Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 303

Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products

Identification Act

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (Commission or FTC) has completed

its regulatory review of the Rules and Regulations under the Textile

Fiber Products Identification Act (Textile Rules). Pursuant to that

review, the Commission concludes that the Rules continue to be valuable

to both consumers and firms. The regulatory review comments suggested

various substantive amendments to the Rules. The Commission has

considered these proposals and other proposals that it believes merit

further inquiry. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should

amend the Textile Rules to: (1) allow the listing of generic fiber

names for fibers that have a functional significance and are present in

the amount of less than 5% of the total fiber weight of a textile

product, without requiring disclosure of the functional significance of

the fiber, as presently required by Textile Rule 3(b); (2) eliminate

the requirement of Textile Rule 16(b) that the front side of a cloth

label, which is sewn to the product so that both sides of the label are

readily accessible to the prospective purchaser, bear the wording

``Fiber Content on Reverse Side'' when the fiber content disclosure is

listed on the reverse side of the label; (3) allow for a system of

shared information for manufacturer or importer identification among

the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) countries; (4) add a

provision to Textile Rule 20 specifying that a Commission registered

identification number (RN) will be subject to cancellation if, after a

change in the material information contained on the RN application, a

new application that reflects current business information is not

promptly submitted; (5) allow the use of abbreviations for generic

fiber names; (6) allow the use of abbreviations and symbols in country

of origin labeling; and (7) allow the use of new generic names for

manufactured fibers if the name and fiber are recognized by an

international standards-setting organization. In addition, the

Commission seeks comment on the possible resolution of apparent

conflict between the Commission's country of origin disclosure

requirements and new U.S. Customs Service regulations pursuant to the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994.

DATES: Written comments will be accepted until May 13, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to: Office of the Secretary,

Federal Trade Commission, Room H-159, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580. Submissions should be marked ``Rules

and Regulations under the Textile Act, 16 CFR Part 303--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.

[[Page 5341]]

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bret S. Smart, Program Advisor, Los

Angeles Regional Office, Federal Trade Commission, 11000 Wilshire

Blvd., Suite 13209, Los Angeles, CA 90024, (310) 235-7890 or Edwin

Rodriguez, Attorney, Federal Trade Commission, Sixth Street and

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3147.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background Information

The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (Textile Act), 15

U.S.C. 70 et seq., requires marketers of covered textile products to

mark each product with (1) the generic names and percentages by weight

of the constituent fibers present in the product; (2) the name under

which the manufacturer or other responsible company does business, or

in lieu thereof, the RN issued to the company by the Commission; and

(3) the name of the country where the product was processed or

manufactured. The Textile Act also contains advertising and

recordkeeping provisions. Pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, 15

U.S.C. 70e(c), the Commission has issued implementing regulations, the

Textile Rules, which are found at 16 CFR Part 303.

As part of the Commission's on-going regulatory review of all its

rules, regulations, and guides, on May 6, 1994, the Commission

published a Federal Register notice (FRN), 59 FR 23646, seeking public

comment on the Textile Rules. The FRN solicited comments about the

overall costs and benefits of the Rules and their regulatory and

economic impact. The FRN also sought comment on what changes in the

Rules would increase the benefits of the Rules to purchasers and how

those changes would affect the costs the Rules impose on firms subject

to their requirements. The Commission further stated that Textile Rules

10, 21, 32, and 45 would be amended to comply with ``metrication''

mandates if the Commission decided to retain those rules in their

current form after the regulatory review.1 The deadline for

submission of comments was extended twice, on July 7, 1994 and

September 12, 1994. The final deadline for comments was October 15,

1994.

\1\ The regulatory review comments do not suggest any change to

Rules 10, 21, 32, and 45, and the Commission does not propose any

substantive changes to these Rules. The Commission has decided to

retain these Rules in their present form. Therefore, in a separate

notice, the Commission announces the final amendments to Rules 10,

21, 32, and 45 to include metric equivalents beside the inch/pound

unit measurements in those Rules, as required by Executive Order

12770 of July 25, 1991 (56 FR 35801, July 29, 1991) and the Metric

Conversion Act, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness

Act (15 U.S.C. 205b).

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

II. Regulatory Review and Proposed Amendments

A. Support for the Textile Rules

The Commission received twenty-eight comments in response to the

FRN. The comments were submitted by trade associations 2 and

companies 3 subject to the Textile Act and Rules. In addition, one

comment was submitted by an industry-wide committee formed to address

issues concerning the harmonization of textile regulations among the

NAFTA countries.4

\2\ National Knitwear & Sportswear Association [NKSA] (1),

National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers [NAHM] (2), American

Textile Manufacturers Institute [ATMI] (3), Cordage Institute [CORD]

(4), National Retail Federation [NRF] (5), American Fiber

Manufacturers Association, Inc. [AFMA] (7), American Textile

Manufacturers Institute [ATMI] (10), Ross & Hardies, on behalf of

United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel [USA-

ITA] (11), American Apparel Manufacturers Association [AAMA] (15),

Liz Claiborne, Inc. and Labeling Committee, Industry Sector Advisory

Committee on Wholesaling and Retailing [ISAC 17] (17).

\3\ Warren Featherbone Company [WFC] (6), Dan River Inc. [DR]

(8), Ruff Hewn [RUFF] (9), Gap, Inc. [GAP] (12), Fieldcrest Cannon,

Inc. [FIELD] (13), Fruit of the Loom [FRUIT] (14), Wemco Inc.

[WEMCO] (18), Sara Lee Knit Products [SARA] (19), Horace Small

Apparel Company [HORACE] (20), Perry Manufacturing Company [PERRY]

(21), Milliken & Company [MILL] (22), Cranston Print Works Company

[CRAN] (23), Angelica Corporation [ANGEL] (24), Russell Corporation

[RUSS] (25), Haggar Apparel Company [HAGGAR] (26), Capital Mercury

Shirt Corp. [CAP] (27), Biderman Industries Corporation [BIDER]

(28).

\4\ Trilateral Labeling Committee [TLC] (16). WFC (6), RUFF (9),

WEMCO (18), SARA (19), ANGEL (24), RUSS (25), HAGGAR (26), CAP (27),

and BIDER (28) explicitly adopt or endorse the recommendations of

TLC (16), and other comments appear to track TLC's recommendations

closely.

