[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57043-57055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-22568]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 301


Regulations Under the Fur Products Labeling Act

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission proposes to amend its Regulations 
under the Fur Products Labeling Act to update its Fur Products Name 
Guide, provide more labeling flexibility, incorporate recently enacted 
Truth in Fur Labeling Act provisions, and eliminate unnecessary 
requirements. The Commission does not propose changing or providing 
alternatives to the required name on labels for nyctereutes 
procyonoides fur products. The Commission also does not propose 
changing the Rules' product coverage scope or continuing guaranty 
provisions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments 
electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Comments in electronic form 
should be submitted by using the following Web link: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/furrulesreviewnprm (and following the 
instructions on the web-based form). Comments filed in paper form 
should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade 
Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex O), 600 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580, in the manner detailed 
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Wilshire, (202) 326-2976, 
Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 
Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    On March 14, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or 
``Commission'') invited comment on its Rules and Regulations (``Fur 
Rules'' or ``Rules'') under the Fur Products Labeling Act (``Fur Act'' 
or ``Act''), including its Fur Products Name Guide (``Name Guide'').\1\ 
After considering the comments and holding a public hearing, the 
Commission proposes updating the Name Guide, providing greater labeling 
flexibility, incorporating provisions of the recently enacted Truth in 
Fur Labeling Act (``TFLA''), and, on its own initiative, deleting 
unnecessary requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 76 FR 13550 (Mar. 14, 2011). The Name Guide lists the 
English animal names that must appear on fur-product labels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission declines to propose other amendments suggested by 
commenters. Although some supported changing the Name Guide's required 
name for nyctereutes procyonoides, the Commission proposes retaining 
``Asiatic Raccoon'' as the only name for that species. As discussed 
below, the record shows that ``Asiatic Raccoon'' is the best name to 
identify the animal for consumers. Furthermore, alternative names 
suggested by commenters either risk misleading consumers or cannot be 
used to identify the animal.
    This supplementary information section first provides background on 
the Fur Act and Rules, the Name Guide, TFLA, and this rulemaking. Next, 
it summarizes the comments. Finally, it analyzes those comments and 
discusses the proposed amendments.

II. Background

A. The Fur Act and Rules

    The Fur Act prohibits misbranding and false advertising of fur 
products, and requires labeling of most fur products.\2\ Pursuant to 
this Act, the Commission promulgated the Fur Rules. These Rules set 
forth disclosure requirements that assist consumers in making informed 
purchasing decisions.\3\ Specifically, the Fur Act and Rules require 
fur manufacturers, dealers, and retailers to label products made 
entirely or partly of fur. These labels must disclose: (1) The animal's 
name as provided in the Name Guide; (2) the presence of any used, 
bleached, dyed, or otherwise artificially colored fur; (3) that the 
garment is composed of, among other things, paws, tails, bellies, 
sides, flanks, or waste fur, if that is the case; (4) the name or 
Registered Identification Number of the manufacturer or other party 
responsible for the garment; and (5) the product's country of 
origin.\4\ In addition, manufacturers must include an item number or 
mark on the label for identification purposes.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 69 et seq.
    \3\ 16 CFR part 301.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 69b(2); 16 CFR 301.2(a).
    \5\ 16 CFR 301.40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rules also include detailed labeling specifications. For 
example, the Rules specify an exact label size of 1.75 inches by 2.75 
inches,\6\ require disclosures on the label in a particular order,\7\ 
and prohibit non-FTC information on the front of the label.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 16 CFR 301.27.
    \7\ 16 CFR 301.30.
    \8\ 16 CFR 301.29(a). By contrast, the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations (``Textile Rules'') under the Textile Fiber Products 
Identification Act (``Textile Act''), which apply to clothing 
generally, do not have such restrictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Fur Act requires the Rules to provide for separate and 
continuing guaranties.\9\ These documents allow an entity to provide a 
guarantee to another entity that the fur products it manufactures or 
transfers are not mislabeled or falsely advertised or invoiced. 
Separate guaranties specifically designate particular fur products.\10\ 
Continuing guaranties, which guarantors file with the Commission, apply 
to ``any fur product or fur handled by a guarantor.'' \11\ The Act 
provides that a guaranty recipient will not generally be liable for 
violations related to the guaranteed goods.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 69h; 16 CFR 301.46; 301.47; 301.48; and 301.48a.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 69h(a)(1).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 69h(a)(2).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 69h(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. The Name Guide

    The Fur Act requires the Commission to maintain ``a register 
setting forth the names of hair, fleece, and fur-bearing animals.'' 
\13\ The Act further requires that these names ``be the true English 
names for the animals in question, or in the absence of a true English 
name for an animal, the name by which such animal can be properly 
identified in the United States.'' \14\ For example, the

[[Page 57044]]

Name Guide requires covered entities to label mustela vison as 
``mink.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 69e(a).
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ 16 CFR 301.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission first published the Name Guide in 1952. Under the 
Fur Act, the Commission can amend the Name Guide only ``with the 
assistance and cooperation of the Department of Agriculture and the 
Department of the Interior'' and ``after holding public hearings.'' 
\16\ Prior to this rulemaking, the Commission had amended the Name 
Guide twice, most recently in 1967.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 69e(b).
    \17\ 32 FR 6023 (Apr. 15, 1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. TFLA

    In 2010, Congress enacted TFLA,\18\ which revoked one Fur Act 
exemption and replaced it with another. Specifically, TFLA deleted a 
Fur Act provision that authorized the Commission to exempt fur products 
of relatively low value from labeling requirements. Under that 
authority, the Fur Rules exempted products with a fur component valued 
at less than $150.\19\ TFLA eliminated this de minimis exemption \20\ 
and enacted a new, more limited exemption for furs sold directly by 
trappers and hunters to end-use customers in certain face-to-face 
transactions (``hunter/trapper exemption''). The new exemption 
provides:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Public Law 111-113.
    \19\ 16 CFR 301.39(a).
    \20\ Public Law 111-113, Sec.  2.

    No provision of [the Fur Act] shall apply to a fur product--(1) 
the fur of which was obtained from an animal through trapping or 
hunting; and (2) when sold in a face to face transaction at a place 
such as a residence, craft fair, or other location used on a 
temporary or short term basis, by the person who trapped or hunted 
the animal, where the revenue from the sale of apparel or fur 
products is not the primary source of income of such person.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. at Sec.  3.

In addition, TFLA required the Commission to initiate a review of the 
Name Guide.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id. at Sec.  4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Procedural Background

    In March 2011, as part of its comprehensive program to review all 
FTC rules and guides and in response to TFLA, the Commission opened a 
review of the Name Guide by seeking comment. As part of its regulatory 
review program,\23\ the Commission also sought comment on the Fur Rules 
generally.\24\ The Commission received 15 comments.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ For further discussion of the program, see www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/07/regreview.shtm.
    \24\ 76 FR 13550.
    \25\ The comments, along with a transcript of the Name Guide 
hearing, are available at: http://ftc.gov/os/comments/furlabeling/. 
Citations to comments will identify the commenter name and comment 
page number containing the relevant discussion (e.g., ``FICA at 
8.''). Citations to one page comments will only state the commenter 
name. Citations to the hearing transcript will identify the relevant 
page and line (e.g., ``Tr. at 9, ln. 2.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also held a public hearing on December 6, 2011. The 
hearing was in roundtable format with an opportunity for audience 
participation. Four commenters participated in the roundtable: The 
Humane Society of the United States (``HSUS''); the Fur Information 
Council of America (``FICA''); the National Retail Federation 
(``NRF''); and Finnish Fur Sales (``Finnish Fur''). In addition, the 
hearing included representatives from the United States Department of 
Agriculture (``USDA''), the United States Geological Survey (``USGS''), 
and the Fish and Wildlife Service (``FWS'').\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ USGS and FWS are agencies within the Department of the 
Interior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. The Record

    Commenters disagreed about whether and how to amend the Name Guide, 
particularly the name for nyctereutes procyonoides. Several commenters 
also proposed eliminating unnecessary disclosure requirements and 
increasing labeling flexibility. In addition, HSUS urged the Commission 
to limit the use of continuing guaranties. Finally, two commenters 
suggested changes to the Fur Rules' product coverage.

