Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30445 

1 15 U.S.C. 69, et seq. 

2 16 CFR Part 301. 

thirds of the producers who participated 

in a referendum on the question of 

approval and who, during the period of 

August 1, 2012, through July 31, 2013, 

have been engaged within the 

production area in the production of 

such kiwifruit, such producers having 

also produced for market at least twothirds of the volume of such commodity 

represented in the referendum. 

Order Relative To Handling 

It is therefore ordered, That on and 

after the effective date hereof, all 

handling of kiwifruit grown in 

California shall be in conformity to, and 

in compliance with, the terms and 

conditions of the said order as hereby 

amended as follows: 

The provisions of the proposed 

marketing order amending the order 

contained in the proposed rule issued 

by the Administrator on July 29, 2013, 

and published in the Federal Register 

on August 2, 2013 (78 FR 46823), shall 

be and are the terms and provisions of 

this order amending the order and are 

set forth in full herein. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920 

Marketing agreements, Kiwifruit, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 920 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 920—KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 920 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Revise § 920.27 to read as follows: 

§ 920.27 Alternate members. 

An alternate member of the 

committee, during the absence of the 

member for whom that individual is an 

alternate, shall act in the place and 

stead of such member and perform such 

other duties as assigned. In the event 

both a member and his or her alternate 

are unable to attend a committee 

meeting, the committee may designate 

any other alternate member from the 

same district to serve in such member’s 

place and stead. In the event of the 

death, removal, resignation, or 

disqualification of a member, the 

alternate of such member shall act for 

him or her until a successor for such 

member is selected and has qualified. 

■ 3. Revise § 920.32(a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 920.32 Procedure. 

(a) Eight members of the committee, 

or alternates acting for members, shall 

constitute a quorum and any action of 

the committee shall require the 

concurring vote of the majority of those 

present: Provided, That actions of the 

committee with respect to expenses and 

assessments, production and 

postharvest research, market research 

and development, or recommendations 

for regulations pursuant to §§ 920.50 

through 920.55, of this part shall require 

at least eight concurring votes. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Add § 920.45 to read as follows: 

§ 920.45 Contributions. 

The committee may accept voluntary 

contributions, but these shall only be 

used to pay expenses incurred pursuant 

to § 920.47 and § 920.48. Furthermore, 

such contributions shall be free from 

any encumbrances by the donor, and the 

committee shall retain complete control 

of their use. 

■ 5. Add § 920.47 to read as follows: 

§ 920.47 Production and postharvest 

research. 

The committee, with the approval of 

the Secretary, may establish or provide 

for the establishment of projects 

involving research designed to assist or 

improve the efficient production and 

postharvest handling of kiwifruit. 

■ 6. Add § 920.48 to read as follows: 

§ 920.48 Market research and 

development. 

The committee, with the approval of 

the Secretary, may establish or provide 

for the establishment of marketing 

research and development projects 

designed to assist, improve, or promote 

the marketing, distribution, and 

consumption of kiwifruit. 

Dated: May 22, 2014. 

Rex A. Barnes, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–12327 Filed 5–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 301 

Regulations Under the Fur Products 

Labeling Act 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission amends its Regulations 

under the Fur Products Labeling Act to 

update the Fur Products Name Guide, 

provide more labeling flexibility, 

incorporate Truth in Fur Labeling Act 

provisions, and conform the guaranty 

provisions to those governing textiles. 

The Commission does not change the 

required name for nyctereutes 

procyonoides fur products. Labels will 

continue to describe this animal as 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon.’’ 

DATES: The amendments published in 

this document will become effective 

November 19, 2014. 

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 

After considering comments on 

proposed amendments to the Rules and 

Regulations (‘‘Fur Rules’’ or ‘‘Rules’’) 

under the Fur Products Labeling Act 

(‘‘Fur Act’’ or ‘‘Act’’), the Federal Trade 

Commission (‘‘FTC’’ or ‘‘Commission’’) 

adopts those amendments with minor 

changes. The final amendments update 

the Fur Products Name Guide (‘‘Name 

Guide’’), provide businesses with more 

flexibility in labeling, incorporate the 

provisions of the Truth in Fur Labeling 

Act (‘‘TFLA’’), and conform the Rules’ 

guaranty provisions to those governing 

textile products. The amendments do 

not change the Guide’s name for 

nyctereutes procyonoides. The name 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ best identifies this 

animal for fur consumers. The final 

rules also do not adopt the proposed 

annual renewal requirement for 

continuing guaranties. 

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 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.1 Pursuant to this Act, the 

Commission promulgated the Fur 

Rules.2 These Rules set forth disclosure 

requirements that assist consumers in 

making informed purchasing decisions. 

Specifically, the Fur Act and Rules 

require 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

30446 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3 15 U.S.C. 69b(2); 16 CFR 301.2(a). 

4 16 CFR 301.40. 

5 16 CFR 301.27. 

6 16 CFR 301.30. 

7 16 CFR 301.29(a). By contrast, the Commission’s 

regulations requiring labels for textile products do 

not have such detailed labeling specifications. 

8 15 U.S.C. 69h; 16 CFR 301.46, 301.47, 301.48, 

and 301.48a. 

9 15 U.S.C. 69h(a)(1). 

10 15 U.S.C. 69h(a)(2). 

11 15 U.S.C. 69h(a). 

12The policy statement is available at 

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

statements/299821/guaranty_policy_statement.pdf. 

13 15 U.S.C. 69e(a). 

14 Id. 

15 16 CFR 301.0. 

16 15 U.S.C. 69e(b). 

17 32 FR 6023 (Apr. 15, 1967). 

18Public Law 111–313, section 2. 

19 16 CFR 301.39(a). 

20Public Law 111–313, at section 3. 

21 Id. at section 4. 

22For further discussion of the program, see 

www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/07/regreview.shtm. 

23 76 FR 13550. 

24 26 FR 10446 (Nov. 4, 1961). 

25Citations to the Hearing Transcript are ‘‘Tr. at 

[page], ln. [line number].’’ See http://www.ftc.gov/ 

sites/default/files/filings/initiatives/376/

111206furtranscript.pdf. 

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 fur’s country of origin.3 In 

addition, manufacturers must include 

an item number or mark on the label for 

identification purposes.4

The Rules also include detailed 

labeling specifications. For example, the 

Rules specify an exact label size of 1.75 

inches by 2.75 inches,5 require 

disclosures in a particular order,6 and 

prohibit non-FTC information on the 

front of the label.7

The Fur Act and Rules also provide 

for separate and continuing guaranties.8

These documents allow an entity to 

provide a guaranty certifying that the 

products it manufactures or transfers are 

not mislabeled or falsely advertised or 

invoiced. Separate guaranties 

specifically designate particular fur 

products.9 Continuing guaranties, which 

guarantors file with the Commission, 

apply to ‘‘any fur product or fur handled 

by a guarantor’’ and are valid 

indefinitely.10 The Act provides that an 

entity that receives a guaranty in good 

faith will not generally be liable for 

violations related to the guarantied 

goods.11

The Fur Act authorizes guaranties 

only from persons ‘‘residing in the 

United States.’’ Thus, businesses that 

buy from manufacturers or suppliers 

that have no representative in the 

United States cannot obtain a guaranty. 

To address this issue, the Commission 

announced an enforcement policy 

statement in January 2013.12 The policy 

states that the Commission will not 

bring enforcement actions against 

retailers that: (1) Cannot legally obtain 

a guaranty under the Fur Act; (2) do not 

embellish or misrepresent claims 

provided by the manufacturer; and (3) 

do not market the products as private 

label products, unless the retailers knew 

or should have known that the 

marketing of the products would violate 

the Act or Rules. 

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 The Name Guide lists 

animals by common name and the 

species each name describes. For 

example, the Name Guide requires 

covered entities to label mustela vison 

as ‘‘mink.’’ 15

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 

Interior’’ and ‘‘after holding public 

hearings.’’ 16 Prior to this rulemaking, 

the Commission amended the Name 

Guide twice, most recently in 1967.17

C. TFLA 

In 2010, Congress enacted TFLA, 

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.18 Under that authority, 

the Fur Rules exempted products with 

a fur component valued at less than 

$150.19 TFLA replaced this de minimis 

exemption with 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: 

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.20

In addition, TFLA required the 

Commission to initiate a review of the 

Name Guide.21

D. Procedural Background 

In March 2011, as part of its 

regulatory review program,22 the 

Commission sought comment on the Fur 

Rules. As directed by TFLA, the 

Commission also sought comment on 

the Name Guide.23 Several commenters 

advocated updating the Name Guide. In 

addition, some advocated allowing more 

labeling flexibility. 

The only contentious issue was 

whether the Name Guide should 

continue to require the name ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ to describe the species 

nyctereutes procyonoides. The animal 

nyctereutes procyonoides is a distinct 

species that is part of the Canidae family 

(which includes dogs, foxes, coyotes, 

and wolves), and which has raccoonlike markings. In 1961, the Commission 

applied the statutory standard in the Fur 

Act and determined that ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ was the name that would 

‘‘afford proper identification’’ for fur 

products derived from nyctereutes 

procyonoides.24

The Humane Society of the United 

States (‘‘HSUS’’) strongly urged the 

Commission to change the name to 

‘‘Raccoon Dog.’’ Others argued that the 

Commission should retain ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon.’’ Some commenters also 

requested that the Commission allow 

‘‘Finnraccoon’’ as an alternative name 

for nyctereutes procyonoides fur from 

Finland. 

After receiving comments, the 

Commission held a public hearing on 

the Guide on December 6, 2011, as 

required by the Fur Act. The hearing 

was in roundtable format with an 

opportunity for audience 

participation.25 Four commenters 

participated in the roundtable: HSUS; 

the Fur Information Council of America; 

the National Retail Federation; and 

Finnish Fur Sales. In addition, the 

hearing included representatives from 

the United States Department of 

Agriculture, the United States 

Geological Survey, and the Fish and 

Wildlife Service (‘‘FWS’’). 

On September 17, 2012, the 

Commission published the first of two 

Notices of Proposed Rulemaking 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30447 

26 77 FR 57043 (Sept. 17, 2012). 

27 78 FR 36693 (Jun. 19, 2013). 

28The NPRM comments are available at 

www.ftc.gov/os/comments/furrulesreview/

index.shtm. The Supplemental NPRM comments 

are available at www.ftc.gov/os/comments/

furlabelingsupplementnprm/index.shtm. The 

Commission also received 28,000 mass mail 

comments from individual HSUS members. Over 

25,000 of those were identical. This document 

discusses those comments cumulatively. Comments 

to the NPRM are referred to as ‘‘[ ] comment at [ ]’’; 

comments to the Supplemental NPRM are referred 

to as ‘‘[ ] comment to the Supplemental NPRM at 

[ ].’’ 

