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 a proposed conditional exemption to its

Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and

Certain Piece Goods (``the Care Labeling Rule'' or ``the Rule''). The

proposed conditional exemption would permit the use of certain care

symbols in lieu of words on the permanently attached care label, as

long as hangtags with explanatory language are used for the first 12

month period of symbol use. 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 January 31, 1996.

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

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

DC 20580. Comments about this conditional exemption to the Care

Labeling Rule should be identified as ``Conditional exemption for

symbols, 16 CFR Part 423--Comment.''

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

On June 15, 1994, the Commission published a Federal Register

notice (``FRN'') requesting comment on various aspects of the Care

Labeling Rule, including whether the Rule should be modified to permit

the use of symbols in lieu of words. The Commission has now tentatively

determined to permit the use of certain symbols, under certain

conditions, and now seeks additional comment on the specifics of the

proposal. The Commission will summarize other results of the regulatory

review it conducted in a separate notice.

II. 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))

The ``Terminology'' section of the Rule, 16 CFR 423.2(b), currently

requires that care instructions be stated in ``appropriate terms,''

although 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.'' (Emphasis added). Although the Rule does not specifically

state that the instructions must be in English, they usually are in

English. The FRN stated that 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.''

[[Page 57553]]

The FRN included the following questions on this issue:

(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?

III. Analysis of Comments

Eighty-one comments were received.\1\ Sixty-five of the comments

discussed the use of symbols in lieu of written language to communicate

care instructions; 60 of those favored the use of symbols.\2\ Five

comments opposed allowing symbols in lieu of written instructions.\3\

Most comments stated that they favored symbols because symbols would

make international trade easier.

\1\ The commenters included cleaners; consumers; public

interest-related groups; fiber, textile, or apparel manufacturers or

sellers (or conglomerates); federal government entities; fiber,

textile, or apparel manufacturers or retailers trade associations;

two label manufacturers; one cleaning products manufacturer; one

association representing the leather apparel industry; one Committee

formed by industry members from the countries signatory to NAFTA;

one appliance technician; one appliance manufacturers trade

association; two standards-setting organizations; and two

representatives from foreign nations. Each comment was assigned a

number. The first time a comment is cited it is cited by the full

name of the commenter and the assigned number; subsequently, it is

cited by the number and a shortened form of the name. The comments

are available for inspection in the Public Reference Room, Room 130,

Federal Trade Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except federal holidays.

\2\ These comments are: Benjamin Axleroad (1), Baby Togs, Inc.

(2), Judith S. Barton (7), C.M. Offray & Son, Inc. (9), The Schwab

Company (10), Fieldcrest Cannon (11), Ardis W. Koester (12),

University of Kentucky College of Agriculture (15), ASTM Committee

D-13 on Textiles (16), Pittsfield Weaving Co. (17), European Union

(GATT Secretariat) (18), Todd Uniform, Inc. (19), Acqua Clean System

(20), Woolrich, Inc. (21), The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction

Institute (23), Carter's (24), Braham Norwick (25), Oshkosh B'Gosh,

Inc. (27), Ecofranchising, Inc. (28), Consumers Union (31), Clorox

Company (32), The Warren Featherbone Company (33), Industry Canada

(37), Business Habits, Inc. (38), Clothing Manufacturers Association

of the United States of America (40), National Association of

Hosiery Manufacturers (41), Paxar Corporation (42), Jo Ann Pullen

(44), The Warren Featherbone Company (46), United States Apparel

Industry Council (47), Dan River, Inc. (48), American Fiber

Manufacturers Association, Inc. (49), The Leslie Fay Companies, Inc.

(50), Springs Industries, Inc. (51), Salant Corporation (52),

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (53), Milliken (54),

Ruff Hewn (55), American Textile Manufacturers Institute (56),

United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (57),

Authentic Fitness Corporation (60), Warnaco (61), Salant Corporation

(63), Fruit of the Loom (64), Drycleaners Environmental Legislative

Fund (65), Angelica Corporation (66), Department of the Air Force

(67), American Apparel Manufacturers Association (68), Trilateral

Labeling Committee (69), J.C. Penney (70), Liz Claiborne, Inc. (71),

Wemco, Inc. (72), Horace Small Apparel Company (74), Perry

Manufacturing Company (75), Russell Corporation (76), Oxford

Industries, Inc. (77), The GAP, Inc. (78), Haggar Apparel Company

(79), Capital Mercury Shirt Corp. (80), Bidermann Industries (81).

\3\ Evelyn Borrow (4), Margaret Tilden (13), Capital Mercury

Shirt Corp. (26), Ann Geerhart (29), and VF Corporation (36).