A. The Name Guide

    Commenters focused on whether the Commission should continue to 
require labeling nyctereutes procyonoides as ``Asiatic Raccoon'' or 
change the name to ``Raccoon Dog.'' Commenters also discussed whether 
the Name Guide should allow ``Finnraccoon'' as an alternate name for 
nyctereutes procyonoides that are raised in Finland, and suggested 
amendments regarding other species.
1. ``Raccoon Dog'' Versus ``Asiatic Raccoon''
    All who addressed the subject agreed that nyctereutes procyonoides' 
taxonomic classification is in the canidae family, which includes 
foxes, wolves, and domestic dogs.\27\ All commenters further agreed 
that raccoons are not closely related to nyctereutes procyonoides. 
Although both species are in the same order (carnivora), raccoons are 
in a different family (Procyonidae).\28\ Despite agreeing about the 
animal's taxonomy, commenters sharply disagreed about whether the Name 
Guide should require entities to label it ``Asiatic Raccoon'' or 
``Raccoon Dog.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., attachment to HSUS comment at 31.
    \28\ See the Smithsonian's Mammal Species of the World entry for 
``Raccoon,'' available at http://www.vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=12300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Support for ``Raccoon Dog''
    HSUS recommended eliminating ``Asiatic Raccoon'' and replacing it 
with ``Raccoon Dog'' for three reasons. First, it asserted that 
``Raccoon Dog'' is the Ascientifically accepted common name.'' \29\ 
Specifically, HSUS noted that the Integrated Taxonomic Information 
System (``ITIS'') lists nyctereutes procyonoides' common name as 
``Raccoon Dog.'' \30\ At the hearing, HSUS explained that ITIS is ``a 
result of a partnership of federal government agencies formed to 
satisfy the need for scientifically credible taxonomic information.'' 
\31\ HSUS described ITIS members, which include FWS, the Smithsonian 
Institute, and USGS, as ``neutral on the issue of how a particular 
industry, including the fur industry, identifies its products.'' \32\ 
In addition, HSUS asserted that requiring ITIS's common names would 
assist consumers because the ITIS ``Web site contains an easily 
accessible database with reliable information on species names and 
their hierarchical classification.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ HSUS at 7.
    \30\ See the ITIS Report for nyctereutes procyonoides, available 
at http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=183821.
    \31\ Tr. at 9, ln. 2-5.
    \32\ Tr. at 9, ln. 16-21.
    \33\ HSUS at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, HSUS asserted that ``Raccoon Dog'' has long been the ``most 
widely-accepted common name of the species.'' \34\ As support, HSUS 
submitted a letter from biologist Lauren Nolfo-Clements attesting that 
scientists have used ``Raccoon Dog'' to describe nyctereutes 
procyonoides for ``well over a century.'' \35\ In addition, HSUS cited 
references to the animal as ``Raccoon-Like Dog'' and ``Raccoon Dog'' in 
literature predating the Name Guide, including one encyclopedia 
claiming that the term ``Asiatic Raccoon'' was a ``guise'' to obscure 
the animal's relationship to dogs.\36\ HSUS also pointed to recent uses 
of ``Raccoon Dog'' in an FWS press release and in an official 
publication.\37\ HSUS did not, however, provide evidence that

[[Page 57045]]

consumers are more familiar with, or more likely to recognize, 
``Raccoon Dog'' than ``Asiatic Raccoon.'' \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ HSUS. at 8.
    \35\ HSUS at 13 (letter attachment).
    \36\ HSUS at 8-9.
    \37\ HSUS at 9.
    \38\ Tr. at 56, ln. 1-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, HSUS contended that ``Asiatic Raccoon'' is confusing and 
misleading, while ``Raccoon Dog'' is not. HSUS observed that ``the 
species is not a raccoon'' and ``is not just found in Asia, but * * * 
in numerous European countries.'' \39\ Thus, HSUS asserted, ``Asiatic 
Raccoon'' could mislead consumers about the species of the animal that 
produced the fur and its geographic origin.\40\ At the hearing, HSUS 
also asserted that ``Raccoon Dog,'' by contrast, would not mislead 
consumers because dogs are members of the canidae family, and therefore 
more closely related to nyctereutes procyonoides than raccoons.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ HSUS at 9.
    \40\ HSUS at 9.
    \41\ Tr. at 48, ln. 21-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Support for ``Asiatic Raccoon''
    Other commenters opposed replacing ``Asiatic Raccoon'' with 
``Raccoon Dog.'' They argued that ITIS or other scientific sources 
should not determine an animal's name for labeling purposes, that 
``Asiatic Raccoon'' better describes the animal, and that ``Raccoon 
Dog'' labels would mislead consumers and harm retail sales.
    Several hearing participants, including government representatives, 
asserted that ITIS is not a common-name repository. For example, FICA 
described ITIS as ``a tool used internally within the government by 
scientists involved in wildlife regulatory issue[s] * * * [and] not 
intended to regulate the sale of fur in the retail marketplace.'' \42\ 
Significantly, hearing participants from the government agreed that 
ITIS is not necessarily authoritative on common names. Specifically, 
Dr. Alfred Gardner from USGS, whom ITIS lists as an expert on 
nyctereutes procyonoides' taxonomy, explained that ``[t]he primary 
function of ITIS is to keep abreast of the changes in scientific names 
* * * [and] not * * * to establish common names.'' \43\ Dr. Gardner 
further stated that the use of common names listed in scientific guides 
is ``not very consistent'' outside of the wildlife management 
field.\44\ Ms. Sharon Lynn, Senior Wildlife Inspector for FWS, agreed 
that ITIS does not reflect a scientific consensus regarding species' 
common names.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Tr. at 15, ln. 9-12.
    \43\ Tr. at 26, ln. 5-8.
    \44\ Tr. at 14, ln. 5-6.
    \45\ Tr. at 13, ln. 6-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More generally, some commenters criticized HSUS's proposal to rely 
on ``scientific consensus'' rather than consumer perception.\46\ 
Consistent with that view, a representative from Finnish Fur attested 
that, in his experience, consumers would not be familiar with ITIS.\47\ 
NRF further observed, ``how a product is marketed ought to be a 
critical factor in deciding'' the animal's name because marketing often 
establishes commercial names for unfamiliar products.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Tr. at 16, ln. 16-25, Tr. at 17, ln. 1-6.
    \47\ Tr. at 17, ln. 11-14.
    \48\ Tr. at 28, ln. 19-21. NRF gave the example of ``Kiwi'' 
fruit as an English name established by marketing. Tr. at 28, ln. 
22-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Indeed, two commenters noted that consumers have familiarity with 
``Asiatic Raccoon'' through marketplace exposure. Specifically, FICA 
and Finnish Fur stated that, prior to TFLA's enactment, most 
nyctereutes procyonoides garments did not meet the now-defunct de 
minimis exemption and, therefore, would have been labeled as ``Asiatic 
Raccoon.'' \49\ HSUS also acknowledged that ``Asiatic Raccoon'' appears 
on labels ``fairly often.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Tr. at 79, ln. 14-16.
    \50\ Tr. at 79, ln. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, several commenters asserted that ``Asiatic Raccoon'' is 
superior to ``Raccoon Dog'' because it provides more information to 
consumers. For example, FICA stated that the term ``Raccoon'' 
accurately describes nyctereutes procyonoides because it has ``rings 
around its eyes, [so] it clearly looks like a raccoon.'' \51\ In 
addition, Ms. Lynn of FWS noted that the word ``Asiatic'' is helpful, 
despite the existence of European nyctereutes procyonoides, because it 
``gives you an idea where the animal originated naturally.'' \52\ Ms. 
Lynn further explained that Asia is the species' ``native habitat'' 
and, therefore, ``the Asiatic name would be a neutral'' 
description.\53\ Ms. Lynn observed that using ``Asiatic Raccoon'' to 
refer to European nyctereutes procyonoides is like the common practice 
of using ``African Lion'' to refer to lions raised in America.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Tr. at 42, ln. 12-13.
    \52\ Tr. at 38, ln. 22-23.
    \53\ Tr. at 39, ln. 6, 11-12.
    \54\ Tr. at 39, ln. 15-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, some commenters criticized ``Raccoon Dog'' as 
inaccurate, asserting that nyctereutes procyonoides is not closely 
related to domestic dog and does not exhibit dog-like behavior. For 
example, NRF noted that the animal is ``not a true-dog or dog-like 
canine within the genus Canis * * * Other canids, * * * such as wolves, 
coyotes, and jackals, are much more closely related to domestic dogs * 
* *'' \55\ Moreover, according to FICA, ``[t]he Asiatic/Finnraccoon 
exhibits vastly different behaviors than the dog. For example, it 
hibernates, climbs trees, and it participates in social grooming * * * 
[It] cannot bark, and it does not wag its tail.'' \56\ In support, FICA 
submitted a report from wildlife biologist Robert Byrne confirming 
those behavioral differences and noting other contrasts, including diet 
(omnivore versus carnivore) and gait (clumsy versus ``often very 
swift'').\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ NRF at 4. FICA similarly observed that ``[a]lthough the 
Asiatic Raccoon * * * is part of the family Canidae, like many other 
animals (e.g., fox, wolves, coyotes), it is completely different 
from a domestic dog.'' FICA at 5.
    \56\ FICA at 5.
    \57\ FICA, Attachment 2 at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, commenters warned that requiring ``Raccoon Dog'' on a 
label would mislead consumers into thinking that the species either 
was, or was closely related to, domestic dog, thereby harming 
nyctereutes procyonoides fur sales. FICA, citing news reports, 
suggested that the term ``has had a devastating impact * * * by causing 
consumers to believe mistakenly that the product is related to domestic 
dog.'' \58\ NRF concurred, opining that using ``Raccoon Dog'' to 
describe the species creates ``a huge risk of misinformation.'' \59\ As 
evidence, FICA and Finnish Fur reported that consumer exposure to the 
name ``Raccoon Dog'' has harmed sales. Specifically, major retailers 
Federated Department Stores and Lord & Taylor no longer sell the furs 
made from the animal because consumers mistake it for domestic dog.\60\ 
Thus, they asserted requiring ``Raccoon Dog'' would essentially ``ban'' 
nyctereutes procyonoides fur ``because [it] will no longer exist in the 
marketplace * * *''.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ FICA at 6.
    \59\ Tr. at 36, ln. 7-10.
    \60\ Tr. at 60, ln. 1-7.
    \61\ Tr. at 59, ln. 21; Tr. at 43, ln. 19-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Alternatives to ``Raccoon Dog'' and ``Asiatic Raccoon''
    NRF suggested ``Tanuki'' and ``Magnut'' as alternative names for 
nyctereutes procyonoides.\62\ Dr. Gardner supported ``Tanuki'' because 
it ``doesn't carry any baggage.'' \63\ HSUS, however, objected to both 
names because they are foreign words and, therefore, not true English 
names.\64\ Furthermore, HSUS

