Concerning Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods; Conditional Exemption From Terminology Section of the Care Labeling Rule

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (the ``Commission'') has reviewed

the 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'') and has

decided to adopt the conditional exemption. The conditional exemption

will permit the use of the system of care symbols developed by the

American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') and designated as

ASTM Standard D5489-96c Guide to Care Symbols for Care Instructions on

Consumer Textile Products, in lieu of words on the permanently attached

care label, as long as explanatory information is provided to consumers

for the first 18-month period after the effective date of the

conditional exemption. The Commission seeks comments on the minor

changes made in ASTM D5489 since the Commission last sought comment in

November 1995.

DATES: This conditional exemption is effective July 1, 1997. The

incorporation by reference of the ASTM standard is approved by the

Director of the Federal Register effective July 1, 1997. Comments must

be received by March 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Secretary, Room 159, Federal Trade

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20580. Comments should be identified as

``16 CFR Part 423--Comment.'' Copies of this notice can be obtained

through the Public Reference Branch, Room 130, Federal Trade

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20580; (202) 326-2222; or through the

Commission's homepage on the World Wide Web at http://www.ftc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Vecellio or Edwin

Rodriguez, Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580,

(202) 326-2966 or (202) 326-3147.

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.\1\ On November 16, 1995, the

Commission published a FRN, 60 FR 57552, announcing that the Commission

had tentatively determined to adopt a proposed conditional exemption to

the Care Labeling Rule to permit the use of certain care symbols in

lieu of words on the permanently attached care label.\2\ The Notice

sought additional comment on the specifies of the proposal.

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

\1\ 59 FR 30733 (June 15, 1994). This notice sought comment

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

regulatory and economic impact as part of the Commission's

systematic review of all its current rules and guides. This notice

also sought comment on the use of symbols in lieu of words on care

labels and on certain other issues.

\2\ On December 28, 1995, the Commission published a notice, 60

FR 67102, seeking comment on other parts of the Rule and other

proposed changes. The issues raised in the December 1995 notice will

be addressed in a separate FRN at a later time.

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

In particular, the November 1995 FRN stated that the Commission had

tentatively decided to allow the use of the system of care symbols

developed by ASTM and designated as ASTM Standard D5489 Guide to

Symbols for Care Instructions on Consumer Textile Products, with one

exception and addition.\3\ Certain other modifications to that system

were under consideration by ASTM at the time the FRN was published. The

FRN described these possible modifications and sought comment on

them.\4\ In the FRN, the Commission noted that the proposed changes

appeared to be useful, and, if these changes were adopted by ASTM, the

Commission proposed adopting the ASTM system with those changes. These

changes were adopted by ASTM, and were reflected in the standard

designated ASTM Standard D5489-96a.\5\ Certain additional minor changes

were made later in 1996, and these changes are embodied in the final

standard designated ASTM Standard D5489-96c.\6\

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

\3\ The Commission note that the ASTM ``do not bleach'' symbol

(an empty triangle with an ``X'' through it) had a different meaning

in Mexico. To avoid this conflict, the Commission tentatively

decided to accept ASTM Standard D5489-93 with the exception of this

`'do not bleach'' symbol and the addition of a shaded triangle with

an ``X'' through it. The exception is no longer necessary because

ASTM deleted the empty triangle with an ``X'' through it. Although

ASTM replaced it with a shaded triangle with an ``X'' through it,

ASTM subsequently changed the ``do not bleach'' symbol again as

discussed in part III.A.1.a. of this Notice infra.

\4\ These changes are described in part III.A.1.a. of this

Notice infra.

\5\ The version of ASTM Standard D5489 discussed in the November

1995 FRN was adopted by ASTM in 1993 and officially referred to as

ASTM Standard D5489-93. When ASTM changes a standard, the suffix is

changed to reflect the year of the revision. Thus, when Standard

D5489 was revised in early 1996, it was referred to as ASTM Standard

D5489-96a.

\6\ These minor changes are also described in parts III.A.1.a.

and b. of this Notice infra.

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

After reviewing the 39 public comments that were submitted \7\

concerning the proposed conditional exemption, the Commission has now

decided to adopt the exemption and to allow the use of the symbol

system designated as ASTM Standard D5489-96c.

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

\7\ The commenters included consumers; public interest-related

groups; fiber, textile, or apparel manufacturers, importers or

sellers (or conglomerates); a federal government agency; textile and

clothing educators; fiber, textile, or apparel manufacturers,

importers or retailers trade associations, including two

associations from foreign countries; one textile printing company;

four label manufacturers; one association representing the leather

apparel industry; one supplier of leather cleaning products and

equipment; one Committee formed by industry members from the

countries signatory to NAFTA; one appliance manufacturers trade

association; two standards-related organizations; and three

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.

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

II. Background

The Care Labeling 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

[[Page 5725]]

fulfill the requirements of this regulation.'' (Emphasis added).

The FRN the Commission published on June 15, 1994 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.'' Based on the comments submitted in

response to that notice, the Commission decided to give further

consideration to the use of symbols. In a FRN published on November 16,

1995, the Commission proposed a conditional exemption to the

``Terminology'' section of the Rule to allow the use of care symbols

without language. The Commission proposed that, for a 12 month period,

care labels with information conveyed only in symbols must be

accompanied by hangtags explaining the meaning of the symbols.

The Commission examined two existing symbol systems--the system of

care symbols developed by the International Association for Textile

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

Organization for Standardization (``ISO'') as International Standard

3758, and the system of care symbols developed by ASTM and designated

as ASTM Standard D5489-93--to identify which conveys all or most of the

information required by the Rule and meets other important criteria.\8\

The Commission concluded that ASTM Standard D5489 provided symbols

relating to the information required by the Rule and that it best met

the needs of consumers and industry. The Commission also concluded that

the ASTM system was compatible with the care symbol systems used in

Canada and Mexico, and that any difference among the symbol systems

used in these countries did not pose insurmountable problems.

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

\8\ The ASTM and Ginetex systems use the same five basic

symbols: 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 drycleaning. An ``X'' cancelling out the symbol warns

against using the designated cleaning technique, e.g., ``do not

dryclean.'' The differences in the systems consist in the manner in

which refinements to the basic processes are conveyed (or are not

conveyed).

