[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36693-36698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14671]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 301
RIN 3084-AB27
Rules and Regulations Under the Fur Products Labeling Act
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'').
ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: To promote consistency between the guaranty provisions in its
Rules and Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling Act and those
governing textile products, the Commission proposes amendments
clarifying a signature requirement for separate guaranties and
requiring guarantors to renew continuing guaranties annually.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 23, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by
following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write ``Fur Rules Review, 16
CFR Part 301, Project No. P074201'' on your comment, and file your
comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/furproductslabelingnprm by following the instructions on the web-based
form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail or deliver your
comment to
[[Page 36694]]
the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the
Secretary, Room H-113 (Annex O), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20580.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew J. Wilshire, Attorney, (202)
326-2976, Federal Trade Commission, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of
Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
On April 30, 2013, the Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or
``Commission'') issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``Textile
NRPM'') announcing proposed amendments to its Rules and Regulations
(``Textile Rules'') under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act
(``Textile Act''). Among other things, the proposed changes would alter
the form for continuing guaranties filed with the Commission and
require annual renewal of such guaranties. Both the Textile and the Fur
Products Labeling Act (``Fur Act'') provide exemptions from liability
for retailers and other recipients of covered products based on
certifications that the transferred products are not misbranded,
falsely invoiced, or falsely advertised.
On September 17, 2012, the Commission proposed amendments to the
Fur Rules to update the Fur Products Name Guide, provide greater
labeling flexibility, and incorporate provisions of the recently
enacted Truth in Fur Labeling Act. Since that proposal, the Commission
proposed altering the textile guaranty provisions in the Textile NPRM.
In addition, one commenter has urged changes to the fur guaranty
provisions. The Commission, therefore, now proposes additional guaranty
amendments for the Fur Rules to provide notice and an opportunity to
comment on this proposal while the Commission considers comments
received in response to the changes it proposed in 2012. Doing so will
allow the Commission to incorporate any guaranty final amendments in
conjunction with any other final amendments, and thereby assist
businesses in understanding their compliance obligations under the
revised rules.
This document provides information on guaranties, explains the
proposed amendments, solicits additional comment, provides analyses
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act,
and sets forth the Commission's proposed amendments.
II. Background
The Fur Act, Textile Act, and Wool Products Labeling Act (``Wool
Act'') \1\ each shield from liability entities that obtain guaranties
from third parties. These guaranties attest that the transferred
products are not mislabeled or falsely advertised or invoiced. There
are two types of guaranties. Separate guaranties designate particular
products.\2\ Continuing guaranties, which guarantors file with the
Commission, apply to any textile, wool, or fur product transferred from
a particular guarantor.\3\ Each act further provides that guaranty
protections are available only for entities that receive a guaranty in
``good faith'' from a ``person residing in the United States.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 69 et seq. (Fur Act); 15 U.S.C. 70 et seq.
(Textile Act); 15 U.S.C. 68 et seq. (Wool Act). The Fur Rules are
codified at 16 CFR Part 301, the Textile Rules are codified at 16
CFR Part 303, and the Wool Rules are codified at 16 CFR Part 300.
\2\ 15 U.S.C. 68g(a); 15 U.S.C. 69h(a); 15 U.S.C. 70h(a).
\3\ Id.
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entities providing continuing guaranties for fur products must file
those guaranties with the Commission using the form specified in the
Textile Rules at 16 CFR 303.38(b).\5\ Continuing guaranties remain in
effect until revoked.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 15 U.S.C. 69h(a)(2).
\6\ 16 CFR 301.48(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Proposed Amendments
In response to the Commission's September 17, 2012, proposed
amendments (``Fur NPRM''),\7\ the National Retail Federation (``NRF'')
submitted a comment recommending revisions to the guaranty provisions.
Specifically, NRF supported changes allowing entities to provide
separate guaranties through electronic means, removing the penalty of
perjury language from the continuing guaranty form, making the guaranty
format ``suggested'' rather than ``prescribed,'' and adding a provision
to extend guaranty protections to retailers that import goods directly
and, therefore, cannot obtain a guaranty.\8\ NRF recommended making the
same changes to the Textile Rules.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Federal Trade Commission: Regulations Under the Fur Products
Labeling Act, 77 FR 57043 (Sept. 17, 2012).
\8\ National Retail Federation Comment 00025 at 1-5,
available at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/furrulesreview/index.shtm (hereinafter ``NRF at ----'').
\9\ See National Retail Federation Comment 0020 to ``16
CFR Part 303: Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products
Identification Act: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Request for Public Comment,'' available at http://ftc.gov/os/comments/textilerulesanpr/index.shtm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 30, 2013, the Commission issued the Textile NPRM, which
announced several proposed amendments to the rules governing
guaranties.\10\ As detailed in that NPRM, the Commission proposed
eliminating the penalty of perjury language in the required form for
continuing guaranties and proposed requiring that guarantors renew
continuing guaranties annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 78 FR 29263 (May 20, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the proposed amendments to the Textile Rules, as well
as NRF's comment, the Commission proposes conforming amendments to the
Fur Rules. As explained below, the Commission declines to propose
amendments specifically providing for electronic transmission of
separate guaranties, and proposes that guarantors renew continuing
guaranties annually. In addition, the Commission does not propose
amendments regarding NRF's concerns about guaranty protections for
retailers directly importing products because a recently announced
Enforcement Policy Statement provides the requested protections.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Enforcement Policy Regarding Certain Imported Textile,
Wool, and Fur Products at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/01/eps.shtm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Electronic Transmission of Separate Guaranties
NRF urged the Commission to publish amendments explicitly providing
for the electronic transmission of separate guaranties. Currently,
section 301.47 provides a ``suggested form'' for such guaranties, which
includes the guarantor's ``signature and address.'' \12\ Section 301.47
does not provide guidance regarding what qualifies as a signature. NRF
urged amending the Rules to specify that an order for apparel between a
purchasing business' ``electronic agent,'' as that term is defined by
the Uniform Commercial Code (``UCC''), and a guarantor will constitute
a separate guaranty if the order is explicitly subject to the goods'
conformance with the Fur Act and Rules.\13\ Notably, the ``electronic
agent'' definition proposed by NRF provides that electronic acceptance
can occur ``with or without review or action by an individual.'' \14\
NRF also urged that the Fur Rules ``clearly stat[e] how companies [can]
comply with the regulations though electronic means,'' including the
use of electronic signatures.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 16 CFR 301.47.
\13\ NRF at 2.
\14\ NRF at 2.
\15\ NRF at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission declines to propose amendments specifically
addressing electronic transmittal of guaranties. The
[[Page 36695]]
Fur Rules do not prohibit or discourage the electronic communication of
guaranties, nor do they require any particular mode of communication.
Instead, the Rules focus on the guaranties' substance. Furthermore,
incorporating ``electronic agent'' as defined by the UCC could
undermine compliance with the Rules. For example, incorporating the
definition would permit guaranteeing of goods by ``a computer program
or an electronic or other automated means.'' \16\ This would allow
guaranties without any individual monitoring to ensure that the
guaranteed products meet the legal requirements for guaranties. Indeed,
it is unclear how a buyer receiving a guaranty in such circumstances
could do so in good faith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ NRF at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, NRF has not presented any evidence showing that the
current Fur Rules impose significant costs on businesses or that making
its recommended change would decrease those costs. The Rules appear to
provide sufficient flexibility for compliance without providing
specifically for ``electronic guaranties.'' Although the Commission is
not proposing NRF's recommended amendment, the Commission seeks comment
on this issue.
The Commission proposes two amendments, however, to make clear that
electronically transmitted guaranties are not prohibited. First, the
Commission proposes, as it did in the Textile NPRM, changing the term
``invoice'' in section 301.47 and the phrase ``invoice or other paper''
in section 301.48(b) to ``invoice or other document.'' The proposed
change would make clear that ``invoice'' includes documents that are
electronically stored or transmitted. Second, the Commission proposes
amending section 301.47 to include, as the Textile Rules currently do,
a statement that the guarantor's printed name and address will meet the
signature component for separate guaranties.\17\ Specifically, the
Commission proposes adding the following language to section 301.47:
``Note: The printed name and address on the invoice or other document
will suffice to meet the signature and address requirements.'' This
additional language should make clear that entities can sign guaranties
electronically, consistent with the Electronic Signatures in Global and
National Commerce Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Section 301.47 also differs from the Textile Guaranty
provisions by requiring separate guaranties to show ``the date of
shipment of the merchandise.'' 16 CFR 301.47. To promote consistency
between guaranty provisions, the Commission proposes removing this
requirement.
