular case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ In fabric, the warp yarns run vertically or lengthwise,
while the weft or filling yarns run horizontally or crosswise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Clarification of Sec. 300.20 on ``Virgin'' or ``New'' Wool
The Commission proposed amending Sec. 300.20 so that it states
that the terms ``virgin'' or ``new'' shall not be used when the
product, fiber or part so described is not composed wholly of new or
virgin fiber. None of the comments opposed this proposal, which
involves a non-substantive clarification of the provision. The
Commission recently adopted a similar amendment to the Textile
Rules.\37\ Accordingly, the Commission adopts this amendment without
change for the reasons explained in the NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See 79 FR 18766 (Apr. 4, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Disclosure Requirements Applicable To Hang-Tags
The Commission amends Sec. Sec. 300.8(d) and 300.24(b) as proposed
to allow certain hang-tags with fiber trademarks and performance
information, even if they do not disclose the product's full fiber
content. The Commission recently adopted a similar amendment to the
Textile Rules.\38\ IWTO supported the proposal and Australia had no
concerns. AAFA and USFIA generally supported the proposal, but
expressed concerns. None of the remaining four comments addressed the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAFA and USFIA raised concerns about the proposed requirement that
hang-tags for products with multiple fiber types disclose clearly and
conspicuously that the hang-tag does not provide the product's full
fiber content. AAFA questioned whether the disclosure is necessary, and
sought clarification regarding how companies should make the disclosure
clearly and conspicuously. USFIA explained that, in practice, all hang-
tags will have to make the disclosure because suppliers will not know
in advance whether the product contains other fibers. It suggested
requiring the disclosure only where there is a demonstrable danger of
deception, such as a circumstance where the product contains only a
small amount of the fiber described in the hang-tag.
Accordingly, the Commission adopts the amendment to allow hang-tags
that do not disclose full fiber content, which was unopposed, for two
reasons. First, requiring full fiber percentages on hang-tags is
redundant because the Rules mandate this information on the required
textile label. Second, the requirement likely impedes the flow of
truthful information to consumers because it effectively prevents
suppliers and other marketers from identifying fibers and describing
their performance on a hang-tag unless they know the full fiber content
of the finished product.
Although AAFA and USFIA questioned the need for a disclosure on at
least some hang-tags that do not disclose full fiber content, neither
submitted any evidence regarding how consumers would interpret such
hang-tags. The Commission continues to believe that, without the
disclosure, some consumers would mistakenly assume that the hang-tag
discloses full fiber content. Such consumers would have no reason to
search for and examine the label disclosing full fiber content if the
hang-tag leads them to believe that the product does not contain fibers
other than those touted on the hang-tag. The Commission plans to
provide informal guidance on how to make the disclosure clearly and
conspicuously through its business education materials and by providing
staff advice.
B. Additional Proposed Amendments To Align Wool and Textile Rules
The Commission amends the Wool Rules as proposed to conform the
country of origin disclosures and provisions discussing ``invoice or
other paper'' with the recently amended Textile Rules. The Commission
also declines to adopt its proposed amendment regarding the duration of
continuing guaranties, which will conform the Wool Rules to the
recently amended Textile Rules, because the Commission lacks sufficient
evidence to conclude that any benefits of the amendment would exceed
the costs. Again, aligning the two Rules will serve the public interest
by reducing compliance burdens and making fiber content disclosures
more consistent.
1. Country-of-Origin Disclosures
To promote consistency with the Textile Rules, the Commission
proposed to update Sec. 300.25(d) to state that an imported product's
country of origin as determined under the laws and regulations enforced
by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``Customs'') shall be the
country where the product was processed or manufactured. The Commission
also proposed to update Sec. 300.25(f) by removing the outdated
reference to the Treasury Department and instead referencing any Tariff
Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
AAFA and USFIA supported this proposal, and Australia had no
objection to it. None of the four remaining comments addressed it.
Accordingly, the Commission adopts this amendment for the reasons
explained in the NPRM.