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

Canada and Mexico currently allow the use of symbols to convey

garment care instructions. Many comments focused on trade with Mexico

and Canada, stating or implying that symbols that harmonize with those

used in Mexico and Canada would further the goals of NAFTA.\4\ Some of

these comments stated or implied that, in addition to harmony with

Canada and Mexico, whatever system is adopted should be in harmony with

the symbol system used in Europe.\5\ Other comments placed more

importance on harmony with the European system than with NAFTA.\6\

\4\ Togs (2) p.1; Offray (9) p.1; Fieldcrest (11) p.2; Koester

(12) p.2; Pittsfield (17) pp. 2-3; Mass. Toxics Reduction (23) p.2;

Carter's (24) p.1; Featherbone (33) p.2; Industry Canada (37) p.3;

Paxar (42) p.1; Featherbone (46) p.1; USAIC (47) p.2; Dan River (48)

p.1; AFMA (49) p.1; Salant (52) p.1; AHAM (53) p.2; Milliken (54)

p.2; Ruff Hewn (55) p.2; ATMI (56) p.1; USA-ITA (57) p.3; Authentic

Fitness (60) pp. 1-2; Warnaco (61) pp. 1-2; Salant (63) pp. 1-2;

Fruit (64) p.2; Angelica (66) p.6; AAMA (68) p.1; Trilateral

Committee (69) pp. 1-2; Wemco (72) p.1; Horace Small (74) p.1;

Russell (76) p.2; Oxford (77) p.1; Haggar (79) p.1; Bidermann (81)

p.1.

\5\ E.g., Fieldcrest (11) p.2; Pittsfield (17) p.3.

\6\ European Union (18) pp. 2-3; Leslie Fay (50) p.1; Gap (78)

p.4. The Ginetex/ISO system is used in Europe.

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

Some comments said there would be some initial cost to changing to

a symbol system, but they either stated or implied that the long-run

cost savings would exceed these initial ``change-over'' costs. Some

comments explained in more detail why the current Rule impedes trade

within North America. One comment stated that the requirement that care

instructions be written makes for very long labels because it ``forces

manufacturers and retailers wanting to sell products freely within the

NAFTA territory to display care instructions in English, French and

Spanish.'' \7\ Many other comments stated that the use of symbols would

cause production costs to decline because the size of labels would be

reduced and smaller labels are less expensive.\8\

\7\ Fruit (64) p.2.

\8\ Fieldcrest (11) p.2; Pittsfield (17) p.1; Mass. Toxics

Reduction (23) p.2; Carter's (24) p.1; Norwick (25) p.1; Capital

Shirt (26) p.1; Featherbone (33) p.2; VF Corp. (36) p.4; Industry

Canada (37) p.2; Paxar (42) p.1; Pullen (44) p.4; USAIC (47) p.2;

ATMI (56) p.3; USA-ITA (57) p.2; Salant (63) p.1; Fruit (64) p.2;

Air Force (67) p.2; AAMA (68) p.2; Haggar (79) p.1.

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

Several comments noted that the use of symbols would help U.S.

consumers who cannot speak English (or whose primary language is not

English) and consumers who cannot read (or cannot read well).\9\ Some

comments noted that smaller labels may improve consumer comfort.\10\

Other comments stated that smaller labels would also make garments more

attractive.\11\ Several comments stated that savings from smaller

labels could be passed on to consumers as reductions in the cost of

apparel.\12\

\9\ Togs (2) p.1; Koester (12) p.2; Pittsfield (17) p.2; Norwick

(25) p.1; Pullen (44) p.2.

\10\ A few comments mention that some labels are scratchy and

irritate the skin. Axleroad (1) p.1; Borrow (4) p.1; Martin (8) p.1;

Pittsfield (17) p.1; Featherbone (33) p.1; Salant (63) p.1; Capital

Shirt (80) p.1.

\11\ AAMA (68) p.2.

\12\ Paxar (42) p.1, Fruit (64) p.2, Haggar (79) p.1.

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

Many comments that favored the use of symbols emphasized that the

symbols should not be mandatory, but a voluntary option, and that the

use of written care instructions should continue to be allowed, either

as a supplement to symbols or alone.\13\ Several comments noted that

all possible care instructions cannot be conveyed by symbols; certain

special handling instructions such as ``remove promptly''; ``double

rinse for best results''; ``wash inside out''; ``wash with like

garments''; or ``wash before wearing'' will probably have to be

communicated in words.\14\ But one comment noted that ``symbols alone

could easily accommodate 75-80% of the merchandise sold.'' \15\

\13\ Oshkosh (27) p.1; USAIC (47) p.2; Springs (51) p.1; ATMI

(56) p.2; Salant (63) pp. 1-2; Fruit (64) p.2; Air Force (67) p.2;

AAMA (68) p.3; Trilateral Committee (69) p.2; Penny (70) p.2.

\14\ Fieldcrest (11) p.3; Pittsfield (17) p.1; European Union

(18) p.2, Woolrich (21) p.1, VF Corp. (36) p.4.

\15\ Penney (70) p.2.

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

In sum, most of the comments state that the use of symbols would

benefit both manufacturers, by lowering production costs and increasing

exports, and consumers, by communicating care instructions clearly and

by potentially

[[Page 57554]]

decreasing garment prices. Moreover, one comment stated that it

``considers that the obligation of using mandatory language

instructions would have the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to

international trade.'' 16 Another comment stated that the

mandatory language requirement could function as a non-tariff barrier

to trade which would ``significantly impede the free flow of goods

within the NAFTA territory in direct contravention of the NAFTA.''

17

\16\ European Union (18) p.1.

\17\ Fruit (64) p.2. See also AHAM (53) p.2.

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

The record contains persuasive evidence indicating that allowing

care information to be conveyed by symbols would lower production costs

and would also have benefits for consumers. Moreover, the record

indicates that care symbols are used in many other countries, and

presumably the symbols communicate the information they contain to the

consumers in those countries. Nevertheless, many comments noted the

need for consumer education and expressed confidence that U.S consumers

could adapt to care symbols with appropriate education.18 Some

comments indicated that symbols should be used with words until the

U.S. population understands the symbols.19 Pittsfield, on the

other hand, argued that consumer education based on dual disclosure--

the use of symbols with accompanying written instructions on the

label--will not work, as shown by the U.S. experience with the metric

system.20

\18\ Schwab (10) p.1; Fieldcrest (11) pp. 2-3; ASTM (16) p.8;

Pittsfield (17) p.1; Woolrich (21) p.1; Carter's (24) p.2; Consumers

Union (31) p.1; Clorox (32) p.4; Business Habits (38) p.4; Pullen

(44) p.4; AHAM (53) p.2; Fruit (64) p.3; AAMA (68) p.3. Some

comments stated that symbols should not replace words until a

consumer education program has become effective. Consumers Union

(31) p.1; VF Corp. (36) p.4; Gap (78) p.3. However, consumers do not

need to memorize the symbols if they have ``decoding'' charts they

can place in their laundry rooms and if such ``decoding'' charts, or

hangtags, are available in retail stores.

\19\ Consumers Union (31) p.1; Gap (78) p.3.

\20\ Comment 17, p.2.

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

Section 18(g)(2)of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(d)(2)(B), provides

that ``[i]f * * * the Commission finds that the application of a rule

prescribed under subsection (a)(1)(B) to any person or class of persons

is not necessary to prevent the unfair or deceptive act or practice to

which the rule relates, the Commission may exempt such person or class

from all or part of such rule.'' The record indicates that care

information can be conveyed by means of symbols, but it also indicates

that American consumers need to be educated--or to be provided with

``decoding'' charts or hangtags--in order to learn to use a particular

symbol system. Consequently the Commission proposes to grant a

conditional exemption from the ``Terminology'' section of the Care

Labeling Rule. However, for the reasons discussed above, the Commission

proposes that the conditional exemption state that care labels that use

symbols instead of language to convey information must be accompanied

by hangtags explaining the meaning of the symbols. If the symbols on

the label are accompanied by explanatory hangtags, then an exemption

from the requirement that words be used on the label is appropriate

because words on the label are not necessary to ``prevent the unfair or

deceptive act or practice to which the rule relates.''

IV. Symbol Systems That Were Considered

The Commission examined two existing symbol systems--the Ginetex

system and the ASTM system--to identify which conveys all or most of

the information the Rule requires to be conveyed and meets other

important criteria. As explained below, the ASTM system best meets the

needs of consumers and industry at the present time.

A. ISO/Ginetex System

Because the Ginetex system has been adopted by the International

Standards Organization (``ISO'') as International Standard 3758,21

the Commission gave careful consideration to this system.22

However, the ISO/Ginetex system does not provide symbols for some of

the basic information the Rule requires to be conveyed. For example, if

chlorine bleach would harm a product but non-chlorine bleach would not,

section 423.6(b)(1)(iv) of the Rule requires that the label contain a

warning such as ``only non-chlorine bleach when needed.'' However, the

ISO/Ginetex system contains no symbol for non-chlorine bleach.23

Further, the system's symbols for reduced spin and reduced mechanical

action, required under section 423.(b)(1)(v) [``Warnings''] of the

Rule, are linked to temperature.24 (ISO standard 3759 Table 1).

This linkage is inconsistent with the technology of American

washers.25 Its temperature ranges for tumble drying (normal and

low--ISO standard 3759 Table 5) are also inconsistent with American

technology.26 It has no symbols for natural drying, or the use of

steam in ironing, which are care practices addressed by the

Rule.27

\21\ Ginetex (Groupement International d'Etiquetage pour

l'Entretien des Textiles, or International Association for Textile

Care Labeling) is an organization composed of national member

bodies, with a goal, among other things, of drawing up ``guidelines

and compulsory directives for the use of the uniform GINETEX symbols

and to control their application.'' The Ginetex system was adopted

as an international standard by the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO) in 1991 as ISO Standard 3758.

