[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 209 (Monday, October 28, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55589-55593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27572]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 253


Guides for the Feather and Down Products Industry

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Request for additional public comment.

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

SUMMARY: On April 15, 1994, the Commission published a Federal Register 
Notice initiating the regulatory review of the Federal Trade 
Commission's (``Commission'') Guides for the Feather and Down Products 
Industry (``Guides''), 16 CFR 253, and seeking public comment. This 
notice summarizes the comments received, announces the Commission's 
preliminary determinations regarding certain amendments to the Guides, 
and seeks further comment on other issues.
    The Commission has preliminarily determined to amend or rescind the 
following sections of the Guides: (1) Section 253.2 ``Misrepresentation 
in general''; (2) Section 253.3 ``Use of trade names, symbols, 
depictions, etc.''; (3) Section 253.4 ``Misuse of the term `Tan-O-Quil-
QM' ''; (4) Section 253.6(e) ``Testing''; (5) Section 253.10 
``Cleanliness of filling material''; and (6) Section 253.11 
``Disclosure as to size.''
    To assist the Commission in determining whether it should modify 
certain other sections of the Guides, the Commission requests 
additional public comment regarding: (1) The tolerance of landfowl 
feathers in waterfowl feather products; and (2) the tolerance of 
damaged feathers in feather and down products. Further, to assist the 
Commission in determining whether it should modify the current 
tolerances in filling material or develop new guides that measure other 
qualities of feather and down products, the Commission requests public 
comment regarding: (1) The continuing usefulness or relevance of the 
Guides; (2) the existing standards measuring the benefits or qualities 
of feather and down filling material; and (3) the tolerances as applied 
to products containing blends of feathers and down.

DATES: Written comments will be accepted until January 28, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: Secretary, Federal Trade 
Commission, Room H-159, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20580. Comments about the Guides for the Feather and 
Down Products Industry should be identified as ``16 CFR Part 253--
Comment.'' If possible, submit comments both in writing and on a 
personal computer diskette in Word Perfect or other word processing 
format (to assist in processing, please identify the format and version 
used). Written comments should be submitted, when feasible and not 
burdensome, in five copies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alice Au, Attorney, Federal Trade 
Commission, New York Regional Office, 150 William Street, 13th Floor, 
New York, NY 10038, (212) 264-1210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The Guides for the Feather and Down Products Industry address 
claims for the advertising, labeling, and sale of products that are 
wholly or partially filled with feathers or down, and all bulk stocks 
of processed feathers or down intended for use or used in the 
manufacture of such products. The Guides also address the use of trade 
names, symbols, and depictions; the tolerances for filling material; 
the labeling of products using crushed and damaged feathers; the 
disclosure of the use of secondhand filling material; the cleanliness 
of filling material; and the disclosure of the size of feather and down 
products.
    As part of the Commission's ongoing review of all current 
Commission rules, regulations, and guides, the Commission published a 
Federal Register notice on April 15, 1994, 59 FR 18006 (1994) (``1994 
FRN''), seeking comments until June 14, 1994 about the regulatory and 
economic costs and benefits of the Guides. The Commission's request for 
public comment elicited ten comments from the industry and none from 
consumers or consumer groups: (1) The Association of Bedding and 
Furniture Law Officials (``ABFLO''), (2) J.C. Penney Company, Inc., (3) 
Bernard S. Liebman, a chemist and chairman of the feather and down task 
group of the American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM''), (4) 
Down Lite International, (5) L.L. Bean, Inc., (6) Pacific Coast Feather 
Company, (7) International Down and Feather Testing Laboratory, (8) 
United Feather and Down Inc., (9) American Down Association, and (10) 
Pillowtex Corporation. This notice summarizes the public comment 
received in response to the 1994 FRN; describes the

[[Page 55590]]

Commission's proposed changes to the Guides; and solicits additional 
public comment regarding certain issues.