\18\ 15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Continuing Guaranties
Section 301.48 requires that guarantors use the prescribed form in
16 CFR 303.38(b) for a continuing guaranty filed with the Commission.
The current form requires the guarantor to sign the guaranty under
penalty of perjury. NRF recommended making the guaranty form optional
and eliminating the penalty-of-perjury requirement.\19\ Consistent with
the Textile NPRM, the Commission declines to propose the first
amendment, but proposes to require that guarantors certify guaranties
rather than sign them under penalty of perjury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ NRF at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRF recommended making the continuing guaranty form optional to
allow businesses to use electronic processes without the obligation to
revert to paper documents and signatures.\20\ The Commission declines
to propose this change because the prescribed form benefits businesses
without imposing significant burdens. Requiring a uniform document
enables the Commission to review, process, and return the guaranties
expeditiously. Reviewing documents in varying formats to determine
whether they qualify as guaranties would add needless delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ NRF at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, requiring a specific form does not appear to inhibit
electronic processes or cause any other burden. NRF did not present any
evidence showing that businesses cannot adapt the prescribed form to
electronic communications, including electronic signatures. Businesses
may send the prescribed form electronically, and the Fur Rules allow
electronic signatures.\21\ Moreover, the form is only one page and
consists of a two-sentence certification and a signature block stating
the date, location, and name of the business making the guaranty, as
well as the name, title, and signature of the person signing the
guaranty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The word ``signature'' appears in the prescribed form for
continuing guaranties filed with the Commission. That form does not
require written signatures or prohibit electronic signatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRF also recommended that the Commission eliminate the penalty of
perjury language for continuing guaranties. It argued that requiring
sworn statements inappropriately introduces the criminal elements of
perjury into private contracts and that the person providing the
attestation cannot attest to the truth of labels and invoices in the
future.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ NRF at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although swearing under penalty of perjury in private agreements is
not unusual,\23\ swearing to future events is problematic and may
present enforcement issues. Specifically, many people who intend to
comply with the Rules may be understandably reluctant to swear to a
future event. Accordingly, in its Textile NPRM, the Commission proposed
eliminating the penalty of perjury language. Because the Fur Rules
incorporate the same form, the proposed Textile amendments would
eliminate the penalty of perjury requirement for fur guaranties as
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See J. Geils Band Employee Benefit Plan v. Smith Barney
Shearson, Inc., 76 F.3d 1245 (1st Cir. 1996) (upholding summary
judgment in part because appellant failed to rebut acknowledgment of
receipt of investment prospectuses evidenced by an agreement
executed under penalty of perjury).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing guaranties, however, must provide sufficient indicia of
reliability to permit buyers to rely on them on an ongoing basis. The
perjury language addressed this concern. Therefore, instead of
requiring guarantors to swear under penalty of perjury, the Textile
NPRM proposed requiring guarantors to acknowledge that providing a
false guaranty is unlawful; to certify that they will actively monitor
and ensure compliance with the Fur, Textile, and Wool Acts and Rules;
and to renew guaranties annually.
As explained in the Textile NPRM, the new form should increase a
guaranty's reliability by focusing the guarantor's attention on, and
underscoring, its obligation to comply. However, the new form would not
impose additional burdens on guarantors because they would simply be
acknowledging the Fur Act's prohibition against false guaranties \24\
and certifying to the monitoring that they already must engage in to
ensure that they do not provide false guaranties. In addition, the
required statements would benefit recipients of guaranties by
bolstering the basis of their good-faith reliance on the guaranties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ The Fur Act provides that furnishing a false guaranty is
``unlawful, . . . [and] an unfair method of competition, and an
unfair and deceptive act or practice'' under the FTC Act. 15 U.S.C.