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

The Commission determined that the use of ISO Standard 3758 was not

appropriate for the United States for three reasons. The Commission

concluded that the ISO/Ginetex system does not provide symbols for some

of the basic information required by the Rule and, therefore, cannot

convey all the information that the Commission has found to be

necessary to prevent the unfair and deceptive practices that the Rule

was designed to prevent.\9\ The Ginetex system also assumes that

washing machines have internal mechanisms for heating water to a

precise temperature, and it links symbols for cool-down rinse, reduced

spin, and reduced mechanical action to precise temperature settings. In

addition, it includes only normal and low temperature ranges for tumble

drying. Both of these aspects of the Ginetex system are inconsistent

with the technology of laundry equipment used in the United States. The

Commission also determined that Ginetex's assertion of trademark rights

relating to the ISO/Ginetex symbols weighed against adoption of that

system.

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

\9\ The Commission noted that the ISO/Ginetex system has no

symbols for natural drying, the use of non-chlorine bleach, or the

use of steam in ironing, which are care practices addressed by the

Rule. The Commission also noted that the ISO/Ginetex system's symbol

for drycleaning does not address all the warnings required by the

Rule for drycleaning. In the Ginetex system, an underlined circle

warns professional drycleaners generally about potential harm from

``mechanical action and/or drying temperature and/or water addition

in the solvent.'' But the ISO/Ginetex system does not have a method

for providing warnings about which specific parts of the drycleaning

process should be avoided as required by Section 423.6(b)(2)(ii) of

the Rule. Ginetex (14) stated at p.3 that a symbol that provides

warnings about all potential problems would be very complicated and

difficult to understand and that professional cleaners should know

what drycleaning process is required depending on the textile

article. But this position shifts the burden from the manufacturer

or importer subject to the Rule to the cleaner. In adopting the

Rule, the Commission determined that the manufacturer or importer

was in the best position to obtain information about the components

of a garment and how the garment should be cleaned.

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

III. Analysis of Comments

The Commission received 39 comments in response to the November 16,

1995 FRN. These comments overwhelmingly support allowing the voluntary

use of a system of symbols without language to communicate care

instructions.\10\ Only two comments opposed the voluntary use of

symbols without language.\11\

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

\10\ H.H. Cutler (1) p.1; Salant Corporation (2) p.1; Ardis W.

Koester (3) p.1; National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers (4)

p.1; Kirk's Suede-Life, Inc. (5); Consumers Union (7) p.1; Supreme

International (8) p.1; Host Apparel, Inc. (9) p.1; Cranston Print

Works Company (10) p.1; United States Association of Importers of

Textiles and Apparel (11) p.2; Leather Apparel Association, Inc.

(12); American Textile Manufacturers Institute (13) p.1;

International Association for Textile Care Labeling (14) p.1;

American Apparel Manufacturers Association (15) p.1; Trilateral

Labeling Committee (16) p.2; Paxar Corporation (17) p.1; Robert D.

Stiehler (18) p.1; Italian Federation of Associations of Textile and

Clothing Industries (19) p.2; National Knitwear & Sportswear

Association (20) p.1; Warnaco, Inc. (21) p.1; International

Fabricare Institute (22) p.1; Springs Industries, Inc. (23) p.1;

Scott Tag & Label Co., Inc. (25) p.1; Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc. (26)

p.1; National Cotton Council of America (27) p.1; United States

Environmental Protection Agency (28) p.1; Association of Home

Appliance Manufacturers (29) p.1, 2; Pittsfield Weaving Co., Inc.

(30) p.1; Proctor & Gamble (31) p.1; Labelize, Inc. (32) p.1; The

European Apparel and Textile Organization (33) p.1; Jo Ann Pullen

(34) p.1; Industry Canada (35) p.1; ASTM Subcommittee D13.62 on Care

Labeling (36) p.1; American Association of Family and Consumer

Sciences (37) p.1; Embassy of Switzerland (38) p.1; European

Commission, Directorate A (Industrial Policy) (39) p.1.

\11\ Sheila Settles (6) p.1; Harriet Nelson (24) p.1.

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

Some comments noted the need for additional symbols not found in

either of the symbol systems that were considered. Kirk's and Leather

stated there was a need for symbols for the care of leather wearing

apparel.\12\ The Care Labeling Rule, however, applies to textile

wearing apparel and certain piece goods. In the FRN published in

December 1995, the Commission rejected a proposal to expand the

coverage of the Rule to garments made completely of leather. 60 FR

67103 n.3 (Dec. 28, 1995). EPA noted the need for a symbol for

professional wet cleaning.\13\ In a separate proceeding, however, the

Commission is considering whether to initiate a rulemaking to amend the

Rule specifically to include professional wet cleaning. See 60 FR 67103

(Dec. 28, 1995). If the Commission later determines to amend the Rule

to encompass professional wet cleaning, it may be appropriate to amend

the conditional exemption to add a symbol for professional wet

cleaning.

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

\12\ Comments 5 and 12, respectively.

\13\ Comment 28, p.1.

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

A. Comments Addressing Most Appropriate Symbols System

1. The ASTM System

Seventeen comments support the use of the ASTM system of care

symbols.\14\ One comment, however, expressed concern about the

procedures for amending the ASTM system: that ASTM will only review

ASTM Standard D5489 every five years, and that, as a private party,

ASTM may not respond to requests from the public regarding changes to

the symbol system.\15\ ASTM, however, can amend a standard at any time,

not merely every five years, and it has already made changes to ASTM

[[Page 5726]]

Standard D5489 at the request of interested parties. Moreover, the

Commission notes that the Commission itself must authorize changes to

whatever system of symbols the Commission allows. In addition, the

public may, at any time, file a petition with the Commission seeking to

change the conditional exemption, and, if necessary, the Commission can

adopt exceptions and additions to the ASTM system for the purposes of

this Rule.

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

\14\ Cutler (1) p.1; Koester (3) p.1; NAHM (4) p.1; ATMI (13)

p.1; AAMA (15) p.2; TLC (16) p.2; Stiehler (18) p.1; NKSA (20) p.1;

IFI (22) p.1; Springs (23) p.1; Fieldcrest (26) p.1; NCCA (27) p.1;

AHAM (29) p.1; Pittsfield (30) p.1; P&G (31) p.2; Pullen (34) p.1;

ASTM (36) p.1. The comments stated that the ASTM system is more

comprehensive, more consistent with American technology, and more

flexible and easily amended than the Ginetex system. See NAHM (4)

p.1; Pullen (34) p.1, 5.

\15\ P&G (31) p.2.