II. Public Comment

    In response to the 1994 FRN's questions regarding the Guides' 
benefits, costs, and whether there is a continuing need for the Guides, 
the commenters uniformly support retaining the Guides. The commenters 
recommend that the Commission retain the Guides for the ``safety and 
protection'' of consumers 1 and say that ``[i]t is in the public 
interest to keep Guides in place.'' 2 The most commonly mentioned 
benefit of the Guides is that they assure a standard of quality to 
consumers that is not too burdensome to industry. One commenter noted 
that because ``[d]own is a product that is difficult, at best, for the 
consumer to evaluate * * * there needs to be a standard on which to 
base the quality of the product.'' 3 The commenters believe that 
the Guides have ``saved monies for consumers and prevent[ed] 
profiteering by some processors'' 4 and offered a ``level playing 
field for manufacturers.'' 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Comment B15621300003, Letter from Bernard S. Liebman at 1 
(``Liebman Comment'').
    \2\ Comment B15621300004, Letter from Larry H. Werthaiser, Down 
Lite International at 1 (``Down Lite Comment'').
     3 Comment B15621300005, Letter from Donald G. Thacker, 
Manager of Product Quality, L.L. Bean, Inc. at 1 (``L.L. Bean 
Comment'').
     4 Liebman Comment at 1.
     5 Comment B156213000010, Letter from Chuck Northcutt, 
Director of Quality Assurance, Pillowtex Corporation at 1 
(``Pillowtex Comment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenters generally stated that the Guides ``have not imposed 
costs on purchasers'' 6 and that ``costs imposed are principally 
costs associated with evaluation of down to determine acceptability for 
use as the product will be labeled and advertised.'' 7 Another 
commenter added that ``[t]he Testing, by nature, is very time consuming 
and costly; but, is a necessity to monitor and control and ensure the 
purchaser receives the proper product quality.'' 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     6 Comment B15621300006, Letter from Jerry Hanauer, CEO and 
Chairman, Pacific Coast Feather Company at 1 (``Pacific Coast 
Feather Comment'').
     7  L.L. Bean Comment at 1.
     8  Pillowtex Comment at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to a question regarding changes to the Guides that 
could increase benefits to purchasers, several commenters recommended 
the establishment of a new guide addressing fill power,9 which 
measures the ability of feathers and down to resist compression as 
pressure is placed on a sample of feathers and down. The term ``fill 
power'' appears in many advertisements for down garments and comforters 
and is occasionally being used in down pillow ads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     9 Liebman Comment at 2; Down Lite Comment at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A fill power guide may provide a valuable way for consumers to 
compare and evaluate feather and down products. Currently, however, 
there are many tests purporting to measure fill power that provide 
different results, and therefore, their comparative use to consumers is 
limited. The Commission has learned that Japan has specified a 
particular fill power standard that may be an appropriate and useful 
standard for use in the United States as well as provide a basis for 
international harmonization of industry practices.
    Further, like a possible fill power standard, a rating system 
measuring the warmth factor of down products, similar to the R-Value 
ratings for home insulation, may be an alternative way to make useful 
claims about down products. The Commission is interested in receiving 
information about whether there is consensus on how to measure warmth 
in down products, whether standards for warmth factor ratings exist, 
how such standards work, and whether such standards are as useful or 
more useful than current claims about content or fill power claims.
    Accordingly, to determine whether to provide guidance on these 
issues, the Commission is requesting further information about fill 
power, the Japanese fill power standard, warmth factor ratings similar 
to R-Value, and any other standards for measuring the qualities of 
feather and down products. The Commission also is interested in 
learning whether fill power claims or other warmth factor ratings, if 
standardized, are more useful to consumers than percentage claims, and 
whether new guidance on fill power or other warmth factor ratings 
should replace the current or proposed guidance on percentage content.
    One commenter expressed concern about the use of fictitious sale 
prices to market feather and down products.10 Fictitious pricing 
is a selling practice by which a retailer advertises products at 
inflated prices for the sole purpose of being able to offer a large 
discount from the original price. Although the Guides do not 
specifically address fictitious pricing of feather and down products, 
such practices can be addressed by the general prohibition of unfair or 
deceptive practices in Section 5 of the FTC Act along with the Guides'' 
Section 253.2 ``Misrepresentation in general.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     10  Down Lite Comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the question regarding conflicts with other laws or 
regulations, several commenters said that all of the states that 
regulate this industry have essentially deferred to the FTC 
Guides.11 Two commenters recommended that all state requirements 
be based on the federal standard.12 The Commission appreciates the 
industry's desire for more uniform state and federal standards, and as 
appropriate, will continue its work with other enforcement agencies to 
promote consistent standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     11  Liebman Comment at 2; Pacific Coast Feather Comment at 
2; Comment B15621300008, Letter from Benjamin Belfer, Vice 
President, United Feather and Down, Inc. at 2 (``UF&D Comment'').
     12  Pillowtex Comment at 2; UF&D Comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the question about changed technological or economic 
conditions that have affected the industry, two commenters said that 
they were not aware of any technological or economic changes that would 
have an impact upon the Guides.13 One commenter noted, however, 
that ``[e]conomic conditions have changed significantly in that more 
down and feather[s] are imported into the United States, and it is 
difficult to monitor and track small lots.''14 The Commission will 
continue to monitor down content claims and encourages industry members 
and other interested parties to provide information to the Commission 
and to U.S. Customs regarding possible violations involving imported 
raw stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     13  Pacific Coast Feather Comment at 2; UF&D Comment at 2.
     14  Pillowtex Comment at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested greater distribution of the information 
contained in the Guides to increase public awareness of the industry 
standards.15 When this regulatory review is completed, the 
Commission will consider developing educational materials that the 
Commission and industry members may provide to both businesses and 
consumers. Several industry members suggested that more enforcement 
would benefit consumers and industry. The Commission will continue to 
monitor industry practices and will take enforcement action pursuant to 
the FTC Act when appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     15  Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Proposed Amendments to the Guides