29BCI comment at 1. 

30FICA comment at 3 (quoting 77 FR at 57048). 

31FICA comment at 3. 

32FICA comment at 3 (citation omitted). 

33 Id. In an earlier comment, FICA submitted a 

more detailed analysis of how the animal differs 

from domestic dog: 

[Nyctereutes procyonoides’] behavioral and 

anatomical characteristics are so unique that it 

qualifies the species for its own genus listing 

(Nyctereutes). . . . The Asiatic/Finnraccoon split 

from the ‘‘true dog’’ evolutionary line between 

seven and ten million years ago. The Asiatic 

Raccoon/Finnraccoon exhibits vastly different 

behaviors than the dog. For example, it hibernates, 

climbs trees, and it participates in social grooming. 

(Citations omitted.) 

FICA comment in response to opening of Fur 

Rules Review, available at www.ftc.gov/os/

comments/furlabeling/. 

34Saga comment at 1. 

35 Id. 

36FICA comment at 3. 

(‘‘NPRM’’).26 This NPRM addressed 

three areas: The Name Guide, the 

mechanics of labeling, and 

incorporating TFLA’s provisions. As the 

NPRM explained, the Commission 

proposed amendments to update the 

Guide, but it did not find a basis for 

changing the name for nyctereutes 

procyonoides to ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ or for 

allowing ‘‘Finnraccoon.’’ In addition, 

the proposed amendments provided 

more labeling flexibility by eliminating: 

(1) The requirement to disclose whether 

fur is from ‘‘sides’’ or ‘‘flanks’’; (2) the 

font and label size requirements; (3) the 

requirement that items sold in pairs or 

groups be ‘‘firmly attached to each 

other’’ in order to use one label; (4) the 

requirement that only FTC information 

appear on the front of the label and 

appear in a certain order; and (5) the 

requirement that labels include an ‘‘item 

mark’’ designating a specific fur 

product. The proposed amendments 

also incorporated TFLA’s provisions by 

replacing the de minimis exemption 

with the hunter/trapper exemption. 

On June 19, 2013, the Commission 

published a Supplemental Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘Supplemental 

NPRM’’) that proposed changes to the 

Rules’ guaranty provisions.27 The 

proposed changes mirrored 

amendments the Commission proposed 

in May 2013 to its Rules and 

Regulations under the Textile Products 

Identification Act (‘‘Textile Rules’’). 

Specifically, the Supplemental NPRM 

clarified that guarantors can provide 

guaranties electronically, revised the 

continuing guaranty form to no longer 

require guarantors to swear under 

penalty of perjury, and required annual 

renewal of continuing guaranties. The 

Commission announced final 

amendments to the Textile Rules’ 

guaranty provisions on March 14, 2014. 

Those amendments are substantively 

the same as those announced in this 

document. 

III. Comments 

The Commission received 28 

comments (in addition to comments 

submitted in a mass mailing campaign) 

responding to the NPRM and seven 

comments responding to the 

Supplemental NPRM.28 The 

commenters remained divided on 

whether the Guide should require 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ or ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ as 

the name for nyctereutes procyonoides. 

In addition, some business groups, 

along with the government of Finland, 

renewed their request to allow 

‘‘Finnraccoon’’ as an alternative name. 

Commenters generally supported the 

proposed labeling flexibility, criticized 

the annual renewal requirement for 

continuing guaranties, and suggested 

additional updates to the Name Guide. 

A. ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ vs. ‘‘Raccoon 

Dog.’’ 

Several industry commenters 

supported the Commission’s proposal to 

retain the name ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon.’’ In 

contrast, HSUS, the New York City Bar 

Association, Congressman Jim Moran, 

and many individual commenters urged 

the Commission to require ‘‘Raccoon 

Dog’’ instead. 

1. Support for Retaining ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ 

Seven commenters supported 

retaining ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon.’’ They 

contended that consumers understand 

the term as identifying nyctereutes 

procyonoides, that ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ 

most accurately describes the animal, 

and that ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ would mislead 

consumers. 

a. Consumer Understanding of ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ 

Commenters reported that consumers 

have learned through marketplace 

exposure that ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ 

describes nyctereutes procyonoides. For 

example, BCI International Group, Inc. 

(‘‘BCI’’), a fur retailer that has sold 

nyctereutes procyonoides fur products, 

stated: 

For decades, [nyctereutes procyonoides] 

product[s] ha[ve] been recognized by the 

common name, which appears in the Fur 

Products Name Guide, ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon.’’ 

The retail and consumer market continues to 

recognize that name.29

The Fur Information Council of 

America (‘‘FICA’’) agreed. It affirmed 

the NPRM’s observation that ‘‘because 

‘Asiatic Raccoon’ is the name that 

consumers have used to identify the 

animal since 1961, consumers likely 

understand that term.’’ 30 In addition, 

FICA noted that ‘‘no evidence of 

consumer confusion around this term 

exists.’’ 31

b. ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ Accurately 

Describes the Animal 

Commenters also argued that ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ describes the animal more 

accurately than ‘‘Raccoon Dog.’’ FICA, 

citing FWS’s Name Guide Hearing 

comments, explained that ‘‘ ‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’ accurately describes an animal 

that originated in Asia and that has 

raccoon-like characteristics. 

Specifically, much like a raccoon, it has 

rings around its eyes and it climbs 

trees.’’ 32 FICA further explained, 

Although the Asiatic Raccoon is part of the 

Canidae family, like many other animals 

(e.g., fox, wolves, coyotes), it is completely 

dissimilar from a domestic dog and should 

not be confused with a dog or referenced as 

a dog. . . . The fox and the wolf are also 

members of the Canidae family and they have 

never been identified as dogs.33

Saga Furs Oyj (‘‘Saga’’), a Finnish 

auction house that sells nyctereutes 

procyonoides pelts, agreed that the 

animal ‘‘differs significantly’’ from 

domestic dog.34 For support, it pointed 

to statements from scientific experts at 

the Name Guide hearing confirming that 

the animal is native to Asia and should 

not be confused with domestic dog.35

c. Risk of Consumer Confusion 

Finally, fur industry commenters 

asserted that requiring ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ 

would mislead consumers about the 

animal’s relationship to domestic dogs. 

FICA, for example, reiterated its 

position in earlier comments that using 

‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ to describe nyctereutes 

procyonoides would confuse 

consumers. Specifically, FICA reported 

that ‘‘many companies’’ have stopped 

selling the fur in response to a media 

campaign characterizing the animal as a 

‘‘raccoon dog.’’ 36 Consistent with that 

view, BCI stated: 

The Asiatic Raccoon product . . . has 

suffered a setback in the marketplace in 

recent years, as a result of the attempt to link 

the product in the media with the term 

‘‘raccoon dog.’’ That term is deceptive and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

30448 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

37BCI comment at 1. 

38FICA comment at 3; BCI comment at 2. Saga 

raised a related concern that requiring labels with 

‘‘raccoon dog’’ could confuse customs officials and 

delay imported nyctereutes procyonoides products’ 

entry into the United States. Saga explained that 

confusing that species’ fur with domestic dog fur 

could have serious legal consequences because the 

latter is banned in the United States. Saga comment 

at 2. 

39HSUS comment at 2. 

40 Id. at 3 (emphasis in original). 41Congressman Moran comment at 1. 42HSUS Mass Mail comment (#00033 and 

#00034) (emphasis in original). See also Brett 

Bartleson comment (arguing that the taxonomic 

classification should control). In addition, two 

individual commenters expressed support for 

‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ without explanation. See ‘‘Miller’’ 

and Kathy Wilkins comments. 43NYC Bar comment at 12. 44NYC Bar comment at 4; HSUS comment at 6. 45HSUS comment at 4. HSUS also reiterated its 

prior argument that the Commission should defer 

to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System 

(‘‘ITIS’’), a system administered by several federal 

agencies that lists nyctereutes procyonoides’ 

common name as ‘‘raccoon dog.’’ HSUS comment 

at 4–5. 46NYC Bar comment at 6. 47HSUS comment at 5–6; NYC Bar comment at 

5. HSUS also noted that several international 

institutions and scientific organizations use 

‘‘raccoon dog.’’ HSUS comment at 4–6. 

48NYC Bar comment at 6 (citations omitted). 

49HSUS comment at 6. 

50NYC Bar comment at 7–8. 

51HSUS comment at 6. See also NYC Bar 

comment at 12 (‘‘As far as retail consumers are 

concerned, it is important that the name of the fur 

match the only name that they are exposed to in 

dictionaries, zoos, and newspapers, and the most 

commonly used name in other materials so they can 

make an informed choice about whether to 

purchase a product containing fur.’’). 

52HSUS comment at 9. 

53Moran comment at 1. 

has created immense consumer 

confusion....37

Thus, both FICA and BCI predicted that 

if the Commission required ‘‘Raccoon 

Dog,’’ then ‘‘there would no longer be a 

market for Asiatic Raccoon fur, and 

garments with this type of fur would be 

eliminated.’’ 38

2. Support for ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ 

HSUS, Congressman Jim Moran, and 

the Committee on Animal Law of the 

New York City Bar Association (‘‘NYC 

Bar’’) urged the Commission to 

reconsider its proposal. Thousands of 

individual commenters also submitted 

identical (or very similar) comments 

supporting HSUS’s position. These 

commenters argued that ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ 

better describes the animal’s taxonomic 

classification, it is the only true English 

name for the animal, and ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ is an inappropriate trade 

name that confuses consumers. NYC Bar 

made an additional argument that, apart 

from the merits, retaining ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ would be contrary to the 

TFLA’s intent. 

a. ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ Better Describes the 

Animal’s Taxonomic Classification 

Commenters argued that Nyctereutes 

procyonoides’ taxonomic classification 

in the Canidae family supported 

requiring ‘‘Raccoon Dog.’’ HSUS 

emphasized ‘‘that the correct taxonomic 

identification of the species Nyctereutes 

procyonoides is within the Canidae 

(dog) family and not the Procyonidae 

(raccoon) family.’’ 39 HSUS also 

responded to the NPRM’s statement that 

the taxonomic classification should not 

control because nyctereutes 

procyonoides has characteristics similar 

to raccoons: 