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

a. Changes Affecting the Manner in Which the ASTM Symbol System May Be

Used To Comply With the Rule

The November 1995 FRN described a specific version of the ASTM

system--ASTM Standard D5489-1993--and minor modifications that were

being considered by ASTM to that system.\16\ The FRN sought comment on

these changes, which have already been made by ASTM.

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

\16\ These modifications were discussed in note 45 in the

November 1995 FRN. They are: (1) 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)]; and,

(2) a change to the refinements to the drycleaning symbol (a circle)

so that lines indicating refinements to dryccleaning 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, which avoids conflict with

the symbol for machine drying (a circle in a square).

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

Only Industry Canada addressed the proposed changes. Industry

Canada stated that, for clarity, the proposed new symbol for ``tumble

dry, no heat (air only)'' should be an empty circle rather than a

blacked-in circle.\17\ The Commission believes, however, that clarity

is enhanced by the use of the blacked-in circle, as originally

proposed. In addition, Industry Canada's suggested change would not

improve harmonization with the Canadian system, which requires that the

tumble dry symbol be either green [to indicate normal heat] or yellow

[to indicate low heat]. Industry Canada also opposed having a symbol

that means ``any heat,'' stating that it believes a temperature should

be given for tumble drying.\18\ The Rule, however, allows manufacturers

who are conveying instructions in words to omit a temperature

instruction for drying if the hottest temperature for drying would not

harm the garment; the symbol for ``tumble dry, any heat'' is thus

consistent with the Rule.

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

\17\ Comment 35 p.4-5.

\18\ Comment 35 p.6.

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

Industry Canada also suggested a change to the ASTM ``do not

bleach'' symbol. ASTM previously changed the ``do not bleach'' symbol

from an empty triangle with an ``X'' through it to a shaded triangle

with an ``X'' through it to prevent confusion with other systems.\19\

Industry Canada pointed out that confusion might nevertheless result

because consumers may interpret the revised symbol as meaning ``do not

use non-chlorine bleach'' rather than do not use any bleach.'' \20\

This concern was addressed by ASTM, which changed the ``do not bleach''

symbol to a blacked-in triangle with an ``X'' through it to make clear

that no bleach, whether chlorine or non-chlorine, should be used. The

Commission welcomes public comment on this change and on the other

minor modifications discussed below.

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

\19\ See n.3 supra.

\20\ Comment 35 at p.5.

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

Many changes made by ASTM to Standard D5489 solve harmonization

problems that were raised by commenters. The European Commission

commented that water temperature indications in words--such as ``very

hot,'' ``warm,'' and ``cool/cold,''--may be linked to different

specific temperatures in different countries.\21\ Industry Canada also

noted this problem, and pointed out that in the Canadian system

``warm'' is defined as 50 degrees Centigrade, whereas in the United

States ``warm'' is defined as a maximum of 43 degrees Centigrade.\22\

ASTM has changed ASTM Standard D5489 by deleting the water temperature

word indicators in its explanatory chart. Thus, a consumer consulting

the ASTM chart to find the meaning of one, two, or three dots, in the

wash tub would be told the temperatures in Centigrade and Fahrenheit

that correspond to one, two, or three dots rather than ``cool,''

``warm'' or ``hot.'' This change in the ASTM chart solves the problem

of, for example, a Canadian consumer interpreting warm to mean 50

degrees Centigrade.\23\

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

\21\ Comment 39 p.2. The comment, which was from the European

Commission, Directorate A (Industrial Policy), Unit III A/1

(International Technology and Industrial Relations) responded to the

November 16, 1995 FRN, described above, and to the December 28, 1995

FRN, which addressed certain other issues about the Care Labeling

Rule, including definitions of temperatures. The comment was

numbered comment 39 in response to the November 1995 notice.

\22\ Comment 35 p.6; Care Labeling Rule Appendix A.1.b.

\23\ The ISO/Ginetex system used in Europe conveys temperature

for wash water by means of a specific centigrade temperature in the

washtub (e.g., 50 C). ASTM system allows temperature for wash water

to be conveyed by one, two, or three dots; the Centigrade

temperature can also be placed in the washtub. The dots were

originally also defined as cool, warm, and hot, with a specific

temperature range (identical to that in the Appendix to the Care

Labeling Rule) to precisely define those terms. However, as noted

above, ASTM deleted the word indicators from its explanatory chart

because of conflicting definitions of those terms in different

countries.

ASTM also changed the definition of ``one dot'' from the

definition in the Appendix to the Care Labeling Rule (a maximum of

85 Fahrenheit, with no minimum) to a range from 65 to 85 degrees

Fahrenheit. The reason given for this change was to educate

consumers that detergents ``are not effective at lower

temperatures.'' ASTM Standard D5489-96c Note 5. In the advance

notice of proposed rulemaking published on December 28, 1995 (60 FR

67102, 67103), the Commission noted that changes in the definitions

of water temperature for ``cold,'' ``warm,'' and ``hot'' water may

be necessary. The Commission will address this issue in a notice in

a separate issue of the Federal Register.

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

The Commission notes that this change in the ASTM explanatory chart

may mean that the chart does not communicate adequate information about

temperature settings on washing machines to American consumers.

Commission staff, industry members, and others, however, are

coordinating a major educational campaign designed to educate consumers

about the care symbols, and materials distributed through that campaign

will explain the correlation of the temperature dot system to dial

selections on washing and drying machines. Moreover, the conditional

exemption requires that, for the first 18 months after the effective

date of the conditional exemption, explanatory material ``decoding''

the care symbols used on a care label must be provided to the consumer

purchasing the garment. If a ``machine wash'' symbol is used with a

temperature indication (e.g., one dot for cold), the explanatory

material provided to the consumer would have to explain what washing

machine cycle should be selected.\24\

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

\24\ American washing machines set on ``cool'' may deliver water

below 65 Fahrenheit in the winter in many parts of the United

States; as noted above, the Commission will address the issue of

whether the definition of cold water in the Appendix to the Care

Labeling Rule needs to be revised in a later Federal Register

Notice. Under the current provisions of the Rule, there is no

requirement that consumers be advised that the cold water they use

should not be below 65 Fahrenheit. However, the ASTM system

encourages informing consumers that detergents are not effective at

lower temperatures, and the Rule would not prohibit any such

truthful information.

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

Other recent ASTM changes simply clarify that the symbols used in

the Canadian system of care symbols for a washtub and an iron are

acceptable although they differ slightly in shape from the ASTM

symbols.\25\ In addition, ASTM modified the standard so as to make

clear that instructions for ``permanent press'' or ``gentle cycle'' may

be reported in symbols (i.e.,

[[Page 5727]]

underlining the washtub) or words on a label with the symbolic

instructions for machine wash or machine dry. This option can be used

by garment manufacturers who believe that the underlining might be

confusing, especially to Canadian or Mexican consumers, whose existing

symbol systems do not include underlining.

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

\25\ The ASTM Standard now specifies that it allows the use, in

addition to the ASTM symbols, of a washtub symbol without the

representation of the water wave inside the tub and an iron symbol

with a closed handle.

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

ASTM also removed the steam markings from the iron symbol and has

clarified that the iron symbol may mean ``Iron--dry or steam.'' This

makes the ASTM system more compatible with the Canadian, Mexican, and

European systems, none of which contain a separate symbol for steam

ironing. ASTM, however, also created a symbol--an iron symbol with

steam markings that have been canceled out by an ``X''--that can be

used for the warning ``do not steam.'' Finally, ASTM added a statement

to the text of the Standard explaining that ``the iron symbol may be

used with the drycleaning symbol to report how to restore the item by

ironing after wearing.''

b. Other Changes

Other recent ASTM changes relate to changes in the Standard that

are not an integral part of the symbol system (e.g., the Table of

Additional Words to Use with Care Symbols) or that involve additions

to, or linguistic changes in, the explanatory text of the Standard or

the text appearing under the symbols in the explanatory chart. These

changes help explain the system but do not change its use. In addition,

one change relates to the order in which the symbols should be used.

This change is not relevant to the use of the ASTM system to fulfill

the requirements of the Care Labeling Rule because the Rule does not

require that instructions appear in any particular order (though of

course they must be intelligible).

Finally, several changes relate to safety concerns raised by

commenters. ASTM revised the text in Standard D5489 that explains the

meaning of dots within the iron symbol to refer to maximum temperatures

for the iron heat setting rather than simply to ironing temperatures.

This at least partially addresses safety concerns raised by one

commenter.\26\ Another safety concern was raised by Industry Canada,

which commented that, at least theoretically, the symbol for hand

washing could be combined with the hottest water temperatures.\27\ ASTM

revised the text of the Standard to state that the only water

temperatures that may be used with the hand washing symbol are 40 C

(105 F) or 30 C (85 F).

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

\26\ Stiehler (18) stated at p. 1 that the ASTM chart shows

three iron symbols with indications for the use of steam at 200,

150, or 110 degrees Celsius and expressed the concern that the use

of steam at these temperatures could be dangerous.

\27\ Comment 35 p. 6.

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

2. The Ginetex/ISO System

Six comments stated that the Commission should adopt the Ginetex

care symbol system to harmonize with the system used in Europe.\28\ Two

comments recommended either that the Commission allow ``the use of

GINETEX symbols supplemented by ASTM symbols for those care labeling

elements required by the FTC but not conveyed by Ginetex symbols'' \29\

or allow the use of either the ASTM or the GINETEX systems until there

is a consensus on an international system.\30\

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

\28\ Cranston (10) p. 4; GINETEX (14) p. 5; FEDERTESSILE (19) p.

1-2; EURATEX (33) p. 1; Switzerland (38) p. 1-2; European Commission

(39) p. 1-2. These comments noted that if the U.S. adopts the ASTM

system, European Community manufacturers will be obliged to continue

to use different care labels for goods intended for export to the

U.S. and U.S. manufacturers would have to do the same for goods

destined for export to Europe, which would diminish the utility of

symbols.

\29\ Warnaco (21) p. 2.

\30\ USA-ITA (11) p. 2. However, the Commission has concluded

that allowing the use of both systems at the same time in the United

States would result in the inconsistent use of symbols by

manufacturers and confusion on the part of consumers.

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

Some comments also noted that trademark issues should not prevent

the Commission from adopting the GINETEX system, but should become the

focus of investigation and consultation.\31\ One comment indicated that

country-specific royalty waivers may be a possibility.\32\ Despite this

possibility, the Commission continues to have concerns about Ginetex's

assertion of trademark rights over the ISO/Ginetex system.

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

\31\ FEDERTESSILE (19) p. 2, 3; Warnaco (21) p. 2; EURATEX (33)

p. 2.

\32\ Warnaco (21) p. 2.

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

After reviewing the comments, the Commission reaffirms its

conclusion that the use of the ISO standard 3758 is not appropriate for

the United States at this time.\33\ The Commission's concerns with the

comprehensiveness of the ISO/Ginetex system, with the system's

inconsistency with U.S. technology, and with trademark issues have not

been adequately resolved. The Commission therefore has decided to adopt

the ASTM Standard D5489-96c system of care symbols for the conditional

exemption. The Commission agrees, however, that harmonization of the

symbol system adopted in the United States with the system used in

Europe is very important. The Commission is aware that representatives

of ASTM and Ginetex have been discussing harmonization of the two

systems, and a Commission representative has attended ISO and Ginetex

meetings. The Commission intends to continue its liaison efforts with

Ginetex and ISO in an effort to promote harmonization. But, the

Commission does not believe it is necessary to wait for a consensus on

an international system before it allows the use of symbols without

words. Many countries--Canada, Mexico, and Japan, among them--allow the

use of symbols without language in the absence of an international

consensus. Efforts to harmonize the U.S. and European care symbol

systems can continue even though the Commission has decided to adopt

the ASTM system at this time.

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

\33\ Switzerland (38) at p. 2 and European Commission (39) at

pp. 1-2 stated that Article 2.4 of the Agreement on Technical

Barriers to Trade requires that technical regulations be based on

international standards and encouraged the Commission to adopt the

Ginetex/ISO standard because the adoption of a different system

could create technical barriers to trade. In the Federal Register

notice of November 16, 1995, the Commission gave careful

consideration to ISO Standard 3758, acknowledging that the Trade

Agreements Act of 1979 encourages federal agencies to use

international standards whenever possible. But the Commission also

noted that 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).

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

B. Comments Responding to Questions Posed in the FRN

The November 16, 1995 FRN included the following questions about

the possible introduction of the ASTM system in the United States:

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? Will ``excepting'' the underlining of symbols

reduce the benefit of symbols or impose costs on manufacturers?