    The Commission has preliminarily determined, subject to final 
review and approval after the comment period, that it will make the 
following amendments to the Guides:

A. Section 253.2--Misrepresentation in General and Section 253.3--Use 
of Trade Names, Symbols, Depictions, etc.

    Section 253.2 ``Misrepresentation in general'' and Section 253.3 
``Use of

[[Page 55591]]

trade names, symbols, depictions, etc.'' include outdated language to 
describe the Commission's standard for deception. In the 1994 FRN, the 
Commission proposed replacing this outdated language with the 
Commission's current deception standard, as set forth in Cliffdale 
Associates, Inc., 103 F.T.C. 110 (1984), and subsequent cases. The 
Commission plans to amend the affected sections of the Guides 
accordingly.

B. Section 253.4--Misuse of the Term ``Tan-O-Quil-QM''

    Section 253.4 prohibits the misuse of the term ``Tan-O-Quil-QM,'' 
which refers to a chemical treatment developed by the U.S. Army Natick 
Research, Development, and Engineering Center (``Natick Center'') to 
enhance the properties of feathers and down. Between 1970 and 1980, the 
use of the Tan-O-Quil-QM treatment began to decline, in large part due 
to the enforcement of clean water requirements that made the treatment 
prohibitively expensive. Representatives from the American Down 
Association, the California Bureau of Home Furnishings Laboratory, the 
Natick Center, and other industry members confirm that the treatment is 
not used on a commercial basis today.
    The 1994 FRN asked: Is there a continuing need for Sec. 253.4 
``Misuse of the term `Tan-O-Quil-QM' ''? One commenter noted that few 
companies produce Tan-O-Quil-QM products today but thought that the 
Commission should retain the Guide to prevent misuse of the 
term,16 and three other commenters stated, without explanation, 
that there was a continuing need for the Guide.17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     16  Liebman Comment at 3.
     17  Pacific Coast Feather Comment at 2; UF&D Comment at 2; 
Pillowtex Comment at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering all the information about the treatment, the 
Commission plans to eliminate the Guide regarding the Tan-O-Quil-QM 
treatment because: (1) The treatment is no longer used on a commercial 
basis; (2) the elimination of the Guide does not prohibit any industry 
member from using the treatment as long as no misrepresentations are 
made; and (3) the Guide does not address any unique consumer protection 
issue that cannot be addressed by Section 5 of the FTC Act, which 
prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and by Guide Sections 
253.2 ``Misrepresentation in general'' and 253.3 ``Use of trade names, 
symbols, depictions, etc.''