Such distinctions can be found between 

many species within the same taxonomic 

families—the distinctions noted do not 

change the zoological characteristics that 

make raccoon dogs a member of the Canidae 

family. Indeed, a kangaroo rat looks like a 

kangaroo, and while it has many of the same 

characteristics of so-called ‘‘true-rats’’ in the 

genus Rattus (e.g., cheek pouches for food 

storage) kangaroo rats also have several 

distinct characteristics from ‘‘true-rats’’ (e.g., 

their bi-pedal hopping gait that makes them 

appear kangaroo-like). But it would not be 

appropriate to call the kangaroo rat a ‘‘small 

desert kangaroo[.’’] 40

Congressman Moran likewise noted 

that nyctereutes procyonoides is ‘‘from 

the Canidae family [and] is unrelated to 

the raccoon . . . , making the term 

‘Asiatic Raccoon’ highly misleading.’’ 41

Similarly, the HSUS members comment 

states, ‘‘raccoon dogs are a member of 

the Canidae (dog) family and are NOT, 

as the name ‘Asiatic raccoon’ implies, 

members of the Procyonidae (raccoon) 

family.’’ 42

NYC Bar also discussed the 

significance of the classification to 

determining the proper name. It argued 

that ‘‘[b]ecause Nyctereutes procyonides 

[sic] are related to domestic dogs, and 

dogs are widely considered pets in the 

United States and raccoons are not, it 

follows that some consumers of fur 

products would have objections to 

wearing such fur even if the animals 

cannot wag their tails, are able to climb 

trees, and hibernate.’’ 43

b. ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ Is the True English 

Name 

In addition, commenters argued that 

‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ is the true English name 

because it is most often used to describe 

the animal. As evidence, they 

documented uses of ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ in 

various contexts. For example, HSUS 

and NYC Bar reported that AmericanEnglish dictionaries list ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ 

as the English word for nyctereutes 

procyonoides.44 In addition, HSUS 

pointed out that federal agencies have 

referred to nyctereutes procyonoides as 

‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ on at least four 

occasions.45 NYC Bar similarly noted 

the name’s use in a federal regulation 

and in fifteen state and local laws.46

HSUS and NYC Bar further noted that 

several scientific organizations use 

‘‘raccoon dog’’ and that the two 

American zoos that display the animal 

call it ‘‘Raccoon Dog.’’ 47

HSUS and NYC Bar also submitted 

evidence of ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ appearing in 

various popular media. For example, 

NYC Bar reported: 

The New York Times uses the term 

‘‘raccoon dog’’ in all articles that concern 

Nyctereutes procyonides [sic] except one 

which quotes a Humane Society 

representative stating that ‘‘Asiatic raccoon’’ 

is the name the fur is sold under. The Albany 

Times Union, New York Post, and New York 

Daily News use the term ‘‘raccoon dog’’ 

exclusively in articles concerning 

Nyctereutes procyonides [sic].48

Similarly, HSUS pointed to PBS and 

BBC programming referring to the 

animal as a ‘‘raccoon dog,’’ 49 and NYC 

Bar noted the term’s use in books and 

in children’s educational materials.50

Although no commenters submitted 

consumer perception evidence showing 

widespread recognition of ‘‘Raccoon 

Dog,’’ HSUS explained why the uses of 

the name discussed above is relevant: 

[N]early everywhere a consumer would 

find information about the species 

Nyctereutes procyonoides, he or she would 

be presented with information under the true 

English name raccoon dog. This is important 

because information relevant to consumers’ 

purchase of fur products—such as the 

manner in which this species is raised and 

killed for purpose of fur production—would 

most likely be associated with the true 

English name of the species.51

In response to fur-industry comments 

that ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ could mislead 

consumers, HSUS and NYC Bar argued 

that the Commission should ignore the 

impact of ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ on fur sales. 

HSUS observed that ‘‘harm to industry 

sales has nothing to do with accuracy of 

product representation or consumer 

protection.’’ 52

c. ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ Is Misleading 

Commenters opposed to ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ described it as misleading and 

improper. Congressman Moran, for 

example, characterized the term as ‘‘a 

misleading and inaccurate industrycoined name.’’ 53 NYC Bar also 

criticized ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon,’’ 

explaining: 

The word ‘‘Asiatic’’ means ‘‘Asian.’’ 

Nyctereutes procyonides [sic] is not a raccoon 

(Procyon lotor and Procyon cancrivorus). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30449 

54NYC Bar comment at 10. 

55Brett Bartleson comment; see also Megan 

Stalker comment (‘‘Consumers who wish to avoid 

buying raccoon dog fur, or companies that wish to 

avoid selling it, will be duped by this inaccurate 

and misleading industry-coined name’’). 

56 Id. at 7. 

57 Id. at 8. 

58 Id. at 9 (emphasis in original). 

59HSUS comment at 9 (emphasis in original). 

60NYC Bar comment at 9. See also HSUS 

comment at 3–4 (discussing history of ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ and characterizing it as an industry trade 

name). 

61HSUS comment at 2. 

62NYC Bar comment at 12. 

63Finnish Fur Breeders’ Association comment at 

1. 

64 Id. at 1. 

65Finland Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of 

Agriculture and Forestry comments at 1. 

66 Id. at 1. 

67Saga comment at 2. 

68 Id. at 3. 

69BCI comment at 2. 

70HSUS comment at 2 (arguing that the 

Commission should adopt ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ and 

allow no other names). 

71NYC Bar comment at 9–10. 

72 Id. at 11. 

Using the adjective ‘‘Asiatic’’ to modify the 

word ‘‘raccoon’’ creates a fictitious and nonexistent type of raccoon.54

Individual commenter Brett Bartleson 

likewise described ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ as 

‘‘misleading’’ and asserted that industry 

uses the term to ‘‘disguise the live 

skinning and other mistreatment of 

raccoon dogs.’’ 55

HSUS challenged the NPRM’s 

statement that the name is not deceptive 

because consumers have become 

familiar with it in the marketplace. 

Specifically, it asserted that the 

evidence cited by the Commission was 

insufficient to demonstrate consumer 

familiarity and that the record showed 

‘‘sporadic at best’’ use of ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon.’’ 56 It also noted frequent 

mislabeling and false advertising of 

nyctereutes procyonoides fur, including 

some instances of marketers describing 

it as ‘‘raccoon dog.’’ 57 Finally, HSUS 

reiterated its comments at the Name 

Guide Hearing that ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ is 

‘‘used frequently, but no more 

frequently than we find it misused.’’ 58

Thus, HSUS concluded, the 

Commission’s determination that 

consumers are familiar with ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ is an ‘‘unsupported 

assumption.’’ 59

Finally, HSUS and NYC Bar opposed 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ as inconsistent with 

the Fur Rules’ prohibitions on trade 

names and names that deceive 

consumers about the animal’s zoological 

origin. NYC Bar described ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ as a fictitious name coined by 

the fur industry, and argued that it 

therefore violated the Fur Rules’ 

prohibition on trade names.60 In 

addition, HSUS stated that the 

Commission’ proposal ‘‘ignores its 

obligation to require use of only those 

names that do not deceive as to an 

animal’s ‘zoological origin.’ ’’ 61

d. ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ Is Contrary to 

TFLA’s Intent 

NYC Bar argued that, aside from the 

merits of ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ compared 

to ‘‘Raccoon Dog,’’ the Commission 

should adopt the latter to effectuate 

Congressional intent. NYC Bar pointed 

to a Congressional Research Service 

summary of the Senate version of the 

legislation, which was not enacted. The 

summary described the law as directing 

the Commission ‘‘to replace the term 

‘Raccoon, Asiatic’ with ‘Dog, 

Raccoon.’ ’’ 62

B. ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ 

Commenters disagreed over whether 

to include ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ in the Name 

Guide. Six commenters supported it, 

while two opposed. Commenters 

favoring ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ asserted that 

the name would help consumers 

identify products raised under stricter 

European Union standards. For 

example, the Finnish Fur Breeders’ 

Association stated: 

[‘‘Finnraccoon’’] has achieved global 

recognition in the international fur 

marketplace as a result of the extensive 

marketing efforts. . . . Those marketing 

efforts highlight the strict national and EUlevel animal welfare standards that regulate 

the farming of the Finnraccoon. . . . The 

FTC, by not permitting use of the name 

Finnraccoon . . . , has caused consumers 

mistakenly to believe that the product 

originates in Asia, where animal welfare 

standards are not as high as those in Europe, 

including Finland.63

The Association further noted that 

allowing ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ would 

harmonize United States and European 

Union regulatory standards.64

Finland’s Ministries of Foreign Affairs 

and of Agriculture and Forestry 

submitted identical comments that 

provided additional detail on European 

fur standards: 

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. Countries that have 

signed the Convention must comply with 

specified rules concerning farming premises, 

feed, animal health and the organization of 

inspections of installations.65

The Ministries asserted that without 

‘‘Finnraccoon’’ retailers would not be 

able to distinguish nyctereutes 

procyonoides fur raised in Asia from 

that raised in Europe.66

Saga agreed that retailers needed 

‘‘Finnraccoon’’ to signal superior 

European fur-raising standards. In 

response to the NPRM’s observation that 

the record lacked evidence that 

consumers understand ‘‘Finnraccoon,’’ 

Saga asserted that consumers 

understand the term because ‘‘most of 

the high-end fur garments sold in the 

U.S. and containing the nyctereutes 

procyonides [sic] species are made of 

furs produced in Finland and are 

exclusively marketed under the 

nomenclature Finnraccoon.’’ 67 Saga 

further asserted that labels disclosing 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ from Finland are 

confusing to consumers because they 

cannot evaluate the conditions under 

which the product was raised.68 In 

addition, fur retailer BCI reported that 

‘‘Finnraccoon’’ had ‘‘achieved name 

recognition comparable to’’ ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon.’’ 69

HSUS and NYC Bar, by contrast, 

agreed with the Commission’s proposal 

not to allow ‘‘Finnraccoon.’’ HSUS, 

consistent with its position that 

nyctereutes procyonoides has only one 

true English name, argued that the 

Commission should not allow any 

names other than ‘‘Raccoon Dog.’’ 70

NYC Bar further contended that 

‘‘Finnraccoon’’ is an improper trade 

name that consumers do not 

understand.71 NYC Bar also observed 

that the Fur Rules require a specific 

country of origin disclosure that would 

cure any confusion about the animal’s 

origin.72

C. Labeling Flexibility 

The NPRM proposed removing or 

amending several provisions to provide 

more labeling flexibility, while 

continuing to ensure effective 

disclosures. Specifically, the NPRM 

proposed: (1) No longer requiring 

disclosures that fur comes from ‘‘sides’’ 

or ‘‘flanks’’; (2) eliminating specific 

label and font size requirements; (3) 

allowing items sold in pairs to have 

only one label, even if not physically 

attached; (4) no longer requiring a fur 

‘‘item number’’ on labels and invoices; 

and (5) deleting unnecessary provisions. 