2. Invoice or Other Paper
To conform the Wool Rules to the amended Textile Rules, the
Commission
[[Page 32161]]
adopts its proposed revisions of the definition of ``invoice or other
paper'' and the guaranty provisions that reference this term--300.1(j),
300.32(a), and 300.33(c). Furthermore, the Commission's amendments to
the Textile Rules pertaining to guaranties and documents transmitted
and preserved electronically affect the Wool Rules because the Wool
Rules incorporate those sections by reference.
The Commission proposed amending the definition of ``invoice or
other paper'' in Wool Rules Sec. 300.1(j) by changing it to ``invoice
or other document.'' The Commission also proposed amending Sec. Sec.
300.32(a) and 300.33(c), which relate to guaranties, to replace
``invoice or other paper'' with ``invoice or other document'' where
these terms appear. These amendments clarify the fact that the Rules
apply to electronic as well as paper documents. Finally, Sec.
300.1(j), which defines the above terms, currently incorporates the
definition in Sec. 303.1(h) of the Textile Rules and would continue to
do so. The Commission recently amended the definition in Textile Rules
Sec. 303.1(h) to clarify that invoices and other documents may be
preserved electronically. None of the comments addressed these issues.
Accordingly, the Commission adopts these amendments for the reasons
explained in the NPRM.
3. Continuing Guaranties
As in the final Textile Rules, the Commission declines to amend the
duration of continuing guaranties in Sec. 300.33(a)(3).\39\
Furthermore, although the Commission is not amending the Wool Rules to
revise the continuing guaranty form, it recently amended the Textile
Rules form (FTC Form 31-A) referenced by Sec. 300.33 of the Wool Rules
by replacing the requirement that filers sign under penalty of perjury
with a certification requirement. Because the form set forth in the
Textile Rules is also used for Wool guaranties, this amendment to the
Textile Rules automatically revised the Wool Rules continuing guaranty
form by incorporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See 79 FR 18766 at 18768-18769 (Apr. 4, 2014). In addition,
Sec. 300.33(b) states that the continuing guaranty form is found in
Sec. 303.38(b) of the Textile Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission proposed amending Sec. 300.33(a)(3) to provide that
continuing guaranties remain in effect for one year unless revoked
earlier.\40\ AAFA strongly opposed this proposal. None of the other
comments addressed it. Specifically, AAFA disputed the Commission's
assertion that requiring annual renewal of continuing guaranties would
impose minimal costs on industry. One AAFA member company reported
spending five to eight hours on each continuing guaranty that it files.
AAFA explained that most companies file dozens of continuing guaranties
and many file hundreds. As a result, AAFA argued, the requirement may
be unmanageable for many companies. AAFA also noted that filing
guaranties is not the only relevant cost. It stated that vendors face a
``clerical nightmare of keeping up with the guaranties,'' and buyers
have difficulty obtaining guaranties from the Commission in a timely
fashion.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ The Wool Act provides that a business can avoid liability
for selling a misbranded wool product if it in good faith receives a
guaranty from a domestic supplier that the product is not
misbranded. 15 U.S.C. 68g. One form of such guaranty is a continuing
guaranty. These guaranties are set forth in a form filed with the
Commission stating that the supplier guarantees that none of the
wool products it handles are misbranded under the Wool Act and
Rules. Like Sec. 303.38(a)(2) of the Textile Rules, Sec.
300.33(a)(3) of the Wool Rules provides that guaranties filed with
the Commission continue in effect until revoked.
\41\ The Commission strives to process such requests promptly.
Unfortunately, the Commission cannot respond to this complaint
because AAFA did not identify the guaranties at issue or the dates
that its members requested assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the Commission decided not to adopt a similar
amendment to the Textile Rules. As was the case for the Textile Rules,
the Commission lacks sufficient evidence to conclude that annual
renewal would increase the reliability of continuing guaranties.
Assuming, arguendo, that the requirement would increase the reliability
of continuing guaranties, the Commission lacks sufficient evidence to
conclude that the benefits of imposing this requirement would exceed
the costs. Accordingly, the Commission has decided not to adopt the
proposed amendment.
