Request for Comments Concerning Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 423

Request for Comments Concerning Trade Regulation Rule on Care

Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (the ``Commission'') is

requesting public comments on its Trade Regulation Rule on Care

Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods (``the Care

Labeling Rule'' or ``the Rule''). The Commission is requesting comments

about the overall costs and benefits of the Rule and its overall

regulatory and economic impact as a part of its systematic review of

all current Commission regulations and guides. The Commission also is

requesting comment on whether the Rule should be modified so as to (1)

permit the use of care symbols in lieu of words; (2) revise the

requirements for care instructions in order to provide consumers with

information about whether a garment can be both washed and dry cleaned;

and (3) clarify the ``reasonable basis'' requirements of the Rule. All

interested persons are hereby given notice of the opportunity to submit

written data, views and arguments concerning this proposal.

DATES: Written comments will be accepted until August 15, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: Secretary, Federal Trade

Commission, room H-159, Sixth and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20580. Comments about the Care Labeling Rule should be identified as

``16 CFR Part 423--Comment.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Vecellio, Attorney,

Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2966.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission has determined, as part of

its oversight responsibilities, to review Rules and guides

periodically. These reviews will seek information about the costs and

benefits of the Commission's Rules and guides and their regulatory and

economic impact. The information obtained will assist the Commission in

identifying Rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission.

The Commission is also seeking comment on several issues specific

to the Care Labeling Rule. The North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA) has created industry interest in being permitted to use symbols

in lieu of words to provide care instructions, and the Commission seeks

comment on the costs and benefits of such a change. In addition, there

is currently interest by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and

others in reducing the use of dry cleaning solvents, because some

evidence indicates that the solvents may be damaging to the

environment. The Care Labeling Rule currently only requires either a

washing instruction or a dry cleaning instruction; it does not require

both. Thus, some garments that are labeled ``dry clean'' also may be

washable, although the Commission does not know the incidence of such

labeling. If the Rule required both washing and dry cleaning

instructions for such garments, consumers and professional cleaners

could make more informed choices. The Commission seeks comment on the

desirability of such a change and, in general, on the extent to which

the current Rule is consistent with the goal of reducing the use of dry

cleaning solvents. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it is

desirable to clarify the ``reasonable basis'' provision of the Rule.

Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which garments

are being sold with incorrect or incomplete care instructions.

A. Background

The Rule was promulgated by the Commission on December 16, 1971, 36

FR 23883 (1971), and amended on May 20, 1983, 48 FR 22733 (1983). The

Rule makes it an unfair or deceptive act or practice for manufacturers

and importers of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods to

sell these items without attaching care labels stating ``what regular

care is needed for the ordinary use of the product.'' (16 CFR 423.6(a)

and (b)) The Rule also requires that the manufacturer or importer

possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis for the care instructions.

(16 CFR 423.6(c))

B. Issues for Comment

The Care Labeling Rule currently requires that care instructions be

stated in ``appropriate terms,'' though it also states that ``any

appropriate symbols may be used on care labels or care instructions, in

addition to the required appropriate terms so long as the terms fulfill

the requirements of this regulation.'' 16 CFR 423.2(b) (emphasis

added). Although the Rule does not specifically state that the

instructions must be in English, they usually are in English. The goal

of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is to establish a

trade zone in which goods can flow freely between Canada, Mexico, and

the United States. However, Canada requires that garments containing

instructions in English also contain instructions in French, and Mexico

requires that they also contain instructions in Spanish. Members of the

textile industry are concerned that care labels in three languages

would be too lengthy. Although manufacturers could separately label

inventory destined for each of the three countries, this would increase

costs and reduce the advantages to be gained from a large free trade

zone.

The Commission solicits comment on whether it is desirable to allow

the use of symbols in lieu of written language on care labels. However,

the Commission recognizes that consumer use and acceptance of symbols

may not be feasible without consumer education about the meaning of the

symbols, which also would impose costs. Moreover, there are several

existing systems of care symbols, and various issues arise concerning

what system would be most feasible and appropriate.1 The

Commission requests comment on the costs and benefits of allowing the

use of care symbols in lieu of words and of the specific systems of

care symbols currently in existence.