[[Page 57046]]

represented that Internet searches for ``Tanuki'' and ``Magnut'' showed 
less usage than ``Asiatic Raccoon'' or ``Raccoon Dog.'' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ NRF at 4. At the hearing, NRF clarified that it supported 
the current designation of ``Asiatic Raccoon'' and had proposed the 
alternatives only in the event that the Commission deleted ``Asiatic 
Raccoon.'' Tr. at 69, ln. 13-14.
    \63\ Tr. at 71, ln. 19-20.
    \64\ Tr. at 82, ln. 14-17.
    \65\ Tr. at 82, ln. 20-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. ``Finnraccoon''
    FICA, Finnish Fur, and Finland's Ministries for Foreign Affairs and 
of Agriculture and Forestry urged the Commission to allow labeling 
nyctereutes procyonoides raised in Finland as ``Finnraccoon.'' These 
commenters did not assert that those animals differ in characteristics 
from nyctereutes procyonoides raised in Asia. Rather, they advocated 
adding the name because ``Finnraccoon'' would alert consumers that the 
animal had been raised under European regulations, which they described 
as stricter and more humane than in Asia. For example, the Finnish 
Ministries stated:

    [European regulation is] one of the strictest in the world. The 
EU is party to the European Convention for the protection of animals 
kept for farming purposes. The Convention aims to protect animals 
against any unnecessary suffering or injury.
* * * * *
    As the animal welfare standards in place in Asian countries 
producing Nyctereutes procyonoidos are, unfortunately, not as high 
level as those in place in Finland/Europe, the situation is 
confusing also to the consumers; the term ``Asiatic raccoon'' 
implies misleadingly that the Nyctereutes procyonoidos fur 
originates from Asia, when in fact, [the] main part of the world 
trade originates from Finland.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Ministry for Foreign Affairs at 1; Ministry of Agriculture 
and Forestry at 1.

However, these commenters did not provide evidence that consumers were 
familiar with ``Finnraccoon'' or that ``Finnraccoon'' fur differs 
materially from other nyctereutes procyonoides fur.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Tr. at 87, ln. 4-7; Tr. at 95, ln. 2-3 (Finnish Fur 
representative conceding that ``from a scientific point of view, I 
don't know if there is a difference between Finnish and Asiatic'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HSUS, by contrast, opposed the name, describing it as ``industry-
coined.'' \68\ It further pointed out that fur labels would disclose 
the country of origin in any event.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Tr. at 90, ln. 19-20.
    \69\ Tr. at 91, ln. 20-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Other Suggested Name Guide Amendments
    Commenters also suggested several miscellaneous revisions to the 
Name Guide. First, HSUS recommended adding a large number of specific 
common names so that each fur-bearing species has its own common name. 
For example, HSUS suggested replacing ``chipmunk'' with specific names 
for 25 chipmunk species, such as ``California Chipmunk,'' ``Cliff 
Chipmunk,'' etc.\70\ HSUS stated that the Commission should not use one 
name for multiple species because ``[d]ifferent animals experience 
different sorts of welfare problems in fur production'' and different 
conservation statuses.\71\ In addition, FICA and HSUS suggested 
changing several Name Guide entries to reflect updated taxonomy and to 
correct errors.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ HSUS at 56 (attachment).
    \71\ Tr. at 19, ln. 17-18; Tr. at 20, ln. 4-5.
    \72\ FICA at 7. For example, both commenters reported that the 
Name Guide provides the wrong scientific name for ocelot. FICA at 8; 
HSUS at 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, FICA recommended removing names of animals prohibited for 
sale as furs, such as domestic dog and cat, because including them is 
``confusing given their illegal status.'' \73\ HSUS disagreed, pointing 
out that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ FICA at 8.

    One of the FTC's purposes here is enforcement * * * [Having the 
names listed] adds additional layers of enforcement. * * * And to 
have that additional ability to enforce is important. Quite 
honestly, I don't think a retailer should escape liability if the 
retailer is failing to label dog fur as dog when * * * domestic dog 
is not allowed to be sold in the United States.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Tr. at 117, ln. 12-21; Tr. at 118, ln. 2-8.

Commenter AAW agreed, noting that the Fur Rules help enforce the cat 
and dog fur prohibition ``by ensuring that all furs are properly 
identified and labeled.'' \75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ AAW at 1. ``AAW'' did not otherwise identify him, her, or 
itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Deckers Outdoor Corporation (``Deckers'') suggested the 
Name Guide allow the term ``Sheepskin'' in lieu of ``Sheep'' and 
``Lambskin'' in lieu of ``Lamb.'' Deckers asserted that the required 
names are confusing to consumers.\76\ HSUS disagreed, however, noting 
the existence of serious problems in sheep-fur labeling prior to 
issuance of the Fur Rules and that sheepskin is not ``skin'' but rather 
fur.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Deckers 2-3.
    \77\ Tr. at 123, ln. 13-19; Tr. at 124, ln. 5-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requests for Increased Labeling Flexibility

    Six commenters \78\ criticized the Fur Rules' labeling provisions 
as overly prescriptive. Specifically, they argued that many labeling 
requirements provide no consumer benefits while imposing significant 
burdens. They further noted that TFLA's elimination of the de minimis 
exemption required labeling more fur products. As discussed below, 
these commenters recommended more limited disclosures and greater 
labeling flexibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Deckers, FICA, NRF, the Footwear Distributors and Retailers 
of America (``FDRA''), McNeese Customs and Commerce (``McNeese''), 
and Stephen Zelman & Associates (``Zelman'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Required Information
    All commenters who addressed the subject urged the Commission to 
reduce the amount of required information. For example, Deckers stated 
that ``some of the required information * * * is not of interest to the 
consumer, and * * * may * * * obscure the information in which the 
consumer is really interested * * *''.\79\ Deckers, therefore, urged 
the Commission to no longer require disclosure of whether fur is 
natural, pointed, dyed, bleached, or artificially colored, at least for 
sheepskins, because an altered sheepskin ``still looks like 
sheepskin.'' \80\ Deckers also urged no longer requiring disclosure of 
``sides'' or ``flanks.'' It asserted that ``the term `side' is used in 
the industry to describe one half of an animal hide and is not a term 
used to describe a part of the animal'' and that ``a flank is 
considered the same as the belly, and thus its inclusion is 
redundant.'' \81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Deckers at 2.
    \80\ Deckers at 3.
    \81\ Deckers at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters requested limited disclosures for items containing 
small amounts of fur. FICA requested that labels for products with only 
a ``small strip'' of fur disclose only ``fur'' and no other information 
because consumers would not want that additional information.\82\ FICA 
did not, however, provide any evidence substantiating that assertion. 
FDRA similarly urged the Commission to revoke the requirement to 
disclose that the fur consists of paws and tails where the fur is 
limited to trim, which it suggested be defined as fifteen percent of 
the item or less.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ FICA at 10.
    \83\ FDRA comment (single page).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Label Specifications
    Commenters also urged greater flexibility regarding the labels' 
size, the sequence and location of disclosures, and the requirements 
for attaching a single label to paired items like shoes. Several 
commenters criticized the requirement in Sec.  301.27 that all labels 
measure 1.75 inches by 2.75 inches.\84\ For example, Deckers noted 
that, ``[w]hile the label size currently mandated by the Rules may be 
appropriate for larger apparel items * * * they are impossible to affix 
to smaller items * * *. The Rules should either exempt smaller products 
from the size requirements, or simply mandate that the information be 
no smaller than

[[Page 57047]]

information provided on other labels found on the product * * *''.\85\ 
NRF agreed, explaining
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ 16 CFR 301.27.
    \85\ Deckers at 6.

    These requirements are simply not appropriate for the range of 
smaller garments that are now subject to this law, and would 
increase costs to retailers and consumers. Specific requirements on 
label dimensions also limit a retailer's ability to make a label 
with a dimension that is suitable to the product, for example narrow 
belts and gloves * * *. Moreover, consumers are not likely to want 
large, permanent labels on these small products.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ NRF at 2.

    To address the issue, NRF suggested requiring ``that the label be 
`conspicuous, legible, and durable,' '' a standard that it described as 
``well understood in the industry'' and consistent with labeling 
requirements in the Textile Act, Wool Act, and Care Labeling Rule.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ NRF at 2. See also FICA at 10; FDRA comment; Zelman at 2-3. 
NRF and FDRA criticized the Rules for requiring sewn-in labels. NRF 
at 3; FDRA comment. In fact, as discussed below, the Rules do not 
require sewn-in labels. Nevertheless, the Commission proposes an 
amendment making this clear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also criticized the Rules' strict requirements for the 
order and placement of information on the labels. Regarding Sec.  
301.30's requirement that disclosures must be in a specified order, 
Deckers argued:

    The specific order should be determined by the manufacturer, and 
not by regulation. As all required information must be the same size 
type, it is unclear why the Rules need to mandate the order of 
information supplied. Many footwear manufactures [sic], including 
Deckers Outdoor Corporation, need the flexibility to properly design 
a label so that it fits a wide range of products.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Deckers at 6.

