Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations The NPRM, consistent with the Commissions prior rulings and consumer perception surveys, proposed a rule prohibiting marketers from including unqualified U.S.-origin claims on labels unless: 1 Final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States; 2 all significant processing for the product occurs in the United States; and 3 all or virtually all of the products ingredients or components are made and sourced in the United States. By codifying existing guidance, the proposed rule sought to impose no new obligations on market participants.
To avoid confusion or perceived conflict with other country-of-origin labeling laws and regulations, the NPRM contained a provision specifying the rule does not supersede, alter, or affect any other federal or state statute or regulation relating to country-oforigin labels, except to the extent a state country-of-origin statute, regulation, order, or interpretation is inconsistent with the proposed rule.7
In response to the NPRM, the Commission received hundreds of comments, discussed infra Section II.
Although some raised concerns or recommended changes to the Commissions proposal, the majority supported finalizing the rule as drafted.
Accordingly, the Commission adopts the proposed rule with limited modifications as discussed below.8 The rule will take effect August 13, 2021.

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

II. Response to Comments The Commission received more than 700 comments 9 in response to the Dec. 2, 1997. The Commission first used the all or virtually all language in Hyde Athletic Industries, File No. 9223236 consent agreement accepted subject to public comment Sept. 20, 1994
and New Balance Athletic Shoes, Inc., Docket 9268
complaint issued Sept. 20, 1994. In the 1997
Federal Register Notice requesting public comment on Proposed Guides for the Use of U.S. Origin Claims, the Commission explained the all or virtually all standard merely rearticulated longstanding principles governing MUSA claims.
FTC, Request for Public Comment on Proposed Guides for the use of U.S. Origin Claims, 62 FR
25020 May 7, 1997. The Commission has routinely applied this standard in its MUSA Decisions and Orders since 1997. See Compilation of cases at https www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/
legal-resources?type=case&field_consumer_
protection_topics_tid=234.
7 See, e.g., Textile Fiber Products Identification Act 15 U.S.C. 70b; Wool Products Labeling Act 15
U.S.C. 68; American Automobile Labeling Act 49
U.S.C. 32304; Agricultural Marketing Act 7 U.S.C.
1638a; Buy American Act 41 U.S.C. 10a10c; and implementing rules.
8 As discussed in Section III of this Notice, the Commission has added a provision section 323.6
in the final Rule related to petitions for exemption.
9 Comments appear on FTC Docket FTC2020
0056 and are available at www.regulations.gov. For purposes of this Notice, all comments are referred to by their short docket number e.g., 1, rather
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:14 Jul 13, 2021

Jkt 253001

NPRM from individuals, industry groups, consumer organizations, and members of Congress. Commenters generally supported the rule,10 stating it provided much-needed clarity 11 and would deter bad actors 12 without imposing new burdens on marketers.13
Most commenters agreed the rule should incorporate the longstanding all or virtually all standard.14
Additionally, the majority of commenters addressing the issue agreed the proposed rule represented a proper exercise of the Commissions rulemaking authority under Section 45a.
Although the Commission received mostly supportive comments, some commenters raised concerns with the Commissions proposal to codify the all or virtually all guidance through rulemaking, suggesting the standard may not reflect current consumer perception. Others proposed specific additions to the rule, including additional definitions, guidance on implied claims, and an effective date.
Members of the beef and shrimp industries requested specific guidance for their industries. A few stakeholders proposed changes outside the scope of the FTCs Section 45a rulemaking authority. For example, some commenters proposed making countryof-origin labeling mandatory in all instances. Finally, some raised miscellaneous concerns about particular businesses practices or claims.15 As discussed below, these comments do not provide a compelling basis to change the substantive requirements of the rule proposed in the NPRM.
than long docket number e.g., FTC20200056
0001.
10 See, e.g., Senators Sherrod Brown, Tammy Baldwin, Christopher Murphy, and Richard Blumenthal Senators 373; North American Insulation Manufacturers 631; see also Letter from Representative Frank Pallone, Jr., Chairman, and Representative Jan Schakowsky, Chair, Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives Oct. 15, 2020. But see Retail Industry Leaders Association RILA 570 arguing low levels of enforcement activity suggest codifying the guidance into a rule is unnecessary.
11 UIUC Accounting Group A13 5; Delphine MUREKATETE, iMSA Program, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign 21; Anonymous Anonymous 24; UIUCBADM 403A02 25;
Nirma Ramirez 26; Jaymee Westover 358; Joy Winzerling 419; United Steelworkers 526;
Anonymous Anonymous 533; RCALF USA 588.
12 Chris Jay Hoofnagle 613 advocating use of civil penalties to deter MUSA fraud.
13 UIUC Accounting Group A13 5; Chris Posey 7; Family Farm Action Alliance 543.
14 See, e.g., United Steelworkers 526; Alliance for American Manufacturing AAM 611.
15 Honey Boynton 32; Holly Mastromatto 33;
Doug Thompson 123; Lucilla Rinehimer 702.

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

37023

A. Rulemaking Authority Regarding Mail Order Advertising Eleven stakeholders filed comments addressing the FTCs rulemaking authority under Section 45a, with the majority agreeing the proposed rule is consistent with that grant of authority.16
As described in Section I, Section 45a authorizes the Commission to issue rules pursuant to section 553 of title 5
of the U.S.C. to govern the use of Made in the U.S.A. or Made in America labels, or the equivalent thereof when a person introduces, delivers for introduction, sells, advertises, or offers for sale a product in commerce. The statute provides such labels must be consistent with decisions and orders of the Federal Trade Commission issued pursuant to Section 5 of the FTC Act. 17
1. Comments Eleven commenters addressed the Commissions authority under Section 45a. The majority asserted the proposed rule was within the scope of Section 45as grant of rulemaking authority, and the proposed rule appropriately covered labels in mail order electronic advertising.18 For example, TINA.org argued the Commission properly interpreted Section 45a as authorizing coverage of electronic labels because Section 45a does not limit the term labels to physical labels, and physical and digital labels are functionally equivalent in terms of providing product information to consumers.19 TINA.org further noted when Congress seeks to limit labels to the physical, it knows how . . . and here the statute makes no attempt to restrict the definition or distinguish physical labels from digital labels. 20
Moreover, TINA.org explained, limiting the proposed rule to physical labels without addressing electronic labels 16 UIUC Accounting Group A13 5; UIUC Group A06 Anonymous 22; Truth in Advertising, Inc.
TINA.org 369; Senators 373; Southern Shrimp Alliance 380; Council for Responsible Nutrition CRN 569; Personal Care Products Council PCPC 587; Anonymous Anonymous 592; Alliance for AAM 611; National Association of Manufacturers NAM 623; Coalition for a Prosperous America 625.
17 15 U.S.C. 45a.
18 UIUC Accounting Group A13 50; UIUC Group A06 22; TINA.org 369; Senators 373; Southern Shrimp Alliance 380; AAM 611; Coalition for a Prosperous America 625.
19 TINA.org 369 emphasis in original also arguing the Commission may draw support from the dictionary definition of labels, which includes digital labels.
20 Id. at 2. TINA.org also suggested courts regularly interpret laws expansively in the face of technological innovation, and the possibility that Congress may not have anticipated the application of the term label to apply online does not change the outcome.

E:FRFM14JYR1.SGM

14JYR1