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

\1\ E.g., a system developed by the International Association

for Textile Care Labeling (``Ginetex'') and adopted by the

International Standards Organization as International Standard 3758;

system developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) and designated as ASTM D5489 Guide to Care Symbols for Care

Instructions on Consumer Textile Products. Some of the symbols in

the Ginetex system are trademarked. One issue to be resolved is what

payment, if any, United States companies would have to make if the

Commission were to approve the Ginetex system for use in the United

States and what payment, if any, United States companies would have

to make if they exported goods with these symbols to European

countries. The ASTM system uses the same basic symbols as the

Ginetex system but provides more detail. (For example, the ASTM

system provides a symbol for non-chlorine bleach, while the Ginetex

system does not.) However, because some of the basic symbols used in

the ASTM system are trademarked by Ginetex, United States companies

may not be able to export goods using these symbols to certain

European countries.

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

Second, the Care Labeling Rule currently only requires either a

washing instruction or a dry cleaning instruction; it does not require

both. Thus, although garments that are labeled ``dry clean'' also may

be washable, consumers and professional cleaners cannot be certain that

items labeled ``dry clean'' can be washed without damage. If the Rule

required both washing and dry cleaning instructions for such garments,

consumers would be informed that they have a choice between these

cleaning methods.

Perchloroethylene (PCE) is the most commonly used dry cleaning

solvent. PCE has been designated as a hazardous air pollutant under

section 112 of the Clean Air Act and under many state air toxics

regulations. On September 15, 1993, the EPA set national emission

standards for new and existing dry cleaning facilities using PCE. EPA's

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics has been working with the dry

cleaning industry to reduce exposure to PCE. As part of this process,

EPA has published a summary of a process referred to as ``Multiprocess

Wet Cleaning.'' In this summary, EPA stated that it has ``formed a

partnership with the dry cleaning industry to compare the costs and

performance of a potential alternative cleaning process that relies on

the controlled application of heat, steam and natural soaps to clean

clothes that are typically dry cleaned.''2

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

\2\EPA Document 744-R-93-004, ``Multiprocess Wet Cleaning: Cost

and Performance Comparison of Conventional Dry Cleaning and an

Alternative Process,'' Executive Summary, pp. ES-i and ES-ii.

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

Amendment of the Care Labeling Rule to require that care

instructions state both whether a garment can be washed as well as

whether it can be dry cleaned might enable both consumers and

professional cleaners to choose options that would reduce risks to the

environment. The Commission does not know the extent to which such

labeling currently occurs. However, such a change might impose

increased costs on manufacturers and importers. The Commission solicits

comment on whether it is desirable to require that care instructions be

provided for both washing and dry cleaning on garments where either

method is appropriate.

Finally, the Commission solicits comment on the reasonable basis

requirement of the Rule. The Rule now says that a reasonable basis can

consist of ``(1) Reliable evidence that the product was not harmed when

cleaned reasonably often according to the instructions * * * (2)

Reliable evidence that the product or a fair sample of the product was

harmed when cleaned by methods warned against on the label* * *. (3)

Reliable evidence, like that described in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of

this section, for each component part* * * (4) Reliable evidence that

the product or a fair sample of the product was successfully tested* *

*; (5) Reliable evidence of current technical literature, past

experience, or the industry expertise supporting the care information

on the label; or (6) Other reliable evidence.'' 16 CFR 423.6(c). The

intent of this provision is to make clear that a variety of types of

evidence, alone or in combination, might provide a reasonable basis in

specific instances.3 At the same time, however, the Statement of

Basis and Purpose to the Care Labeling Rule does not indicate that this

provision is meant to suggest that a seller will be deemed to possess a

reasonable basis whenever it possesses evidence of any one type of

basis. In some instances, testing of garments may be the only

acceptable basis, for example. This must be determined case-by-case,

just as the minimum ``reasonable basis'' in advertising substantiation

cases must be determined case-by-case.4

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

\3\In the Statement of Basis and Purpose accompanying the

publication of the amended Rule on May 20, 1983, the Commission

indicated that it viewed the reasonable basis requirement for care

labeling claims to be the same as the reasonable basis requirement

for any claim. It described the reasonable basis requirement as

``implicit but not directly stated'' in the original rule. 48 FR

22736. It also stated that it believed that an explicit reasonable

basis requirement ``may benefit consumers to the extent that

manufacturers are not already aware of their obligation to have a

reasonable basis for care instructions.'' 48 FR 22740. The

Commission also stated that the enumeration in the amended Rule of

types of evidence that can constitute a reasonable basis would

``enable manufacturers to adopt efficient, as well as effective

methods of obtaining a reasonable basis for care instructions.'' Id.