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

Although no comments were received from consumers or consumer

groups, it is clear from the Commission's experience that consumers

benefit directly from the Rules and consider the mandated disclosures

material in making purchase decisions. Ten comments explicitly express

support for the Textile Rules as a whole 5 because the Rules

protect consumers from deceptive fiber claims and provide them with

valuable information about the fiber content of apparel, allowing them

to make educated product comparisons and purchasing decisions.6

The comments do not identify any costs imposed by the Rule on

consumers.7

\5\ NKSA (1) p.1, NAHM (2) p.1, ATMI (3) p.1, CORD (4) p.2, DR

(8) p.1, ATMI (10) p.1, FIELD (13) p.1, FRUIT (14) p.1, PERRY (21)

p.1, MILL (22) p.1. These comments were submitted by companies

covered by the Rules, but they express the belief that the Rules

help consumers.

\6\ NAHM (2) states, at p.1, that the regulations should be

retained ``because they provide a framework for fiber content

disclosure, labeling, country-of-origin clarification, and

provisions for guarantees, all of which protect manufacturers,

buyers, and retail consumers.'' NKSA (1) states, at p.1, that the

Rules serve an important and useful purpose for consumers who may

not be aware of the various fibers in the multi-fiber blends that

have become common in the marketplace. CORD (4) states, at p.2, that

the Rules help purchasers ``select a product best suited for a

specific application and reduce the potential for unsafe use and

danger to life and property.'' PERRY (21) states, at p.1, that the

Rules are ``both necessary and desirable if we are to have orderly

trade within this hemisphere.''

\7\ NAHM (2) states, at p.1, that the Rules impose costs on

consumers, but does not identify what the costs are. The comment

states that ``the assurances offered by the Rules to purchasers far

outweigh the costs associated with fiber content disclosure on

labeling and the use of guarantees.'' ATMI (10) states, at p.1, that

it ``has no knowledge of additional imposed costs to the consumer

because of the rules.''

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

In addition, the comments show that the Rules are valuable to

manufacturers and firms. They allow firms to distinguish their products

from others in the marketplace based on the products' fiber

content.8 They improve the credibility of firms and their products

by assuring consumers that the products they are purchasing will meet

specific standards and consumer tastes.9 The Rules also ``maintain

the integrity of fiber type information from the fiber supplier to the

textile manufacturer to the apparel manufacturer to the consumer.''

10 Although the Rules impose labeling and packaging costs,11

they are small and have become an accepted part of doing business in

the textile industry.12 The commenters consider the costs of

compliance to be minimal and the benefits to companies and consumers to

be tangible and great.

\8\ NKSA (1) p.1.

\9\ NAHM (2) p.2.

\10\ ATMI (3) p.1. See also DR (8) p.1; ATMI (10) p.1, MILL (22)

p.2.

\11\ NAHM (2) p.2. ATMI (3) states, at p.1, that ``[t]here are

minimal costs associated with the manufacture of the label, its

attachment to the textile product, and costs carried by the

manufacturer to maintain records.''

\12\ NKSA (1) p.1, ATMI (3) pp.1-2, DR (8) p.1, ATMI (10) p.5,

FIELD (13) p.6, MILL (22) p.6. ATMI (3) states, at pp.1-2, that

``[p]rior to the rules, textile mills typically kept records of

fiber content and performed fiber identification tests to certify

that fiber being supplied to the mill was indeed what the supplier

stated. These costs and practices have become a generic part of

textile business operations. The rules only add the cost of a

consumer label.''

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

In short, it is clear that the implementing regulations enjoy the

backing of subject companies and have become an accepted part of

business at all levels of manufacture, distribution, and sales. The

Commission has decided, however, to seek additional comment on possible

amendments to the Rules.

[[Page 5342]]

B. Proposals for Amendments to the Textile Rules

1. Introduction

The comments submitted in response to the regulatory review of the

Textile Rules propose certain amendments to the Rules. The Commission

is also considering other amendments that were not mentioned in the

comments. Many of the changes proposed in the comments were motivated

by the passage of NAFTA, which has highlighted the importance of

reconciling the labeling requirements of the member countries. The goal

of NAFTA is to establish a trade zone in which goods can flow freely

among Canada, Mexico, and the United States, a goal which may be

impeded by the multiple burdens imposed on companies by regulations in

the NAFTA countries. For example, the comments contend that language

differences among the NAFTA countries, and regulations based on these

differences, affect the printing of fiber content information, country

of origin names, and care instructions.13 Manufacturers must

either print separate labels for each market, which may inhibit the

efficient allocation of inventories within the NAFTA territory and

increase costs to consumers,14 or print unwieldy, multilingual

labels that satisfy all of the regulatory requirements of each NAFTA

country.15 In addition, the comments contend that differences and

conflicts involving other labeling requirements, including label

attachment requirements, the definition of key terms, and responsible

party identification systems in the NAFTA countries, may also interfere

with free trade.16 The comments generally agree that the NAFTA

signatories must consult and coordinate with each other to simplify

textile and apparel labeling so that differences in labeling rules and

the manner in which compliance is determined do not pose trade

barriers.17

\13\ This notice does not address the issue of the use of

symbols in care labeling. The Commission has published separately a

notice regarding that issue. 60 FR 57552 (Nov. 16, 1995).

\14\ FRUIT (14) p.3.

\15\ USA-ITA (11) p.2, see also FRUIT (14) p.2. The comments,

however, do not provide extrinsic evidence that long labels cause

consumer confusion or that they are financially burdensome to

manufacturers or distributors.

\16\ AFMA (7) p.1, FRUIT (14) p.2, SARA (19) p.4. FRUIT states

that differences in labeling requirements may ``function as non-

tariff trade barriers and significantly impede the free flow of

goods within the NAFTA territory,'' inhibiting sales and harming

American industry.

\17\ WFC (6) p.1, AFMA (7) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) pp. 1-2,

ATMI (10) pp.1-2, USA-ITA (11) p.2, FIELD (13) pp.1-2, FRUIT (14)

pp.1-2, AAMA (15) p.1, TLC (16) p.1, ISAC 17 (17) p.1, WEMCO (18)

p.1, SARA (19) p.4, HORACE (20) p.2, MILL (22) p.2, ANGEL (24) p.1,

RUSS (25) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.

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

The harmonization of labeling regulations is required by NAFTA.

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 of the Act requires the creation of a Committee

on Standards-Related Measures, including a Subcommittee on Labelling of

Textile and Apparel Goods. In accordance with Annex 913.5.a-4, the

Subcommittee

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;

(c) fiber content information for textile and apparel goods;

(d) uniform methods acceptable for the attachment of required

information to textile and apparel goods; and

(e) use in the territory of the other Parties of each Party's

national registration numbers for manufacturers of textile and

apparel goods.

Many of the comments address these subject areas and contend that

harmonizing labels would benefit manufacturers and consumers alike by

decreasing the costs of production and distribution. One commenter

stated that prices charged to consumers may decline if the costs

associated with labeling decline.18 A few comments contend that

harmonized labeling would be less confusing to consumers.19

\18\ FRUIT (14) p.2.