    Commenters also favored lifting Sec.  301.29's prohibition against 
disclosing on the front of a label any information other than FTC 
disclosures. Deckers noted that this prohibition may result in 
requiring multiple labels to comply with the Rules and state 
regulations.\89\ NRF also requested more flexibility to decide what 
information appears on the fronts and backs of labels.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Deckers at 6-7. See also FICA at 9; McNeese at 3 (urging 
the Commission to allow labels that will accommodate disclosures 
required by foreign governments).
    \90\ NRF at 2-3. FDRA recommended eliminating a requirement to 
disclose fur origin for items that already disclose the garment's 
country of origin on a different label. FDRA comment. Zelman 
likewise urged not requiring any information on a fur label that is 
otherwise provided on another conspicuous label. Zelman at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, several commenters recommended amending Sec.  301.31, 
which requires that items sold in pairs, like shoes, must be ``firmly 
attached to each other'' until reaching the ultimate consumer or have a 
separate label attached to each item.\91\ McNeese asserted that 
requiring firm attachment was ``inconsistent with the manner in which 
footwear is sold'': \92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ 16 CFR 301.31(b).
    \92\ McNeese at 3.

    Footwear is sold to consumers in boxes, and only properly 
labeled samples are available for review prior to the consumer 
trying on a particular shoe/boot * * * Both the left and right shoe/
boot is presented to the consumer at the point of sale.
    McNeese submits that labeling only one shoe/boot with the 
required [Fur Act] information satisfies the purpose of the statute, 
which is to inform the consumer of the type of fur, method of 
treatment (if any), and country of harvest.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ McNeese at 4.

    Zelman likewise objected to the attachment requirement, asserting 
that it would ``hurt the trade.'' \94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Zelman at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Proposal To Restrict Continuing Guaranties

    As discussed above, entities generally are not liable under the Fur 
Act if they receive a document guaranteeing that all products 
manufactured or transferred by the guarantor are not misbranded or 
falsely advertised or invoiced.\95\ One commenter, HSUS, expressed 
concern that these guaranty programs ``are not sufficient to ensure 
that consumers receive accurate information about the fur content of 
garments.'' \96\ HSUS further asserted that ``[n]othing in the [Fur 
Act] prohibits the FTC from requiring that continuing guarantees [sic] 
specifically designate the fur products or furs guaranteed, as is 
required of separate guarantees [sic].'' \97\ Therefore, HSUS 
recommended that the Commission require that ``all guarantees [sic] * * 
* specifically designate the type of fur contained in the fur products 
or furs guaranteed,'' which ``would ensure that retailers * * * know 
exactly where they need to go for the information they should rely on 
in generating new labels and advertisements.'' \98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ 15 U.S.C. 69h(a).
    \96\ HSUS at 10.
    \97\ HSUS at 10.
    \98\ HSUS at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. The Rules' Coverage

    Two commenters recommended altering the scope of the Fur Rules' 
labeling requirements, which apply to ``wearing apparel.'' The Rules 
define ``wearing apparel'' as including ``[a]ny articles of clothing or 
covering for any part of the body.'' \99\ FICA recommended amending the 
definition to exclude small items, such as shoes.\100\ FICA argued that 
these items have an ``insignificant amount of fur'' and would be 
difficult to label because of their small size.\101\ FICA further noted 
that excluding small objects would align the scope of the Fur Rules 
with the Textile Act,\102\ which exempts handbags and shoes.\103\ In 
contrast to FICA's request for narrower requirements, Deckers favored 
expanding the Rules' coverage to include faux-fur products. According 
to Deckers, doing so would ``ensure that the consumer knows whether [he 
or she] is purchasing real or fake fur prior to making the purchase.'' 
\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ 16 CFR 301.1(b)(1).
    \100\ FICA at 9.
    \101\ FICA at 9.
    \102\ 15 U.S.C. 70 et seq.
    \103\ 15 U.S.C. 70j. FICA also cited the Textile Act's 
legislative history regarding its coverage. FICA at 9, n. 18.
    \104\ Deckers at 2. In addition to proposing amendments, some 
commenters submitted more general views. FICA requested a process 
for obtaining ``interpretations from the Commission'' regarding 
technical requirements and complying with overlapping state and 
federal regulations. FICA at 10. The Commission's rules already 
provide such a mechanism. See 16 CFR 1.1 through 1.4 (procedure for 
requesting advisory opinions). Deckers asked for clarification that 
the Rules do not apply to advertisements not linked to point of 
sale. Deckers at 7-8. Section 301.38(c) makes clear that the 
requirements do not apply to advertisements ``not intended to aid, 
promote, or assist directly or indirectly in the sale or offering 
for sale of any specific fur products or furs.'' 16 CFR 301.38(c). 
Finally, several individual commenters voiced support for requiring 
fur disclosures generally. See, e.g., Karol comment at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Analysis

    After considering the record, the Commission proposes the following 
amendments: Updating the Name Guide while retaining ``Asiatic Raccoon'' 
as nyctereutes procyonoides' only name; providing more labeling 
flexibility; conforming the Rules with TFLA; and eliminating 
unnecessary provisions. The Commission does not propose changing the 
Rules' scope or continuing guaranty provisions.

A. Name Guide

    This section first discusses why the Commission is retaining the 
name ``Asiatic Racoon.'' It then explains why it will not add 
``Finnraccoon'' to the Name Guide. Finally, it discusses proposed 
amendments to update the Name Guide.
1. The Commission Does Not Propose Replacing ``Asiatic Raccoon''
    The Fur Act requires the Name Guide to prescribe ``the true English 
names for the animals in question, or in the absence of a true English 
name for an animal, the name by which such animal

[[Page 57048]]

can be properly identified in the United States.'' \105\ In 1961, the 
Commission applied that standard and determined that ``Asiatic 
Raccoon'' was the appropriate name for nyctereutes procyonoides.\106\ 
Here, the record confirms that ``Asiatic Raccoon'' continues to be 
appropriate for two reasons. First, it describes the animal in a way 
that consumers in the United States can properly identify it. Ms. Lynn 
from FWS explained that the word ``Asiatic'' ``gives you an idea where 
the animal originated naturally.'' \107\ Critically, Ms. Lynn did not 
agree with HSUS that ``Asiatic'' is misleading. In fact, she described 
the term as ``neutral.'' \108\ In addition, as FICA observed, 
nyctereutes procyonoides has a raccoon-like fur pattern around its 
eyes. Indeed, Dr. Nolfo-Clements' letter supporting HSUS's comment 
acknowledged that the animal ``superficially resembles the racoons * * 
* that are native to the Americas.'' \109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ 15 U.S.C. 69e(a).
    \106\ 26 FR 10446 (Nov. 4, 1961).
    \107\ Tr. at 38, ln. 22-23.
    \108\ Tr. at 39, ln. 6, 11-12.
    \109\ HSUS at 14 (attached letter of Dr. Lauren Nolfo-Clements).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the record indicates that consumers likely have become 
familiar with the name ``Asiatic Raccoon'' through fur labels. Based on 
its own investigations, HSUS noted that ``Asiatic Raccoon'' appears on 
fur labels ``fairly often.'' \110\ Consistent with that statement, FICA 
and Finnish Fur explained that products using nyctereutes procyonoides 
as trim usually did not meet the now-defunct de minimis exemption, and 
therefore would have been labeled as ``Asiatic Raccoon.'' \111\ Because 
``Asiatic Raccoon'' is the name that consumers have used to identify 
the animal since 1961, consumers likely understand this term. In 
addition, if the term confused or otherwise harmed consumers, evidence 
of such confusion should exist. The record, however, does not contain 
any such evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Tr. at 79, ln. 2.
    \111\ Tr. at 79, ln. 14-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, HSUS's arguments against ``Asiatic Raccoon'' are not 
persuasive. The Commission does not agree that it should defer to ITIS 
in this instance. FWS and USGS representatives, including an ITIS-cited 
expert, agreed that ITIS is not intended as a source for common 
names.\112\ Furthermore, scientific consensus is not the best measure 
of an animal's true English name or the name by which American 
consumers identify it. Scientists develop taxonomic schemes like ITIS 
for many purposes, but assisting with purchasing decisions is not one 
of them. The Commission likewise does not find dispositive the use of 
``Racoon Dog'' in literature predating the Name Guide.\113\ Rather, the 
more relevant consideration is consumers' current familiarity with the 
term, based on more than 50 years of use. Finally, the Commission does 
not find ``Asiatic Raccoon'' misleading, even though some of those 
animals are raised in Europe. As discussed above, ``Asiatic'' refers, 
accurately, to the animal's native habitat. For consumers interested in 
where the fur originated, the labels separately provide that 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ HSUS suggested that ITIS could serve as a consumer 
resource for information about the animal, but comments at the 
hearing indicated that consumers would not be familiar with ITIS. To 
the extent consumers would be inclined to research the term 
``Asiatic Raccoon'' online, a google.com search performed on June 
20, 2012, for example, shows that the first 17 results related to 
nyctereutes procyonoides.
    \113\ HSUS's repeated references to ``Asiatic Raccoon'' as a 
``trade name'' appear to be based on speculation. Tr. at 63, ln. 13-
16 (HSUS representative explaining the basis for the ``trade name'' 
assertion as ``[t]he fact that [`Asiatic Raccoon'] isn't listed 
anywhere reputable or scientific as being an accepted common name, 
[means that] I have to assume that some interest pushed it onto the 
list at some point'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, other names suggested by commenters have significant 
problems. ``Raccoon Dog'' could significantly mislead consumers about 
the animal's relationship to domestic dog. Specifically, industry 
commenters reported that two major department stores had stopped 
carrying items with such fur because consumers confused it with 
domestic dog.\114\ The suggested names ``Tanuki'' and ``Magnut'' are 
foreign words and are not names by which the animal can be identified 
in the United States as required by the Act. Although Dr. Gardner of 
the Smithsonian gave some support to ``Tanuki,'' HSUS reported that the 
term is not prevalent in the United States. Furthermore, there is no 
evidence establishing that consumers understand the term. No comments 
supported changing the name to ``Magnut.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ As discussed in section III.A.1.b, supra, the record 
indicates that nyctereutes procyonoides differs significantly from 
domestic dog.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Commission Does Not Propose Allowing ``Finnraccoon''
    The current Name Guide specifies ``Asiatic Raccoon'' as the sole 
name for nyctereutes procyonoides. Two commenters suggested the Name 
Guide list ``Finnraccoon'' as an alternative to ``Asiatic Raccoon'' for 
Finnish-farmed nyctereutes procyonoides. They argued that 
``Finnraccoon'' would help consumers differentiate between nyctereutes 
procyonoides raised according to stricter European regulatory standards 
and those raised in Asia. As discussed above, the Fur Act requires Name 
Guide names to be the animal's ``true English name'' or a name by which 
the animal can be identified in the United States. The record indicates 
that ``Finnraccoon'' satisfies neither criteria. Thus, the Commission 
declines to propose it as an alternative name.
    Despite some use of the term in marketing, there is no evidence 
that consumers understand that ``Finnraccoon'' is nyctereutes 
procyonoides and that it is the same animal currently labeled as 
``Asiatic Raccoon.'' In addition, the commenters' basis for the 
alternate name depends on purportedly superior European fur-farming 
practices, which can change and which the Commission cannot verify. In 
any event, the country of origin disclosure will alert consumers that 
the animal was raised in Europe. Accordingly, the Commission does not 
propose adding ``Finnraccoon'' to the Name Guide.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ As an alternative to amending the Name Guide, FICA 
proposed an additional regulation allowing the name ``Finnraccoon,'' 
as the Rules allow for certain types of lamb fur. FICA at 5. 
However, those regulations require the fur to have certain 
characteristics affecting its appearance as wearing apparel. See, 
e.g., 16 CFR 301.9(a) (allowing term ``Mouton Lamb'' for fur that 
has been ``straightened, chemically treated, and thermally set to 
produce a moisture repellant finish''). There is no evidence that 
``Finnraccoon'' fur significantly differs in characteristics from 
other Asiatic Raccoon fur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Proposed Name Guide Updates
    Commenters made several suggestions for revising other Name Guide 
entries. HSUS and FICA pointed to several entries that appeared to 
reference the wrong species or contained typographical errors. In 
addition, HSUS suggested that the Name Guide provide a different common 
name for each species of fur-bearing animal. Finally, FICA requested 
removal of prohibited species, and Deckers requested ``sheepskin'' as a 
new name.
    In light of the record, the Commission proposes updating the Name 
Guide to correct typographical errors and species misidentification. 
The Commission has not updated the Name Guide since 1967, and the 
taxonomic classifications for some animals have changed. Accordingly, 
the Commission proposes several corrections, such as changing the 
scientific name for ``Ocelot'' from felis pardalis to leopardus 
pardalis. The following chart lists the amended Name