(Emphasis added.)

\4\In the FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising

Substantiation, 104 F.T.C. 839 (1984), the Commission set forth

criteria to consider in establishing the minimum required basis for

objective advertising claims, where no specific basis was stated or

implied: ``These factors include: The type of claim, the product,

the consequences of a false claim, the benefits of a truthful claim,

the cost of developing substantiation for the claim, and the amount

of substantiation experts in the field believe is reasonable.'' 104

F.T.C. at 840.

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

Accordingly, the Commission solicits comment on whether it is

desirable to change the Rule itself to clarify that the criteria used

to determine the level of substantiation required under the FTC Policy

Statement on Advertising Substantiation are applicable in the care

labeling context as well.5 The Commission also solicits comment on

whether the definition of a ``reasonable basis'' in the Rule should be

changed to provide members of the industry with additional guidance

about the level of substantiation required in specific circumstances.

In particular, the Commission solicits comment on whether the existing

Rule needs to be clarified to indicate that in certain circumstances

test results may be the only way to establish a reasonable basis for

care instructions because of the peculiarity of some components of the

garment or because reliable expert testimony states that such tests are

necessary.

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

\5\See 48 FR 22733, 22737 (May 20, 1983).

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

C. Request for Comment

At this time, the Commission solicits written public comments on

the following questions:

(1) Is there a continuing need for the Rule?

(a) What benefits has the Rule provided to purchasers of the

products or services affected by the Rule?

(b) Has the Rule imposed costs on purchasers?

(2) What changes, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase

the benefits of the Rule to purchasers?

(a) How would these changes affect the costs the Rule imposes on

firms subject to its requirements?

(3) What significant burdens or costs, including costs of

compliance, has the Rule imposed on firms subject to its requirements?

(a) Has the Rule provided benefits to such firms?

(4) What changes, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce the

burdens or costs imposed on firms subject to its requirements?

(a) How would these changes affect the benefits provided by the

Rule?

(5) Does the Rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or

local laws or regulations?

(6) Since the Rule was issued, what effects, if any, have changes

in relevant technology or economic conditions had on the Rule?

(7) Should the Commission amend the Rule to allow care symbols to

be used in lieu of language in care instructions? If so, is there an

existing set of care symbols that would provide all or most of the

information required by the current Rule? What are the advantages and

disadvantages of the existing systems of care symbols?

(a) In particular, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the

system of care symbols developed by the International Association for

Textile Care Labeling (``Ginetex'') and adopted by the International

Standards Organization as International Standard 3758?

(b) What are the advantages and disadvantages of the system of care

symbols developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM) and designated as ASTM D5489 Guide to Care Symbols for Care

Instructions on Consumer Textile Products?

(8) Does the current Rule pose an impediment to the EPA's goal of

reducing the use of dry cleaning solvents? What is the actual incidence

of labeling that fails to include both washing and dry cleaning

instructions? With regard to a garment that can be either washed or dry

cleaned, should the Commission amend the Rule to require that care

instructions be provided for both washing and dry cleaning? What are

the costs and benefits, including environmental benefits, of such an

amendment?

(9) Should the Commission amend the Rule to specify under what

conditions a manufacturer or importer must possess a particular type of

basis among those listed in Sec. 423.6(c) of the Rule, such as test

results? Should the ``reasonable basis'' requirements of the Rule be

modified in any other way?

(10) Are there garments in the marketplace that contain inaccurate

or incomplete care instructions?

(a) To what extent is this a problem with respect to washing

instructions?

(b) To what extent is this a problem with respect to dry cleaning

instructions?

(c) To what extent are there problems with respect to shrinkage?

(d) To what extent are there problems with respect to

colorfastness?

(e) Are there any other significant problems that occur because of

inaccurate or incomplete care label instructions?

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423

Care labeling of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods;

Trade practices.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 94-14523 Filed 6-14-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-P