The Commission amended Sec. 303.38(b) of the Textile Rules to
modify the continuing guaranty form by replacing the requirement that
sellers sign under penalty of perjury with a requirement that they
certify that they will actively monitor and ensure compliance with the
applicable Act and Rules (the Textile, Wool, and/or Fur Acts).\42\
Because Sec. 300.33(b) of the Wool Rules incorporates this form, this
amendment effectively revised the Wool Rules.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ The certification provides: ``Under the Wool Products
Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 68-68j): The company named above, which
manufactures, markets, or handles wool products: (1) Guarantees that
any wool product it sells, ships, or delivers will not be
misbranded; (2) acknowledges that furnishing a false guaranty is an
unlawful unfair and deceptive act or practice pursuant to the
Federal Trade Commission Act; and (3) certifies that it will
actively monitor and ensure compliance with the Wool Products
Labeling Act and rules and regulations issued under the Act during
the duration of the guaranty.'' See 79 FR 18766 at 18773 (Apr. 4,
2014).
\43\ Id. The Commission also revised the form to include similar
certifications for products subject to the Textile Act and the Fur
Products Labeling Act. 15 U.S.C. 69-69k.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One comment addressed this certification requirement. It supported
the requirement, but opposed dropping the requirement that guarantors
sign under penalty of perjury.\44\ It argued that doing so would dilute
confidence in guaranties. It stated that the certification would not be
as reliable or as well understood as signing under penalty of perjury,
and that by its own terms it does not apply to the initial product
submission. The Commission disagrees with the statement that the
certification does not apply to an initial product submission. The
certification states that the guarantor ``guarantees that any wool
product it sells, ships, or delivers will not be misbranded.'' Any wool
product means all wool products, regardless of the date of sale or
shipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Casale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, the Commission continues to share the commenter's
concern about the reliability of continuing guaranties once guarantors
no longer sign them under penalty of perjury. If the Commission obtains
evidence that continuing guaranties have become less reliable, it will
revisit this issue and consider amending the Rules' continuing guaranty
provisions accordingly.
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \45\ requires that the
Commission conduct an initial and final analysis of the anticipated
economic impact of the amendments on small entities. Section 605 of the
RFA \46\ provides that such an analysis is not required if the agency
head certifies that the regulatory action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612
\46\ 5 U.S.C. 605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the amendments will not have a
significant economic impact upon small entities that manufacture or
import wool products, although they may affect a substantial number of
small businesses. The amendments conform the Rules to the Wool Act as
amended by the Conforming Act, clarify the Rules, provide more options
for disclosing fiber trademarks and performance information on hang-
tags, and update the Rules' guaranty provisions. Therefore, the
Commission certifies that amending the Rules will not have a
[[Page 32162]]
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
businesses. The Commission has nonetheless determined that it is
appropriate to publish the following final regulatory flexibility
analysis in order to ensure that the impact of the Rules on small
entities is fully addressed.
A. Need for and Objective of the Amendments
The objective of the amendments is to conform the Rules to the Wool
Act as amended by the Conforming Act; clarify the Rules; allow
manufacturers and importers to disclose fiber trademarks and
information about fiber performance on certain hang-tags affixed to
wool products without including the product's full fiber content
information on the hang-tag; and clarify and update the Rules' guaranty
provisions. The Wool Act authorizes the Commission to implement its
requirements through the issuance of rules.
B. Significant Issues Raised in Public Comments
In the NPRM's Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, the
Commission concluded that the proposed amendments would not have a
significant or disproportionate economic impact upon small entities
that manufacture or import wool products, including their compliance
costs. None of the comments disputed the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, with the exception of one comment from AAFA objecting to the
proposal to amend Sec. 300.33(a)(3) to provide that continuing
guaranties are effective for one year unless revoked earlier. AAFA
questioned the Commission's assertion that the proposed amendment would
enhance the reliability of guaranties and contended that it would
impose substantial unnecessary costs on industry. For the reasons
explained above, the Commission has decided not to adopt this proposal.
The Commission did not receive any comments from the Small Business
Administration.
C. Small Entities to Which the Amendments Will Apply
The Rules apply to various segments of the wool product industry,
including manufacturers and wholesalers of wool products. Under the
Small Business Size Standards issued by the Small Business
Administration, wool apparel manufacturers qualify as small businesses
if they have 500 or fewer employees. Clothing wholesalers qualify as
small businesses if they have 100 or fewer employees.