Commenters unanimously supported 

these proposals. In addition, three 

commenters urged the Commission to 

further relax the disclosure 

requirements. 

1. Support for the Commission’s 

Proposals 

Industry commenters praised the 

proposed amendments for lowering 

compliance costs. The American 

Apparel and Footwear Association 

(‘‘AAFA’’), for example, lauded ‘‘the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

30450 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

73AAFA comment at 2. 

74NRF comment at 1–2. 

75FICA comment at 3. 

76 Id. at 3. See also United States Association of 

Importers of Textile and Apparel comment at 1; 

NRF comment at 1; AAFA comment at 2; Footwear 

Distributors and Retailers of America comment at 

2. 

77NRF comment at 1. See also AAFA comment 

at 2. 

78FDRA comment at 2; ITA comment at 1. FDRA 

also asked a question about obtaining Registered 

Identification Numbers. Commission staff can 

address those inquiries on a case-by-case basis. 

79AAFA comment at 3. 

80FDRA comment at 1; ITA comment at 1. 81 Gremmo comment. 82 15 U.S.C. 69h(a)(2) (emphasis added). 83HSUS comment at 11. 

84 Id. at 12. 

85 Id. at 12. 

86Specifically, FICA and NRF supported the 

amendments clarifying that entities can transmit 

guaranties electronically and eliminating the 

penalty of perjury language. Both commenters also 

praised the Commission’s recent enforcement 

policy on goods imported directly to retailers. FICA 

comment to Supplemental NPRM at 2; NRF 

comment to Supplemental NPRM at 2–3. Although 

supportive of the policy statement’s substance, NRF 

renewed its call for the Commission to codify that 

policy through rulemaking. As the Commission 

explained in the Supplemental NPRM, it cannot do 

so under the Fur Act, which provides for guaranties 

from only domestic entities. 

87AAFA comment to Supplemental NPRM at 2. 

88 Id. at 1. 

89FICA comment to Supplemental NPRM at 2. 

90 Id. at 2. 

91 Id. at 2. 

efforts by the FTC to alleviate’’ the 

‘‘significant costs on manufacturers and 

importers—which are passed down to 

consumers. . . .’’ 73 National Retail 

Federation (‘‘NRF’’) asserted that ‘‘these 

sensible changes will facilitate 

compliance by retailers and consumer 

brand companies while providing 

effective disclosure information to 

consumers. . . .’’ 74

Commenters supported the increased 

labeling flexibility provided by a 

number of the proposals. The removal of 

prescribed label and font sizes received 

the most support. FICA, for example, 

explained that ‘‘the [label] size 

prescribed by the current Rules is 

impractical for smaller items, . . . [and] 

the current requirements for the text of 

the label are overly burdensome and 

have forced companies to use multiple 

labels to comply with the FTC, state, 

and international fur regulations.’’ 75

FICA noted the amendments would 

allow ‘‘more practical labels on small 

items.’’ 76 In addition, NRF ‘‘strongly 

support[ed] . . . allowing a single label 

for products ‘marketed or handled in 

pairs or ensembles,’ such as shoes and 

gloves.’’ 77 FDRA and the United States 

Association of Importers of Textile and 

Apparel (‘‘ITA’’) also appreciated that 

the NPRM confirmed that labels need 

only be attached with sufficient 

durability to ensure delivery to the 

consumer.78 Finally, AAFA supported 

the proposals to eliminate certain 

provisions, such as the requirement that 

retailers assign an item number or mark 

to fur products. AAFA agreed that those 

provisions are unnecessary and do not 

benefit consumers.79

2. Comments Favoring Elimination of 

Other Requirements 

Three commenters supported 

additional amendments that would 

further reduce disclosure requirements. 

ITA and FDRA argued that the 

Commission should eliminate what they 

described as redundant country of 

origin disclosures. Specifically, they 

noted that both the Fur and Textile 

Rules require separate country of origin 

disclosures for textile products that 

contain fur. Therefore, many garments 

that use fur trim disclose the same 

country of origin twice. FDRA and ITA, 

therefore, proposed eliminating the 

requirement for a fur origin disclosure 

when the fur originates from the same 

as the country as the textile product.80

In addition, individual commenter 

‘‘Gremmo’’ suggested amending 

§ 301.19(g) to no longer require branding 

and labeling of furs that are not pointed, 

bleached, dyed, tip-dyed or artificially 

colored as ‘‘natural.’’ Gremmo argued 

that the ‘‘natural’’ disclosure does not 

convey meaningful information to 

consumers.81

D. Guaranties 

The Supplemental NPRM proposed 

changes to the Fur Rules’ guaranty 

provisions to conform to those proposed 

in the Textile NPRM. The Commission 

did not propose a requirement, 

suggested by HSUS, that continuing 

guaranties designate the type of fur 

transferred from a guarantor. 

In the comments, HSUS reiterated its 

support for this proposal. Fur-industry 

representatives supported most of the 

Supplemental NPRM proposals, but 

criticized the proposed annual renewal 

requirement. 

1. HSUS Proposal 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

explained that it could not require 

continuing guaranties to specify a type 

of fur transferred because doing so 

would conflict with the Fur Act’s 

declaration that continuing guaranties 

apply ‘‘to any fur product or fur handled 

by a guarantor.’’ 82 In response, HSUS 

first asserted a policy argument. 

Specifically, it argued that the current 

continuing guaranty provisions are 

insufficient to ensure accountability. 

According to HSUS, current law does 

not allow the Commission ‘‘to discern 

from the guaranty form whether or not 

the error was due to the retailers’ 

actions or the vendor’s actions.’’ 83

HSUS then addressed the 

Commission’s legal argument. Although 

it acknowledged that the Fur Act would 

not permit limiting continuing 

guaranties to specific products, it 

contended that the Commission could 

prescribe a guaranty form requiring the 

type of fur in all products transferred.84

HSUS argued that the Fur Act 

necessarily provides such discretion 

because it ‘‘anticipates that not every 

guaranty will be sufficient.’’ 85

2. Supplemental NPRM Proposals 

The Supplemental NPRM proposed 

two additional changes. First, it 

proposed altering the guaranty 

provisions to clarify that guaranties can 

be electronic documents. Second, it 

proposed requiring that guarantors 

annually renew continuing guaranties. 

In addition, the Fur Rules would 

incorporate the Textile amendments’ 

alterations to the unified form for 

Textile, Fur, and Wool continuing 

guaranties so that guarantors would no 

longer sign under penalty of perjury. 

Although commenters unanimously 

supported many of the proposed 

changes,86 three commenters criticized 

requiring annual renewal of continuing 

guaranties. AAFA stated that annual 

renewal would impose unreasonable 

burdens: 

We believe [compliance] costs will actually 

be extensive considering the time and effort 

needed to complete the task. One AAFA 

member company estimates spending 5–8 

hours on each continuing guaranty it files. 

Most companies file dozens of continuing 

guaranties, with many filing hundreds.87

AAFA further explained that the burden 

for companies is not only filing the 

guaranty, but also submitting copies to 

other buyers and retailers.88

FICA agreed. It explained that 

‘‘annual renewal . . . would increase 

compliance burdens throughout the 

supply chain with regard to 

administering the requirement and 

filing the documentation with the 

FTC.’’ 89 FICA further explained that 

requiring annual renewal would require 

retailers and vendors ‘‘to change their 

vendor agreements or terms and 

conditions language to provide for 

annual renewal, thereby increasing the 

administrative burdens and cost.’’ 90

FICA also noted that processing forms 

renewed annually would increase the 

FTC’s administrative burdens.91

NRF also opposed the proposal as 

overly burdensome. It reported that 

‘‘[o]ne national retailer has estimated 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30451 

92NRF comment to Supplemental NPRM at 2 

(citation omitted). 

93 Gardner comment. 

94HSUS comment at 10–11. Relatedly, AAFA 

urged the Commission to update the Guide more 

frequently to ensure entries remain updated, ideally 

on an annual basis. AAFA comment at 2. 

95 ‘‘Jane Doe’’ comment at 2–4. 

96National Humane Education Society comment 

to Supplemental NPRM. 

97See Brett Corless comment; Mass Mail 

Campaign comments to Supplemental NPRM; 

Karen Rome comment to Supplemental NPRM. In 

addition, several individuals submitted nongermane comments, most expressing an opinion on 

the use of fur. See comments of Yeasir Arafat, Ann 

Fennell, R. Holt, Sandy Howard, and Fletcher 

Smith; comment of Morgan Mckenzie to 

Supplemental NPRM. 

98As noted, Congress directed the Commission, 

in the plural, to use ‘‘the true English names for the 

animals in question.’’ To be sure, Congress 

separately provided that ‘‘in the absence of a true 

English name for an animal,’’ the Commission 

should use ‘‘the name by which such animal can 

be properly identified in the United States.’’ 

(Emphasis added.) But the use of the singular in the 

term ‘‘a true English name’’ does not imply that, for 

any given animal, there can be only one such name 

in common usage. Instead, it merely addresses the 

possibility that there may not be any ‘‘true English 

name’’ for a given animal. 

99See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 69b(2)(A) (providing that a 

fur product is misbranded if the label does not 

show ‘‘the name or names (as set forth in the Fur 

Products Name Guide) of the animal or animals that 

produced the fur’’); 15 U.S.C. 69e(c) (‘‘If the name 

of the animal (as set forth in the Fur Products Name 

Guide) connotes a geographical origin or 

significance other than the true country or place of 

origin of such animal, the Commission may require 

whenever such name is used . . . such qualifying 

statements as it may deem necessary to prevent 

confusion or deception.’’). 

that . . . the annual renewal 

requirement would cost around $60,000 

per year. . . .’’ 92

E. Further Name Guide Updates and 

Miscellaneous Issues 

Commenters also urged additional 

Name Guide updates and addressed 

miscellaneous issues. Dr. Alfred 

Gardner of the United States Geological 

Survey suggested six additional updates 

to the Guide.93 HSUS objected to the 

removal of two common names, and 

noted that the Guide misspells the name 

‘‘suslik.’’ 94

In addition, several commenters 

submitted miscellaneous comments. An 

anonymous commenter supported the 

Commission’s decision not to propose a 

labeling exemption for small items or to 

expand the Rules’ scope to faux fur 

products.95 However, the National 

Humane Education Society asked the 

Commission to require language ‘‘that 

allows consumers to know whether a fur 

is real or fake.’’ 96 Finally, many 

individuals submitted comments 

generally supporting the Fur Rules’ 

labeling requirements because they 

benefit consumers.97

IV. Analysis 

The Commission announces final 

amendments that mostly adopt those 

proposed in the NPRM and the 

Supplemental NPRM. These 

amendments update the Name Guide 

while retaining ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ as 

nyctereutes procyonoides’ only name in 

the Guide, provide more labeling 

flexibility, conform the Rules to TFLA, 

eliminate unnecessary provisions, and 

revise the guaranty provisions to 

conform to those governing textile 

products. The Commission does not 

adopt its proposal to require annual 

renewal of continuing guaranties. 