[[Page 57049]]

Guide entries, with the new text in bold. Notably, the amended entries 
correct a misspelling of nyctereutes procyonoides.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ Because commenters did not provide any evidence 
substantiating what they described as errors, the Commission 
proposes corrections only for errors it has independently verified 
with the assistance of FWS. In addition, the Commission declines to 
change the genus-species listing for ``dog'' from ``canis 
familiaris'' to ``canis lupus familiaris'' because doing so would 
conflict with the Dog and Cat Protection Act's definition of ``dog 
fur.'' See 19 U.S.C. 1308(a)(5) (defining ``dog fur'' as ``the pelt 
or skin of any animal of the species Canis familiaris'').

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Name                          Order                  Family                 Genus-species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpaca.............................  Artiodactyla..........  Camelidae.............  Lama pacos.
Antelope...........................  Ungulata..............  Bovidae...............  Hippotragus niger and
                                                                                      Antilope cervicapra.
Bear, Polar........................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Ursus maritimus.
Calf...............................  Artiodactyla..........  Bovidae...............  Bos taurus.
Cat, Leopard.......................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Prionailurus bengalensis.
Cat, Lynx..........................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Lynx rufus.
Cat, Margay........................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Leopardus wiedii.
Chipmunk...........................  ......do..............  Sciuridae.............  Tamias sp.
Civet..............................  Carnivora.............  Viverridae............  Viverra sp., Viverricula
                                                                                      sp., Paradoxurus sp., and
                                                                                      Paguma sp.
Desman.............................  Soricomorpha..........  Talpidae..............  Desmana moschata and
                                                                                      Galemys pyrenaicus.
Fox................................  ......do..............  Canidae...............  Vulpes vulpes, Vulpes
                                                                                      macrotis.
Fox, Blue..........................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Vulpes lagopus.
Fox, White.........................  Carnivora.............  Canidae...............  Vulpes lagopus.
Goat...............................  Artiodactyla..........  Bovidae...............  Capra hircus.
Jaguar.............................  ......do..............  Felidae...............  Panthera onca.
Jaguarundi.........................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Puma yagouaroundi.
Kangaroo...........................  Diprotodontia.........  Macropodidae..........  Marcopus sp.
Kangaroo[dash]rat..................  ......do..............  Potoroidae............  Bettongia sp.
Kid................................  Artiodactyla..........  Bovidae...............  Capra hircus.
Koala..............................  Diprotodontia.........  Phascolarctidae.......  Phascolarctos cinereus.
Lamb...............................  Artiodactyla..........  Bovidae...............  Ovis aries.
Leopard............................  Carnivora.............  Felidae...............  Panthera pardus.
Llama..............................  Artiodactyla..........  Camelidae.............  Lama glama.
Marmot.............................  Rodentia..............  Sciuridae.............  Marmota bobak.
Mole...............................  Soricomorpha..........  Talpidae..............  Talpa sp.
Monkey.............................  Primates..............  Cercopithecidae.......  Colobus polykomos.
Nutria.............................  ......do..............  Myocastoridae ........  Myocastor coypus.
Ocelot.............................  Carnivora.............  Felidae...............  Leopardus pardalis
Opossum............................  Didelphimorphia.......  Didelphidae...........  Didelphis sp.
Opossum, Australian................  Diprotodontia.........  Phalangeridae.........  Trichosurus vulpecula.
Opossum, Ringtail..................  ......do..............  Pseudocheiridae.......  Pseudocheirus sp.
Opossum, South American............  Didelphimorphia.......  Didelphidae...........  Lutreolina crassicaudata.
Otter..............................  Carnivora.............  Mustelidae............  Lontra canadensis,
                                                                                      Pteronura brasiliensis,
                                                                                      and Lutra lutra.
Panda..............................  Carnivora.............  Ailuridae.............  Ailurus fulgens.
Pony...............................  Perissodactyla........  Equidae...............  Equus caballus.
Rabbit.............................  Lagomorpha............  Leporidae.............  Oryctolagus cuniculus.
Raccoon, Asiatic...................  ......do..............  Canidae...............  Nyctereutes procyonoides.
Raccoon, Mexican...................  ......do..............  Procyonidae...........  Nasua sp.
Reindeer...........................  Artiodactyla..........  Cervidae..............  Rangifer tarandus.
Seal, Fur..........................  Carnivora.............  Otariidae.............  Callorhinus ursinus.
Sheep..............................  Artiodactyla..........  Bovidae...............  Ovis aries.
Skunk..............................  Carnivora.............  Mephitidae............  Mephitis mephitis, Mephitis
                                                                                      macroura, Conepatus
                                                                                      semistriatus and Conepatus
                                                                                      sp.
Vicuna.............................  Artiodactyla..........  Camelidae.............  Vicugna vicugna.
Viscacha...........................  Rodentia..............  Chinchillidae.........  Lagidium sp.
Wallaby............................  Diprotodontia.........  Macropodidae..........  Wallabia sp., Petrogale
                                                                                      sp., and Thylogale sp.
Weasel, Manchurian.................  Carnivora.............  Mustelidae............  Mustela altaica and Mustela
                                                                                      nivalis rixosa.
Wolf...............................  ......do..............  Canidae...............  Canis lupus.
Wolverine..........................  ......do..............  Mustelidae............  Gulo gulo.
Wombat.............................  Diprotodontia.........  Vombatidae............  Vombatus sp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not propose separate names for each species 
because doing so would add significant burdens without providing any 
apparent consumer benefits. Requiring different names for each fur-
bearing species, such as the 25 species of chipmunk suggested by HSUS, 
would require entities to create many additional labels for products. 
Against this burden, HSUS did not provide any evidence of ongoing 
consumer harm from the current practice of grouping similar animals 
under one common name. Although HSUS stated at the hearing that 
consumers might want to know about particular species because of 
varying levels of endangerment or treatment, it did not identify 
evidence that a significant number of consumers valued that 
information. Moreover, the record does not demonstrate that such 
information would influence consumers' purchasing decisions.
    The Commission also declines to propose removing ``dog,'' ``cat,'' 
or other names of prohibited species because, as HSUS and AAW 
explained, leaving these names provides another means of enforcing the 
Rules as to those furs.