The Commission's staff has estimated that approximately 8,000 wool
product manufacturers and importers are covered by the Rules'
disclosure requirements.\47\ A substantial number of these entities
likely qualify as small businesses. The Commission estimates that the
amendments will not have a significant impact on small businesses
because they have an existing obligation to comply with statutory
labeling requirements, and the amendments provide covered entities with
additional labeling options without imposing new burdens or additional
costs. For example, businesses that prefer not to affix a hang-tag
disclosing a fiber trademark without disclosing the product's full
fiber content need not do so. The change from ``invoice or other
paper'' to ``invoice or other document'' makes the affected sections of
the Rules format-neutral and gives covered entities, including small
businesses, more flexibility in terms of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Federal Trade Commission: Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request, 76 FR 77230 (Dec.
12, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements, Including Classes of Covered Small Entities and
Professional Skills Needed To Comply
As noted earlier, the amendments conform the Rules to the Wool Act
as amended by the Conforming Act, clarify the Rules, provide more
options for disclosing fiber trademarks and performance information on
hang-tags, and update the Rules' guaranty provisions. They do not
impose any new reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements.
The small entities potentially covered by the amendments will include
all such entities subject to the Rules. The professional skills
necessary for compliance with the Rules as modified by the amendments
would include office and administrative support supervisors to
determine label content and clerical personnel to draft and obtain
labels and keep records.
E. Significant Alternatives to the Amendments
The Commission has not proposed any specific small entity exemption
or other significant alternatives, as the amendments simply conform the
Rules to the Wool Act as amended by the Conforming Act; clarify the
Rules; allow manufacturers and importers to disclose fiber trademarks
and information about fiber performance on certain hang-tags affixed to
wool products without including the product's full fiber content
information on the hang-tag; and clarify and update the Rules' guaranty
provisions. The amendment relating to hang-tags will allow greater
compliance flexibility, and might reduce the cost of providing
consumers with truthful, non-deceptive information about fiber content
and performance. Under these limited circumstances, the Commission does
not believe a special exemption for small entities or significant
compliance alternatives are necessary or appropriate to minimize the
compliance burden, if any, on small entities while achieving the
intended purposes of the amendments.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Rules contain various ``collection of information'' (e.g.,
disclosure and recordkeeping) requirements for which the Commission has
obtained OMB clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'').\48\
As discussed above, the amendments: (a) Conform the Rules to the Wool
Act as amended by the Conforming Act by revising Sec. 300.19 and
adding Sec. 300.20a; (b) clarify the Rules, including Sec. Sec.
300.1(j), 300.20, 300.25(d) and (f), 300.32(a), and 300.33(c); and (c)
amend Sec. Sec. 300.8(d) and 300.24(b) to allow manufacturers and
importers to disclose fiber generic names and trademarks and
information about fiber performance on certain hang-tags affixed to
wool products without including the product's full fiber content
information on the hang-tag.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. On March 26, 2012, OMB granted
clearance through March 31, 2015, for these requirements and the
associated PRA burden estimates. The OMB control number is 3084-
0100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These amendments do not impose any additional collection of
information requirements. For example, amending the Rules to conform to
the Wool Act, as amended by the Conforming Act, would not impose any
new requirements because businesses already must comply with the Wool
Act. Businesses that prefer not to affix a hang-tag disclosing a fiber
name or trademark without disclosing the product's full fiber content
need not do so.
Rule Language
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 300
Labeling, Trade practices, Wool Products Labeling Act.
For the reasons set forth above, the Commission amends 16 CFR Part
300 as follows:
[[Page 32163]]
PART 300--RULES AND REGULATIONS UNDER THE WOOL PRODUCTS LABELING
ACT OF 1939
0
1. Revise the authority citation for Part 300 to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 68-68j.
0
2. Amend Sec. 300.1 by revising paragraphs (a) and (j) to read as
follows:
Sec. 300.1 Terms defined.
(a) The term Act means the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, 15
U.S.C. 68 et seq., as amended by Public Law 96-242, 94 Stat. 344, and
Public Law 109-428, 120 Stat. 2913.