\22\ The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 states that any federal

agency must, in developing standards, ``take into consideration

international standards and shall, if appropriate, base the

standards on international standards.'' Trade Agreements Act of

1979, title IV, section 402, 93 Stat. 242 (1979) (codified as

amended at 19 U.S.C. 2532(2)(A) (Supp. 1995)).

\23\ Several comments noted this deficiency. Pittsfield (17)

p.2; Clorox (32) p.4; V.F. Corp. (36) p.4; Pullen (44) p.5; ATMI

(56) p.4; GAP (78) p.4. Consumer Union (31) stated, at p.2, that

``we need a symbol pertinent to non-chlorine bleach as the industry

plans to move away from chlorine bleach.'' The Trilateral Committee

(69), at p.2, and ATMI (56), at p.2, both recommend that any care

symbol system adopted by the U.S. include chlorine and non-chlorine

bleach instructions.

\24\ The system also indicates temperatures for washing in

precise degrees Centigrade, but few washing machines in the United

States have internal heating devices as European machines do.

\25\ Pittsfield (17), at p.2, noted ``technical inconsistencies

such as the interconnection of temperature and cycle conditions'';

Pullen (44), at p.5, noted the lack of a complete selection of

symbols for all washing cycles and temperatures.

\26\ ATMI (56) p.4; Penney (70), noting at p.2, that the Ginetex

symbols are ``technically incomplete for the American consumer's

laundering practices.''

\27\ Section 423.6(b)(1)(ii) states that the label must state

whether the product should be dried by machine or by some other

method. Section 423.6(b)(1)(v) states that there must be a warning

against any part of the prescribed procedure which consumers can

reasonably be expected to use that would harm the product. However,

without a symbol for steam ironing, it is impossible to warn against

steam ironing.

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

For dry cleaning, the ISO/Ginetex system provides only a symbol

(constituting an underlining of the circle) that means ``strict

limitations on the addition of water and/or mechanical action and/or

temperature during cleaning and/or drying.'' (ISO standard 3759 Table

4). However, section 423.6(b)(2)(ii)(A) provides that, if a dry

cleaning instruction is included on the label, it must also warn

against any part of the dry cleaning process which consumers or dry

cleaners could reasonably be expected to use that would harm the

product or others being cleaned with it.28 The ISO/Ginetex system

does not have a method for providing warnings about which specific

parts of the dry cleaning process should be avoided. Accordingly, the

dry cleaning symbol in the ISO/Ginetex system does not satisfy the

Rule's requirements for dry cleaning instructions.

\28\ The Appendix to the Rule provides specific examples such as

``short cycle,'' ``low moisture,'' ``do not tumble,'' and ``no

steam.''

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

Thus, the ISO/Ginetex system cannot convey all the information that

the Commission has found to be necessary to prevent the unfair and

deceptive

[[Page 57555]]

practices that the Rule was designed to prevent.29 Moreover, the

ISO/Ginetex system is inconsistent with American technology in several

ways. The Trade Agreements Act explicitly identifies several reasons

why basing a standard on an international standard may not be

appropriate, including the prevention of deceptive practices and

fundamental technological problems. 19 U.S.C. 2532(2)(B)(i) (1980).

Accordingly, the Commission has concluded the use of ISO standard 3758

is not appropriate for the United States at this time.30

\29\ Section 423.5 describes the unfair or deceptive acts or

practices the Rule was designed to prevent. Section 423.5(a)(2)

states that it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a

manufacturer or importer to fail to disclose instructions which

prescribe a regular care procedure necessary for the ordinary use

and enjoyment of the product. Section 423.5(a)(2) states that it is

an unfair or deceptive act or practice to fail to warn a purchaser

when any part of the prescribed regular care procedure, which a

consumer or professional cleaner could reasonably be expected to

use, would harm the product or others being cleaned with it.

\30\ The European Union (GATT Secretariat), noting that the

Ginetex system was adopted as international standard ISO 3758 in

1991, stated that Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers

to Trade requires U.S. authorities to use international standards as

a basis for technical regulations. Comment 18, pp.1-2. However,

while Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade

provides that ``technical regulations shall not be more trade

restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective, taking

account of the risks non-fulfillment would create,'' it recognizes

prevention of deceptive practices as a legitimate objective. It also

states that, in assessing such risks, ``relevant elements of

consideration are, inter alia: available scientific and technical

information, related processing technology or intended end-uses of

products.'' Thus, the differences in U.S. and European technology

provide a valid reason for the U.S. to adopt a system that is

slightly different than the European system. Nevertheless, the

Commission agrees with those comments that indicate that the

creation of a system of care symbols appropriate for use worldwide

is desirable. However, ISO Standard 3758, as it now exists, simply

does not fulfill the legitimate objectives of the United States.