69h(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, requiring guarantors to renew guaranties annually
provides needed assurance of reliability in the absence of a sworn
statement. Annual renewal should encourage guarantors to take regular
steps to ensure that they remain in compliance with the Fur Act and
Rules and thereby increase the guaranties' reliability. Moreover, these
benefits should outweigh the minimal burden of completing the one-page
form. As discussed above, the form
[[Page 36696]]
consists of only a two-sentence certification and a signature block
stating the date, location, and name of the business making the
guaranty, as well as the certifier's name and title. Thus, businesses
should not incur significant costs in completing and submitting the
form annually. Although certifying also would require guarantors to
confirm that their business remains in compliance, this would not
impose any burden beyond what the Fur Rules currently require.
Specifically, entities that have filed continuing guaranties must
continuously monitor their shipments to ensure that they are complying
with the Fur Act and Rules.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 16 CFR 303.38(b) (continuing guaranty form requiring
sworn statement that guarantor will not ship mislabeled, falsely
invoiced, or falsely advertised fur products).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike changes to the continuing guaranty form, requiring annual
renewal necessitates an amendment to the Fur Rules. Thus, the
Commission proposes amending section 301.48(a)(2) to provide that
continuing guaranties are valid for a year or until revoked.
C. Alternative to Fur Act Guaranty for Directly Imported Goods
The Fur Act authorizes fur guaranties from persons ``residing in
the United States by whom the fur product or fur guaranteed was
manufactured or from whom it was received.'' \26\ Thus, businesses that
buy from manufacturers or suppliers that have no representative in the
United States cannot obtain a guaranty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 15 U.S.C. 69h(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because many retailers now regularly rely on global supply chains,
NRF recommended that the Commission adopt an alternative guaranty for
such businesses. Specifically, NRF recommended that the Commission
allow such businesses to rely on compliance representations from
foreign manufacturers or suppliers when: (1) The businesses do not
embellish or misrepresent the representations; (2) the fur products are
not sold as private label products; and (3) the businesses have no
reason to know that the marketing or sale of the products would violate
the Act or Rules.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ NRF at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in the Textile NPRM, NRF's argument has merit. Changes
in the clothing industry resulting in increased imports mean that more
businesses cannot obtain guaranties. In light of the increased reliance
on global supply chains for fur products, the Commission finds it in
the public interest to provide protections for retailers that: (1)
Cannot legally obtain a guaranty under the Fur Act; (2) do not
embellish or misrepresent claims provided by the manufacturer related
to the relevant Act or Rules; and (3) do not market the products as
private label products; unless the retailers knew or should have known
that the marketing or sale of the products would violate the Act or
Rules. Such protections provide greater consistency for retailers
regardless of whether they directly import products or use third-party
domestic importers. Accordingly, on January 3, 2013, the Commission
announced an enforcement policy statement providing that it will not
bring enforcement actions against retailers that meet the above
criteria.\28\ This statement addresses the concerns raised by NRF.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See Enforcement Policy Regarding Certain Imported Textile,
Wool, and Fur Products at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2013/01/eps.shtm.
\29\ NRF requested an amendment to the Fur Rules. However,
amending the Rules to allow foreign guaranties would be inconsistent
with the Fur Act, which requires guarantors to ``resid[e] in the
United States.'' 15 U.S.C. 69h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Request for Comments
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to
consider your comment, we must receive it on or before July 23, 2013.
Write ``Fur Rules Review, 16 CFR Part 301, Project 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 doesn't 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. In addition, don't
include any ``[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information
which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or
confidential,'' as provided 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 have to follow the procedure explained
in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).\30\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 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. As a result, 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/furproductslabelingnprm, by following the instruction on the web-
based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov, you
also may file a comment through that Web site.
If you file your comment on paper, write ``Fur Rules Review, 16 CFR
Part 301, Project 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, DC 20580. If possible, submit your
paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this
NPRM 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 July 23, 2013. 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.htm.
The Commission invites members of the public to comment on any
issues or concerns they believe are relevant or appropriate to the
Commission's consideration of proposed amendments to the Fur Rules. The
Commission requests that comments provide factual
[[Page 36697]]
data upon which they are based. In addition to the issues raised above,
the Commission solicits public comment on the costs and benefits to
industry members and consumers of each of the proposals as well as the
specific questions identified below. These questions are designed to
assist the public and should not be construed as a limitation on the
issues on which public comment may be submitted.