A. Name Guide 

This section first discusses why the 

Commission is retaining the name 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon.’’ It then responds to 

the arguments that ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ is 

inappropriate. Next, it explains why it 

will not add ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ to the Name 

Guide. Finally, it discusses proposed 

amendments to update the Name Guide. 

1. The Commission Retains ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ 

The Fur Act directs the Commission 

to use, in its Name Guide, ‘‘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.’’ 15 

U.S.C. 69e. The threshold question is 

whether a given animal has at least one 

‘‘true English name[ ].’’ Only if the 

answer is negative does the Commission 

choose an alternative ‘‘name by which 

such animal can be properly identified 

in the United States.’’ 

Significantly, a given animal can have 

more than one ‘‘true English name.’’ For 

example, the species puma concolor 

goes by several alternative ‘‘true English 

names,’’ including Mountain Lion, 

Cougar, Puma, and Panther. Those terms 

are all commonly used synonyms, and 

no one of them occupies any special 

status as the most ‘‘true’’ English name 

for the animal in question. Certainly 

nothing in the statutory text reveals any 

congressional determination that, for 

each animal, there can be at most one 

‘‘true English name[ ]’’ in common 

usage.98 As the puma concolor example 

illustrates, that view would conflict 

with everyday speech, which is an 

additional reason to conclude that 

Congress did not intend this 

interpretation. 

That said, Congress did intend for the 

Commission to ensure uniformity in fur 

labels and avoid consumer confusion by 

choosing, in general, one name that 

manufacturers must use to denote a 

given animal.99 The Commission 

construes the Fur Act to provide broad 

discretion to choose among the ‘‘true 

English names’’ for an animal where 

there is more than one such name. 

Nothing in the Act limits how the 

Commission may exercise that 

discretion so long as it acts reasonably 

and ensures consistency with the broad 

purposes of the Fur Act. For example, 

nothing in the Act requires the 

Commission to base that choice solely 

on relative frequency of use, such as 

how often a given name has been used 

in books or Web sites. The Commission 

may instead consider a range of relevant 

factors, such as the need to avoid 

consumer confusion by ensuring 

consistency of usage over time within 

the marketplace for fur products. 

In this case, the Commission finds 

that the animal in question—nyctereutes 

procyonoides—has two ‘‘true English 

names’’: Asiatic Raccoon and Raccoon 

Dog. Although commenters disagree 

about which of these terms is more 

appropriate, there can be no serious 

dispute that ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ has been 

in common use for many decades. See 

Section IV.A.1, infra. Indeed, for more 

than half a century, that term has 

appeared on countless product labels to 

denote the animal in question, and 

consumers of fur products now closely 

associate that name with this animal. 

For the reasons discussed below, the 

Commission exercises its discretion to 

maintain the use of that ‘‘true English 

name,’’ rather than the alternative such 

name (Raccoon Dog) on the product 

labels for the furs of this animal. 

Although opponents of the name 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ argue that the name 

is confusing because the animal in 

question is ‘‘not a raccoon,’’ NY City Bar 

Comments at 1, it is equally true that the 

animal is not a ‘‘dog’’ as consumers 

understand that term. Indeed, the 

animal is no more closely related to 

domestic dogs than are coyotes and 

jackals. 

The Commission’s conclusion would 

remain the same even if the Fur Act 

were construed to reflect a 

congressional assumption that there can 

be at most one ‘‘true English name[ ]’’ 

per animal. Under that alternative 

statutory construction, the Commission 

would conclude that, because there are 

two equally permissible names in 

common usage to describe the same 

animal, neither could qualify as the one 

‘‘true’’ English name, any more than 

Cougar or Panther or Mountain Lion 

could qualify as the one ‘‘true’’ English 

name for puma concolor. In that event, 

the Commission would proceed to the 

second statutory step, choosing a ‘‘name 

by which such animal can be properly 

identified in the United States.’’ The 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

30452 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

100 77 FR at 57048. 

101Tr. at 38, ln. 22–23. The Fur Act states that 

in issuing and revising the Name Guide, the FTC 

must do so with the ‘‘assistance and cooperation of 

the Department of Agriculture and the Department 

of the Interior.’’ 15 U.S.C. s 69e. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service is part of the Department of the 

Interior. 

102Tr. at 39, ln. 6, 11–12. As described below, 

scientific representatives at the Name Guide 

Hearing also rejected the notion that taxonomic 

classifications determined the animal’s common 

name. Tr. at 13, ln. 6–9; Tr. at 13–14, ln. 21–6. 

103HSUS ANPR Comment at 14 (attached letter 

of Dr. Lauren Nolfo-Clements). 

104Tr. at 79, ln. 14–16 (‘‘I would say the majority 

of the use of the trim is over the $150 [threshold] 

and always has been over the exemption.’’). 

105Tr. at 81–82. 

106See, e.g., BCI comment at 1 (‘‘Asiatic Raccoon 

. . . has suffered a setback in the marketplace in 

recent years, as a result of the attempt to link the 

product in the media with the term ‘raccoon 

dog.’ ’’). 

107As noted above, HSUS members submitted 

thousands of form comments. 25,184 of those 

comments were identical. An additional 3,479 

commenters submitted altered versions of the form 

comment. 

108HSUS Mass Mail comment (#00034), file 

0034–85303, Tiller Comment. 

109HSUS Mass Mail comment (#00034), file 

0034–85304, Arnott Comment. 

110HSUS Mass Mail comment (#00034), file 

0034–85303, Brunner Comment. 

111HSUS Mass Mail comment (#00034), file 

0034–85308, Justus Comment. 

112HSUS Mass Mail comment (#00034), file 

0034–85304, Abbott Comment. 

113 15 U.S.C. 69e(a). 

114Tr. at 13, ln. 6–9; Tr. at 13–14, ln. 21–6. 

Commission would choose ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ under that approach as well. 

As discussed in the NPRM,100

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ describes the animal 

in a way that consumers in the United 

States can recognize it. At the Name 

Guide Hearing, a FWS representative 

explained that the word ‘‘Asiatic’’ 

‘‘gives you an idea where the animal 

originated naturally.’’ 101 Critically, the 

representative did not agree with HSUS 

that ‘‘Asiatic’’ is misleading. In fact, she 

described the term as ‘‘neutral.’’ 102 The 

term ‘‘Raccoon’’ is also appropriate. As 

detailed in the NPRM, nyctereutes 

procyonoides has a raccoon-like fur 

pattern around its eyes and 

‘‘superficially resembles the raccoons 

* * * that are native to the 

Americas.’’ 103 In addition, the animal 

exhibits behavioral characteristics, like 

tree climbing, that are raccoon-like. By 

contrast, the animal does not appear to 

exhibit characteristics that mimic 

domestic dogs, such as barking and tailwagging. 

Moreover, the record indicates that 

consumers of this fur have become 

familiar with the name ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ through labels and marketing. 

Several commenters, including fur 

retailer BCI, report that labels and 

advertising have used ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ for many years. Consistent 

with that evidence, FICA and Finnish 

Fur explained at the Name Guide 

hearing that products with nyctereutes 

procyonoides fur usually had labels 

with the name ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon,’’ even 

prior to the elimination of the de 

minimis exemption, thereby exposing 

consumers to the term.104 NRF also 

noted that retailers have labeled fur 

products made of nyctereutes 

procyonoides with Asiatic Raccoon to 

the extent the products did not meet the 

de minimis exemption.105

Shopping searches conducted on 

Google Shopping further confirm this 

record evidence. For example, according 

to searches conducted on March 13, 

2014, a shopper searching with the 

terms ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ and ‘‘Raccoon 

Dog’’ would find many more fur 

products using the term ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon.’’ In fact, the vast majority of 

hits on a Google Shopping search for 

‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ yielded almost no fur 

products in the first page of results. 

Finally, the proposed alternative, 

‘‘Raccoon Dog,’’ has significant 

problems. The record indicates that the 

name could significantly mislead 

consumers about the animal’s 

relationship to domestic dog. Industry 

commenters unanimously agreed that 

the name ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ would mislead 

consumers into thinking that animal is 

domestic dog.106 HSUS and NYC Bar 

correctly argued that harm to fur sales 

is not a consideration in determining 

the name the Commission should list in 

the Guide. However, evidence that the 

name ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ has or would 

mislead consumers is relevant to the 

Commission’s determination of whether 

such name would confuse consumers 

about the animal. 

In fact, comments submitted by 

individual HSUS members demonstrate 

that potential confusion. Specifically, 

188 HSUS member comments indicate a 

mistaken assumption that nyctereutes 

procyonoides is the same species as 

domestic dog.107 For example, one 

commenter wrote, ‘‘Make no mistake. 

This is a DOG. A companion 

animal.’’ 108 Similarly, another asserted 

that the animals ‘‘are dogs, just like Fido 

and Spot.’’ 109 Another expressed 

concern that companies selling 

nyctereutes procyonoides were violating 

the prohibition against selling domestic 

dog and cat fur.110

Indeed, many individual commenters 

appeared to think that ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ 

was a breed of domestic dog rather than 

a different species. For example, one 

commenter asked, ‘‘would you treat a 

Collie like this? How about Pomeranian, 

or a Beagle or a Poodle[?]’’ 111 Finally, 

several commenters referenced the 

relationship between domestic dogs and 

humans. For example, one asked that 

the Commission require ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ 

‘‘so consumers will know that they are 

wearing man[’]s best friend on their 

backs.’’ 112

2. The Arguments Against ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ Are Not Persuasive 

Commenters favoring ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ 

asserted that, notwithstanding the 

above, ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ is 

inappropriate because it is technically 

inaccurate, deceptive, contrary to the 

Fur Rules, and inconsistent with TFLA’s 

intent. For the reasons discussed below, 

these arguments are not persuasive. 

a. Technical Accuracy 

HSUS, NYC Bar, and the HSUS 

members asserted that ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ was technically incorrect 

because the animal’s taxonomic 

classification is in the Canidae family. 