A few comments stated that underlining (which denotes what cycle--

i.e., ``gentle'' or ``permanent press''--should be used) may be

confusing to consumers, at least initially.\34\ But most of the

comments

[[Page 5728]]

stated that the underlining of symbols will not be confusing and should

not be an exception from the ASTM system.\35\ Two comments stated that

the elimination of the underlining would decrease the specificity and

effectiveness of the symbol system.\36\ For example, eliminating the

underlining may lead some consumers to wash and dry apparel items in a

normal cycle, which could damage the items,\37\ or might require

consumers to interpret the fiber content and finish of a garment to

determine the specific cycle to use.\38\ Some comments noted that

deleting the underlining would require substituting written cycle

instructions, probably in multiple languages, increasing the label size

and imposing additional costs on manufacturers.\39\ One comment stated

that adopting a care symbol system in phases, with the basic symbols

adopted at one time and the underlining at another, may confuse

consumers.\40\

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

\34\ Koester (3) p. 1; USA-ITA (11) p.4; AAMA (15) p.2; TLC (16)

p.2; Springs (23) p.1; NCCA (27) p.1. Paxar (17) stated at p.8 that

consumers might find a color code easier to understand than

underlining. Industry Canada (35) stated at p.2 that the use of

underlining would probably confuse Canadian consumers, who would

probably find written instructions for ``Permanent Press'' or

``Delicate/Gentle'' more helpful. The Care Labeling Rule presently

allows the use of symbols and words together. The conditional

exemption does not change that aspect of the Rule. Thus, ``permanent

press'' or ``gentle cycle'' could be used with symbols, such as the

washtub or drying symbol. (As noted above, ASTM's recent revision of

Standard D5489 makes clear that these symbols can be used with

words.)

\35\ Koester (3) p.1; Cranston (10) p.2; USA-ITA (11) p.4; ATMI

(13) p.1; AAMA (15) p.2; TLC (16) p.2; IFI (22) p.2; Springs (23)

p.1; Fieldcrest (26) p.1; NCCA (27) p.1; Pittsfield (30) p.1; Pullen

(34) p.1; AAFCS (37) p.1.

\36\ Cranston (10) p.2; Pittsfield (30) p.1.

\37\ Cranston (10) p.2.

\38\ Pullen (34) p.1.

\39\ ATMI (13) p.1; Springs (23) p.1; Pittsfield (30) p.1;

Pullen (34) p.1.

\40\ AAMA (15) p.2.

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

Based on these comments, the Commission has decided to allow the

use of underlining. A comprehensive educational program, including the

use of explanatory hangtags and other materials, should convey what the

underlining means.\41\

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

\41\ Koester (3) p.1; USA-ITA (11) p.4; ATMI (13) p.1; AAMA (15)

p.2; TLC (16) p.2; IFI (22) p.2; Springs (23) p.1; NCCA (27) p.1;

Pullen (34) p.1; AAFCS (37) p.1.

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

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

or are existing requirements of legibility sufficient?

A few comments recommended that the Rule specify a point type size

for symbols \42\ in part because a legibility standard might allow

arbitrary judgment concerning what is legible and what is not.\43\ One

comment stated that care instructions often become difficult to read

after repeated cleanings and that therefore the printing used on care

labels should be large enough to remain legible through several care

cycles; \44\ specifying a minimum type size would help ensure that

symbols on both printed and woven labels remain legible after repeated

washings.\45\ A few comments stated that using 20 point type \46\ or a

symbol height of not less than 5mm \47\ would ensure legibility of the

more complex symbols, prevent eye strain and help people with less than

perfect eyesight and senior citizens. Another comment stated that,

because of the different characteristics of printed and woven labels,

care instructions on printed labels should be printed in a minimum 20

point type and instructions on woven labels should be printed in a

minimum 25 point type.\48\ One comment stated that the Commission

should work with ASTM to determine the minimum size necessary to convey

the symbols.\49\

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

\42\ Koester (3) p.1; Paxar (17) p.3; Pittsfield (30) p.1.

\43\ Paxar (17) p.14; Pittsfield (30) p.1. Paxar (17) stated at

p.4 that a legibility standard may result in problems in the

international transport of apparel.

\44\ Koester (3) p.1.

\45\ Pullen (34) p.2.

\46\ Koester (3) p.1.

\47\ Pittsfield (930) p.1; Pullen (34) p.2. Pittsfield (30)

stated at pp.1-2 that symbol size becomes critical when both dots

and a temperature designation are used inside the washtub symbol.

\48\ Paxar (17) noted at p.4 that the use of any point size less

than 25pt on woven labels would make the washing temperature and the

lines that indicate steam in the ironing symbol difficult to read.

The recommended minimum point sizes include only the basic symbols

and not any underlining of symbols. Koester (3) at p.1 stated that a

20pt type size would make temperature indications in the washtub

symbol legible, but did not distinguish between woven and printed

labels.

\49\ AHAM (20) p.1.

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

Nevertheless, many other comments stated that the existing

requirement of legibility is sufficient and that the Commission should

not specify the minimum size of the symbols.\50\ The GINETEX system

does not require a minimum point size; it requires that the symbols be

legible and proportional to the size of the textile article.\51\

Industry Canada stated that Canada also follows a legibility standard

and does not specify a minimum size for symbols.\52\ A few comments

stated that the marketplace will address the needs of the consumer so

that specifying a minimum print size is not necessary.\53\ Because

different garments have different label size needs, some comments

stated that requiring a minimum point size would unnecessarily restrict

manufacturers.\54\

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

\50\ Cranston (10) p.2; USA-ITA (11) p.4; ATMI (13) p.2; AAMA

(15) p.2; TLC (16) p.2; NKSA (20) p.1; Springs (23) p.1; Fieldcrest

(26) p.2; NCCA (27) p.1; AAFCS (37) p.1.

\51\ GINETEX (14) p.4.

\52\ Comment 35 p.2.

\53\ ATMI (13) p.2; AAMA (15) p.2.

\54\ ATMI (13) p.2; Springs (23) p.1.

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

The Commission finds that the existing requirement of legibility is

sufficient and that the interim conditional exemption should not

specify a type size for symbols. The Commission has no evidence that

the existing legibility standard has caused problems with written

instructions and no evidence that the legibility standard would cause

problems with the comprehension of care symbols. The Commission agrees

that the marketplace will provide incentives for manufacturers to print

legible care symbols. In addition, the failure to provide legible

symbols would be an unfair or deceptive practice, and a violation of

the Rule for which the Commission could seek civil penalties.\55\

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

\55\ See Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the Federal Trade Commission Act,

15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A); and, the Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 423.1(a),

423.2, and 423.5.

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?

Some comments stated that requiring hangtags for at least a twelve

month period is sufficient to introduce the care symbols \56\ because

one year would insure that products with a wide range of product

distribution and life cycles would reach the market with the

explanatory labels.\57\ Other comments stated that one year is not

enough for the public to learn the symbols and get used to doing

without words.\58\ Several comments stated that explanatory hangtags

should be required for two years to help consumers learn the details of

the system, such as the underlining, and to increase the chances that

consumers who do not buy clothing frequently, such as the elderly,

would encounter the hangtags explaining the care symbols.\59\ One

comment stated that explanatory hangtags should be required for at

least five years.\60\ Other comments, while supporting the use of

hangtags did not specify a time period for their use.\61\

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

\56\ NAHM (4) p.2; Paxar (17 p.5; Warnaco (21) p.2; Pullen (34)

p.2.

\57\ ATMI (13) p.2.

\58\ Consumers Union (7) p.2; GINETEX (14) p.4; IFI (22) p.2.

\59\ Koester (3) p.1; Cranston (10) p.3; AAFCS (37) p.1.

\60\ Salant (2) p.1.

\61\ P&G (31) pp.2, 3. Consumers Union (7) stated, at p.2, that

explanatory hangtags should be used until the public is fully aware

of what the care symbols mean; the comment suggested that the

Commission conduct a poll after one year to gauge public awareness,

and issue another call for comments. Industry Canada (35) stated, at

p.3, that the adequacy of the one year period can only be assessed

in the context of the total campaign implemented to educate

consumers about the symbols.

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

[[Page 5729]]

A few comments stated that hangtags may not be the most effective

way of educating consumers in part because consumers tend to discard

hangtags after purchasing apparel.\62\ Many comments suggested that the

Commission condition the use of symbols on the provision of explanatory

information without specifying the means by which that information

should be conveyed, to allow for the use of stickers, ultrasound and

thermal labeling, and other labeling methods that are appropriate for

different products.\63\ One comment noted, for example, that the use of

hangtags on packaged products is not practical and may require changes

to manufacturing operations.\64\

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

\62\ Cranston (10) p.3; Pittsfield (30) p.2. FEDERTESSILE (19)

stated, at p.2, that requiring explanatory hangtags would impose

significant costs on manufacturers and that educating consumers

through media outlets and ``ad hoc activities at points of sale''

would be more appropriate and equally effective. Labelize (32) p.1

also considered requiring hangtags an unnecessary burden on

manufacturers.

\63\ USA-ITA (11) p.5; ATMI (13) p.2; AAMA (15) p.1, 3; TLC (16)

p.2; NKSA (20) p.1; Springs (23) p.1; Fieldcrest (26) p.2;

Pittsfield (30) p.2.

\64\ Springs (23) p.2.

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

After reviewing these comments, the Commission has determined that

conditioning the exemption on the provision of explanatory information

for 18 months after the effective date of the conditional exemption is

sufficient to prevent the unfair or deceptive practices to which the

Rule relates.\65\ The conditional exemption does not require that

manufacturers or importers print the whole chart on the explanatory

information provided to the consumer.\66\ The conditional exemption

does not alter the requirements of the Care Labeling Rule, and the Rule

only requires that the care instruction indicate ``what regular care is

needed for the ordinary use of the product.'' Section 423.6(b).

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

\65\ Consumers Union (7) p.1 and Paxar (17) p.1 recommended that

care labels contain a combination of words and care symbols for the

period during which explanatory information will be required because

the explanatory hangtags or other information may get lost on the

selling floor or misplaced in consumers' homes, leaving the

consumers without a guide to interpret the symbols. The Care

Labeling Rule permits the joint use of symbols and written

instructions on a care lable. The conditional exemption permits the

use of symbols alone on care labels. The decision whether to use

both words and symbols on the permanent care label during the 18

month period during which explanatory information is required has

been left to the parties subject to the Rule.

\66\ Paxar (17) at p.5 interpreted the requirement that

manufacturers or importers provide explanatory information as a

requirement that they print the whole care symbol chart.

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

In addition, the Commission has determined that limiting the

explanatory information to hangtags is not warranted because other

methods of conveying the meaning of the symbols would be equally

effective. Allowing manufacturers to determine the best way to convey

the information--whether by hangtags, stickers, or by other means--

would allow them to tailor the means of conveying the information to

the textile item and its packaging.

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?

Many comments expressed the need for and willingness to participate

in a strong, nationwide consumer education effort.\67\ The comments

emphasized the importance of coordinating consumer education efforts;

\68\ consumer education must include the participation of the textile

and apparel industries, dry-cleaning and laundering industries,

consumer groups, and the government.

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

\67\ Salant (2) p.1; Koester (3) p.2; NAHM (4) p.2; Cranston

(10) p.3; TLC (16) p.2; Paxar (17) p.1, 6, 7; Warnaco (21) p.2; IFI

(22) p.1, 2; Springs (23) p.2; Fieldcrest (26); NCCA (27) p.2: AHAM

(29) p.2; P&G (31) p.3; Pullen (34) p.2; AAFCS (37) p.1, 2.

Consumers Union (7) stated, at p.1, that it will publish an article

in Consumer Reports explaining the symbols. ATMI (13) stated, at

p.3, that it is willing to participate, by helping to plan an

educational campaign, disseminating information, compiling a media

contact list, providing limited printing services, and educating

trade associations in Canada and Mexico. GINETEX (14) stated, at

p.4, that, if the Ginetex and the ASTM systems could be harmonized

closely, a common educational campaign could be developed that would

strengthen the media impact of the new system. AAMA (15 stated, at

p.3, that two of its members desired to know the scope and cost of

an educational campaign before they would be willing to endorse it.

Paxar stated, at p.7, that it intends ``to conduct extensive

educational programs through print, electronic and other means of

distribution.'' NKSA (20) stated at p.1 that it ``will assist in

developing and promoting such a consumer information effort through

our Association's normal publications, including the Knitting

Times.'' AAFCS stated at p.1 that ``[b]ecause of their expertise in

both the areas of textiles and education, AAFCS members should be

enlisted to provide nation-wide educational programs * * *. Members

of AAFCS can be of great assistance in educating the public through

the communications channels they already have in place.''

\68\ Paxar (17) p.6; AHAM (29) p.2; Industry Canada (35) p.3.

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

The comments suggested many specific consumer education

initiatives. Many comments suggested that home laundering equipment

manufacturers include the symbol chart on new equipment and in

instruction packages.\69\ Laundry detergent manufacturers could also

print the symbol charts on laundry detergent containers.\70\ A few

comments focused on the importance of home economics extension programs

and other school programs in educating consumers with the help of

training materials provided by apparel, equipment, and detergent

manufacturers.\71\ Many comments stated that clothing retailers and

cleaners can display and distribute educational information and can

educate their employees to answer consumer questions about caring for

clothing. Two comments recommended posting the care symbol chart at

laundromats and apartment laundry rooms.\72\

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

\69\ Koester (3) p.2; USA-ITA (11) p.5; Springs (23) p.2;

Pittsfield (30) p.2. AHAM (29) stated at p.1 that ``AHAM members

likely will use ASTM-devised care symbols with equipment use and

care booklets and on the actual washer and dryer equipment.'' AHAM

also stated at pp.1-2 that iron manufacturers might place the care

symbols on iron control dials so that consumers can refer to them to

interpret the meaning of the ironing care symbols on garments; AHAM

urged the Commission to consider the value of this measure.

\70\ Koester (3) p.2; Consumers Union (7) p.1; Cranston (10)

p.3; USA-ITA (11) p.5; Springs (23) p.2; Pittsfield (30) p.2. ATMI

(13) suggested, at p.3, that home laundering product manufacturers

provide stickers of the chart, so that consumers can place the chart

on or near laundering appliances.

\71\ Koseter (3) p.2; ATMI (13) p.3; AAFCS (37) p.1. P&G (31)

stated at p.3 that it has educated consumers on proper garment care

through toll free 1-800 numbers and by providing publications to

home economics teachers.

\72\ Koester (3) p.2; ATMI (13) p.3.

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

The Commission agrees that a strong consumer education campaign

will be necessary to educate consumers about the meaning of the

symbols, and intends to work with all interested parties to plan and

coordinate an educational campaign. The Commission's staff will contact

all commenters (and any other relevant groups and associations) in the

near future to announce a public meeting to coordinate an educational

campaign.\73\

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

\73\ Parties who would like to participate in such a meeting but

who have not submitted comments on the Rule in the past two years

should contact staff listed in the information section of this

Notice to receive information about the meeting.

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

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

should it become effective?

Numerous comments stated that the conditional exemption should not

become effective until interested parties have had the opportunity to

prepare a consumer education campaign.\74\ Several comments stated that

it would take about 6 to 8 months to prepare explanatory labels and

approximately six months to one year for manufacturers to dispose of

existing inventory and to start affixing hangtags to apparel.\75\

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

\74\ Cranston (10) p.3; ATMI (13) p.4; Paxar (17) p.6; IFI (22)

p.2; Springs (23) p.2.

\75\ ATMI (13) p.2-3; AAMA (15) p.3; Paxar (17) p.5, 6; IFI (22)

p.2. Koester (3) at p.3 recommended that the exemption not become

effective until 1\1/2\ years after the exemption is adopted to allow

time for educators and manufacturers to prepare themselves. USA-ITA

(11) stated at p.5 that its members indicated that it would not take

longer than eight months to prepare explanatory labels. Industry

Canada (35) stated at p.3 that conversion to the use of symbols may

take several clothing seasons because manufacturers consider their

existing label stock and the capacities of their printing equipment

before they convert.

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

[[Page 5730]]

A few comments noted that the conditional exemption does not impose

any new labeling requirements and provides for the voluntary, not

mandatory, use of care symbols, and that, therefore, the effective date

of the exemption is important only in terms of the requirement that

manufacturers and importers provide explanatory information for a

certain period.\76\ The Commission finds that approximately six months

will be sufficient to allow manufacturers to prepare explanatory labels

and to allow the coordination of a consumer education campaign. The

Commission has therefore decided that the conditional exemption will

become effective July 1, 1997.

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

\76\ Pittsfield (30) p. 2; Industry Canada (35) p. 3.

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

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

system?

A few comments stated that ASTM's copyright could pose problems to

using the ASTM symbols if, for example, ASTM requires a reference to

the copyright on clothing labels or hangtags or if it insists on

royalty payments.\77\ One comment stated that the utility of a symbol-

based system would be reduced if Condition #2 of the Conditions for

Republishing the ASTM Standard Care Symbol Chart \78\ requires an ASTM

credit line even when the entire chart is not used; however, the

comment assumed correctly that no obligation to credit ASTM exists if

the entire ASTM chart is not copied.\79\ The same comment correctly

assumed that Condition #3, which permits duplication of the ASTM chart

royalty-free when the chart is affixed to goods, would also allow the

duplication of the chart royalty-free for consumer education programs

even though the chart is not attached to goods.\80\

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

\77\ Cranston (10) p. 4; AHAM (29) p. 2.

\78\ See Conditions for Republishing the ASTM D5489 Care Symbol

Chart, attached to this notice.

\79\ Paxar (17) p. 7.

\80\ Paxar (17) p. 7.

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

Most comments stated that ASTM's copyright would not pose a barrier

to the use of the ASTM system.\81\ A few comments expressed the opinion

that the five basic care symbols are non-proprietary and in the public

domain and could therefore not be copyrighted or trademarked in the

U.S. and stated that ASTM's Conditions for Republishing the ASTM

Standard D5489 Care Symbol Chart adequately addresses any concerns

regarding ASTM's copyright for use of the symbol system chart.\82\

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

\81\ Koester (3) p. 3; USA-ITA (11) p. 6; AAMA (15) p. 3; TLC

(16) p. 2; IFI (22) p. 1; Springs (23) p. 2; Fieldcrest (26) p. 2;

NCCA (27) p. 2; Pittsfield (30) p. 2; Pullen (34) p. 2. Industry

Canada (35) stated at p. 4 that if Canadian manufacturers are able

to use the ASTM symbols ``license-free,'' ASTM's copyright would not

pose a problem.

\82\ ATMI (13) p. 4; Springs (23) p. 2; Fieldcrest (26) p. 2;

Pullen (34) p. 2.

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

The Commission finds that the ASTM copyright is not an impediment

to adopting the ASTM system. ASTM holds a copyright on ASTM Standard

D5489 and on the ASTM Care Symbol Chart, but not on the ASTM symbols.

Although ASTM has placed certain conditions on the use of its Care

Symbol Chart, the conditional exemption does not require the use of

ASTM's Care Symbol Chart. ASTM's Condition #1 would not allow modified

charts or symbols to be represented as the ASTM Standard, but modified

charts could be distributed under some other title, thus avoiding the

credit line requirement of ASTM's Condition #2. In the event that

manufacturers, or others, wish to use ASTM's chart, they must comply

with its conditions. But the Commission does not believe that those

conditions pose an impediment to adopting the system.

IV. Summary of Commission's Decision

Section 18(g)(2) of the Federal Trade Commission 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

Commission now finds that the provision presently found in the

Terminology section of the Care Labeling Rule, that appropriate care

symbols may be used on care labels or care instructions only in

addition to the required appropriate terms, is not necessary to prevent

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

Specifically, the Commission exempts manufacturers and importers of

textile wearing apparel who use the system of care symbols designated

ASTM Standard D5489-96c from the requirement that written care

instructions accompany care instructions in symbols. The Commission has

not specified a type size for the symbols, but they must be legible.

The exemption is adopted on the condition that the parties subject to

the Rule provide explanatory information with any garment offered for

sale in the period from July 1, 1997 to December 31, 1998 to consumers

regarding the meaning of the care symbols that appear on the label of

that garment. To implement this conditional exemption, the Commission

revises Sections 423.2 and 423.8, the Terminology and Exemptions

sections of the Rule, respectively.

The incorporation by reference of ASTM Standard D5489-96c was

approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5

U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of ASTM Standard D5489-96c

Guide to Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Consumer Textile

Products may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and

Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or may

be inspected at the Federal Trade Commission, room 130, 600

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC, or at the Office of the

Federal Register, suite 700, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC.

Pursuant to the requirements of section 18(g) of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(g), and the provisions of the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Commission published

notices requesting comment on the proposed conditional exemption on

June 15, 1994 (59 FR 30733) and November 16, 1995 (60 FR 57552). This

conditional exemption is not subject to the requirements of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, because the conditional

exemption does not create requirements for information collection;

rather, it provide an alternative method of communicating information.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 44 U.S.C. 601(2), does not apply to

this conditional exemption because, pursuant to section 18(d)(2)(B) of

the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(d)(2)(B), an exemption

to a rule under section 18(g) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15

U.S.C. 57(a)(g), shall not be treated as an amendment or repeal of a

rule. The conditional exemption will become effective on July 1, 1997.

The Commission welcomes comment on the minor changes that have been

made in ASTM D5489 since the Commission last sought comment on this

subject in November 1995. The Commission will consider further revision

of this interim conditional exemption, as appropriate. Such comments

may be filed with the Office of the Secretary until March 10, 1997.

[[Page 5731]]

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423

Labeling; Incorporation by reference; Textiles; Trade practices.

Appendix to the Preamble--Conditions for Republishing the ASTM D 5489

Care Symbol Chart

Upon written request, ASTM will grant other organizations a

royalty-free license for republication of the Care Symbol Chart

provided the following conditions are agreed to:

1. Should the chart or the symbols be modified, then they may

not be represented as being the ASTM standard.

2. The following credit line shall appear on all copies made of

the chart: ``Copyright American Society for Testing and Materials,

1916 Race St., Philadelphia, PA 19103.''

3. Copies of the chart shall not be made available for sale

except by separate license under which royalty payments to ASTM are

required. This would not apply to copies of the chart affixed to

goods such as appliances, cleaning agents, apparel, or home

furnishings which are in fact sold. In these cases the chart is

being used to convey information about the care symbol system to the

ultimate consumer.

4. The license for republishing the chart is for a specific

number of copies and for a specific period of time which is to be

agreed upon by ASTM and the licensee.

5. The original standard or original art work for the symbols,

if needed, may be purchased separately from ASTM.

6 September 1995, ASTM

Text of Amendments

Accordingly, the Commission amends 16 CFR Part 423 as follows:

PART 423--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 423 continues to read as

follows:

Authority: 38 Stat. 717, as amended; (15 U.S.C. 41, et seq.)

2. Section 423.2 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as

follows:

Sec. 423.2 Terminology

* * * * *

(b) 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. See

Sec. 423.8(g) for conditional exemption allowing the use of symbols

without terms.

* * * * *

3. Section 423.8 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as

follows:

Sec. 423.8 Exemptions

* * * * *

(g) The symbol system developed by the American Society for Testing

and Materials (ASTM) and designated as ASTM Standard D5489-96c,

Standard Guide for Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Textile

Products may be used on care labels or care instructions in lieu of

terms so long as the symbols fulfill the requirements of this

regulation. In addition, symbols from the symbol system designated as

ASTM Standard D5489-96c may be combined with terms so long as the

symbols and terms used fulfill the requirements of the regulation.

Provided, however, that for the 18-month period following the effective

date of this section, such symbols may be used on care labels in lieu

of terms only if an explanation of the meaning of the symbols used on

the care label in terms is attached to, or provided with, the item of

textile wearing apparel. This incorporation by reference was approved

by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C.

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of ASTM Standard D5489-96c, Standard

Guide for Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Textile Products may be

obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr

Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or may be inspected at the

Federal Trade Commission, room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, suite 700,

800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, DC.

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

By direction of the Commission.

Benjamin I. Berman,

Acting Secretary.

Statement of Commissioner Christine A. Varney, Conditional Exemption to

the Care Labeling Rule, December 16, 1996

I am voting today to support adopting a conditional exemption to

the Care Labeling Rule to permit the use of symbols, without

accompanying written instructions, to convey the care information

required by the Rule. We live in an increasingly global marketplace,

and, by allowing the use of symbols, the Commission has taken a

positive step towards enhancing global harmonization.

In moving toward a symbol-based system, the Commission had the

opportunity to decide which system would be permitted: the one

developed by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM),

the one adopted by the International Standards Organization (ISO),

currently in use in Europe, or a hybrid of the two. Although the two

systems are very similar, they are not identical.

The Commission adopted the ASTM system over the ISO system

because it believed ASTM was preferable for several reasons. The ISO

system is trademarked, which could require U.S. companies to pay

royalties, and the ISO system does not provide all of the

information required by the Rule. The Commission also determined

that allowing manufacturers to use either the ASTM system or the ISO

system (at the manufacturer's choice) could confuse consumers.

Although I understand the Commission's rationale for selecting

the ASTM system, I am not convinced that the differences between the

two schemes are so great that some sort of accommodation could not

have been reached. While I support the current proposal for

achieving harmony with our NAFTA partners, I nonetheless believe we

may have missed an opportunity to achieve global consistency.

I understand, however, that staff will continue to pursue

further harmonization efforts through negotiations with the

International Standards Organization. I strongly support such

efforts.

[FR Doc. 97-3048 Filed 2-5-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-M