* * * * *
(j) The terms invoice and invoice or other document have the
meaning set forth in Sec. 303.1(h) of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 300.3 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 300.3 Required label information.
(a) * * *
(1) The fiber content of the product specified in section
4(a)(2)(A) of the Act. The generic names and percentages by weight of
the constituent fibers present in the wool product, exclusive of
permissive ornamentation, shall appear on such label with any
percentage of fiber or fibers designated as ``other fiber'' or ``other
fibers'' as provided by section 4(a)(2)(A)(4) of the Act appearing
last.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 300.8 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 300.8 Use of fiber trademark and generic names.
* * * * *
(d) Where a generic name or a fiber trademark is used on any label,
whether required or non-required, a full fiber content disclosure with
percentages shall be made in accordance with the Act and regulations.
Where a generic name or a fiber trademark is used on any hang-tag
attached to a wool product that has a label providing required
information and the hang-tag provides non-required information, such as
a hang-tag stating only a generic fiber name or trademark or providing
information about a particular fiber's characteristics, the hang-tag
need not provide a full fiber content disclosure; however, if the wool
product contains any fiber other than the fiber identified by the
generic fiber name or trademark, the hang-tag must disclose clearly and
conspicuously that it does not provide the product's full fiber
content; for example:
``This tag does not disclose the product's full fiber content.'' or
``See label for the product's full fiber content.''
* * * * *
0
5. Revise Sec. 300.19 to read as follows:
Sec. 300.19 Use of terms ``mohair'' and ``cashmere.''
(a)(1) In setting forth the required fiber content of a wool
product, the term ``cashmere'' may be used for such fiber content only
if:
(i) Such fiber consists of the fine (dehaired) undercoat fibers
produced by a cashmere goat (capra hircus laniger);
(ii) The average diameter of such cashmere fiber does not exceed 19
microns; and
(iii) The cashmere fibers in such wool product contain no more than
3 percent (by weight) of cashmere fibers with average diameters that
exceed 30 microns.
(2) The average fiber diameter may be subject to a coefficient of
variation around the mean that shall not exceed 24 percent.
(b) In setting forth the required fiber content of a product
containing hair of the Angora goat known as mohair or containing
cashmere (as defined in paragraph (a) of this section), the term
``mohair'' or ``cashmere,'' respectively, may be used for such fiber in
lieu of the word ``wool,'' provided the respective percentage of each
such fiber designated as ``mohair'' or ``cashmere'' is given, and
provided further that such term ``mohair'' or ``cashmere'' where used
is qualified by the word ``recycled'' when the fiber referred to is
``recycled wool'' as defined in the Act. The following are examples of
fiber content designations permitted under this section:
50% mohair-50% wool
60% recycled mohair-40% cashmere
60% cotton-40% recycled cashmere
(c) Where an election is made to use the term ``mohair'' or
``cashmere'' in lieu of the term ``wool'' as permitted by this section,
the appropriate designation of ``mohair'' or ``cashmere'' shall be used
at any time reference is made to such fiber in either required or
nonrequired information. The term ``mohair'' or ``cashmere'' or any
words, coined words, symbols or depictions connoting or implying the
presence of such fibers shall not be used in non-required information
on the required label or on any secondary or auxiliary label attached
to the wool product if the term ``mohair'' or ``cashmere,'' as the case
may be, does not appear in the required fiber content disclosure.
0
6. Revise Sec. 300.20 to read as follows:
Sec. 300.20 Use of the terms ``virgin'' or ``new.''
The terms ``virgin'' or ``new'' as descriptive of a wool product,
or any fiber or part thereof, shall not be used when the product, fiber
or part so described is not composed wholly of new or virgin fiber
which has never been reclaimed from any spun, woven, knitted, felted,
braided, bonded, or otherwise manufactured or used product.
0
7. Add Sec. 300.20a to read as follows:
Sec. 300.20a Labeling of very fine wool.