However, those commenters did not 

explain the relevance of taxonomic 

classification to the statutory 

requirements for names: Either the ‘‘true 

English name’’ or a name by which the 

animal can be identified in the United 

States.113 In particular, they failed to 

show how the animal’s closer 

relationship with domestic dog than 

raccoon made ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ a more 

helpful name in identifying the animal. 

Although NYC Bar speculated that some 

consumers would want to avoid fur 

more closely related to dogs than 

raccoons, it did not provide any 

supporting evidence. Considering that 

the animal is no more closely related to 

domestic dogs than are foxes, wolves, 

and coyotes, there is no reason to 

believe that a significant number of 

consumers would find its family 

classification meaningful. Indeed, the 

scientific experts who commented at the 

Name Guide Hearing disagreed that 

taxonomic schemes should determine 

the animal’s common name.114

b. Deception 

HSUS and NYC Bar argued the name 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ is deceptive because 

consumers cannot be familiar with 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ given the ubiquity of 

‘‘Raccoon Dog.’’ These commenters, 

however, did not submit any consumer 

perception evidence demonstrating 

familiarity with ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ or 

rebutting evidence of familiarity with 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon.’’ Rather, they 

cataloged the appearance of ‘‘Raccoon 

Dog’’ in authoritative sources and 

popular media. 

This evidence, however, does not 

establish widespread consumer 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30453 

115HSUS challenged the Commission’s 

conclusion that consumers have been exposed to 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ in the marketplace. Specifically, 

it alleged that because retailers have frequently 

mislabeled nyctereutes procyonoides fur, there is no 

basis to infer consumer exposure. However, as 

discussed above, Name Guide Hearing comments 

indicate the name has been used frequently. HSUS’s 

comments at the hearing, while emphasizing the 

alleged frequent mislabeling, conceded that 

nyctereutes procyonoides has been often labeled as 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon.’’ 

HSUS also stated that the NPRM misrepresented 

its views regarding consumer exposure to ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon.’’ HSUS comment at 9. However, the 

NPRM merely noted HSUS’s agreement that the 

term ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ has appeared in the 

marketplace, even if the animal has been frequently 

mislabeled. HSUS’s most recent comments appear 

consistent with that position. 

116 77 FR at 57048, fn. 112. 

117NYC Bar comment at 3, citing Bill Summary 

S. 1076. 

118Bill Text of S. 1076 as introduced, available 

at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS111s1076is/pdf/BILLS-111s1076is.pdf (emphasis 

added). 

119Public Law 111–113, section 4 (emphasis 

added). 

120 INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 442 

(1987) (‘ ‘‘Few principles of statutory construction 

are more compelling than the proposition that 

Congress does not intend sub silentio to enact 

statutory language that it has earlier discarded in 

favor of other language.’ ’’) (quoting Nachman Corp. 

v. PBGC, 446 U.S. 359, 392–93 (1980) (Stewart, J., 

dissenting)). 

121Unlike ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon,’’ ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ 

does not have a long history in the marketplace. 

122HSUS also renewed its request from its earlier 

comment for several additional changes to the 

required name on labels. As explained in the 

NPRM, the Commission does not make those 

changes because there is no evidence of consumer 

harm from the currently required names. 

familiarity with ‘‘Raccoon Dog,’’ or 

unfamiliarity with ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon.’’ 

Scientific journals and organizations 

promote academic study and research; 

there is no reason to assume that 

consumers shopping for furs would 

consult them. The use of ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ 

in dictionaries and popular media 

suggests that some consumers 

understand the term, but does not show 

whether a significant number of 

consumers do. Considering that ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ has appeared on nyctereutes 

procyonoides marketing and labels for 

decades, the Commission cannot 

abandon that name absent evidence of 

widespread consumer familiarity with 

‘‘Raccoon Dog.’’ 

Critically, neither HSUS nor NYC Bar 

identified a single instance where use of 

the term ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ deceived a 

consumer as to the product’s fur 

content. Considering that the Guide has 

required ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ since 1961, 

if the term had confused or otherwise 

harmed consumers, evidence of such 

confusion should exist.115 Perhaps 

anticipating this problem, HSUS and 

NYC Bar argued that consumers must 

know they are buying ‘‘Raccoon Dog’’ in 

order to conduct research about how fur 

producers treat the species. But as the 

Commission noted in the NPRM,116

consumers researching information 

about ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’—as opposed to 

shopping for fur products on Google 

Shopping—can easily perform a web 

search on Google and obtain 

information that identifies the animal by 

both the species name and ‘‘Raccoon 

Dog.’’ For example, a Google web search 

for information about ‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ 

performed on March 13, 2014, retrieved 

dozens of links related to nyctereutes 

procyonoides, with five of the first six 

links referring to both the Latin name of 

the species and the term ‘‘Raccoon 

Dog.’’ 

c. Contrary to the Fur Rules 

HSUS and NYC Bar also assert 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ violates the Fur 

Rules’ prohibition on trade names and 

deception. They point to § 301.11 and 

§ 301.17’s prohibitions on trade names 

and statements that are deceptive as to 

the animals’ zoological origin. However, 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ is not a trade name. 

Rather, it is the true English name 

prescribed in the Name Guide for over 

50 years. Furthermore, as discussed 

above, the Commission disagrees that 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ is deceptive. 

d. Inconsistent With TFLA’s Intent 

Notwithstanding the merits of 

‘‘Asiatic Raccoon’’ versus ‘‘Raccoon 

Dog,’’ NYC Bar asserted that the 

Commission should adopt the latter to 

carry out TFLA’s intent as indicated in 

a Congressional Research Service 

Summary for S. 1076, an early draft of 

TFLA. That summary inaccurately 

described the bill as directing the FTC 

‘‘to replace the term ‘Raccoon, Asiatic’ 

with ‘Raccoon, Dog.’ ’’ 117 In addition, 

that summary referred to a draft of the 

bill with significantly different language 

than TFLA. Specifically, that version 

would have directed the Commission to 

‘‘initiate a rulemaking to revise the Fur 

Products Name Guide.’’ 118 TFLA, by 

contrast, merely directs the Commission 

to initiate ‘‘a review of the Fur Products 

Name Guide.’’ 119 Indeed, the summary 

of the later version of the bill notes that 

it directs the Commission to review the 

guide, without mentioning ‘‘Asiatic 

Raccoon’’ or ‘‘Raccoon Dog.’’ The fact 

that Congress considered language 

directing the Commission to revise the 

Guide and then rejected that language 

does not support NYC Bar’s position. 

Indeed, it supports the opposite 

interpretation.120

3. The Commission Declines To Add 

‘‘Finnraccoon.’’ 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

declined to propose ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ as 

an alternate for nyctereutes 

procyonoides. Fur-industry commenters 

and Finnish Government Ministries 

urged the Commission to reconsider, 

arguing that ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ would help 

consumers identify nyctereutes 

procyonoides raised according to stricter 

European regulatory standards. As 

discussed above, the Fur Act requires 

Name Guide names to be the animal’s 

‘‘true English name’’ or a name by 

which consumers can identify the 

animal in the United States. The record 

indicates that ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ satisfies 

neither criterion. 

In the NPRM, the Commission 

observed that there is no evidence that 

consumers understand that 

‘‘Finnraccoon’’ is nyctereutes 

procyonoides. In response, fur-industry 

commenters reported that marketers of 

nyctereutes procyonoides products from 

Finland had extensively advertised the 

product as ‘‘Finnraccoon’’ in the last 

few years. However, the comments did 

not detail the extent of such marketing 

and, more importantly, did not provide 

any consumer perception evidence 

showing that a significant number of 

consumers understand the term.121

The NPRM also raised practical 

concerns that the commenters did not 

address. Specifically, the commenters 

justify the alternate name on 

purportedly superior European furfarming practices. However, these 

practices can change and, in any event, 

the Commission cannot verify them. 

This issue is critical because the record 

shows no physiological difference 

between nyctereutes procyonoides 

raised in Asia and those raised in 

Europe. Moreover, the country of origin 

disclosure will alert consumers that the 

animal was raised in Europe, thereby 

mitigating any confusion. Accordingly, 

the Commission will not add 

‘‘Finnraccoon’’ to the Name Guide. 

4. Name Guide Updates 

The NPRM proposed numerous Name 

Guide revisions to update references to 

species or correct typographical errors. 

No comments objected to these 

proposals. Therefore, the Commission 

will finalize them.122

HSUS and Dr. Gardner urged the 

Commission to make additional updates 

and correct errors. The final 

amendments incorporate four revisions 

to the scientific names that the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

30454 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

123Specifically, the Commission updates the 

Order classification for ‘‘antelope’’ and the species 

names for ‘‘jaguarondi, ‘‘peschanik,’’ and ‘‘suslik.’’ 

Entries for ‘‘kolinsky’’ and ‘‘lynx’’ that were omitted 

from the NPRM have been restored in the final rule. 

124 16 CFR 301.19; 301.20. 

125 16 CFR 303.16(b). 

126 16 CFR 301.27. 

127 16 CFR 303.15(a). 

128 16 CFR 301.31(b). 

129 16 CFR 303.29(b). 

130See 16 CFR 303.33(a). 

131Because 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 deletes the 

definitions of ‘‘cat fur,’’ ‘‘dog fur,’’ and ‘‘dog or cat 

fur products,’’ as well as the cat and dog fur 

exceptions in § 301.39(a), because those terms are 

used only in the de minimis exemption provision. 

In addition, the Commission adopts several nonsubstantive amendments to ensure that references 

to other provisions and the Act are accurate and to 

correct typographical errors. 

Commission has independently verified 

with FWS.123

B. Labeling Amendments 

The NPRM proposed several 

amendments to reduce the amount of 

required information and provide more 

labeling flexibility. Commenters 

supported all these amendments. 

Accordingly, the Commission now 

finalizes them as proposed. 

1. Required Information 

Currently, Section 301.20(a) requires 

disclosure of pointed, dyed, bleached, 

or artificially colored fur and fur 

consisting of, among other things, 

‘‘sides’’ or ‘‘flanks.’’ 124 In light of the 

uncontroverted comments that the 

‘‘sides’’ and ‘‘flanks’’ disclosures do not 

provide consumers with meaningful 

information, the Commission eliminates 

them. 