C. Section 253.6(e)--Testing

    In response to the question regarding the Guides' burdens and 
costs, some commenters remarked on the high cost of testing the 
composition of feather and down products as provided by Section 
253.6(e) ``Testing.'' Other commenters said that the cost of testing 
products for quality assurance was ``incontestably money well spent and 
of benefit to the industry, the retail industry, and consumers.'' 
18 Other than the testing issue, the commenters did not identify 
any other significant burdens or costs that the Guides have imposed on 
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     18  Pacific Coast Feather Comment at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission preliminarily has determined to make two amendments 
to Section 253.6(e) ``Testing.'' First, the Commission will update this 
section to include reference to the September 14, 1965 and October 25, 
1968 amendments to Federal Standard 148a entitled ``Classification, 
Identification, and Testing of Feather Filling Material.'' This 
nonsubstantive amendment merely provides a full citation to Federal 
Standard 148a.
    Second, the Commission plans to amend this section by permitting 
the use of less costly alternative testing methods that yield reliable 
results. Although considered the most reliable test method by 
laboratories of enforcement agencies, Federal Standard 148a is also 
recognized to be a very expensive and time-consuming test. Because of 
these drawbacks, five industry commenters recommended that the FTC 
adopt an alternative test method first developed by ABFLO and later 
adopted by ASTM.19 To provide greater flexibility to industry 
while ensuring test reliability, the Commission plans to amend this 
section to permit use of any competent and reliable scientific test 
method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     19  Comment B15621300001, Letter from A. Richard Geisler, 
Chief of Pennsylvania's Division of Bedding and Upholstery and Vice 
President of ABFLO, at 1 (``ABFLO Comment''); Pacific Coast Feather 
Comment at 2; Comment B15621300007, Letter from Wilford K. Lieber, 
President, International Down and Feather Testing Laboratory 
(``IDFTL'') at 1 (``IDFTL Comment''); UF&D Comment at 2; Comment 
B15621300009, Letter from Howard C. Winslow, Executive Director, 
American Down Association (``ADA'') at 2 (``ADA Comment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Section 253.10--Cleanliness of Filling Material

    One measure of cleanliness of down and feather products is the 
``oxygen number,'' which reflects the oxidizable matter content such as 
blood and excreta in the plumage. Cleaner products have lower oxygen 
numbers. Section 253.10 requires that down and feather products be 
clean and that products have an oxygen number of no more than 
20.20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     20  The oxygen number of 20 is measured as follows: 20 grams of 
oxygen per 100,000 grams of sample. The Guide refers to Federal 
Standard 148a for a test method to determine the oxygen number. The 
Commission plans to update this section to include reference to the 
September 14, 1965 and October 25, 1968 amendments to Federal 
Standard 148a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter recommended that the oxygen number be reduced to 10 
because modern processing equipment and chemicals produce cleaner 
products, and other countries have limited the oxygen number to 
10.21 Some industry members confirmed that much of today's product 
is routinely tested to have oxygen numbers between 0-5, so an oxygen 
level of 10 is a reasonable outer limit. Further, several provinces in 
Canada are in the process of adopting a regulation requiring an oxygen 
number of 10 or lower. Therefore, in the interest of harmonizing U.S. 
and Canadian standards and ensuring cleaner products for consumers, the 
Commission plans to lower the maximum acceptable oxygen number from 20 
to 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     21  Liebman Comment at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Section 253.11--Disclosure as to Size