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

Another problem that weighed against the ISO/Ginetex system is the

fact that Ginetex asserts trademark rights relating to the symbols.

Annex A to ISO 3758 states that the symbols used in that standard are

registered with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and

owned by Ginetex. Part A.2.1 of Annex A of ISO Standard 3758

constitutes an agreement between ISO and Ginetex that ``GINETEX's

ownership rights related to the marks are preserved under the terms of

this agreement, as well as the structure, rights and obligations of its

national committees.'' The Trilateral Committee (a committee formed by

industry members from the countries signatory to NAFTA), those comments

that explicitly supported its conclusions, and numerous other comments

stated that they could only support a symbol system that was free of

proprietary claims.31 The Commission agrees with these

comments.32

\31\ Carter's (24) p.3; Oshkosh (27) p.1; AHAM (53) p.2;

Milliken (54) p.2; ATMI (56) p.2; Authentic Fitness (60) p.2,

Warnaco (61) p.2; Fruit (64) p.4; Drycleaners Fund (65) p.3; AAMA

(68) p.4; Penney (70) p.1; Trilateral Committee (79) p.2; GAP (78)

p.4. In addition, ATMI (56) objected, at p.4, to the fact that

Ginetex requires that a national body in the country using the

system register with Ginetex and monitor use of the system within

the country. (See section A.1. of Annex A to ISO Standard 3758,

which states, ``Ginetex has delegated to its national committees,

i.e., its members, the task of promoting the implementation of

textile care labelling symbols, of granting the right to reproduce

and use the symbols, and of monitoring their use.'')

\32\ Before the ISO subcommittee voted to make the Ginetex

system an international standard, several countries (including the

U.S.) objected to the use of a proprietary system as an

international standard, but they were outvoted. Subsequent to the

adoption of ISO 3758, the USA delegation to the ISO textile

committee submitted to ISO a document entitled ``USA Comments and

Questions Related to ISO 3758'' in which they stated, ``The USA

opposes any standard that requires royalty fees from any

organization. Therefore, USA opposes `ISO 3758-1991- Care labelling

code using symbols' and recommends it be withdrawn as an ISO

Standard.'' Attachment to ASTM comment (16).

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

B. The System

ASTM is a scientific and technical organization that publishes

voluntary consensus standards. Its Committee D-13 on Textiles contains

a Subcommittee D13.62 on Care Labeling, which developed the voluntary

consensus standard D5489 referenced in the FRN. A copy of Standard

D5489 is attached to ASTM's comment. A copy of an explanatory or

``decoding'' chart can be found at the end of this notice.

The ASTM system provides symbols relating to the basic information

required by the Rule. It includes machine and hand washing, with hand

washing indicated by a hand in the washtub. It indicates permanent

press cycle by underlining the washtub, and gentle cycle by underlining

it twice. It includes chlorine and non-chlorine bleach instructions

(the latter indicated by a shaded triangle), and tumble drying and

natural drying instructions. It indicates dryer cycles by underlining,

with single underlining for permanent press and double underlining for

gentle cycle. The iron symbolizes ironing and pressing, and includes an

indication as to whether steam can be used (an instruction that may be

particularly important for commercial laundries). Temperature--for

water, dryers, or ironing--is indicated by a series of dots, with one

dot indicating cold, two indicating warm, three indicating hot, four

indicating very hot. Five and six dots may be used for even higher

temperatures. (Alternatively, temperature may be stated in degrees

Celsius.)

For dry cleaning, it indicates short cycle, no steam finishing,

reduce moisture, and low heat, respectively, by means of a line drawn

under, above, to the left, or to the right of the circle. Finally, the

ASTM system (in Standard section 5.10) allows for optional symbols that

may be used for additional procedures or warnings (e.g., do not wring).

More comments favored the ASTM system than the Ginetex system for a

variety of reasons, including the fact that it is more

comprehensive.33 One comment noted that it is easier to add new

symbols in the ASTM system.34

\33\ Togs (2) p.1; Fieldcrest (11) pp. 3-4; Koester (12) pp. 1-

2; U. of Kentucky (15) p.2; ASTM (16) p.1; Pittsfield (17) p.2;

Carter's (24) p.3; Norwick (25) p.3, Oshkosh (27) p.1, Clorox (32)

pp. 3-4; Pullen (44) pp. 4-7, Salant (52) p.1; Milliken (54) pp. 1-

2; ATMI (56) pp. 4-5; Air Force (67) p.2; J.C. Penney (70) p.2.