\19\ WFC (6) p.1, AAMA (15) pp.1, 2, TLC (16) p.2, WEMCO (18)

p.1, SARA (19) pp.2, 3, ANGEL (24) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27)

p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.

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

Based on the comments and other available information, the

Commission has considered proposals to amend the Rules to: (a) allow

the listing of generic fiber names for fibers that have a functional

significance and are present in the amount of less than 5% of the total

fiber weight of a textile product, without requiring disclosure of the

functional significance of the fiber, as presently required by Rule

3(b); (b) make cordage subject to the Textile Rules; (c) modify country

of origin disclosure requirements; (d) eliminate the requirement of

Textile Rule 16(b) that the front side of a cloth label, only one end

of which is sewn to the product in such a manner that both sides of the

label are readily accessible to the prospective purchaser, bear the

wording ``Fiber Content on Reverse Side'' when the fiber content

disclosure is listed on the reverse side of the label; (e) allow for a

system of shared information for manufacturer or importer

identification among the NAFTA countries; (f) add a provision

specifying that a Commission RN will be subject to cancellation if,

after a change in the material information contained on the RN

application, a new application that reflects current business

information is not promptly submitted; (g) allow the use of

abbreviations for generic fiber names; (h) allow the use of

abbreviations and symbols in country of origin labeling; and (i) allow

the use of new generic names for manufactured fibers if the name and

fiber are recognized by an international standards-setting

organization.

After considering these recommendations, the Commission has

rejected some of the suggested changes as not feasible or not in the

public interest at this time. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR)

seeks comment concerning the remaining proposed changes. All of the

recommendations for change are discussed below.

2. Proposals

a. Use of Generic Fiber Names for Fibers with a Functional

Significance Present in the Amount of Less than 5% of the Total Fiber

Weight of a Textile Product

One commenter recommended that the Commission eliminate Rule 3(b)

to allow the listing of generic fiber names for fibers that have a

functional significance and are present in the amount of less than 5%

of the total fiber weight of a textile product, without disclosing the

functional significance of the fibers, as the Rule currently

requires.20 The commenter maintains that the existing Rule is

``archaic'' because consumers know, for example, that the functional

significance of spandex is elasticity. In addition, the commenter

claims that the Rule is not well known in the textile industry and

therefore creates problems with U.S. Customs for imports that are not

properly labeled and must be delayed and remarked.

\20\ GAP (12) p. 1-2.

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

The Commission believes that amending Rule 3 in the manner

suggested might benefit manufacturers

[[Page 5343]]

and importers by dispensing with an unnecessary labeling requirement.

In addition, the amendment may not harm consumers because consumers

generally know the functional significance of many fibers and

manufacturers probably will disclose voluntarily the functional

significance of some fibers. Therefore, the Commission proposes to

amend Rule 3 to read as follows:

Sec. 303.3 Fibers present in amounts of less than 5 percent.

Except as permitted in sections 4(b)(1) and 4(b)(2) of the Act,

as amended, no fiber present in the amount of less than 5 per centum

of the total fiber weight shall be designated by its generic name or

fiber trademark in disclosing the constituent fibers in required

information, but shall be designated as ``other fiber.'' Where more

than one of such fibers are present in a product they shall be

designated in the aggregate as ``other fibers.'' Provided, however,

That nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the

disclosure of any fiber present in a textile fiber product which has

a clearly established and definite functional significance when

present in the amount contained in such product, as for example:

96 percent Acetate

4 percent Spandex

when spandex has the functional significance of elasticity. In

making such disclosure all of the provisions of the Act and

regulations setting forth the manner and form of disclosure of fiber

content information, including the provisions of Secs. 303.17 of

this part (Rule 17) and 303.41 of this part (Rule 41) relating to

the use of generic names and fiber trademarks, shall be applicable.

Current Section 303.3(b) would be deleted. The proposed amendment would

still prohibit disclosing fiber names for fibers that usually have a

functional significance, but do not have that functional significance

when present in the amount contained in the textile product. In

addition, it would prohibit disclosing the fiber names for fibers

present in the amount of less than 5% when the fiber has no functional

significance. Thus, the proposed amendment would still allow the

consumer to distinguish between fibers constituting less than 5% of the

total weight that have a functional significance and those that do not.

The Commission seeks comment on the benefits and costs to consumers and

manufacturers of the proposed amendment and on whether the proposed

change would be in the public interest.

b. Make Cordage Subject to the Textile Rules.

One commenter suggests that cordage products like rope and twine,

which currently are not covered by the Textile Rules, be covered by the

Rules because cordage is an assemblage of fibers. The commenter

contends that mislabeling of cordage is a considerable problem which

harms consumers.21

\21\ CORD (4) p.1.

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

The Textile Act's marking requirements apply to ``household textile

articles,'' defined in Section 2(g) of the Act as: ``articles of

wearing apparel, costumes and accessories, draperies, floor coverings,

furnishings, beddings, and other textile goods of a type customarily

used in a household regardless of where used in fact.'' 22 Certain

products, not including cordage, are specifically exempt from the Act.

In addition, the Commission has discretion to exclude ``other textile

fiber products (1) which have an insignificant or inconsequential

textile fiber content, or (2) with respect to which the disclosure of

textile fiber content is not necessary for the protection of the

ultimate consumer.'' 23

\22\ 15 U.S.C. 70(g).

\23\ 15 U.S.C. 70j(b).

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

Rule 45, ``Exclusions from the Act,'' implements Section 12(b) of

the Act by (1) declaring that all textile fiber products except those

specifically listed in Rule 45(a)(1) are excluded and (2) by naming

certain specifically excluded products in Rules 45(a)(2) through (9).

Rule 45(a)(1) therefore contains a list of all the products that are

covered by the Textile Act and its implementing regulations. Cordage

does not appear on this list. Consequently, Rule 45(a)(1) implicitly

excludes cordage from coverage under the Textile Act.

The Commission does not propose to amend the Textile Rules to

include cordage. Although cordage has some household uses, it is not a

common household textile, and there is no evidence that consumers rely

on fiber content information in making purchase decisions about twine

or other cordage products.24 Any significant affirmative

misrepresentations or failures to disclose material information

relating to cordage fiber content can be addressed through Section 5 of

the FTC Act, if necessary.

\24\ The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA), 15 U.S.C.

Sec. 1451 et seq., requires that consumer commodities ``bear a label

specifying the identity of the commodity and the name and place of

business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor.'' 15 U.S.C.