2. Label Specifications 

The Fur Rules include extensive 

requirements regarding the size, font, 

and mechanics of labeling. As discussed 

in the NPRM, the Commission 

understands from its experience 

enforcing the Textile Rules that it is 

sufficient to require that disclosures be 

‘‘clearly legible, conspicuous, and 

readily accessible to the prospective 

purchaser.’’ 125 Accordingly, the 

Commission amends the Rules to 

provide more flexibility regarding label 

size, text, and use for items sold in pairs 

or groups. 

a. Label Size Requirements 

Section 301.27 currently requires that 

labels measure 1.75 inches by 2.75 

inches.126 The Commission agrees 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, so long as 

the required disclosures are 

conspicuous. Therefore, the 

Commission eliminates the size 

requirement. Consistent with the Textile 

Rules,127 the new § 301.27 will 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.’’ 

b. 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 § 301.30 

prescribes a specific order for 

disclosures. As discussed in the NPRM, 

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: 

• Replaces § 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’’; 

• removes § 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 

• deletes § 301.30, which specifies a 

particular order for FTC disclosures. 

c. 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.’’ 128 In the NPRM, the 

Commission found 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. Accordingly, 

the Commission eliminates the 

requirement and incorporates the 

Textile Rules’ provision allowing a 

single label for items ‘‘marketed or 

handled in pairs or ensembles,’’ 

regardless of whether they are attached 

to each other at the point-of-sale.129

Thus, if retailers sell the items as pairs 

or ensembles and each item contains the 

same fur with the same country of 

origin, retailers may use a single label. 

3. Additional Suggested Labeling 

Amendments Not Adopted 

Three commenters supported 

additional amendments that would 

eliminate supposedly redundant ‘‘fur 

origin’’ disclosures, and the requirement 

to label certain furs as ‘‘natural.’’ The 

Commission declines to adopt either 

amendment. 

Commenters FDRA and ITA argued 

that requiring ‘‘fur origin’’ disclosures 

on products, like textiles, that already 

have a country of origin label is 

redundant. The Commission does not 

agree. The required country of origin 

disclosure for textiles relates to the 

location the product was manufactured. 

Thus, textile disclosures typically read 

‘‘Made in [ ].’’ 130 Because fur skins are 

not manufactured, a ‘‘Made in’’ 

disclosure applying to both the textile 

and fur portion of a product would 

likely confuse consumers. Therefore, the 

Commission will continue to require 

that fur labels disclose ‘‘Fur Origin: 

[country].’’ 

Individual commenter ‘‘Gremmo’’ 

suggested eliminating § 301.19(g)’s 

requirement to brand and label certain 

furs as ‘‘natural.’’ Although the 

comment asserted that the ‘‘natural’’ 

disclosure does not convey meaningful 

information to consumers, it did not 

submit any supporting evidence. 

Moreover, no industry commenter 

reported that the requirement imposed a 

significant burden. Thus, there is no 

basis to remove that requirement. 

C. Amendments Required by TFLA 

TFLA’s amendments to the Fur Act 

require conforming changes to the Fur 

Rules. Accordingly, the Commission 

replaces the de minimis exemption 

(§ 301.39), as well as all related 

provisions,131 with TFLA’s hunter/

trapper exemption. 

D. Amendments Eliminating 

Unnecessary Provisions 

The NPRM proposed eliminating 

unnecessary provisions to simplify the 

Rules. No commenter objected. 

Therefore, the Commission deletes three 

sections. First, it deletes § 301.19(l)(1) 

through (7). These subsections provide 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30455 

132 16 CFR 301.19(h). 

133 16 CFR 301.40(a). 

134 15 U.S.C. 7001, et seq. 

135See discussion in the Commission’s 

announcement of final amendments to the Textile 

Rules at 79 FR 18766, 18768 (Apr. 4, 2014). 

136 15 U.S.C. 69h(a)(2). 

137 Id. (emphasis added). 

138 15 U.S.C. 69(b) and (d). 

139According 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). 

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 is unnecessary because 

§ 301.19 requires that an entity coloring 

furs must disclose the treatment on an 

invoice.132

Second, the Commission deletes 

§ 301.28, which provides further 

guidance on attaching labels. Because 

the new § 301.27 clarifies the method 

for attaching labels, § 301.28 is now 

redundant. 

Third, § 301.40 requires entities to 

assign an ‘‘item number or mark’’ to furs 

and to disclose it on invoices and 

labels.133 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 

eliminates this provision and the 

internal references to it. 

E. Amendments to Guaranty Provisions 

The Supplemental NPRM proposed 

several amendments to conform the Fur 

Rules’ guaranty provisions to those 

proposed in the Textile NPRM. These 

amendments would ensure that the 

Rules facilitate the electronic transmittal 

and submission of guaranties, and 

require annual renewal of continuing 

guaranties. Commenters supported the 

changes to facilitate electronic 

guaranties, but opposed annual renewal. 

In addition, HSUS renewed its request 

that continuing guaranties specify fur 

type. In light of the comments, the 

Commission adopts the provisions 

facilitating electronic guaranties, but not 

the annual renewal requirement or 

HSUS’s suggested amendment. 

1. Electronic Guaranties 

To clarify that the Fur Rules do not 

prohibit electronically transmitted 

guaranties and conform the fur guaranty 

provisions to those governing textiles, 

the Commission adopts four 

amendments. First, it changes the term 

‘‘invoice’’ in § 301.47 and the phrase 

‘‘invoice or other paper’’ in § 301.48(b) 

to ‘‘invoice or other document.’’ These 

amendments are consistent with the fact 

that ‘‘invoice’’ includes documents that 

are electronically stored or transmitted. 

Second, the Commission amends 

§ 301.47 to include, as the Textile Rules 

currently do, a statement that the 

guarantor’s printed name and address 

will satisfy the signature requirement 

for separate guaranties. Specifically, the 

Commission adds language to § 301.47 

providing that a printed name and 

address will suffice to meet the 

signature and address requirements. 

This additional language will make 

clear that entities can sign guaranties 

electronically, consistent with the 

Electronic Signatures in Global and 

National Commerce Act.134

Third, the Commission deletes text in 

§ 301.47 requiring separate guaranties to 

show ‘‘the date of shipment of the 

merchandise.’’ This change will further 

conform to the textile guaranty 

provisions. 

Finally, the Commission adopts the 

definition of ‘‘invoice’’ and ‘‘invoice or 

other document’’ proposed in the 

Textile NPRM. This definition clarifies 

that ‘‘invoices,’’ which guarantors often 

use to transmit separate guaranties, 

include documents transmitted and 

stored electronically. 

2. Annual Renewal of Continuing 

Guaranties 

As discussed above, commenters 

unanimously opposed requiring annual 

renewal of continuing guaranties. 

Significantly, commenters on the 

Textile NPRM likewise unanimously 

opposed the requirement as 

unreasonably burdensome, and noted 

that the Commission lacked a basis to 

find that annual renewal would increase 

reliability.135

Thus, the record lacks evidence 

demonstrating that the proposal would 

increase the reliability of continuing 

guaranties. Accordingly, the 

Commission has decided not to adopt 

this proposed amendment in the Fur 

and in the Textile Rules. 

Nonetheless, the Commission 

continues to have concerns that 

continuing guaranties’ reliability may 

degrade over time. If the Commission 

obtains evidence that continuing 

guaranties have become less reliable 

after the guaranty amendments take 

effect, it will revisit this issue. 

3. Requiring Continuing Guaranties To 

Designate Fur Type 

HSUS urged the Commission to 

require that continuing guaranties 

designate the specific animal that 

produced the fur for all products 

transferred. In practice, this would limit 

continuing guaranties’ coverage to only 

certain furs a guarantor transferred. 

The Commission declines to adopt 

HSUS’s proposal because it disagrees 

with HSUS’s reading of the Fur Act. 

HSUS asserted that the Fur Act allows 

limiting continuing guaranties to certain 

products because Section 10(a)(2) of the 

Act states that continuing guaranties 

shall be ‘‘in such form as the 

Commission by rules and regulations 

may prescribe.’’ 136 The language cited 

by HSUS is proceeded by a statement 

that continuing guaranties will apply 

‘‘to any fur product or fur handled by 

a guarantor.’’ 137 Thus, the Fur Act does 

not limit ‘‘any fur product or fur’’ to a 

specific type of fur. Although the Act 

gives the Commission discretion in 

prescribing the guaranty form, the 

Commission cannot require a form that 

would override clear statutory language. 

As the Commission stated in the NPRM, 

the Act provides for continuing 

guaranties that cover all fur products 

handled by the guarantor, regardless of 

the type of fur. 

F. Applicability to Faux Fur Products 

Commenter National Humane 

Education Society appeared to request 

that the Commission require all real and 

faux fur products to have labels 

indicating whether the fur is real. This 

would require applying the Fur Rules to 

items without fur. As the Commission 

stated in the NPRM, it cannot expand 

the Rules’ coverage to include faux fur 

because those rules are authorized by 

the Fur Act, which applies only to 

‘‘furs’’ or ‘‘fur products,’’ defined as 

‘‘animal skin . . . with hair, fleece, or 

fur fibers attached thereto’’ and 

products made of ‘‘fur or used fur,’’ 

respectively.138

V. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The final 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.139 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

30456 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

140OMB Control No. 3084–0099 (clearance 

granted April 3, 2012, through April 30, 2015). 

141 5 U.S.C. 601–612 

142See 5 U.S.C. 603–605. 

143 77 FR 10744, 10745 (Feb. 23, 2012). 

144 Id. 

145The standards are available at www.sba.gov/

sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 

clearance request and burden estimates 

for the Fur Rule.140

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 141

requires an agency to provide a 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with a 

final rule unless the agency certifies that 

the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.142 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.143 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.144 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’’).145 The 

relevant NAICS size standards, which 

are either minimum annual receipts or 

number of employees, are as follows: 

NAICS Industry title Small business 

size standard 

Fur-Bearing Animal and 

Rabbit Production.

$750,000. 

Fur and Leather Apparel 

Manufacturing.

500 employees. 

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. No commenter addressed 

this subject. 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. 

Even absent this data, however, the 

Commission concludes that the 

amendments will not have a significant 

economic impact on small entities. As 

discussed above in Section V, the 

amendments do not impose any new 

costs. The greater flexibility 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. Finally, the 

Commission is not adopting its proposal 

that continuing guaranty certifications 

be updated annually. 