\34\ VF Corp. (36), although not supporting the use of symbols

without words, did note, at pp.4-5, that under Ginetex, ``current

symbols cannot be modified and additional symbols cannot be added''

and that an advantage of the ASTM system is that there ``is a

procedure to modify or add other symbols.'' According to the forward

to the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 7 Textiles, an ASTM

standard ``is subject to revision at any time by the responsible

technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and if not

revised, either reapproved or withdrawn.''

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

The Commission notes that ASTM has obtained a copyright for the

entire Standard D5489, including an explanatory chart.35 Several

comments expressed concern over possible copyright licensing fees for

the use of the chart.36 However, ASTM recently submitted to the

Commission a document entitled ``Conditions for Republishing the ASTM D

5489 Care Symbol Chart'' which states that ASTM will grant other

organizations a royalty free license for the republication of the

complete chart, or portions thereof, provided that the charts include a

line crediting ASTM and providing that the copies are not sold

separately from the products to which the copies are affixed.37

This document may alleviate

[[Page 57556]]

concerns about ASTM's copyright and remove any impediments to the

dissemination of explanatory materials about the system. However, the

Commission seeks comment on this issue.

\35\ Letter of June 7, 1994, from Bode Buckley, Manager,

Technical Committee Operations, ASTM, to Kay Villa, ATMI, attached

to ATMI comment (56). The letter states that a fee will be

established for the use of the chart. A copy of the chart was

attached to the ASTM comment (16).

\36\ Milliken (54), noting, at p.2, that ``there is some concern

that ASTM (the organization) has not completely followed the wishes

of its volunteer members in making the symbol chart. . . freely

available without copyright licensing considerations''; ATMI (56),

asking, at p.5, that the FTC ``obtain official information from the

ASTM about this fee structure and assure that there would be no fee

for use of the symbol chart prior to any adoption of the standard by

the FTC''; AAMA (68), stating, at p.4, that ``the most important

reason for not accepting the ASTM system is the copyright issue.''

\37\ Moreover, it states that if the chart or symbols are

modified, then they may not be represented as being the ASTM

standard. By implication, however, modified charts could be

distributed under some other title (e.g., Care Symbols Used in the

U.S.) This document has been placed on the public record for

examination by interested parties.

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

V. Use of the ASTM System in Canada and Mexico

Although the Commission's first criterion in considering a symbol

system was whether it could fulfill the requirements of the Rule, an

equally important criterion was whether the system could be harmonized

with the symbol systems used in Canada and Mexico. NAFTA specifically

requires the U.S. to attempt to harmonize its textile labeling

requirements with those of Canada and Mexico. Article 906 of NAFTA

states that ``the Parties shall, to the greatest extent practicable,

make compatible their respective standards-related measures, so as to

facilitate trade in a good or service between the Parties.'' Article

913 requires the creation of a Committee on Standards-Related Measures,

which shall include a Subcommittee on Labelling of Textile and Apparel

Goods, in accordance with Annex 913.5.a-4. Annex 913.5.a-4. states that

the Subcommittee on Labelling of Textile and Apparel Goods

shall develop and pursue a work program on the harmonization of

labelling requirements to facilitate trade in textile and apparel

goods between the Parties through the adoption of uniform labelling

provisions. The work program should include the following matters:

(a) pictograms and symbols to replace, where possible, required

written information, as well as other methods to reduce the need for

labels on textile and apparel goods in multiple languages; (b) care

instructions for textile and apparel goods;

* * * * *

The Canadian and Mexican systems use the same five basic symbols

that are used in the Ginetex and ASTM systems: a washtub to indicate

washing (with a hand in the washtub to indicate hand washing), a

triangle to indicate bleaching, a square to indicate drying (and a

circle within a square to indicate machine drying), an iron to indicate

ironing, and a circle to indicate dry cleaning. An ``X'' cancelling out

the symbol warns against using the designated cleaning technique, e.g.,

``do not dry clean.''

One commenter suggested that the Commission adopt the Canadian

system, which uses the five generic symbols and three colors (red,

green, and yellow).38 However, several comments noted that the use

of color makes labels much more expensive.39 In addition, neither

the Canadian nor the Mexican system provides a method of communicating

all the information required by the current Care Labeling Rule. For

example, if chlorine bleach would harm a product but non-chlorine

bleach would not, section 423.(b)(1)(iv) of the Rule requires that the

label contain a warning such as ``only non-chlorine bleach when

needed.'' However, these systems do not address the use of non-chlorine

bleach.40 Moreover, with respect to dry cleaning, they do not have

a method for providing warnings about parts of the dry cleaning process

that might damage the garment.41

\38\ Todd Uniform (19), p.1.

\39\ Woolrich (21) p.1; Carter's (24) p.1. Fruit (64), at p.4,

stated that it could not endorse a system which required the use of

color, but, with that proviso, it endorsed the Canadian system.

\40\ Several comments noted this deficiency. Pittsfield (17)

p.2; Clorox (32) p.4; V.F. Corp. (36) p.4; Pullen (44) p.5; ATMI

(56) p.4; GAP (78) p.4. Consumer Union (31) stated, at p.2, that

``we need a symbol pertinent to non-chlorine bleach as the industry

plans to move away from chlorine bleach.'' The Trilateral Committee

(69), at p.2, and ATMI (56), at p.2, both recommend that any care

symbol system adopted by the U.S. include chlorine and non-chlorine

bleach instructions.

\41\ For dry cleaning, section 423.(b)(2)(ii) of the Rule

states that there must be a warning about any part of the normal dry

cleaning process that would harm the product, and the Appendix

provides examples such as ``short cycle,'' ``low moisture,'' ``do

not tumble,'' and ``no steam.'' Canada uses a yellow circle to

indicate ``dry clean with caution,'' but that warning is too vague

to satisfy the requirements of the Rule.

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

With respect to machine washing, the Mexican system does not convey

any refinements, such as ``gentle cycle,'' and the Canadian system does

so by means of color (a yellow washtub means ``gentle setting.'')

Neither system offers a means of referring to ``permanent press cycle''

in washing, or various cycles in dryers. Both offer symbols for natural

drying (dry flat, hang to dry, and, in Canada, drip dry.) Both systems

require that temperature for washing be indicated in Celsius in the

washtub. For tumble drying, Mexico has no indication of temperature,

and Canada uses a yellow symbol to mean ``low temperature.'' In both

systems, temperatures for ironing can be indicated by a system of three

dots, one for low, two for medium, and three for high.

The Commission has concluded that the ASTM system basically is

compatible with the Canadian and Mexican systems. Although there are

differences among the systems, they do not pose insurmountable

problems.42 The ASTM system includes some refinements that are not

a part of those systems (e.g., underlining to indicate gentle or

permanent press cycles in washers and dryers). The Commission has

tentatively decided that consumer education would be more effective if

the system was introduced as a whole, including the use of

underlining.43 Nevertheless, the Commission seeks comment on

whether the ASTM system, with its use of underlining to reflect cycle

variations, should be permitted or whether only the basic symbols,

without refinements, should be allowed.

\42\ The Canadian system is not mandatory; thus, the use of

symbols without colors should be acceptable.

\43\ Some comments expressed the concern that the ASTM system

may be too complicated. USA-ITA (57) p.3; Fruit (64) p.4.

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

With respect to temperature indications, the ASTM system differs

slightly from the Canadian and Mexican systems. Nevertheless, the dot

system for temperature, which can be combined with the Celsius

temperature as required for the washtub symbol in Mexico and Canada,

seems the best compromise for temperature indications.44

\44\ The ASTM standard is not entirely clear as to whether

temperature can be indicated by the use of dots and the Celsius

temperature. The Commission solicits comment on this issue.

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

The ``do not bleach'' symbol (a triangle with an ``X'' through it)

represents the only instance in which a symbol in the ASTM system has a

different meaning in Canada or Mexico. In Mexico, this symbol means

``do not use chlorine bleach''; in the ASTM system, it means ``do not

[use any] bleach,'' chlorine or non-chlorine. To avoid this conflict,

the Commission has tentatively decided to accept the ASTM system with

one exception and addition - i.e., the elimination of the triangle with

an ``X'' through it and the substitution of a shaded triangle with an

``X'' through it for the ``do not bleach'' symbol. However, the

Commission has been informed that members of the ASTM subcommittee that

developed that care symbol system are considering making this

modification to the system. If this change is made by ASTM prior to the

final issuance by the Commission of a conditional exemption for the use

of symbols, the Commission will simply reference the modified version

of the ASTM system, without exceptions or additions.45

\45\ The ASTM subcommittee recently voted on two additions to

the symbols for machine drying: a circle in the square with no dots

to indicate any heat; a blacked-in circle to indicate air dry only

(no heat). These changes must still be submitted to the entire

membership of ASTM. In addition, the subcommittee has discussed

modifying the dry cleaning symbol so that lines indicating

refinements to dry cleaning are placed next to the circle at an

acute angle; if all four refinements were used, the symbol would

consist of a circle surrounded by four lines in a diamond formation

rather than a square. This avoids conflict with the symbol for

machine drying (which is a circle in a square). These changes

provide useful additional symbols, and, if these changes are adopted

by ASTM, the Commission proposes adopting the ASTM system with these

changes. However, if adopted, the conditional exemption will

reference a specific version of the ASTM system.