1453(a)(1). 16 CFR 503.2(b) defines cordage as a ``consumer

commodity'' under the Act. In addition, although the commenter

claims that cordage is often not marked with the country of origin,

it adds that this is true for ``other than prepackaged consumer/

household cordage,'' CORD (4) p.1, which means that country of

origin information does reach consumers of cordage destined for

household use.

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

c. Country of Origin Labeling

Under the Textile Act and Textile Rule 33(a)(1), an imported

textile fiber product must bear a label disclosing the name of the

country where the product was processed or manufactured. One commenter

recommends that companies that add value to imported greige goods

(unfinished plain fabric) through printing and finishing be allowed to

label the finished product as ``Made in USA.'' 25 Such a label

would not comport with Rule 33, which states that a textile product

made in the United States of imported fabric must contain a label

disclosing those facts, as for example: ``Made in USA of imported

fabric.'' Only those textile products completely made in the United

States of fabric that was also made in the United States may be labeled

``Made in USA,'' without qualification.26 At present, the

Commission does not propose any amendments to this Rule. However, the

Commission is currently examining issues pertaining to ``Made in USA''

advertising and labeling claims generally in a separate context.27

\25\ CRAN (23) pp.1-2.

\26\ In determining the appropriate disclosure for country of

origin, the manufacturer or processor needs to look only one step

back in the process. Thus, the label ``Made in USA'' would be

appropriate if the finished article were made from fabric produced

in the US. The manufacturer need not consider whether the yarn that

went into the fabric was imported for purposes of determining the

correct label.

\27\ On July 11, 1995, the Commission announced that it would

re-examine its ``Made in U.S.A.'' policy by (1) conducting a

comprehensive review of consumers' perceptions of ``Made in USA''

and similar claims and (2) holding a public workshop to examine

issues relevant to the standard. The Commission issued a notice, 60

FR 53922 (Oct. 18, 1995), requesting public comment in preparation

for the workshop. The workshop will be held on March 26-27, 1996. 60

FR 65327 (Dec. 19, 1995).

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

Many comments recommend that the FTC and U.S. Customs Service

harmonize their regulations regarding country of origin marking for

textile goods.28 In particular, the Commission is aware that there

may be a conflict between Rule 33 and Section 334 of the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act, signed into law on December 8, 1994,29 and U.S.

Customs Service implementing regulations that will be effective July 1,

1996.30 For certain categories of textile products, including

household furnishings, such as linens, and apparel accessories, such as

scarves and handkerchiefs, the country of origin under the new tariff

laws will be the country where the fabric was produced, not the country

where the item was finished. Commission staff has begun to meet with

U.S. Customs Service staff to explore ways this apparent conflict might

be resolved without unduly

[[Page 5344]]

burdening U.S. businesses and causing confusion to consumers. In

addition, the Commission welcomes industry suggestions as to how this

apparent conflict might be resolved in a way that will comply with the

Uruguay Round Agreements Act marking requirements, provide meaningful

information to consumers, and not require lengthy label disclosures.

\28\ RUFF (9) p.1, ATMI (10) p.3, FRUIT (14) pp.2 and 4, SARA

(19) p.2.

\29\ Public Law 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809. Section 334 is codified

at 19 U.S.C. 3592.

\30\ 60 FR 46188 (Sept. 5, 1995).

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

d. Label Mechanics and Textile Rule 16(b)'s ``Fiber Content on

Reverse Side'' Disclosure Requirement

Many comments discussed the interrelated issues of label type,

label attachment, label placement, and use of both sides of a label to

set out required information.31 The comments recommend that the

Textile Rules not specify a type of label (e.g., woven, non-woven,

printed) to be used for required disclosures or the method of label

attachment, to allow for changes in labeling technology. The comments

recommend that the Rules require only that the label remain securely

affixed to the product; the information be legible and remain legible

for the useful life of the product; and both sides of a label be

allowed to be used to display the information required by the

Rules.32 The comments discuss the issue of label attachment in the

context of NAFTA and recommend that U.S. label attachment regulations

be harmonized with those of the NAFTA countries. However, the comments

do not explain whether inconsistencies in those regulations do in fact

exist.

\31\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) p.2, ATMI (10) p.5, FIELD

(13) p.6, FRUIT (14) p.5, AAMA (15) p.3, TLC (16) p.4, WEMCO (18)

p.1, SARA (19) p.4, HORACE (20) p.2, MILL (22) p.6, ANGEL (24) p.1,

RUSS (25) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1. The

work program of the NAFTA subcommittee on labeling includes ``a

uniform method of attachment'' as one of its issues.

\32\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUSS (9) p.2, ATMI (10) p.5, FIELD

(13) p.6, AAMA (15) p.3, TLC (16) p.4, WEMCO (18) p.1, SARA (19)

p.4, HORACE (20) p.2, MILL (22) p.6, ANGEL (24) p.1, RUSS (25) p.1,

HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.

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

The current Rules already address many of the recommendations made

by the comments regarding the mechanics of labeling. Rule 15--

``Required Label and Method of Affixing''--allows any type of label

(e.g., a hangtag, a gummed-on label) to be used, so long as the label

is securely affixed and durable enough to remain attached to the

product until the consumer receives it. Rule 15 does not require a

permanent label for any of the disclosures required by the Textile Act,

and there is therefore no requirement that the label remain legible for

the useful life of the product. Rule 16 provides only that the Textile

Act disclosures must be ``clearly legible and readily accessible to the

prospective purchaser.''

In addition, although Rule 16(b) requires that all three Textile

Act disclosures--country of origin, company name or RN, and fiber

content--be made on the front of the required label, two provisos allow

the use of both sides of the label. The first proviso allows the

company name or RN to be on the back of the required label or on the

front of another label in immediate proximity to the required label.

When the required label is a cloth label, sewn to the product at one

end so that both sides of the label are readily accessible to the

prospective purchaser, the second proviso allows the fiber content

disclosure to be placed on the back of the required label ``if the

front side of such label clearly and conspicuously shows the wording

'Fiber Content on Reverse Side'.''

One commenter proposed that this second proviso of Textile Rule 16

be amended to eliminate the requirement that manufacturers place the

phrase ``Fiber content on Reverse Side'' on the front side of the

required label because ``consumers today are aware that both sides of

the label contain information important to their purchasing decision.''

33 The Commission agrees that consumers probably are in the habit

of looking on the back of labels for needed information, such as fiber

content or care instructions, and do not need a specific direction to

do so. Thus, the requirement that the front side of a cloth label

indicate that the fiber content information is on the reverse side is

probably unnecessary.

\33\ FRUIT (14) p.5.

