[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 221 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57552-57558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28290]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 423
Request for Comments Concerning Trade Regulation Rule on Care
Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Request for public comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (the ``Commission'') is
requesting public comments on a proposed conditional exemption to its
Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and
Certain Piece Goods (``the Care Labeling Rule'' or ``the Rule''). The
proposed conditional exemption would permit the use of certain care
symbols in lieu of words on the permanently attached care label, as
long as hangtags with explanatory language are used for the first 12
month period of symbol use. All interested persons are hereby given
notice of the opportunity to submit written data, views and arguments
concerning this proposal.
DATES: Written comments will be accepted until January 31, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: Secretary, Federal Trade
Commission, Room H-159, Sixth and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20580. Comments about this conditional exemption to the Care
Labeling Rule should be identified as ``Conditional exemption for
symbols, 16 CFR Part 423--Comment.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Vecellio, Attorney,
Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2966.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
On June 15, 1994, the Commission published a Federal Register
notice (``FRN'') requesting comment on various aspects of the Care
Labeling Rule, including whether the Rule should be modified to permit
the use of symbols in lieu of words. The Commission has now tentatively
determined to permit the use of certain symbols, under certain
conditions, and now seeks additional comment on the specifics of the
proposal. The Commission will summarize other results of the regulatory
review it conducted in a separate notice.
II. Background
The Rule was promulgated by the Commission on December 16, 1971, 36
FR 23883 (1971), and amended on May 20, 1983, 48 FR 22733 (1983). The
Rule makes it an unfair or deceptive act or practice for manufacturers
and importers of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods to
sell these items without attaching care labels stating ``what regular
care is needed for the ordinary use of the product.'' (16 CFR 423.6(a)
and (b)) The Rule also requires that the manufacturer or importer
possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis for the care instructions.
(16 CFR 423.6(c))
The ``Terminology'' section of the Rule, 16 CFR 423.2(b), currently
requires that care instructions be stated in ``appropriate terms,''
although it also states that ``any appropriate symbols may be used on
care labels or care instructions, in addition to the required
appropriate terms so long as the terms fulfill the requirements of this
regulation.'' (Emphasis added). Although the Rule does not specifically
state that the instructions must be in English, they usually are in
English. The FRN stated that the North American Free Trade Agreement
(``NAFTA'') ``has created industry interest in being permitted to use
symbols in lieu of words to provide care instructions, and the
Commission seeks comment on the costs and benefits of such a change.''
[[Page 57553]]
The FRN included the following questions on this issue:
(7) Should the Commission amend the Rule to allow care symbols to
be used in lieu of language in care instructions? If so, is there an
existing set of care symbols that would provide all or most of the
information required by the current Rule? What are the advantages and
disadvantages of the existing systems of care symbols?
(a) In particular, what are the advantages and disadvantages of the
system of care symbols developed by the International Association for
Textile Care Labeling (``Ginetex'') and adopted by the International
Standards Organization as International Standard 3758?
(b) What are the advantages and disadvantages of the system of care
symbols developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials
(``ASTM'') and designated as ASTM D5489 Guide to Care Symbols for Care
Instructions on Consumer Textile Products?
III. Analysis of Comments
Eighty-one comments were received.\1\ Sixty-five of the comments
discussed the use of symbols in lieu of written language to communicate
care instructions; 60 of those favored the use of symbols.\2\ Five
comments opposed allowing symbols in lieu of written instructions.\3\
Most comments stated that they favored symbols because symbols would
make international trade easier.
\1\ The commenters included cleaners; consumers; public
interest-related groups; fiber, textile, or apparel manufacturers or
sellers (or conglomerates); federal government entities; fiber,
textile, or apparel manufacturers or retailers trade associations;
two label manufacturers; one cleaning products manufacturer; one
association representing the leather apparel industry; one Committee
formed by industry members from the countries signatory to NAFTA;
one appliance technician; one appliance manufacturers trade
association; two standards-setting organizations; and two
representatives from foreign nations. