Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Notices 1497 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–9054–7] 

Environmental Impact Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information 202– 

564–5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements (EIS) 

Filed December 23, 2020 10 a.m. EST 

Through January 4, 2021 10 a.m. EST 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. 

Notice 

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act 

requires that EPA make public its 

comments on EISs issued by other 

Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters 

on EISs are available at: https://

cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/ 

action/eis/search. 

EIS No. 20210000, Draft, BOEM, NY, 

South Fork Wind Farm and South 

Fork Export Cable Project, Comment 

Period Ends: 02/22/2021, Contact: 

Michelle Morin 703–787–1722. 

Dated: January 4, 2021. 

Cindy S. Barger, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00116 Filed 1–7–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Notice of Proposals To Engage in or 

To Acquire Companies Engaged in 

Permissible Nonbanking Activities 

The companies listed in this notice 

have given notice under section 4 of the 

Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 

1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 

CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to 

acquire or control voting securities or 

assets of a company, including the 

companies listed below, that engages 

either directly or through a subsidiary or 

other company, in a nonbanking activity 

that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y 

(12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 

determined by Order to be closely 

related to banking and permissible for 

bank holding companies. Unless 

otherwise noted, these activities will be 

conducted throughout the United States. 

The public portions of the 

applications listed below, as well as 

other related filings required by the 

Board, if any, are available for 

immediate inspection at the Federal 

Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at 

the offices of the Board of Governors. 

This information may also be obtained 

on an expedited basis, upon request, by 

contacting the appropriate Federal 

Reserve Bank and from the Board’s 

Freedom of Information Office at 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/ 

request.htm. Interested persons may 

express their views in writing on the 

question whether the proposal complies 

with the standards of section 4 of the 

BHC Act. 

Unless otherwise noted, comments 

regarding the applications must be 

received at the Reserve Bank indicated 

or the offices of the Board of Governors, 

Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 

20th Street and Constitution 

Avenue,NW, Washington, DC 20551– 

0001, not later than February 8, 2021. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta 

(Kathryn Haney, Assistant Vice 

President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE, 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can 

also be sent electronically to 

Applications.Comments@atl.frb.org: 

1. Commerce Bancshares, Inc., White 

Castle, Louisiana; to retain Assumption 

Mortgage, LLC, Paincourtville, 

Louisiana, and thereby indirectly engage 

in mortgage brokerage activities 

(extending credit and servicing loans), 

pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of 

Regulation Y. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, January 4, 2021. 

Michele Taylor Fennell, 

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00092 Filed 1–7–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 

Change in Bank Control Notices; 

Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or 

Bank Holding Company 

The notificants listed below have 

applied under the Change in Bank 

Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and 

§ 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 

CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank 

or bank holding company. The factors 

that are considered in acting on the 

applications are set forth in paragraph 7 

of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)). 

The public portions of the 

applications listed below, as well as 

other related filings required by the 

Board, if any, are available for 

immediate inspection at the Federal 

Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at 

the offices of the Board of Governors. 

This information may also be obtained 

on an expedited basis, upon request, by 

contacting the appropriate Federal 

Reserve Bank and from the Board’s 

Freedom of Information Office at 

https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/ 

request.htm. Interested persons may 

express their views in writing on the 

standards enumerated in paragraph 7 of 

the Act. 

Comments regarding each of these 

applications must be received at the 

Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of 

the Board of Governors, Ann E. 

Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW, 

Washington DC 20551–0001, not later 

than January 25, 2021. 

A. Federal Reserve Bank of 

Minneapolis (Chris P. Wangen, 

Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin 

Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 

55480–0291: 

1. Ann Fishback Rivlin, Madison, 

Wisconsin, individually and as trustee 

of the John T. Fishback Irrevocable 

Trust, the AFR Holdings Trust, the JTF 

Holdings Trust, the Patricia S. Fishback 

GRAT 2B Trust, the Patricia S. Fishback 

GRAT 2C Trust, the Patricia S. Fishback 

GRAT 4C Trust, the Patricia S. Fishback 

GRAT 8C Trust, and the Patricia S. 

Fishback GRAT 10C Trust (collectively, 

‘‘the Rivlin Trusts’’), all of Brookings, 

South Dakota; to retain voting shares of 

Fishback Financial Corporation, and 

thereby indirectly retain voting shares of 

First Bank & Trust, both of Brookings, 

South Dakota. 

In addition, the Rivlin Trusts, Thomas 

M. Fishback, as trustee of the Oliver V. 

Fishback Trust, Patricia S. Fishback, as 

trustee of the Robert E. Fishback GRAT 

2C Trust, Paul V. Fishback, as trustee of 

the PVF FFC Holdings Trust, and Van 

D. Fishback, as trustee of the Van D. 

Fishback Revocable FFC Holdings Trust, 

all of Brookings, South Dakota; and 

James N. Fishback, as trustee of the JNF 

FFC Holdings Trust, both of Sioux Falls, 

South Dakota; to join the Fishback 

family shareholder group, a group acting 

in concert, to retain voting shares of 

Fishback Financial Corporation and 

thereby indirectly retain voting shares of 

First Bank & Trust. 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System, January 4, 2021. 

Michele Taylor Fennell, 

Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00090 Filed 1–7–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

[File No. X160032] 

Chemence, Inc.; Analysis To Aid 

Public Comment 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed consent agreement; 

request for comment. 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
1498 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Notices 

SUMMARY: The consent agreement in this 

matter settles alleged violations of 

federal law prohibiting unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices. The attached 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes both the allegations in the 

complaint and the terms of the consent 

order—embodied in the consent 

agreement—that would settle these 

allegations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 8, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file 

comments online or on paper by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write ‘‘Chemence, Inc.; File No. 

X160032’’ on your comment, and file 

your comment online at https://

www.regulations.gov by following the 

instructions on the web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 

CC–5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 

20580, or deliver your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 

5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), 

Washington, DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia 

Solomon Ensor (202–326–2377), Bureau 

of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 

Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW, Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is 

hereby given that the above-captioned 

consent agreement containing a consent 

order to cease and desist, having been 

filed with and accepted, subject to final 

approval, by the Commission, has been 

placed on the public record for a period 

of thirty (30) days. The following 

Analysis to Aid Public Comment 

describes the terms of the consent 

agreement and the allegations in the 

complaint. An electronic copy of the 

full text of the consent agreement 

package can be obtained from the FTC 

website, at this web address: https://

www.ftc.gov/news-events/commissionactions. 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. For the Commission to consider 

your comment, we must receive it on or 

before February 8, 2021. Write 

‘‘Chemence, Inc.; File No. X160032’’ 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 https://

www.regulations.gov website. 

Due to protective measures in 

response to the COVID–19 pandemic 

and the agency’s heightened security 

screening, postal mail addressed to the 

Commission will be subject to delay. We 

strongly encourage you to submit your 

comments online through the https://

www.regulations.gov website. 

If you file your comment on paper, 

write ‘‘Chemence, Inc.; File No. 

X160032’’ on your comment and on the 

envelope, and mail your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 

CC–5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 

20580; or deliver your comment to the 

following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 

5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), 

Washington, DC 20024. If possible, 

submit your paper comment to the 

Commission by courier or overnight 

service. 

Because your comment will be placed 

on the publicly accessible website at 

https://www.regulations.gov, you are 

solely responsible for making sure your 

comment does not include any sensitive 

or confidential information. In 

particular, your comment should not 

include any sensitive personal 

information, such as your or anyone 

else’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 your 

comment does not include sensitive 

health information, such as medical 

records or other individually 

identifiable health information. In 

addition, your comment should not 

include any ‘‘trade secret or any 

commercial or financial information 

which . . . is privileged or 

confidential’’—as provided by 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)— 

including in particular competitively 

sensitive information such as costs, 

sales statistics, inventories, formulas, 

patterns, devices, manufacturing 

processes, or customer names. 

Comments containing material for 

which confidential treatment is 

requested must be filed in paper form, 

must be clearly labeled ‘‘Confidential,’’ 

and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). 

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). Your 

comment will be kept confidential only 

if the General Counsel grants your 

request in accordance with the law and 

the public interest. Once your comment 

has been posted on the public FTC 

website—as legally required by FTC 

Rule 4.9(b)—we cannot redact or 

remove your comment from the FTC 

website, unless you submit a 

confidentiality request that meets the 

requirements for such treatment under 

FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General 

Counsel grants that request. 

Visit the FTC website at http://

www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the 

news release describing the proposed 

settlement. 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 February 8, 2021. For information 

on the Commission’s privacy policy, 

including routine uses permitted by the 

Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/ 

site-information/privacy-policy. 

Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To 

Aid Public Comment 

The Federal Trade Commission 

(‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) has accepted, 

subject to final approval, an agreement 

containing a consent order from 

Chemence, Inc. and James Cooke 

(‘‘Respondents’’). 

The proposed consent order has been 

placed on the public record for thirty 

(30) days for receipt of comments from 

interested persons. Comments received 

during this period will become part of 

the public record. After thirty (30) days, 

the Commission will again review the 

agreement and the comments received, 

and will decide whether it should 

withdraw from the agreement or make 

final the agreement’s proposed order. 

This matter involves Respondents’ 

advertising, labeling, sale, and 

distribution of cyanoacrylate 

‘‘superglue’’ products as made in the 

United States. According to the FTC’s 

complaint, Respondents represented 

that the cyanoacrylate ‘‘superglue’’ 

products they manufactured and 

supplied to trade customers were all or 

virtually all made in the United States. 

In fact, significant proportions of the 

chemical inputs, and overall costs, to 

manufacture Respondents’ 

cyanoacrylate ‘‘superglues’’ are 

attributable to foreign materials. In 

numerous instances, foreign materials 

accounted for more than 80% of 

materials costs and more than 50% of 

overall manufacturing costs for these 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Notices 1499 

1See Irving Scher et al., Part II—FTC 

Improvement Act, 45 Antitrust L.J. 96, 117 (1976). 

2For example, the Commission’s Policy 

Statement on Deception notes that ‘‘[t]he 

prohibitions of Section 5 are intended to prevent 

injury to competitors as well as to consumers.’’ FTC 

Policy Statement on Deception, 103 F.T.C. 174, 175 

(1984) (appended to Cliffdale Assocs., Inc., 103 

F.T.C. 110 (1984)), https://www.ftc.gov/publicstatements/1983/10/ftc-policy-statement-deception. 

3See, e.g., Kong, Xinyao and Rao, Anita (June 8, 

2020). ‘‘Do Made in USA Claims Matter?,’’ 

University of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for 

Economics Working Paper No. 2019–138, Available 

at SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/ 

papers.cfm?abstract_id=3468543. 

products. The complaint also alleges 

that, by distributing promotional 

materials containing misrepresentations 

regarding the U.S. origin of their 

products, Respondents provided trade 

customers the means and 

instrumentalities to commit deceptive 

acts or practices. Based on the foregoing, 

the complaint alleges that Respondents 

engaged in deceptive acts or practices in 

violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 

and violated a 2016 federal court order 

in the process. 

The proposed consent order contains 

provisions designed to prevent 

Respondents from engaging in similar 

acts and practices in the future. 

Consistent with the FTC’s Enforcement 

Policy Statement on U.S. Origin Claims, 

Part I prohibits Respondents from 

making U.S.-origin claims for their 

products unless either: (1) The final 

assembly or processing of the product 

occurs in the United States, all 

significant processing that goes into the 

product occurs in the United States, and 

all or virtually all ingredients or 

components of the product are made 

and sourced in the United States; (2) a 

clear and conspicuous qualification 

appears immediately adjacent to the 

representation that accurately conveys 

the extent to which the product contains 

foreign parts, ingredients or 

components, and/or processing; or (3) 

for a claim that a product is assembled 

in the United States, the product is last 

substantially transformed in the United 

States, the product’s principal assembly 

takes place in the United States, and 

United States assembly operations are 

substantial. 

Part II prohibits Respondents from 

making any country-of-origin claim 

about a product or service unless the 

claim is true, not misleading, and 

Respondents have a reasonable basis 

substantiating the representation. 

Part III prohibits Respondents from 

providing third parties with the means 

and instrumentalities to make the 

claims prohibited in Parts I or II. 

Parts IV through VI are monetary 

provisions. Part IV imposes a judgment 

of $1,200,000. Part V includes 

additional monetary provisions relating 

to collections. Part VI requires 

Respondents to provide sufficient 

customer information to enable the 

Commission to administer consumer 

redress, if appropriate. 

Part VII is a notice provision requiring 

Respondents to identify and notify 

certain third-party trade customers of 

the FTC’s action within 30 days after the 

issuance of the order, or within 30 days 

of the customer’s identification, if 

identified later. Respondents are also 

required to submit reports regarding 

their notification program. 

Parts VIII through XI are reporting and 

compliance provisions. Part VIII 

requires Respondents to acknowledge 

receipt of the order, to provide a copy 

of the order to certain current and future 

principals, officers, directors, and 

employees, and to obtain an 

acknowledgement from each such 

person that they have received a copy of 

the order. Part IX requires Respondents 

to file a compliance report within one 

year after the order becomes final and to 

notify the Commission within 14 days 

of certain changes that would affect 

compliance with the order. Part X 

requires Respondents to maintain 

certain records, including records 

necessary to demonstrate compliance 

with the order. Part XI requires 

Respondents to submit additional 

compliance reports when requested by 

the Commission and to permit the 

Commission or its representatives to 

interview Respondents’ personnel. 

Finally, Part XII is a ‘‘sunset’’ 

provision terminating the order after 

twenty (20) years, with certain 

exceptions. 

The purpose of this analysis is to aid 

public comment on the proposed order. 

It is not intended to constitute an 

official interpretation of the proposed 

order or to modify its terms in any way. 

By direction of the Commission. 

April J. Tabor, 

Acting Secretary. 

Statement of Commissioner Rohit 

Chopra In the Matter of Chemence, Inc. 

Summary 

• Made in USA fraud harms both 

consumers and honest competitors. Yet 

for decades, FTC Commissioners 

pursued a no-money, no-fault settlement 

strategy to tackle this problem, ignoring 

Congressional authority to penalize bad 

actors. 

• Over the last two years, the 

Commission has begun to turn the page 

on its checkered record, obtaining 

significant judgments for Made in USA 

fraud and initiating a rulemaking to 

trigger damages and penalties. 

• Today’s action against Chemence 

and a top executive is another step 

forward in protecting the Made in USA 

brand and restoring the Commission’s 

law enforcement credibility. 

For markets to function fairly, the 

Federal Trade Commission must be a 

credible watchdog, ensuring that 

companies have an incentive to follow 

the law and adhere to the agency’s rules 

and orders. Corporate defendants that 

blatantly lie about their products have 

been able to convince Commissioners 

that their conduct caused no harm, 

allowing them to extract settlements 

with virtually no consequences 

whatsoever. Robert Pitofsky, who served 

as a Commissioner and later as the 

agency’s Chairman, described these nomoney, no-fault orders as ‘‘scandalously 

weak.’’ 1

Longstanding FTC policies recognize 

that blatant deception harms consumers 

and diverts sales from honest 

competitors.2 But, over the years, 

Commissioners quietly adopted a 

permissive approach toward corporate 

fraud, while bringing down the hammer 

on small, fly-by-night operations. Going 

hard on small businesses can give the 

appearance of active enforcement, even 

as more established companies face few 

consequences for their wrongdoing. 

However, there are promising signs 

that this is changing. One of the best 

examples of our moving away from lax 

enforcement is our Made in USA fraud 

program. Today, the Commission is 

announcing another action against an 

established corporate actor, showing we 

are turning the page on our permissive 

policy of the past. 

FTC’s Flawed Made in USA 

Enforcement Strategy 

Consumers prefer goods that are 

produced domestically, and they are 

even willing to pay more for them.3 This 

gives bad actors an incentive to 

unlawfully parade their products with 

the ‘‘Made in USA’’ brand. Government 

enforcement can ensure that this 

strategy does not pay off. 