[[Page 57050]]

Specifically, retaining the names of prohibited species in the Name 
Guide helps to ensure that mislabeling and falsely advertising dog, 
cat, and other prohibited species remain Fur Rules violations.
    Finally, the Commission does not propose amendments to allow 
``sheepskin'' or ``lambskin,'' as requested by Deckers. The Fur Act 
limits Name Guide names to the common name of ``animals,'' not 
products,\117\ and ``sheepskin'' and ``lambskin'' refer to products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ 15 U.S.C. 69e(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Labeling Amendments

    Several commenters objected to the Rules' labeling requirements as 
unnecessarily complex and inconsistent with the Commission's textile 
labeling requirements. These commenters argued that such specifications 
impose significant costs on consumers and businesses without 
corresponding benefits to consumers. They also posited that the 
elimination of the de minimis exemption has substantially increased 
these costs. Thus, commenters made several suggestions for reducing the 
required information and labeling specifications. As explained below, 
the Commission agrees with most of these suggestions and, therefore, 
proposes several amendments to: (1) Reduce the amount of required 
information; and (2) provide more labeling flexibility.
1. Required Information
    As discussed above, fur labels must disclose pointed, dyed, 
bleached, or artificially colored fur and fur consisting of, among 
other things, ``sides'' or ``flanks.'' \118\ In light of the 
uncontroverted evidence that the ``sides'' and ``flanks'' disclosures 
either provide information already disclosed or do not provide 
consumers with meaningful information, the Commission proposes 
eliminating Sec.  301.20(a)'s disclosure requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ 16 CFR 301.19; 301.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission declines, however, to further limit the required 
disclosures. The Commission cannot amend the Rules to eliminate 
disclosures of bleached, dyed, or artificially colored fur because the 
Fur Act requires them.\119\ In addition, Deckers has not provided 
evidence establishing that disclosures of pointed fur fail to benefit 
consumers. Moreover, FICA and FDRA likewise failed to present any 
evidence showing consumers' lack of interest in the disclosures for 
items with small amounts of fur. In any event, the proposed amendments 
detailed below will provide additional flexibility. Furthermore, fur-
trim product labels only need to disclose ``paws, tails, bellies, 
sides, flanks, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap pieces, or waste 
fur'' if fur from those parts makes up at least ten percent of the 
product.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ 15 U.S.C. 69b(2)(C).
    \120\ 16 CFR 301.20. FDRA also requested that the Commission not 
require a fur origin disclosure for shoes because the disclosure is, 
in most instances, redundant. FDRA comment. However, FDRA did not 
explain why such a disclosure is redundant, particularly considering 
that the Textile Act, which requires country of origin disclosure, 
does not apply to shoes. 15 U.S.C. 70j(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Label Specifications
    Commenters requested several changes to the Rules' labeling 
specifications, including elimination of requirements that the labels 
be a certain size; that disclosures be of a certain font size, in a set 
order, and limited to FTC-required information on the front; and that 
items sold in pairs must be physically attached to each other to have 
only one label. The Commission agrees with these comments. In its 
experience enforcing the Textile Rules, the Commission has found it 
effective to require that disclosures be ``clearly legible, 
conspicuous, and readily accessible to the prospective 
purchaser.''\121\ Accordingly, the Commission proposes amendments to 
provide more flexibility regarding label size, text, and use for items 
sold in pairs or groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ 16 CFR 303.16(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Deleting Label Size Requirements
    The Rules currently require that labels measure 1.75 inches by 2.75 
inches.\122\ The Commission agrees that this size is impractical for 
smaller items, a consideration that carries greater significance now 
that TFLA has eliminated the de minimis exemptions. Furthermore, the 
Commission's textile labeling enforcement experience demonstrates that 
specifying exact label dimensions is unnecessary to inform consumers 
about wearing apparel, so long as the required disclosures are 
conspicuous. Therefore, the Commission proposes eliminating the size 
requirement. Consistent with the Textile Rules,\123\ the proposed new 
Sec.  301.27 would require labels to be ``conspicuous and of such 
durability as to remain attached to the product throughout any 
distribution, sale or resale, and until sold and delivered to the 
ultimate consumer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ 16 CFR 301.27. Commenters NRF and FDRA asserted that Sec.  
301.27 requires a sewn-in label. The Commission does not agree with 
this reading because, unlike a textile care label, that section 
requires only that the label remain affixed until it reaches the 
consumer. Nevertheless, the Commission's proposed revision to Sec.  
301.27 makes clear that labels need not be sewn-in.
    \123\ 16 CFR 303.15(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Deleting Label Text Requirements
    Section 301.29 requires label text to be 12-point or ``pica'' font 
size. It also prohibits non-FTC information on the front of the label, 
while Sec.  301.30 prescribes a specific order for disclosures. The 
Commission agrees that these requirements create substantial burdens, 
such as forcing marketers to use multiple labels to comply with FTC, 
state, and international fur regulations. Furthermore, the Commission 
finds that, based on its experience enforcing the Textile Rules, these 
requirements are unnecessary to disclose relevant information 
effectively. Accordingly, the Commission proposes:
     Replacing Sec.  301.29(a)'s 12-point or ``pica'' type 
font-size requirement with a requirement to disclose information ``in 
such a manner as to be clearly legible, conspicuous, and readily 
accessible to the prospective purchaser'';
     Removing Sec.  301.29(a)'s limits on information appearing 
on the front of the label, thereby allowing entities to include true 
and non-deceptive information on either side; and
     Deleting Sec.  301.30, which specifies a particular order 
for FTC disclosures.

These proposed amendments should give marketers needed flexibility to 
convey effective disclosures without imposing unnecessary burdens.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Allowing different information to appear on fur labels 
should prevent the redundant disclosures noted by Deckers, FDRA, and 
Zelman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Revising Requirements for Labels for Items Sold in Pairs or Groups
    Section 301.31 requires that items ``manufactured for use in pairs 
or groups'' be ``firmly attached to each other when marketed and 
delivered in the channels of trade and to the purchaser.'' \125\ 
Commenters explained that this requirement interferes with marketing 
smaller items like shoes and gloves, which are typically sold in pairs. 
Furthermore, there is no apparent benefit, and likely some 
inconvenience, to consumers from requiring actual attachment of items 
through the point of sale. To address this issue, the Commission 
proposes eliminating the requirement and incorporating the Textile 
Rules' provision allowing a single label for items ``marketed or 
handled in pairs or ensembles,'' regardless of whether they are 
attached at the point-of-sale.\126\ Thus, if the items are sold as 
pairs or ensembles and each

[[Page 57051]]

item contains the same fur with the same country of origin, retailers 
can use a single label for all items.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ 16 CFR 301.31(b).
    \126\ 16 CFR 303.29(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Amendments Required by TFLA

    TFLA's amendments require conforming changes to the Fur Rules. 
Accordingly, the Commission proposes replacing the de minimis exemption 
(Sec.  301.39), as well as all related provisions,\127\ with TFLA's 
hunter/trapper exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ Because TFLA eliminated the de minimis exemption, it also 
eliminated the provision that excepted dog and cat fur from that 
exemption (i.e., a savings clause to require labeling of all dog and 
cat fur). Accordingly, the Commission proposes deleting the Rules' 
definitions of ``cat fur,'' ``dog fur,'' and ``dog or cat fur 
products,'' as well as the Rules' cat and dog fur exceptions in 
Sec.  301.39(a), because those terms are used only in the de minimis 
exemption provision. As discussed above, the Name Guide will 
continue to list ``dog'' and ``cat'' as required names. Similarly, 
the Commission proposes several non-substantive amendments to ensure 
that references to other provisions and the Act are accurate and to 
correct typographical errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Proposed Amendments Eliminating Unnecessary Provisions

    The Commission also proposes eliminating three sections to simplify 
the Rules. First, it proposes eliminating Sec.  301.19(l)(1) through 
(7). These subsections provide a suggested, but not required, method 
for determining whether a fur has been treated with iron or copper and, 
therefore, requires a ``color altered'' or ``color added'' disclosure. 
The suggestion appears unnecessary because Section 301.19 requires that 
an entity coloring furs must disclose the treatment on an invoice.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ 16 CFR 301.19(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Commission proposes deleting Sec.  301.28, which 
provides further guidance on attaching labels. Because the proposed new 
Sec.  301.27 clarifies the method for attaching labels, Sec.  301.28 is 
now redundant.
    Third, Sec.  301.40 requires entities to assign an ``item number or 
mark'' to furs and to disclose it on invoices and labels.\129\ In the 
Commission's experience, it does not need this information to enforce 
the Fur Act and Rules. Furthermore, it does not provide any meaningful 
information to consumers. Therefore, the Commission proposes 
eliminating this provision and the internal references to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ 16 CFR 301.40(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Retaining the Rules' Continuing Guaranty Provisions and Product 
Coverage

    HSUS urged the Commission to require guarantors to designate 
specific fur products guaranteed, ``as is required of separate 
guarantees [sic].'' \130\ HSUS's proposal, however, conflicts with the 
Fur Act. Specifically, the Act provides that continuing guaranties will 
apply ``to any fur product or fur handled by a guarantor.'' \131\ The 
Act provides no limitation on the fur products covered by continuing 
guaranties. Thus, the Act requires the Commission's current provisions 
allowing a continuing guaranty to cover all fur products handled by the 
guarantor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ HSUS at 10.
    \131\ 15 U.S.C. 69h(a)(2) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Deckers asked the Commission to expand the Rules' 
scope to cover fake fur products, while FICA requested narrowing it to 
exclude items like shoes and handbags. The Commission declines to do 
either. The Commission cannot expand the coverage to include faux fur 
because the Fur Act applies only to ``furs'' or ``fur products,'' which 
are defined as ``animal skin * * * with hair, fleece, or fur fibers 
attached thereto'' and ``wearing apparel'' made of or containing ``fur 
or used fur,'' respectively.\132\ Faux fur is not such an item. 
Likewise, FICA's complaints do not justify reducing the Rules' 
coverage. As an initial matter, handbags are already excluded because 
the Fur Act's labeling provisions apply to wearing apparel, which the 
Rules define as ``clothing or covering for any part of the body.'' 
\133\ In addition, the proposed amendments give ample flexibility to 
place smaller, more practical labels on small items. Thus, there is no 
need to reduce the Rules' scope and deny consumers useful 
information.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ 15 U.S.C. 69(b) and (d).
    \133\ 16 CFR 301.1(b).
    \134\ FICA noted that textile labeling requirements do not apply 
to shoes and, therefore, the Textile Rules and the Fur Rules treat 
those items inconsistently. FICA at 9. However, the Textile Act 
specifically exempts shoes. 15 U.S.C. 70j(a)(10). The Fur Act, by 
contrast, does not contain a shoe exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Request for Comment

    Interested parties are invited to submit comments online or on 
paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it 
on or before November 16, 2012. Write ``Fur Rules Review, Matter No. 
P074201'' on your comment. Your comment--including your name and your 
state--will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, 
including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web 
site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of 
discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact 
information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web 
site. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely 
responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any 
sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security 
Number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state 
identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, 
financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also 
solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include 
any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other 
individually-identifiable health information, such as medical records 
or other individually-identifiable health information. In addition, do 
not include any ``trade secret or any commercial or financial 
information which is * * * privileged or confidential'' as discussed in 
Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 
16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively 
sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, 
formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer 
names.
    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential 
treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for 
confidential treatment, and you must follow the procedure explained in 
FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).\135\ Your comment will be kept 
confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole 
discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the 
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ In particular, the written request for confidential 
treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and 
legal basis for the request and must identify the specific portions 
of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 
4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to 
heightened security screening. Accordingly, we encourage you to submit 
your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your 
online comment, you must file it at: https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/furrulesreviewnprm by following the 
instructions on the Web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov, you may also file a comment through that Web site.
    If you file your comment on paper, write ``Fur Rules Review, Matter 
No. P074201'' on your comment and on the envelope, and mail or deliver 
it to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 
Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex O), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington,

[[Page 57052]]

DC 20580. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by 
courier or overnight service.
    Visit the Commission Web site at http://ftc.gov to read this Notice 
and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the 
Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to 
consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will 
consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on 
or before November 16, 2012. You can find more information, including 
routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy 
policy at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm.

VI. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The proposed amendments do not constitute a ``collection of 
information'' under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). 
The labeling amendments provide greater flexibility and, as such, 
potentially reduce disclosure burdens. The changes to the Name Guide 
simply alter the required, but Government-supplied information on some 
labels.\136\ Deleting the de minimis exemption will increase burden for 
some entities to the extent they will have to make disclosures 
regarding previously exempt products, but this has already been 
accounted for in the Commission's most recently approved clearance 
request and burden estimates for the Fur Rule.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ According to OMB, ``[t]he public disclosure of information 
originally supplied by the Federal Government to the recipient for 
the purpose of disclosure to the public is not included'' within in 
the definition of a PRA ``collection of information.'' 5 CFR 
1320.3(c)(2).
    \137\ OMB Control No. 3084-0099 (clearance granted April 3, 
2012, through April 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act \138\ requires an agency to provide 
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with a proposed rule unless 
the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.\139\ As part of the 
Commission's recent PRA clearance request, the Commission estimated 
that 1,230 retailers, 90 manufacturers, and 1,200 importers are subject 
to the Rules.\140\ The Commission further estimated that these entities 
incur a total recordkeeping burden of 51,870 hours and a total 
disclosure burden of 116,228 hours.\141\ The entities subject to these 
burdens will be classified as small businesses if they satisfy the 
Small Business Administration's relevant size standards, as determined 
by the Small Business Size Standards component of the North American 
Industry Classification System (``NAICS'' ).\142\ The relevant NAICS 
size standards, which are either minimum annual receipts or number of 
employees, are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \139\ See 5 U.S.C. 603-605.
    \140\ 77 FR 10744, 10745 (Feb. 23, 2012).
    \141\ Id.
    \142\ The standards are available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NAICS industry title             Small business size standard
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fur-Bearing Animal and Rabbit         $750,000.
 Production.
Fur and Leather Apparel               500 employees.
 Manufacturing.
Men's Clothing Stores...............  $10,000,000.
Women's Clothing Stores.............  $25,000,000.
Department Stores...................  $30,000,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is unable to determine how many of the above-listed 
entities qualify as small businesses. Neither the record in this 
proceeding nor in the recent PRA clearance proceeding contains 
information regarding the size of entities subject to the Fur Rules. 
Moreover, the relevant NAICS categories include many entities that are 
not in the fur industry. Therefore, estimates of the percentage of 
small businesses in those categories would not necessarily reflect the 
percentage of small businesses subject to the Fur Rules in those 
categories. Accordingly, the Commission invites comments regarding the 
number of entities in each NAICS category that are subject to the Fur 
Rules, and revenue and employee data for those entities.
    Even absent this data, however, the Commission does not expect that 
the proposed amendments will have a significant economic impact on 
small entities. As discussed above in Section VI, the amendments do not 
impose any new costs. The greater flexibility provided by the labeling 
amendments should reduce disclosure burdens, and the changes to the 
Name Guide simply alter the required information on some labels. 
Furthermore, businesses should not have to remove labels from existing 
fur products, which are mostly seasonal items, because they can 
continue to sell those products with old labels until the amendments' 
effective date.
    This document serves as notice to the Small Business Administration 
of the agency's certification of no effect.

VIII. Communications by Outside Parties to the Commissioners or Their 
Advisors

    Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral 
communications respecting the merits of this proceeding from any 
outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor will be 
placed on the public record.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ See 16 CFR 1.26(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 301

    Furs, Labeling, Trade practices.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Trade 
Commission is proposing to amend Title 16, Chapter I, Subchapter C, of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, part 301, as follows:

PART 301 [AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 69 et seq.

    2. Revise Sec.  301.0 to read as follows:


Sec.  301.0  Fur products name guide.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Name                          Order                  Family                 Genus-species
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpaca.............................  Artiodactyla..........  Camelidae.............  Lama pacos.
Antelope...........................  Ungulata..............  Bovidae...............  Hippotragus niger and
                                                                                      Antilope cervicapra.
Badger.............................  Carnivora.............  Mustelidae............  Taxida sp. and Meles sp.
Bassarisk..........................  ......do..............  Procyonidae...........  Bassariscus astutus.

[[Page 57053]]