    Section 253.11 ``Disclosure as to size'' requires the disclosure of 
the ``finished size'' instead of the ``cut size'' of down and feather 
sleeping bags, comforters, pillows, and other similar industry 
products. The Commission has determined preliminarily to eliminate this 
section in light of changes in industry practices and the existence of 
laws in nearly all of the states that mandate point-of-sale disclosures 
similar to those required by the Section 253.11. There are no known 
violations of this section, and many states already have laws requiring 
the disclosure of the finished sizes of filled products.22
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     22  The proposed elimination of this Section 253.11 is 
consistent with the repeal of the Commission's Sleeping Bag Rule, 60 
FR 65528 (1995), and Tablecloth Rule, 60 FR 65530 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Other Issues Raised During The Regulatory Review Process

    The 1994 FRN and the comments received in response to the FRN 
raised questions regarding three sections of the Guides: Section 
253.6(b) ``Waterfowl feather products,'' Section 253.8 ``Damaged 
feathers,'' and Section 253.6 ``Tolerances in filling material.'' The 
Commission requests additional public comment before making any final 
changes to these sections.

[[Page 55592]]

A. Section 253.6(b)--Waterfowl feather products

    Section 253.6(b) permits up to 8% nonwaterfowl feathers in 
waterfowl feather products. Chickens and turkeys are the main sources 
of nonwaterfowl feathers, and geese and ducks are the main sources of 
waterfowl feathers. One commenter explained that lowering the current 
tolerance of nonwaterfowl feathers from 8% to 4% will not increase 
costs to consumers and will provide a better product to 
consumers.23 One commenter recommended the reduction of the 
tolerance because excessive (i.e., as much as 8%) chicken and turkey 
feathers in a waterfowl feather product implied that there had been 
deliberate adulteration by the addition of nonwaterfowl feathers, which 
have fewer benefits than goose and duck feathers.24 Commenters 
explained that a reduction in the tolerance is appropriate because 
geese and ducks are not commercially farmed with chickens and turkeys, 
so there should be very little natural contamination of waterfowl with 
nonwaterfowl feathers.25 Moreover, the 8% tolerance of 
nonwaterfowl feathers was due, in part, to now obsolete military 
requirements to include certain amounts of chicken and turkey feathers 
in military down and waterfowl feather products specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     23  UF&D Comment at 1.
     24  Pacific Coast Feather Comment at 1.
     25  ADA Comment at 2; Pillowtex Comment at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has tentatively determined that the current 8% 
tolerance of chicken and turkey feathers in goose and duck products 
should be reduced, but solicits comment on whether it should be reduced 
to 2%, rather than the 4% recommended by some commenters. A 2% 
tolerance of nonwaterfowl feathers in waterfowl feather products will 
match the long-established tolerance of 2% nonwaterfowl feathers in 
down products found in Section 253.6(a) ``Down products.'' Because the 
raw material source for goose and duck down and feathers is the same, 
there appears to be little reason for having a higher nonwaterfowl 
feather tolerance for waterfowl feather products than for down 
products. The Commission therefore requests additional public comment 
regarding the appropriate limit on nonwaterfowl feathers in waterfowl 
feather products.

