Guides for the Feather and Down Products Industry

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