 
Bear...............................  ......do..............  Ursidae...............  Ursus sp.
Bear, Polar........................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Ursus maritimus.
Beaver.............................  Rodentia..............  Castoridae............  Castor canadensis.
Burunduk...........................  ......do..............  Sciuridae.............  Eutamias asiaticus.
Calf...............................  Artiodactyla..........  Bovidae...............  Bos taurus.
Cat, Caracal.......................  Carnivora.............  Felidae...............  Caracal caracal.
Cat, Domestic......................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Felis catus.
Cat, Leopard.......................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Prionailurus bengalensis.
Cat, Lynx..........................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Lynx rufus.
Cat, Manul.........................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Felis manul.
Cat, Margay........................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Leopardus wiedii.
Cat, Spotted.......................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Felis sp. (South America).
Cat, Wild..........................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Felis catus and Felis
                                                                                      lybica.
Cheetah............................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Acinonyx jubatus.
Chinchilla.........................  Rodentia..............  Chinchillidae.........  Chinchilla chinchilla.
Chipmunk...........................  ......do..............  Sciuridae.............  Tamias sp.
Civet..............................  Carnivora.............  Viverridae............  Viverra sp., Viverricula
                                                                                      sp., Paradoxurus sp., and
                                                                                      Paguma sp.
Desman.............................  Soricomorpha..........  Talpidae..............  Desmana moschata and
                                                                                      Galemys pyrenaicus.
Dog................................  Carnivora.............  Canidae...............  Canis familiaris.
Ermine.............................  ......do..............  Mustelidae............  Mustela erminea.
Fisher.............................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Martes pennanti.
Fitch..............................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Mustela putorius.
Fox................................  ......do..............  Canidae...............  Vulpes vulpes, Vulpes
                                                                                      macrotis.
Fox, Blue..........................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Vulpes lagopus.
Fox, Grey..........................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Urocyon cinereoargenteus
                                                                                      and Urocyon littoralis.
Fox, Kit...........................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Vulpes velox.
Fox, White.........................  Carnivora.............  Canidae...............  Vulpes lagopus.
Genet..............................  ......do..............  Viverridae............  Genetta genetta.
Goat...............................  Artiodactyla..........  Bovidae...............  Capra hircus.
Guanaco, or its young, the           ......do..............  Camelidae.............  Lama guanicoe.
 Guanaquito.
Hamster............................  Rodentia..............  Cricetidae............  Cricetus cricetus.
Hare...............................  ......do..............  Leporidae.............  Lepus sp. and Lepus
                                                                                      europaeus occidentalis.
Jackal.............................  Carnivora.............  Canidae...............  Canis aureus and Canis
                                                                                      adustus.
Jackal, Cape.......................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Canis mesomelas.
Jaguar.............................  ......do..............  Felidae...............  Panthera onca.
Jaguarundi.........................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Puma yagouaroundi.
Kangaroo...........................  Diprotodontia.........  Macropodidae..........  Marcopus sp.
Kangaroo[dash]rat..................  ......do..............  Potoroidae............  Bettongia sp.
Kid................................  Artiodactyla..........  Bovidae...............  Capra hircus.
Kinkajou...........................  Carnivora.............  Procyonidae...........  Potos flavus.
Koala..............................  Diprotodontia.........  Phascolarctidae ......  Phascolarctos cinereus.
Lamb...............................  Artiodactyla..........  Bovidae...............  Ovis aries.
Leopard............................  Carnivora.............  Felidae...............  Panthera pardus.
Llama..............................  Artiodactyla..........  Camelidae.............  Lama glama.
Marmot.............................  Rodentia..............  Sciuridae.............  Marmota bobak.
Marten, American...................  Carnivora.............  Mustelidae............  Martes americana and Martes
                                                                                      caurina.
Marten, Baum.......................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Martes martes.
Marten, Japanese...................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Martes melampus.
Marten, Stone......................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Martes foina.
Mink...............................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Mustela vison and Mustela
                                                                                      lutreola.
Mole...............................  Soricomorpha..........  Talpidae..............  Talpa sp.
Monkey.............................  Primates..............  Cercopithecidae.......  Colobus polykomos.
Muskrat............................  Rodentia..............  Muridae...............  Ondatra zibethicus.
Nutria.............................  ......do..............  Myocastoridae.........  Myocastor coypus.
Ocelot.............................  Carnivora.............  Felidae...............  Leopardus pardalis.
Opossum............................  Didelphimorphia ......  Didelphidae...........  Didelphis sp.
Opossum, Australian................  Diprotodontia.........  Phalangeridae.........  Trichosurus vulpecula.
Opossum, Ringtail..................  ......do..............  Pseudocheiridae.......  Pseudocheirus sp.
Opossum, South American............  Didelphimorphia ......  Didelphidae...........  Lutreolina crassicaudata.
Opossum, Water.....................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Chironectes minimus.
Otter..............................  Carnivora.............  Mustelidae............  Lontra canadensis,
                                                                                      Pteronura brasiliensis,
                                                                                      and Lutra lutra.
Otter, Sea.........................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Enhydra lutris.
Pahmi..............................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Helictis moschata and
                                                                                      Helictis personata.
Panda..............................  Carnivora.............  Ailuridae.............  Ailurus fulgens.
Peschanik..........................  Rodentia..............  Sciuridae.............  Citellus fulvus.
Pony...............................  Perissodactyla........  Equidae...............  Equus caballus.
Rabbit.............................  Lagomorpha............  Leporidae.............  Oryctolagus cuniculus.
Raccoon............................  Carnivora.............  Procyonidae...........  Procyon lotor and Procyon
                                                                                      cancrivorus.
Raccoon, Asiatic...................  ......do..............  Canidae...............  Nyctereutes procyonoides.
Raccoon, Mexican...................  ......do..............  Procyonidae...........  Nasua sp.
Reindeer...........................  Artiodactyla..........  Cervidae..............  Rangifer tarandus.

[[Page 57054]]

 
Sable..............................  Carnivora.............  Mustelidae............  Martes zibellina.
Sable, American....................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Martes americana and Martes
                                                                                      caurina.
Seal, Fur..........................  Carnivora.............  Otariidae.............  Callorhinus ursinus.
Seal, Hair.........................  ......do..............  Phocidae..............  Phoca sp.
Seal, Roc..........................  ......do..............  Otariidae.............  Otaria flavescens.
Sheep..............................  Artiodactyla..........  Bovidae...............  Ovis aries.
Skunk..............................  Carnivora.............  Mephitidae............  Mephitis mephitis, Mephitis
                                                                                      macroura, Conepatus
                                                                                     semistriatus and Conepatus
                                                                                      sp.
Skunk, Spotted ....................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Spilogale sp.
Squirrel...........................  Rodentia..............  Sciuridae.............  Sciurus vulgaris.
Squirrel, Flying...................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Eupetaurus cinereus,
                                                                                      Pteromys volans and
                                                                                      Petaurista leucogenys.
Susilk.............................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Citellus citellus, Citellus
                                                                                      rufescens and Citellus
                                                                                      suslica.
Vicuna.............................  Artiodactyla..........  Camelidae.............  Vicugna vicugna.
Viscacha...........................  Rodentia..............  Chinchillidae.........  Lagidium sp.
Wallaby............................  Diprotodontia.........  Macropodidae..........  Wallabia sp., Petrogale
                                                                                      sp., and Thylogale sp.
Weasel.............................  Carnivora.............  Mustelidae............  Mustela frenata.
Weasel, Chinese....................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Mustela sibirica.
Weasel, Japanese...................  ......do..............  ......do..............  Mustela itatsi (also
                                                                                      classified as Mustela
                                                                                      sibirica itatsi).
Weasel, Manchurian.................  Carnivora.............  Mustelidae............  Mustela altaica and Mustela
                                                                                      nivalis rixosa.
Wolf...............................  ......do..............  Canidae...............  Canis lupus.
Wolverine..........................  ......do..............  Mustelidae............  Gulo gulo.
Wombat.............................  Diprotodontia.........  Vombatidae............  Vombatus sp.
Woodchuck..........................  Rodentia..............  Sciuridae.............  Marmota monax.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Amend Sec.  301.1 by removing paragraphs (a)(6), (a)(7) and 
(a)(8) and by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  301.1  Terms defined.

    (a) * * *
    (4) The terms Fur Products Name Guide and Name Guide mean the 
register of names of hair, fleece, and fur-bearing animals issued and 
amended by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of section 7 of 
the act.
* * * * *
    4. Amend Sec.  301.2, by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  301.2   General requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) Each and every fur, except those exempted under Sec.  301.39 of 
this part, shall be invoiced in conformity with the requirements of the 
act and rules and regulations.
    (c) Any advertising of fur products or furs, except those exempted 
under Sec.  301.39 of this part, shall be in conformity with the 
requirements of the act and rules and regulations.


Sec.  301.19  [Amended]

    5. Amend Sec.  301.19 by removing paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(7).
    6. Revise Sec.  301.20 paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  301.20   Fur products composed of pieces.

    (a) Where fur products, or fur mats and plates, are composed in 
whole or in substantial part of paws, tails, bellies, gills, ears, 
throats, heads, scrap pieces, or waste fur, such fact shall be 
disclosed as a part of the required information in labeling, invoicing, 
and advertising. Where a fur product is made of the backs of skins, 
such fact may be set out in labels, invoices, and advertising.
* * * * *
    7. Revise Sec.  301.27 to read as follows:


Sec.  301.27   Labels and method of affixing.

    At all times during the marketing of a fur product the required 
label shall be conspicuous and of such durability as to remain attached 
to the product throughout any distribution, sale, or resale, and until 
sold and delivered to the ultimate consumer.


Sec. Sec.  301.28, 301.30, and 301.40   [Removed and reserved]

    8. Remove and reserve Sec. Sec.  301.28, 301.30, and 301.40.
    9. Revise Sec.  301.29 paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec.  301.29   Requirements in respect to disclosure on label.

    (a) The required information shall be set forth in such a manner as 
to be clearly legible, conspicuous, and readily accessible to the 
prospective purchaser, and all parts of the required information shall 
be set out in letters of equal size and conspicuousness. All of the 
required information with respect to the fur product shall be set out 
on one side of the label. The label may include any nonrequired 
information which is true and non-deceptive and which is not prohibited 
by the act and regulations, but in all cases the animal name used shall 
be that set out in the Name Guide.
* * * * *
    10. Revise Sec.  301.31 paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  301.31  Labeling of fur products consisting of two or more units.

* * * * *
    (b) In the case of fur products that are marketed or handled in 
pairs or ensembles, only one label is required if all units in the pair 
or group are of the same fur and have the same country of origin. The 
information set out on the label must be applicable to each unit and 
supply the information required under the act and rules and 
regulations.
    11. Amend Sec.  301.35, by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  301.35  Substitution of labels.

* * * * *
    (b) The original label may be used as a substitute label provided 
the name or registered number of the person making the substitution is 
inserted thereon without interfering with or obscuring in any manner 
other required information. In connection with such substitution the 
name or registered number as well as any record numbers appearing on 
the original label may be removed.
* * * * *
    12. Revise Sec.  301.39 to read as follows:


Sec.  301.39  Exempted fur products.

    The requirements of the act and regulations in this part do not 
apply to fur products that consist of fur obtained from an animal 
through trapping or hunting and that are sold in a face-to-face 
transaction at a place such as a residence, craft fair, or other 
location used on a temporary or short-term basis, by the person who 
trapped or hunted

[[Page 57055]]

the animal, where the revenue from the sale of apparel or fur products 
is not the primary source of income of such person.
    13. Amend Sec.  301.41 by removing paragraph (a)(7) and by revising 
paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  301.41  Maintenance of Records.

    (a) * * *
    (4) That the fur product is composed in whole or in substantial 
part of paws, tails, bellies, gills, ears, throats, heads, scrap 
pieces, or waste fur, when such is the fact;
* * * * *

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-22568 Filed 9-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P