[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