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

The Commission, therefore, proposes to amend Rule 16(b). The Rule

might be amended narrowly to eliminate the ``Fiber Content on Reverse

Side'' disclosure requirement for cloth labels with one end sewn to

textile products. Another alternative would be to amend Rule 16(b) to

allow the required fiber content information to appear on the reverse

side of any kind of permissible label (e.g., a cardboard label or a

hang-tag label) as long as the information remains ``conspicuous and

accessible.'' The latter alternative is broader than the amendment

suggested by the comment, but comports with the contention that

consumers are in the habit of looking on the back of labels. The

Commission solicits comments on these alternative amendment proposals,

including comments on the benefits and costs to consumers and

manufacturers of the proposed amendments. It also solicits amendment

language alternatives.

The Commission also requests comment on whether fiber content

identification should be printed on labels that are permanently

attached to a textile product,34 and on whether the other two

required disclosures should similarly appear on a permanent label. This

information may continue to be useful to consumers throughout the life

of the product. For example, fiber content identification may assist

professional cleaners in determining whether certain newly developed

wet-cleaning techniques are appropriate for an item of textile apparel.

Moreover, due to advances in labeling technology, requiring a permanent

label may not be burdensome to manufacturers. Many manufacturers

already make the required disclosures on a permanent label. Finally,

the Commission seeks comment concerning any specific conflicting rules

and regulations for label attachment in Mexico and Canada, and whether

such conflicts pose trade impediments that could be removed by changing

the Commission's Rules.

\34\ Comment on this issue was also requested in a Federal

Register notice seeking comment on proposed amendments to the

Commission's Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR Part 423. 60 FR 67102 (Dec.

28, 1995).

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

e. System of Shared Information for Manufacturer or Importer

Identification Among the NAFTA Countries.

Under the Textile Act,35 the Wool Products Labeling

Act,36 and the Fur Products Labeling Act,37 the required

label on covered products must bear the identification of one or more

companies responsible for the manufacture, importation, offering for

sale, or other handling of the product, either by the full name under

which the company does business or, in lieu thereof, by the RN issued

by the Commission. Canada has a similar system of identification

numbers known as CA numbers. Mexico does not have a similar system, but

the Mexican government issues tax identification numbers to companies.

\35\ Section 4(b)(3) of the Textile Act and Rules 16(a)(2), 19,

and 20 thereunder, require manufacturers or other responsible

parties to include their name or registered identification number on

a textile label.

\36\ 15 U.S.C. 68 et seq.

\37\ 15 U.S.C. 69 et seq.

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

To eliminate the need for a company to register in more than one

country, the comments recommend that the FTC and appropriate government

agencies in the NAFTA countries develop an integrated system for

identifying the manufacturer, importer, or dealer of a textile product

that would allow any RN, CA, or Mexican tax identification number to

suffice as legal company identification

[[Page 5345]]

in all three NAFTA countries.38 The comments repeatedly state that

it would not be necessary to create one identification number system.

They recommend that each NAFTA country continue its policy and

procedure of registration, with the U.S. continuing the present system

of RN numbers. The countries could then exchange information on

computer databases so that a textile product can be traced to a

manufacturer or other responsible party using either an RN number, a CA

number, or a Mexican tax number.

\38\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) pp.1-2, ATMI (10) p.2,

USA-ITA (11) p.2, FIELD (13) pp.2-3, FRUIT (14) p.5, AAMA (15) pp.2-

3, TLC (16) p.4, ISAC 17 (17) p.1, WEMCO (18), p.1, SARA (19) p.2,

HORACE (20) p.2, MILL (22) p.3, ANGEL (24) p.1, RUSS (25) p.2,

HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.

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

Both the Textile Act and the Rules would have to be amended to

allow CA numbers and Mexican tax numbers, which are not registered by

the Commission, to be used on textile products shipped for distribution

in the United States. At this time, the Commission is not considering

any amendments to the Textile Rules related to responsible party

identification. Before the Commission considers whether to recommend

that Congress amend the Textile Act, it seeks comment on the advantages

and disadvantages of a system of shared information, the feasibility of

implementing such a system across borders, and the impact such a system

would have on the ability of the Commission, consumers, and firms to

track responsible parties. The Commission would recommend that Congress

amend the Textile Act only if the NAFTA countries reach an agreement to

share information. Such agreement would be critical to the

effectiveness of any amendments to the Textile Act and Rules.

f. Require Holders of RN Numbers to Update their Registration

Information when Changes in that Information Occur

The success of a system of shared information would also depend to

a great extent on the availability and the quality of the information

in the Commission's RN registry and the registration systems of the

other NAFTA signatories. To increase the usefulness of the RN registry,

the Commission plans to improve its accuracy and the ease of access to

its contents.

Since initially being issued their RN's, many companies have

changed their legal business name, business address, and/or company

type (e.g., from proprietorship to corporation) without notifying the

FTC about the change(s), as requested in the RN number application.

Since the 1940's many RN holders have gone out of existence, and

others, while still in existence, no longer have any need for their

RN's. As a result, a large percentage of the official FTC records are

inaccurate (i.e., not reflecting an actual user's correct name, place

of business, and/or company type) or obsolete (e.g., reflecting an RN

held by a non-existent company).

Registered identification numbers are subject to cancellation

whenever any such number was procured or has been used improperly or

contrary to the requirements of the Acts administered by the Federal

Trade Commission, and regulations promulgated thereunder, or when

otherwise deemed necessary in the public interest. The Commission

proposes to add a provision to the Textile Rules that would subject an

RN number to cancellation if, after a change in the material

information contained on the RN application, a new application that

reflects current business information is not promptly submitted. The

new, updated application would replace the old one in the Commission's

files; there would be no charge for processing the new application. Any

company whose RN application does not reflect current business

information by a specified deadline would have its RN cancelled.

Commission staff would make every reasonable effort to identify and

locate all companies actually using an RN and help them update their

applications before the specified deadline.

The Commission seeks comment on the following proposed amendment to

Rule 20(b):

Sec. 303.20 Registered identification numbers.

(a) * * *

(b)(1) * * *

(2) Registered identification numbers will be subject to

cancellation if the Federal Trade Commission fails to receive prompt

notification of any change in name, business address, or legal

business status of a person or concern to whom a registered

identification number has been assigned by application duly executed

in the form set out in subsection (d) of this section, reflecting

the current name, business address, and legal business status of the

person or concern.

(3) Registered identification numbers will be subject to

cancellation whenever any such number was procured or has been used

improperly or contrary to the requirements of the Acts administered

by the Federal Trade Commission, and regulations promulgated

thereunder, or when otherwise deemed necessary in the public

interest.

g. Use of Abbreviations for Fiber Content Identification.

Although supporting the fiber content disclosure requirements, the

comments recommend that the Rules be amended to allow abbreviations of

generic fiber names in fiber content disclosures.39 Many comments

state that spelling out complete fiber names in three languages for the

marketing of textile products in the NAFTA countries is unwieldy and

that abbreviations of generic fiber names would permit the required

information to be conveyed on a smaller label.40 The comments

contend that if abbreviations were permitted, they could lead to a

single label for NAFTA countries and eventually to an international

label.41

\39\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) p.2: ATMI (10) p.4-5,

USA-ITA (11) p.2, FIELD (13) pp.4-5, FRUIT (14) p.3, AAMA (15) p.2,

TLC (16) pp.3-4, ISAC 17 (17) p.2, WEMCO (18) p.1, SARA (19) p.2,

HORACE (20) p.2, MILL (22) pp.4-5, ANGEL (24) p.1, RUSS (25) p.2,

HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.

\40\ WFC (6) p.1, USA-ITA (11) p.2, FRUIT (14) p.2, AAMA (15)

p.2, TLC (16) p.3, ISAC 17 (17) p.2, WEMCO (18) p.1, SARA (19) p.1,

ANGEL (24) p.1, RUSS (25) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER

(28) p.1.

\41\ ISAC 17 (17) p.2.

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

Many comments urge that the FTC and the appropriate agencies in the

NAFTA countries adopt abbreviations for the most common fibers--

acrylic, cotton, nylon, polyester, rayon, silk, spandex, and wool--

which purportedly represent more than 80% of all apparel and textile

products sold in the marketplace, and an abbreviation for designating

``other fibers'' that are present in amounts of less than 5% of total

fiber weight.42 The result would be three abbreviations, one in

each language--English, Spanish, and French--for the most common

generic fibers.43 Although abbreviations eventually could be

developed for other fibers, the comments emphasize the need to develop

abbreviations for the more common generic fibers first. Other fibers

which the rules do not permit to be lumped together as ``other fibers''

can be identified by their full fiber names.44 A few comments

recommend three- to four-letter abbreviations for fiber names.45

One commenter states that any abbreviations used for fiber

identification should not arbitrarily be limited to a specific number

of letters, as in three- to four-letter abbreviations.46

\42\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, ATMI (10) p.4, FIELD (13) pp.4-5,

FRUIT (14) p.3, AAMA (15) p.2, TLC (16) p.3, WEMCO (18) p.1, SARA

(19) p.2, MILL (22) pp.4-5, ANGEL (24) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP

(27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1. Some comments omit acrylic from this list

of fibers. RUFF (9) p.2, HORACE (20) p.2, RUSS (25) p.2.

\43\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) p.2, ATMI (10) p.4, AAMA

(15) p.2, TLC (16) p.3, WEMCO (18) p.1, SARA, (19) p.2, ANGEL (24)

p.1, RUSS (25) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.

\44\ DR (8) p.1, ATMI (10) p.4, FIELD (13) p.5, FRUIT (14) p.3,

MILL (22) p.5.

\45\ FIELD (13) p.4, ISAC 17 (17) p.2.

\46\ AFMA (7) states, at p. 2, that ``[a]s labeling requirements

are simplified, the quality and consistency of information provided

to the consumer should be maintained,'' so as not to compromise

``the two decades of education and experiences developed under the

current system in the United States.''

[[Page 5346]]

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

The comments recognize that when fiber names are entirely different

in different languages, arriving at common abbreviations may be

difficult.47 But the comments point out that when fiber names are

identical or similar, the same abbreviation could be used by more than

one country, thereby reducing the use of abbreviations on

labels.48

\47\ AFMA (7) p.3.

\48\ WFC (6) p.1, AFMA (7) p.3, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) p.2, ATMI

(10) p.4, FIELD (13) p.4, FRUIT (14) p.3, AAMA (15) p.2, TLC (16)

p.3, WEMCO (18) p.1, SARA (19) p.2, HORACE (20) p.2, MILL (22) p.4,

ANGEL (24) p.1, RUSS (25) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER

(28) p.1.

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

The comments also recommend that the use of abbreviations should be

optional,49 and that manufacturers should be allowed to use full

labeling and still qualify for NAFTA benefits in all signatory

countries.50 To educate the public about the meaning of

abbreviations, the comments recommend that manufacturers or retailers

provide hangtags, explanatory charts, or other consumer education

labels for a limited period.51

\49\ AAMA (15) p.2.

\50\ AFMA (7) p.3.

\51\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) p.1, ATMI (10) p.4, FIELD

(13) p.5, FRUIT (14) p.3, AAMA (15) p.2, TLC (16) p.4, WEMCO (18)

p.1, SARA (19) p.2, MILL (22) p.5, ANGEL (24) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1,

CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.

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

The Commission believes that the use of abbreviations for fiber

names may be beneficial to companies without harming consumers. The

Commission therefore proposes to amend Rules 5 and 6 to allow the use

of abbreviations for generic fiber names. At present Textile Rule 5

does not allow the use of abbreviations for disclosures of required

information, except for the country of origin. To allow the use of

abbreviations, the Commission proposes to amend Rules 5 and 6 (Sections

303.5 and 303.6) to read as follows:

Sec. 303.5 Abbreviations, ditto marks, and asterisks prohibited.

(a) In disclosing required information, words or terms shall not

be designated by ditto marks or appear in footnotes referred to by

asterisks or other symbols in required information, and shall not be

abbreviated except as permitted in Rule 33(e) and Rule 6.

* * * * *

Sec. 303.6 Generic names of fibers to be used.

(a) Except where another name is permitted under the Act and

Regulations, the respective generic names of all fibers present in

the amount of five per centum or more of the total fiber weight of

the textile fiber product shall be used when naming fibers in the

required information; as for example: cotton, rayon, silk, linen,

nylon, etc., provided, however, that the following abbreviations may

be used for cotton, wool, polyester, rayon, nylon, spandex, silk,

and acrylic:

cotton--cot

wool--wl

polyester--poly

rayon--ryn

nylon--nyl

spandex--spdx

silk--slk

acrylic--acrl

* * * * *

The Commission solicits comments on these proposed amendments, as well

as alternative amendment language, other suggestions for English-

language abbreviations for the above-listed fibers, and abbreviations

for the catch-all classifications, ``other fiber'' and ``other

fibers.'' The Commission also seeks submission of empirical data (copy

tests, etc.) about consumer understanding of abbreviations and the

impact that the use of abbreviations may have on consumers and firms.

In addition, the notice asks whether the use of abbreviations on the

required fiber content labels should be conditioned upon use of

explanatory hangtags, indefinitely or for a limited period of time, and

if the latter, for how long.

h. Use of Abbreviations and Symbols in Country of Origin Labeling

Rule 33 requires that the name of the country where the textile

product was processed or manufactured be indicated on a label. The

comments recommend that the Rules be amended to allow the optional use

of three-letter abbreviations for country of origin names (such as CAN

for Canada, MEX for Mexico, and USA for the United States),52 and

a symbol, such as a solid flag, to denote the words ``made in'' or

``product of'' in country of origin disclosures.53 The commenters

assert this would facilitate trade under NAFTA by reducing the label

size, eliminating the need for three languages, and reducing consumer

confusion. The comments contend that consumer education programs could

be instituted to educate the consumer as to the meaning of the

abbreviations and the symbol.54 Only one comment opposed the use

of abbreviations of country names.55

\52\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) p.1, ATMI (10) p.3, FRUIT

(14) p.4, AAMA (15) p.1, TLC (16) p.3, ISAC 17 (17) p.3, WEMCO (18)

p.1, SARA (19) p.2, ANGEL (24) p.1, RUSS (25) p.2, HAGGAR (26) p.1,

CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.

\53\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) p. 1, ATMI (10) p.3,

FRUIT (14) p.4, AAMA (15) p.1, TLC (16) p.3, ISAC 17 (17) p.3, WEMCO

(18) p.1, SARA (19) p.2, MILL (22) p.4, ANGEL (24) p.1, RUSS (25)

p.2, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.

\54\ RUFF (9) p.1.

\55\ MILL (22) pp.1-2, 4. MILL states, at p.1, that ``[a]nything

less than the complete country name would obscure for consumers the

country of origin information intended by the Congress in the

labeling acts and the current F.T.C. rules.''

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

Rule 33(e) already permits abbreviations of country of origin names

if they ``unmistakably indicate the name of a country.'' The challenge

will be to develop abbreviations that convey the country of origin and

also harmonize with abbreviations used in the other NAFTA countries.

Because Rule 33(e) already allows abbreviations for country of origin

names, the Commission does not recommend any change to that Rule at

this time. Nor does it recommend any change to permit the use of

symbols in country of origin labeling because it lacks sufficient

knowledge about the feasibility of doing so.

The Commission solicits more information from consumers, textile

industry representatives, and U.S. Customs about the use of

abbreviations and symbols in country of origin labeling. The Commission

seeks specific recommendations for the abbreviations to be used for

``Canada,'' ``Mexico,'' and the ``United States,'' as well as comments

on the viability of using symbols in making country of origin

disclosures. The Commission seeks comment on the benefits and costs to

consumers and firms of adding specific country of origin abbreviations

to the Rules and allowing symbols.

i. Procedures for Establishing New Generic Names for Manufactured

Fibers.

Under Section 7(c) of the Textile Act, the Commission is

``authorized and directed to make such rules and regulations, including

the establishment of generic names of manufactured fibers * * * as may

be necessary and proper for administration and enforcement.'' 15 U.S.C.

70e(c) (emphasis added). Currently, Rule 7 sets out the generic names

and definitions for manufactured fibers that are recognized by the

Commission. If a manufacturer or producer develops a new fiber that is

not listed in Rule 7, the fiber content identification label must

identify the new fiber by using one of the already recognized generic

names or the manufacturer or producer of the new fiber must file, under

Rule 8, a written application with the Commission, requesting the

establishment of a new generic name for the new fiber. Such a

requirement limits the proliferation of new fiber names and therefore

benefits consumers, who need only acquaint themselves with a few

generic names to understand fiber content disclosures. But at the same

time, the limitation on

[[Page 5347]]

new generic names may place manufacturers of new fibers at a

competitive disadvantage because identifying a new fiber with an

inappropriate recognized generic name may disparage the new fiber and

harm the manufacturer.

The Commission proposes to amend Rules 7 and 8 to allow the use of

new generic names for manufactured fibers if the name and fiber are

recognized by an international standards-setting organization, such as

the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) or the

International Bureau for the Standardization of Man-Made Fibers

(BISFA). Textile Rules 7 and 8 could be amended to state that if such a

body recognizes a new fiber and a new generic name, then the use of the

new generic fiber name in this country would not violate the Textile

Act and the Textile Rules. The Commission would retain its own list of

manufactured fiber names. This would allow manufacturers that use

generic names recognized by the Commission, but not recognized by ISO,

to continue to use their names. By relying on a standards-setting body,

the Commission could save the resources of duplicating the inquiry in a

proceeding under Textile Rule 8. At the same time, manufacturers could

continue to apply to the FTC for the recognition of new generic fiber

names.

The Commission seeks comment on the following proposed amendments

to Textile Rules 7 and 8. The Commission proposes to amend Rule 7 by

adding the following language at the end of the Rule, after the list of

definitions of generic names for manufactured fibers:

Sec. 303.7 Generic names and definitions for manufactured fibers.

* * * * *

(u) * * *

In addition to the above-defined names, the generic names and

their respective definitions recognized by the International

Organization for Standardization (ISO) in its International Standard

ISO 2076 are incorporated by reference into this Rule section and

are recognized as generic names and definitions for purposes of

these Rules, unless and until the Commission finds that a generic

name in such International Standard is inappropriate for use in the

United States.

The Commission proposes to amend Rule 8 to read as follows:

Sec. 303.8 Procedure for establishing generic names for

manufactured fibers.

(a) Prior to the marketing or handling of a manufactured fiber

for which no generic name has been established or otherwise

recognized by the Commission, the manufacturer or producer thereof

shall file a written application with the Commission, requesting the

establishment of a generic name for such fibers, stating therein:

* * * * *

III. Invitation To Comment and Questions for Comment

A. Invitation

Members of the public are invited to comment on any issues or

concerns they believe are relevant or appropriate to the Commission's

consideration of the proposed amendments to the Textile Rules. The

Commission requests that factual data upon which the comments are based

be submitted with the comments. In addition to the issues raised above,

the Commission solicits public comment on the specific questions

identified below. These questions are designed to assist the public and

should not be construed as a limitation on the issues on which public

comment may be submitted.

B. Questions

Use of Generic Fiber Names for Fibers with a Functional Significance

and Present in the Amount of Less Than 5% of the Total Fiber Weight of

a Textile Product

1. Should Textile Rule 3 be amended to allow manufacturers to list

the generic fiber name(s) of fiber(s) that have a functional

significance and are present in the amount of less than 5% of the

weight of the textile product, without also requiring disclosure of the

functional significance of the fiber(s)?

a. What benefits and costs to consumers and businesses would result

from such an amendment?

b. Is the proposed amendment language set out in this notice

appropriate? If not, what amendment language should be used?

Label Mechanics and Textile Rule 16(b)'s ``Fiber Content on Reverse

Side'' Disclosure Requirement

2. Should Textile Rule 16 be amended to eliminate the requirement

that the front side of a cloth label, sewn to the product so that both

sides of the label are readily accessible to the prospective purchaser,

bear the words ``Fiber Content on Reverse Side'' when the fiber content

disclosure is listed on the reverse side of the label? Is there a

continuing need for such a requirement?

3. Should Textile Rule 16 be amended to allow the required fiber

content information to appear on the reverse side of any kind of

allowable label as long as the information remains ``conspicuous and

accessible?''

a. What benefits and costs to consumers and firms would result from

each of these alternative amendments?

4. Are there any rules or regulations concerning label attachment

in Canada or Mexico that conflict with the Textile Rules? If so, what

are they, and how do they conflict?

Identification Numbers of Manufacturers or Other Responsible Parties

5. Should the Commission amend the Textile Rules to allow the

interchangeable use of RN, CA, or Mexican tax numbers?

a. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a system of shared

information?

b. Would the implementation of a system of shared information

across national borders be feasible?

c. What impact would a system of shared information have on the

ability of consumers and businesses to track responsible parties?

d. What benefits and costs to consumers and businesses would result

from such an amendment?

Fiber Identification Labeling

6. Should the Commission amend the Textile Rules to permit the

abbreviation of fiber names on fiber content identification labels?

a. What costs and benefits to consumers and businesses would accrue

from allowing the use of abbreviations for fiber content

identification?

b. Are there existing abbreviations for fibers that would clearly

convey the required fiber content identification information?

c. Is the proposed amendment language set out in this notice

appropriate? If not, what amendment language should be used?

7. Do Canadian and Mexican regulations allow the use of

abbreviations of fiber names on fiber content identification labels?

8. Do any empirical data (copy tests, etc.) exist concerning

consumer understanding of fiber name abbreviations?

9. Should the Textile Rules be amended to require that the required

disclosures be printed on labels that are permanently attached to

textile products? Should a permanent label be required only for fiber

content identification or for all three required disclosures?

Country of Origin Labeling

10. Are there existing abbreviations that would ``unmistakably

indicate the name'' of each of the NAFTA countries?

a. Do Canadian and Mexican regulations allow the use of

abbreviations for country of origin names?

[[Page 5348]]

b. Would U.S. Customs regulations pose any impediment to an

amendment of Commission rules to allow abbreviations of country names?

11. Should the Commission amend the Textile Rules to allow a symbol

to be used to mean ``made in'' or ``product of,'' or other similar

phrases, in country of origin labeling?

a. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of allowing the

use of a symbol?

b. If the Commission decides to allow the use of a symbol, which

symbol should be used?

c. What benefits and costs would allowing a symbol have for

purchasers of the products affected by the Textile Rules?

d. What actions can be taken to ensure that consumers understand

what the symbol means?

e. How would the use of a symbol work when manufacturers wish to

distinguish between the country of origin of an unfinished textile

product and the country where another phase of the manufacturing

process takes place, as in ``Made in the Dominican Republic of United

States components''?

12. How can the apparent conflict between the Commission's country

of origin labeling requirements and the new marking requirements

imposed by U.S. Customs, with regard to household furnishings and

apparel accessories, be resolved in a manner that will be consistent

with statutory requirements, provide meaningful information to

consumers, and not be burdensome to U.S. businesses?

13. Are there additional conflicts between Commission and Customs

regulations on country of origin labeling for textile products? If so,

what is the specific nature of the conflict, and how can it be resolved

in the best interests of both businesses and consumers?

Procedures for Establishing New Generic Names for Manufactured Fibers

14. Should the Commission amend the Textile Rules to allow the use

of new generic names for manufactured fibers if the name and fiber are

recognized by an international standards-setting organization?

a. If the Commission decided to amend the Textile Rules in this

manner, what international standards-setting organization(s) should the

Commission follow?

b. Is the proposed amendment language set out in this Notice

appropriate? If not, what amendment language should be used?

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-11, requires an

analysis of the anticipated impact of the proposed amendments to the

Textile Rules on small businesses. The analysis must contain, as

applicable, a description of the reasons why action is being

considered, the objectives of and legal basis for the proposed actions,

the class and number of small entities affected, the projected

reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements being

proposed, any existing federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or

conflict with the proposed actions, and any significant alternatives to

the proposed actions that accomplish their objectives and, at the same

time, minimize their impact on small entities.

A description of the reasons why the proposed amendments are being

considered and the objectives of the proposed amendments to the Rules

have been explained elsewhere in this Notice. The proposed amendments

do not appear to have a significant economic impact on a substantial

number of small businesses. To the extent they do have an effect on

such entities, the effect should be to reduce the costs of compliance

with Textile Act requirements.

Therefore, based on available information, the Commission

certifies, pursuant to section 605 of RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, that, if the

Commission amends the Textiles Rules as proposed, that action will not

have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. To

ensure that no substantial economic impact is being overlooked,

however, the Commission requests comments on this issue. After

reviewing any comments received, the Commission will determine whether

it is necessary to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Textile Rules contain various collection of information

requirements for which the Commission has current clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., pursuant to

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 3084-0101.

In addition, the amendments proposed in this notice would lower the

paperwork burden associated with the current Rules. The proposed

amendments would eliminate the functional significance disclosure

requirement of Rule 3(b) and the ``Fiber Content on Reverse Side''

disclosure requirement of Rule 16(b). They would allow abbreviations

for generic fiber names and the use of new generic names for

manufactured fibers if the name and fiber are recognized by an

international standards-setting organization.

VI. Additional Information for Interested Persons

A. Motions or Petitions

Any motions or petitions in connection with this proceeding must be

filed with the Secretary of the Commission.

B. Communications by Outside Parties to Commissioners or Their Advisors

Pursuant to Rule 1.18(c) of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16

CFR 1.18(c), communications with respect to the merits of this

proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's

advisor during the course of this rulemaking shall be subject to the

following treatment. Written communications, including written

communications from members of Congress, shall be forwarded promptly to

the Secretary for placement on the public record. Oral communications,

not including oral communications from members of Congress, are

permitted only when such oral communications are transcribed verbatim

or summarized at the discretion of the Commissioner or Commissioner's

advisor to whom such oral communications are made, and are promptly

placed on the public record, together with any written communications

relating to such oral communications. Memoranda prepared by a

Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor setting forth the contents of

any oral communications from members of Congress shall be placed

promptly on the public record. If the communication with a member of

Congress is transcribed verbatim or summarized, the transcript or

summary will be placed promptly on the public record.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 303

Textile fiber products identification; Trade practices.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 70 et seq.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96-2935 Filed 2-9-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-P