A wool product stamped, tagged, labeled, or otherwise identified in
the manner described below is mislabeled:
(a) ``Super 80's'' or ``80's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 19.75 microns or finer;
(b) ``Super 90's'' or ``90's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 19.25 microns or finer;
(c) ``Super 100's'' or ``100's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 18.75 microns or finer;
(d) ``Super 110's'' or ``110's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 18.25 microns or finer;
(e) ``Super 120's'' or ``120's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 17.75 microns or finer;
(f) ``Super 130's'' or ``130's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 17.25 microns or finer;
(g) ``Super 140's'' or ``140's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 16.75 microns or finer;
(h) ``Super 150's'' or ``150's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 16.25 microns or finer;
(i) ``Super 160's'' or ``160's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 15.75 microns or finer;
(j) ``Super 170's'' or ``170's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 15.25 microns or finer;
(k) ``Super 180's'' or ``180's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 14.75 microns or finer;
(l) ``Super 190's'' or ``190's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 14.25 microns or finer;
(m) ``Super 200's'' or ``200's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 13.75 microns or finer;
[[Page 32164]]
(n) ``Super 210's'' or ``210's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 13.25 microns or finer;
(o) ``Super 220's'' or ``220's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 12.75 microns or finer;
(p) ``Super 230's'' or ``230's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 12.25 microns or finer;
(q) ``Super 240's'' or ``240's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 11.75 microns or finer; and
(r) ``Super 250's'' or ``250's,'' if the average diameter of wool
fiber of such wool product does not average 11.25 microns or finer.
0
8. Amend Sec. 300.24 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 300.24 Representations as to fiber content.
* * * * *
(b) Where a word, coined word, symbol, or depiction which connotes
or implies the presence of a fiber is used on any label, whether
required or non-required, a full fiber content disclosure with
percentages shall be made on such label in accordance with the Act and
regulations. Where a word, coined word, symbol, or depiction which
connotes or implies the presence of a fiber is used on any hang-tag
attached to a wool product that has a label providing required
information and the hang-tag provides non-required information, such as
a hang-tag providing information about a particular fiber's
characteristics, the hang-tag need not provide a full fiber content
disclosure; however, if the wool product contains any fiber other than
the fiber identified on the hang-tag, the hang-tag must disclose
clearly and conspicuously that it does not provide the product's full
fiber content; for example:
``This tag does not disclose the product's full fiber content.'' or
``See label for the product's full fiber content.''
0
9. Amend Sec. 300.25 by revising paragraphs (d) and (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 300.25 Country where wool products are processed or
manufactured.
* * * * *
(d) The country of origin of an imported wool product as determined
under the laws and regulations enforced by United States Customs and
Border Protection shall be considered to be the country where such wool
product was processed or manufactured.
* * * * *
(f) Nothing in this rule shall be construed as limiting in any way
the information required to be disclosed on labels under the provisions
of any Tariff Act of the United States or regulations promulgated
thereunder.
0
10. Revise Sec. 300.32 to read as follows:
Sec. 300.32 Form of separate guaranty.
(a) The following are suggested forms of separate guaranties under
section 9 of the Act which may be used by a guarantor residing in the
United States on or as part of an invoice or other document relating to
the marketing or handling of any wool products listed and designated
therein and showing the date of such invoice or other document and the
signature and address of the guarantor:
(1) General form.
``We guarantee that the wool products specified herein are not
misbranded under the provisions of the Wool Products Labeling Act and
rules and regulations thereunder.''
(2) Guaranty based on guaranty.
``Based upon a guaranty received, we guarantee that the wool
products specified herein are not misbranded under the provisions of
the Wool Products Labeling Act and rules and regulations thereunder.''
Note to paragraph (a): The printed name and address on the invoice
or other document will suffice to meet the signature and address
requirements.
(b) The mere disclosure of required information including the fiber
content of wool products on a label or on an invoice or other document
relating to its marketing or handling shall not be considered a form of
separate guaranty.
0
11. Amend Sec. 300.33 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 300.33 Continuing guaranty filed with Federal Trade Commission.
* * * * *
(c) Any person who has a continuing guaranty on file with the
Commission may, during the effective dates of the guaranty, give notice
of such fact by setting forth on the invoice or other document covering
the marketing or handling of the product guaranteed the following:
Continuing Guaranty under the Wool Products Labeling Act filed with
the Federal Trade Commission.
* * * * *
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12736 Filed 6-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