B. Section 253.8--Damaged Feathers

    Section 253.8 ``Damaged feathers'' provides that an industry 
product should not contain damaged feathers--feathers that have been 
broken, damaged by insects, or otherwise materially injured--in excess 
of 2% of the total weight of the filling material, unless the product 
is labeled as containing damaged feathers. Products identified as 
``down'' pursuant to the Guides may contain up to 20% non-down plumage; 
therefore, the 2% maximum undisclosed damaged feathers will comprise 
10% of that non-down plumage. In contrast, products filled entirely 
with feathers may not contain undisclosed damaged feathers exceeding 2% 
of the feather filling.
    Five commenters addressed this apparent anomaly, urging that the 
Guides be revised to substitute a ``percentage of the total weight of 
the feather content'' for the current ``2% of total fill weight'' 
standard.26 According to the commenters, the current standard 
reflects the Guides' focus on predominantly down filled products. Only 
more recently, they contend, have predominantly feather filled products 
proliferated. Further, a ``percentage of the feather filling'' 
standard, according to industry members, will better reflect reasonable 
and uncontrollable damage to feathers that occurs naturally as a result 
of preening and pecking by the birds and subsequent commercial 
processing of the fill.27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     26  Down Lite Comment at 2; Pacific Coast Feather Comment at 1; 
UF&D Comment at 1; ADA Comment at 1.
     27  Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the current standard appears overly restrictive when 
applied to feather products, the Commission has preliminarily 
determined to amend it. However, because four commenters suggested a 
10% 28 limit, and the Commission recently received a report of 
tests conducted by members of the International Down and Feather Bureau 
suggesting that a 7% limit is appropriate,29 the Commission 
requests additional comment regarding the appropriate limit on damaged 
feathers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     28  Id.
     29  Letter from Wilford K. Lieber, President, IDFTL (May 
8, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Section 253.6--Tolerances in Filling Material

    The Commission is considering the modification of certain 
tolerances in Section 253.6 ``Tolerances in filling material.'' There 
may be a misunderstanding regarding the purpose and use of the Guides' 
tolerances for feather and down percentage claims. The Guides' 
tolerances are intended to accommodate the imprecise nature of 
processing and manufacturing non- homogeneous feather and down 
products. Further, as stated in Section 253.6(f) of the Guides, ``[t]he 
tolerances set forth in this section are not to be construed to permit 
intentional adulteration.'' When the Guides were promulgated, the 
industry stated it was nearly impossible to manufacture 100% down 
products; the Guides therefore permitted a 30% tolerance for products 
advertised or labeled as ``down,'' i.e., products with a minimum of 70% 
down and plumules may be advertised or labeled as ``down'' without 
additional disclosures regarding the actual percentages of the content.
    It appears, however, that an increased minimum requirement of 75% 
down and plumules currently may be practicable for the FTC Guides. A 
75% down and plumules standard is embodied in the laws of Canada, a 
U.S. partner in the North American Free Trade Agreement. Adopting a 75% 
standard might benefit consumers by achieving greater legal uniformity 
between the U.S. Guides and Canadian laws. At the same time, the extent 
of these benefits is difficult to quantify, and some industry members 
have stated that the benefits would be insubstantial and the costs--in 
dollars and consumer confusion--would be great. Several of the 
questions below are intended to gather information that would 
facilitate analysis of the costs and benefits of increasing the 
``down'' standard to 75% down and plumules.
    In addition, over the years, the 30% tolerance has been applied to 
feather and down products advertised or labeled as blends, even though 
evidence suggests that the down industry can produce most blends of 
feather and down products to 5 percentage points of the 
actual, labeled percentage. For example, although the industry may be 
capable of filling a blended product labeled ``50% down/50% waterfowl 
feathers'' with feathers and down equal to 45-55% down and 45-55% 
waterfowl feathers, industry members apply the Guides' 30% tolerance to 
produce a product that actually consists of 35% down, 5% down fiber, 
and 60% other plumage. It appears that the industry has interpreted the 
tolerance to allow it to aim for the tolerance rather than to attempt 
to fill the product with the actual labeled amount of plumage.
    Finally, the Commission is concerned that with the current 
disclosures, consumers may not understand how much down is in the 
products, and may be hampered in their ability to evaluate price, 
value, and quality. The Commission is therefore considering the 
following options: (1) Tightening the tolerance for blended products so 
that the tolerance reflects the true manufacturing abilities of the 
industry; (2) clarifying that the tolerance in the

[[Page 55593]]

Guides is intended to accommodate manufacturing difficulties and that 
the intentional practice of aiming for the minimum tolerance level will 
not be condoned; and (3) requiring point-of-sale (e.g., in catalogs and 
on product labels) disclosure of actual down content--for example, 
``Down--consisting of not less than 70% down and plumules.'' The 
Commission seeks comment on these options.