However, for decades, there was 

bipartisan consensus at the Federal 

Trade Commission that Made in USA 

fraud should not be penalized. Even in 

egregious cases, most matters were 

resolved with no-money, no-fault 

settlements, and many violators 

received nothing more than closing 

letters. In 1994, Congress authorized the 

Commission to do more—granting the 

agency new authority to trigger 

penalties and damages for Made in USA 

fraud—but past Commissioners 

declined to even propose implementing 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES
1500 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 5 / Friday, January 8, 2021 / Notices 

4See generally Statement of Commissioner Rohit 

Chopra Regarding Activating Civil Penalties for 

Made in USA Fraud (Apr. 17, 2019), https://

www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2019/04/statementcommissioner-rohit-chopra-regarding-activatingcivil-penalties. In fact, under pressure from interest 

groups in the 1990s, Commissioners tried to weaken 

the Made in USA standard in light of globalized 

supply chains. Request for Public Comment on 

Proposed Guides for the use of U.S. Origin Claims, 

62 FR 25020 (May 7, 1997), https://

www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-05-07/pdf/ 

97-11814.pdf. See also Bruce Ingersoll, FTC May 

Ease Its Guidelines For the ‘Made in USA’ Label, 

Wall Street J. (May 6, 1997), https://www.wsj.com/ 

articles/SB862863598530948000. This effort was 

widely opposed, and it failed. See Matthew Bales, 

Jr., Implications and Effects of the FTC’s Decision 

to Retain the ‘‘All or Virtually All’’ Standard, 30 U. 

Miami Inter-Am. L. Rev. 727 (1999). 

5Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC 

Approves Final Consents Settling Charges that 

Hockey Puck Seller, Companies Selling 

Recreational and Outdoor Equipment Made False 

‘Made in USA’ Claims (Apr. 17, 2020), https://

www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/04/ 

ftc-approves-final-consents-settling-charges-hockeypuck-seller; Statement of Commissioner Rohit 

Chopra In the Matter of Nectar Sleep, Sandpiper/ 

PiperGear USA, and Patriot Puck (Sep. 12, 2018), 

https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2018/09/ 

statement-commissioner-chopra (hereinafter 

Dissenting Statement on No-Consequences Made in 

USA Settlements). 

6 Id. 

7 In fact, one competitor formally complained to 

the FTC that it lost out on a valuable Army and Air 

Force exchange listing based on Sandpiper’s 

deception. See Advantus, Corp. (Comment #5) at 3– 

4, https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/ 

public_comments/2018/10/00005-155955.pdf. 

8Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, Marketer of 

Water Filtration Systems to Pay $110,000 Civil 

Penalty for Deceptive Made-in-USA Advertisements 

in Violation of 2017 Order (Apr. 12, 2019), https:// 

www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/04/ 

marketer-water-filtration-systems-pay-110000-civilpenalty. 

9Closing letter to Danielle M. Hohos, Esq., 

Deputy General Counsel for Williams-Sonoma, Inc. 

(June 13, 2018), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ 

documents/closing_letters/nid/musa_williamssonoma_closing_letter.pdf. 

10Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, WilliamsSonoma, Inc. Settles with FTC, Agrees to Stop 

Making Overly Broad and Misleading ‘Made in 

USA’ Claims about Houseware and Furniture 

Products (Mar. 30, 2020), https://www.ftc.gov/newsevents/press-releases/2020/03/williams-sonomainc-settles-ftc-agrees-stop-making-overly-broad. 

11Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Issues 

Staff Report on Made in USA Workshop, Seeks 

Comment on Related Proposed Rulemaking for 

Labeling Rule (June 22, 2020), https://www.ftc.gov/ 

news-events/press-releases/2020/06/ftc-issues-staffreport-on-made-in-usa-workshop. 

12Of course, not every Made in USA violation 

requires a lawsuit, or justifies a large judgment. But 

seeking and accepting no money and no meaningful 

consequences undermines our credibility. 

13Memorandum from Commissioner Chopra to 

FTC Staff Regarding Repeat Offenders (May 14, 

2018), https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2018/ 

05/commissioners-memorandum-2018-01-repeatoffenders. 

14Compl. ¶¶ 13–16, In the Matter of Chemence, 

Inc. et al., Docket No. X160032. 

15 In addition, by filing this case administratively, 

the Commission has triggered civil penalties for 

future violations, even if in the absence of a final 

Made in USA fraud rule. 

16 Dissenting Statement on No-Consequences 

Made in USA Settlements, supra note 4, https://

www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_

statements/1407380/rchopra_musa_statement-sept_

12.pdf. 