[[Page 57557]]

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

VI. Consumer Education

Many comments noted the need for education, although most expressed

confidence that U.S consumers could adapt to care symbols with

appropriate education.46 Some comments indicated that symbols

should be used with words until the U.S. population understands the

symbols.47 Pittsfield, on the other hand, argued that consumer

education based on dual disclosure--the use of symbols with

accompanying written instructions on the label--will not work, as shown

by the U.S. experience with the metric system.48

\46\ Schwab (10) p.1; Fieldcrest (11) pp. 2-3; ASTM (16) p.8;

Pittsfield (17) p.1; Woolrich (21) p.1; Carter's (24) p.2; Consumers

Union (31) p.1; Clorox (32) p.4; Business Habits (38) p.4; Pullen

(44) p.4; AHAM (53) p.2; Fruit (64) p.3; AAMA (68) p.3. Some

comments stated that symbols should not replace words until a

consumer education program has become effective. Consumers Union

(31) p.1; VF Corp. (36) p.4; Gap (78) p.3.

\47\ Consumers Union (31) p.1; Gap (78) p.3.

\48\ Comment 17, p.2.

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

The Commission agrees that the use of symbols with explanatory

written instructions on the permanently attached label would probably

not be an effective way to teach the symbol system. However, other

comments suggested strategies that would allow consumers to use the

symbols while learning them, such as hangtags on garments or charts

placed on washing machines, product packaging, or on the back of

detergent boxes.49 ASTM, cognizant of this issue, formed a Task

Group on Care Symbol Education that includes the Soap and Detergent

Association, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and

numerous other trade associations and representatives from the USDA

Extension Service.50 The members of this task group are interested

in educating consumers about the symbols. In addition, numerous

commenters stated they would participate in a program of consumer

education. The Commission seeks comment on the amount of time that

would be needed to develop and disseminate consumer education and what

forms consumer education might take. The Commission itself would be

pleased to work with industry members on such campaigns if the

Commission ultimately adopts the proposed conditional exemption.

\49\ Fieldcrest (11) p.3; Pittsfield (17) p.2; Carter's (24)

p.2; Fruit (64) p.3; AAMA (68) p.3.

\50\ Attachment to Subcomm. D13.62 Minutes, attached to ASTM

comment (16).

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

The Commission believes, however, that although educational

campaigns will be necessary and helpful, for at least for an initial 12

month period, manufacturers and importers who choose to use symbols

without words should be required to attach explanatory hangtags to each

such garment. This will ensure that consumers continue to have access

to information about garment care when they make their purchases.

Consumers who wish to do so could keep one or more of these hangtags in

their laundry rooms. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed

requirement of the exemption.

VII. Request for Comment

A. Terms of the Proposed Conditional Exemption

The Commission proposes a conditional exemption to the Rule to

allow the use of certain care symbols without language. The proposed

conditional exemption from the Care Labeling Rule simply expands the

terminology that those covered by the Rule can use to convey the

required information. Specifically, the proposed conditional exemption

would (1) permit the use of the ASTM system of symbols with an

exception and addition (i.e., the substitution of a different ``do not

bleach'' symbol) and (2) require that, for a 12 month period, care

labels with information conveyed only in symbols be accompanied by

hangtags explaining the meaning of the symbols.

B. Questions on Proposed Conditional Exemption

The Commission specifically solicits written public comments on the

following questions, as well as any other issues relevant to granting

or denying the conditional exemption described above:

1. Will the underlining of the washtub or the machine drying symbol

be confusing to Canadian and Mexican consumers? Will the underlining be

confusing to American consumers? If so, should the Commission

``except'' this part of the ASTM system from the conditional exemption?

51 Will ``excepting'' the underlining of symbols reduce the

benefit of symbols or impose costs on manufacturers?

\51\ Mexico does not indicate cycles at all, and Canada does so

by the use of color.

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

2. Should the Commission specify the minimum size of the symbols or

are existing requirements of legibility sufficient? 52

\52\ Pittsfield, a woven label manufacturer, stated that

``after surveying the label-producing industry, we would also

recommend that care symbols on a label be a minimum of 5 mm in

height to ensure legibility.'' Comment 17, p.3. Paxar, which

described itself as the ``world's largest manufacturer of various

forms of identification for the textile and apparel industry,''

stated that woven label manufacturers may find it difficult to weave

symbols clearly, but no problems should exist with printed labels.

Comment 42, p.1. The Rule currently defines a ``care label'' as a

permanent label or tag that ``will remain legible during the useful

life of the product.'' 16 CFR 423.1(a).

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

3. Should explanatory hangtags providing care information in

language be required for more than one year? Less than one year? How

long would it take for hangtags to be prepared and affixed to garments?

4. What types of consumer education should be planned and to what

extent are industry members willing to participate in such campaigns?

How long would it take to develop and undertake such campaigns?

5. If the Commission were to grant a conditional exemption, when

should it become effective?

6. Does ASTM's copyright pose a barrier to the use of the ASTM

system?

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.

BILLING CODE 6750-01-P

[[Page 57558]]

[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP16NO95.000

[FR Doc. 95-28290 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-C