Questions
1. Do the Fur Rules and the proposed changes to the guaranty
provisions in sections 301.47 and 301.48 provide sufficient flexibility
for compliance using electronic transmittal of guaranties? If so, why
and how? If not, why not?
2. Should the Commission amend section 301.47 by changing the term
``invoice'' to ``invoice or other document'' and removing ``the date of
shipment of the merchandise''? If so, why? If not, why not?
3. Should the Commission revise the proposed certification
requirement for continuing guaranties provided by suppliers pursuant to
section 301.48? If so, why and how? If not, why not?
4. Should the Rules require those providing a continuing guaranty
pursuant to section 301.48 to renew the certification annually or at
some other interval? If so, why? If not, why not? To what extent would
requiring guarantors to renew certifications annually increase costs?
What benefits would requiring annual renewal provide?
5. What evidence supports your answers?
V. Communications to Commissioners and Commissioner Advisors by Outside
Parties
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.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See 16 CFR 1.26(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA'') \32\ requires that the
Commission conduct an analysis of the anticipated economic impact of
the proposed amendments on small entities. The purpose of a regulatory
flexibility analysis is to ensure that an agency considers the impacts
on small entities and examines regulatory alternatives that could
achieve the regulatory purpose while minimizing burdens on small
entities. Section 605 of the RFA \33\ provides that such an analysis is
not required if the agency head certifies that the regulatory action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
\33\ 5 U.S.C. 605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the proposed amendments would not have
a significant economic impact upon small entities, although it may
affect a substantial number of small businesses. The proposed
amendments clarify and update the guaranty provisions of sections
301.47 and 301.48 by, among other things, replacing the requirement
that suppliers that provide a guaranty sign under penalty of perjury
with a certification requirement for continuing guaranties that must be
renewed every year.
In the Commission's view, the proposed amendments should not have a
significant or disproportionate impact on the costs of small entities
that manufacture or import fur products. Therefore, based on available
information, the Commission certifies that amending the Rules as
proposed will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small businesses.
Although the Commission certifies under the RFA that the proposed
amendments would not, if promulgated, have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the Commission has determined,
nonetheless, that it is appropriate to publish an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis to inquire into the impact of the proposed
amendments on small entities. Therefore, the Commission has prepared
the following analysis:
A. Description of the Reasons That Action by the Agency Is Being Taken
In response to public comments, the Commission proposes amending
the Rules to update its fur guaranty provisions.
B. Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed
Amendments
The objective of the proposed amendments is to clarify and update
the Rules' guaranty provisions by, among other things, replacing the
requirement that suppliers that provide a guaranty sign under penalty
of perjury with an annually renewed certification. The Fur Act
authorizes the Commission to implement its requirements through the
issuance of rules.
The proposed amendments would clarify and update the Fur Rules
without imposing significant new burdens or additional costs. The
proposal that continuing guaranty certifications expire after one year
would likely impose minimal additional costs on businesses that choose
to provide a guaranty. Providing a new continuing guaranty each year
would likely entail minimal costs.
C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed Amendments Will Apply
The Rules apply to various segments of the fur industry, including
manufacturers and importers of furs and fur products. Under the Small
Business Size Standards issued by the Small Business Administration,
apparel manufacturers qualify as small businesses if they have 500 or
fewer employees. Importers qualify as small businesses if they have 100
or fewer employees. The Commission's staff has estimated that
approximately 1,290 fur product manufacturers and importers are covered
by the Rules' disclosure requirements.\34\ A substantial number of
these entities likely qualify as small businesses. The Commission
estimates that the proposed amendments will not have a significant
impact on small businesses because they do not impose any significant
new obligations on them. The Commission seeks comment and information
with regard to the estimated number or nature of small business
entities for which the proposed amendments would have a significant
impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Federal Trade Commission: Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request, 7 FR 10744
(Feb. 23, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements, Including Classes of Covered Small Entities and
Professional Skills Needed To Comply
As explained earlier in this document, the proposed amendments
would clarify and update the Rules' guaranty provisions by, among other
things, replacing the requirement that suppliers that provide a
guaranty sign under penalty of perjury with a certification requirement
that must be renewed annually. The small entities potentially covered
by these proposed amendments will include all such entities already
subject to the existing Rules. The professional skills necessary for
compliance with the Rules as modified by the proposed amendments would
include clerical personnel to submit guaranties and keep records. The
Commission invites comment and information on these issues.
[[Page 36698]]
E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
The Commission has not identified any other federal statutes,
rules, or policies that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed amendments. The Commission invites comment and information on
this issue.
F. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Amendments
The Commission has not proposed any specific small entity exemption
or other significant alternatives, as the proposed amendments simply
clarify and update the Rules' guaranty provisions by, among other
things, replacing the requirement that suppliers that provide a
guaranty sign under penalty of perjury with a certification
requirement. Under these limited circumstances, the Commission does not
believe a special exemption for small entities or significant
compliance alternatives are necessary or appropriate to minimize the
compliance burden, if any, on small entities while achieving the
intended purposes of the proposed amendments. As discussed above,
adopting NRF's proposed changes is unnecessary to allow electronic
compliance with the Fur Rules.
Nonetheless, the Commission seeks comment and information on the
need, if any, for alternative compliance methods that would reduce the
economic impact of the Fur Rules on small entities. If the comments
filed in response to this document identify small entities that would
be affected by the proposed amendments, as well as alternative methods
of compliance that would reduce the economic impact of the proposed
amendments on such entities, the Commission will consider the
feasibility of such alternatives and determine whether they should be
incorporated into the final Rules.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Rules contain various ``collection of information'' (e.g.,
disclosure and recordkeeping) requirements for which the Commission has
obtained OMB clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA'').\35\
As discussed above, the Commission proposes amending sections 301.47
and 301.48 to clarify and update the Rules' guaranty provisions by,
among other things, replacing the requirement that suppliers provide a
guaranty signed under penalty of perjury with a certification
requirement for continuing guaranties that must be renewed every year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The Commission recently published
its PRA burden estimates for the current information collection
requirements under the Fur Rules. See Federal Trade Commission:
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request, 76 FR 77230 (Dec. 12, 2011) and Federal Trade
Commission: Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for
OMB Review; Comment Request, 77 FR 10744 (Feb. 23, 2012). On March
26, 2012, OMB granted clearance through March 31, 2015, for these
requirements and the associated PRA burden estimates. The OMB
control number is 3084-0101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed amendments to the guaranties would impose no
additional collection of information requirements. The proposal that
continuing guaranty certifications expire after one year would likely
impose minimal additional costs on businesses that choose to provide a
guaranty.
VIII. Proposed Rule
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 301
Furs, Labeling, Trade practices.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Trade
Commission proposes to amend title 16, Chapter I, Subchapter C, of the
Code of Federal Regulations, part 301, as follows:
PART 301--RULES AND REGULATIONS UNDER THE FUR PRODUCTS LABELING ACT
0
1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 69 et seq.
0
2. Revise Sec. 301.47 to read as follows:
Sec. 301.47 Form of separate guaranty.
The following is a suggested form of separate guaranty under
section 10 of the Act which may be used by a guarantor residing in the
United States, on and as part of an invoice or other document in which
the merchandise covered is listed and specified and which shows the
date of such document and the signature and address of the guarantor:
We guarantee that the fur products or furs specified herein are not
misbranded nor falsely nor deceptively advertised or invoiced under the
provisions of the Fur Products Labeling Act and rules and regulations
thereunder.
Note: The printed name and address on the invoice or other
document will suffice to meet the signature and address
requirements.
0
3. Amend Sec. 301.48 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 301.48 Continuing guaranty filed with Federal Trade Commission
(a) * * *
(2) Continuing guaranties filed with the Commission shall continue
in effect for one year unless revoked earlier. The guarantor shall
promptly report any change in business status to the Commission.
* * *
(b) Any person who has a continuing guaranty on file with the
Commission may, during the effective dates of the guaranty, give notice
of such fact by setting forth on the invoice or other document covering
the marketing or handling of the product guaranteed the following:
``Continuing guaranty under the Fur Products Labeling Act filed with
the Federal Trade Commission.''
* * * * *
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14671 Filed 6-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P