17See, e.g., Press Release, Truth in Advertising, 

Inc. (TINA.org), Ad Watchdog TINA.org Petitions 

FTC for Made in USA Rule (Aug. 22, 2019), https:// 

www.truthinadvertising.org/made-in-usa-pressrelease/; Consumer Reports (Comment #6), https:// 

www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2018/10/12/ 

comment-00006-0; Alliance for American 

Manufacturing (Comment #5), https://www.ftc.gov/ 

policy/public-comments/2018/10/12/comment00005-0. 

this new authority, allowing it to 

languish for a quarter century.4

This lack of deterrence contributed to 

brazen Made in USA fraud, as seen in 

some of the Commission’s recent cases. 

In 2018, the FTC sued Patriot Puck, 

which branded its product as ‘‘The Only 

American Made Hockey Puck.’’ In fact, 

according to the Commission’s lawsuit, 

these pucks were made in China.5 That 

same year, the FTC sued a seller of 

military bags and other gear, charging 

the firm with inserting fraudulent Made 

in USA labels into imported products, 

and marketing these products on 

military bases.6 These practices harmed 

both consumers and honest 

competitors.7

Even firms that the FTC warned were 

seemingly undeterred. In 2017, the FTC 

required iSpring Water Systems to stop 

mislabeling its products. Last year, 

iSpring violated this order.8 In 2018, the 

FTC warned Williams-Sonoma to stop 

falsely marketing products as Made in 

USA; 9 earlier this year, they were 

charged with doing it anyway.10 The 

fact that these repeat offenders were 

caught is a testament to our staff’s 

vigilance, but offenders’ willingness to 

break the law twice demonstrates the 

flaws of the strategy pursued by past 

Commissions. 

Recently, we have seen how that 

strategy is changing. iSpring was 

ordered to pay a civil penalty, and the 

company admitted that it broke the law. 

Williams-Sonoma was required to pay 

$1 million to resolve the Commission’s 

allegations—a small sum, perhaps, for 

Williams-Sonoma, but a record for the 

FTC’s Made in USA enforcement 

program. And in July, the Commission 

finally proposed codifying the Made in 

USA standard into a rule.11 This rule 

would help to end the agency’s reliance 

on no-money settlements, allowing the 

Commission to seek civil penalties, 

damages, and other sanctions for Made 

in USA violations.12

Turning the Page 

Today’s action against Chemence and 

its top executive marks another turning 

point for the FTC’s enforcement 

strategy. Chemence is an established 

player in the adhesives and sealants 

business. The order announced today 

imposes real consequences—a major 

difference from the Commission’s past 

Made in USA settlements. 

First, the proposed order requires 

Chemence to forfeit $1.2 million in 

revenue stemming from the company’s 

failures. This is another record 

judgment for the FTC’s Made in USA 

enforcement program, and it represents 

a sea change from the era of no-money 

settlements. It is encouraging to see the 

FTC reducing its reliance on no-money 

orders, both here and in other program 

areas. 

Second, this order reminds businesses 

that FTC orders are not suggestions.13

The FTC’s complaint highlights false 

compliance reports filed by Chemence, 

and charges the company’s president 

personally for his involvement in the 

alleged violations.14 This stands in stark 

contrast to other actions against repeat 

offenders, where the FTC granted broad 

releases to executives who oversaw 

egregious violations. The approach in 

this matter is far more effective.15

Third, the proposed order requires 

Chemence to notify consumers of this 

action. Notice confers benefits in cases 

like this. It helps to erase any 

competitive advantage a firm realized 

through deception, and it accords 

consumers the dignity of knowing what 

happened. I have long argued we should 

seek notice in Made in USA and other 

matters,16 and I am pleased to see this 

provision incorporated into this 

enforcement action. 

Our new approach is a critical step 

forward for protecting the Made in USA 

brand, and a model for other FTC 

enforcement areas. There is more work 

to do, including finalizing a Made in 

USA fraud rule, but we are clearly 

moving in the right direction. 

While it is tempting for any 

government agency to think that the 

status quo is working well, we do our 

best work when we engage in selfcritical analysis and strive for 

continuous improvement. I congratulate 

all of the agency’s staff who fought for 

this outcome, as well as the many 

stakeholders who have worked with us 

to turn the page on the policy inherited 

from our predecessor Commissioners.17

These efforts to reboot the Made in USA 

enforcement program represent real 

progress. 

[FR Doc. 2021–00083 Filed 1–7–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with NOTICES