V. Questions

    1. The Commission is considering the reduction of landfowl feathers 
in waterfowl feather products to match the 2% tolerance of landfowl 
feathers for down products. Can manufacturers meet a 2% tolerance of 
landfowl feathers for waterfowl feather products? If not, explain why 
the tolerance for landfowl feathers should be higher in waterfowl 
feather products than in down products.
    2. The Commission is considering an increase in the permissible 
amount of undisclosed damaged feathers. What is the appropriate limit 
on damaged feathers (7%, 10%, or some other percentage)?
    3. Do the Guides continue to be useful or relevant in today's down 
industry? If yes, discuss and provide examples of the usefulness or 
relevance of the Guides.
    4. Are there widely accepted standards that accurately measure the 
warmth of feather and down products, e.g., fill power, warmth factor 
rating similar to R-Value, or other standards? Should the Commission 
consider adopting Guides that set forth standards to measure the warmth 
of feather and down products?
    5. How do consumers interpret claims about fill power or warmth 
factor ratings? Is fill power or a warmth factor rating a better 
indicator of warmth, durability, or comfort than the percentage or 
amount of down? Are fill power or warmth factor claims becoming more 
important than percentage down claims? What would be the costs and 
benefits of adopting fill power or warmth factor standards?
    6. What would be the costs and benefits of adopting the fill power 
standards used in Japan? Should the Commission adopt the fill power 
test method(s) used in Japan or any other nation?
    7. What are the costs and benefits of:
    a. Requiring point-of-sale disclosure (i.e., in mail order catalogs 
and on visible product labels) of actual down and plumules content in 
the form ``Down--consisting of not less than 70% down and plumules''; 
and/or
    b. Tightening the tolerance for blends of feathers and down by 
requiring that the actual percentage of feathers or down found in the 
product be 5% of the advertised or labeled content?
    8. Since the Guides were issued, what effects, if any, have changes 
in relevant technology or economic conditions had on:
    a. The Guides;
    b. The costs and ability of manufacturers to fill products labeled 
as ``down'' with the minimum of 70% down and plumules; and
    c. The costs and ability of manufacturers to fill blended products 
with the labeled percentages of down and feathers; e.g., if the product 
is labeled ``50% down/50% waterfowl feathers'', are manufacturers able 
to fill the product with actual 50% down and plumules?
    9. Because products containing a minimum of 70% down and plumules 
may be identified as ``down,'' is there any incentive to manufacture 
products that contain more than 70% down and plumules? If products that 
contain more than 70% down and plumules are produced, how are such 
products marketed to distinguish them from ``down'' products that 
contain the minimum 70% down and plumules? Provide any information to 
show consumer interest or disinterest in purchasing products that 
contain more than 70% down and plumules.
    10. What would be the costs and benefits to (a) industry and (b) 
consumers if the Commission were to increase from 70% to 75% the 
minimum down and plumules required for products to be advertised or 
labeled with the term ``down''?
    11. Canadian regulations require a minimum of 75% down and plumules 
in products that are labeled ``down.'' Does maintaining the current 
U.S. minimum standard of 70% down and plumules for products that are 
advertised or labeled ``down'' impair the U.S. industry's ability to 
efficiently export products to Canada?

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 253

    Advertising, Labeling, Filling material, Trade practices.

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-27572 Filed 10-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P