This document serves as notice to the 

Small Business Administration of the 

agency’s certification of no effect. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 301 

Furs, Labeling, Trade practices. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Trade 

Commission amends title 16, Chapter I, 

Subchapter C, of the Code of Federal 

Regulations, part 301, as follows: 

PART 301—RULES AND 

REGULATIONS UNDER FUR 

PRODUCTS LABELING ACT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 301 

continues to read: 

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

■ 2. Revise § 301.0 to read as follows: 

§ 301.0 Fur products name guide. 

Name Order Family Genus-species 

Alpaca .................................. Artiodactyla ........................ Camelidae ......................... Lama pacos. 

Antelope ............................... Artiodactyla ........................ Bovidae .............................. Hippotragus niger and Antilope cervicapra. 

Badger ................................. Carnivora ........................... Mustelidae ......................... Taxida sp. and Meles sp. 

Bassarisk ............................. ......do ................................. Procyonidae ....................... Bassariscus astutus. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30457 

Name Order Family Genus-species 

Fox, White ........................... Carnivora ........................... Canidae ............................. Vulpes lagopus. 

Genet ................................... ......do ................................. Viverridae .......................... Genetta genetta. 

Goat ..................................... Artiodactyla ........................ Bovidae .............................. Capra hircus.

Guanaco, or its young, the 

Guanaquito.

......do ................................. Camelidae ......................... Lama guanicoe. 

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 ................................. Herpailurus yagouaroundi. 

Kangaroo ............................. Diprotodontia ..................... Macropodidae .................... Marcopus sp. 

Kangaroo-rat ........................ ......do ................................. Potoroidae ......................... Bettongia sp. 

Kid ........................................ Artiodactyla ........................ Bovidae .............................. Capra hircus. 

Kinkajou ............................... Carnivora ........................... Procyonidae ....................... Potos flavus. 

Koala .................................... Diprotodontia ..................... Phascolarctidae .. .............. Phascolarctos cinereus. 

Kolinsky ............................... Carnivora ........................... Mustelidae ......................... Mustela sibirica.

Lamb .................................... Artiodactyla ........................ Bovidae .............................. Ovis aries. 

Leopard ................................ Carnivora ........................... Felidae ............................... Panthera pardus. 

Llama ................................... Artiodactyla ........................ Camelidae ......................... Lama glama. 

Lynx ..................................... Carnivora ........................... Felidae ............................... Lynx canadensis and Lynx lynx. 

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 ............................ Spermophilus 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. 

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. 

Suslik ................................... ......do ................................. ......do ................................. Spermophilus citellus, Spermophilus major rufescens 

and Spermophilus suslicus. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

30458 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 3. Amend § 301.1 by removing 

paragraphs (a)(6), (7), and (8), revising 

paragraph (a)(4), and adding new 

paragraph (a)(6) to read as follows: 

§ 301.1 Terms defined. 

(a) * * * 

(4) The terms Fur Products Name 

Guide and Name Guide mean the 

register of names of hair, fleece, and furbearing animals issued and amended by 

the Commission pursuant to the 

provisions of section 7 of the act. 

* * * * * 

(6) The terms invoice and invoice or 

other document mean an account, order, 

memorandum, list, or catalog, which is 

issued to a purchaser, consignee, bailee, 

correspondent, agent, or any other 

person, electronically, in writing, or in 

some other form capable of being read 

and preserved in a form that is capable 

of being accurately reproduced for later 

reference, whether by transmission, 

printing, or otherwise, in connection 

with the marketing or handling of any 

fur or fur product transported or 

delivered to such person. 

■ 4. Amend § 301.2 by revising 

paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 301.2 General requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b) Each and every fur, except those 

exempted under § 301.39, 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 

§ 301.39, shall be in conformity with the 

requirements of the act and rules and 

regulations. 

§ 301.19 [Amended] 

■ 5. Amend § 301.19 by removing 

paragraphs (l)(1) through (7). 

■ 6. Revise § 301.20(a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 301.27 to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

§ 301.28 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 8. Remove and reserve § 301.28. 

■ 9. Revise § 301.29(a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

§ 301.30 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 10. Remove and reserve § 301.30. 

■ 11. Revise § 301.31(b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

■ 12. Amend § 301.35 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Revise § 301.39 to read as follows: 

§ 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-toface 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. 

§ 301.40 [Removed and Reserved] 

■ 14. Remove and reserve § 301.40. 

■ 15. Amend § 301.41 by removing 

paragraph (a)(7) and revising paragraph 

(a)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 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; 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Revise § 301.47 to read as follows: 

§ 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 to § 301.47. The printed name and 

address on the invoice or other document 

will suffice to meet the signature and address 

requirements. 

■ 17. Amend § 301.48 by revising the 

section heading and paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 301.48 Continuing guaranties. 

* * * * * 

(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.’’ 

* * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 102 / Wednesday, May 28, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 30459 

1Under 29 CFR § 4041A.2, ‘‘insolvent’’ means 

that a plan is unable to pay benefits when due 

during the plan year. 

2See http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/plan-forregulatory-review.pdf. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2014–11047 Filed 5–27–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY 

CORPORATION 

29 CFR Parts 4041A, 4231, and 4281 

RIN 1212–AB13 

Multiemployer Plans; Valuation and 

Notice Requirements 

AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule amends the 

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s 

(PBGC) multiemployer regulations to 

make the provision of information to 

PBGC and plan participants more 

efficient and effective and to reduce 

burden on plans and sponsors. The 

amendments reduce the number of 

actuarial valuations required for certain 

small terminated but not insolvent 

plans, shorten the advance notice filing 

requirements for mergers in situations 

that do not involve a compliance 

determination, and remove certain 

insolvency notice and update 

requirements. The amendments are a 

result of PBGC’s regulatory review 

under Executive Order 13563 

(Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review). 

DATES: Effective June 27, 2014. See 

Applicability in SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine B. Klion 

(klion.catherine@pbgc.gov), Assistant 

General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, 

or Daniel Liebman 

(liebman.daniel@pbgc.gov), Attorney, 

Office of the General Counsel, Pension 

Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20005– 

4026; 202–326–4024. (TTY/TDD users 

may call the Federal relay service tollfree at 1–800–877–8339 and ask to be 

connected to 202–326–4024.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary—Purpose of the 

Regulatory Action 

This final rule amends certain 

regulations governing PBGC’s 

multiemployer program to make the 

provision of information to PBGC and 

plan participants more efficient and 

effective. This rule is needed to reduce 

burden on multiemployer plans and 

sponsors and to facilitate potentially 

beneficial plan merger transactions. The 

rule reduces burden by allowing certain 

small terminated but not insolvent plans 

to provide valuations less frequently, 

easing reporting requirements for plan 

sponsors contemplating a merger 

transaction, and streamlining and 

removing certain notice requirements 

for insolvent plans.1 This will reduce 

administrative costs and preserve plan 

assets that could otherwise have been 

used to fund plan benefits. 

PBGC’s legal authority for this 

regulatory action comes from section 

4002(b)(3) of the Employee Retirement 

Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 

which authorizes PBGC to issue 

regulations to carry out the purposes of 

title IV of ERISA; section 4041A(f)(2), 

which gives PBGC authority to prescribe 

reporting requirements for terminated 

plans; section 4231(a), which gives 

PBGC authority to prescribe regulations 

setting the requirements for one or more 

multiemployer plans to merge; and 

section 4281(d), which directs PBGC to 

prescribe by regulation the notice 

requirements to plan participants and 

beneficiaries in the event of a benefit 

suspension. 

Executive Summary—Major Provisions 

of the Regulatory Action 

Annual Valuations 

When a multiemployer plan 

terminates, the plan must perform an 

annual valuation of the plan’s assets and 

benefits. This final rule allows 

valuations for plans that were 

terminated by mass withdrawal but are 

not insolvent and where the value of 

nonforfeitable benefits is $25 million or 

less to be performed every three years 

instead of annually as required under 

the current regulations. 

Filing Requirements for Mergers 

Under PBGC’s regulations, a merger or 

a transfer of assets and liabilities 

between multiemployer plans must 

satisfy certain requirements, including a 

requirement that plan sponsors of all 

plans involved in a merger or transfer 

must jointly file a notice with PBGC 

before the transaction. This final rule 

shortens the notice period from 120 

days to 45 days where no compliance 

determination is requested. 

Insolvency Notices and Updates 

Terminated multiemployer plans that 

determine that they will be insolvent for 

a plan year must provide a series of 

notices and updates to notices to PBGC 

and participants and beneficiaries, 

including a notice of insolvency. The 

final rule eliminates the requirement to 

provide annual updates to the notice of 

insolvency. 

Background 

PBGC administers two insurance 

programs for private-sector defined 

benefit plans under title IV of the 

Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act of 1974 (ERISA): A single-employer 

plan termination insurance program and 

a multiemployer plan insolvency 

insurance program. 

A multiemployer plan is a collectively 

bargained pension arrangement 

involving several employers that are not 

within the same controlled group, 

usually in a common industry, such as 

construction, trucking, textiles, or coal 

mining. By contrast, a single-employer 

plan may be sponsored by either one 

employer (pursuant or not pursuant to 

a collective bargaining agreement) or by 

several unrelated employers (but not 

pursuant to a collective bargaining 

agreement). 

ERISA section 4041A provides for two 

types of multiemployer plan 

terminations: Mass withdrawal and plan 

amendment. A mass withdrawal 

termination occurs when all employers 

withdraw or cease to be obligated to 

contribute to the plan. A plan 

amendment termination occurs when 

the plan adopts an amendment that 

provides that participants will receive 

no credit for service with any employer 

after a specified date, or an amendment 

that makes it no longer a covered plan. 

Unlike terminated single-employer 

plans, terminated multiemployer plans 

continue to pay all vested benefits out 

of existing plan assets and withdrawal 

liability payments. PBGC’s guarantee of 

the benefits in a multiemployer plan— 

payable as financial assistance to the 

plan—starts only if and when the plan 

is unable to make payments at the 

statutorily guaranteed level. 

This final rule reduces certain 

requirements for multiemployer plans 

that are terminated by mass withdrawal 

and mergers and transfers among 

multiemployer plans. 

On January 18, 2011, the President 

issued Executive Order 13563 

‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory 

Review,’’ to ensure that Federal 

regulations seek more affordable, less 

intrusive means to achieve policy goals, 

and that agencies give careful 

consideration to the benefits and costs 

of those regulations. PBGC’s Plan for 

Regulatory Review,2 identifies several 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES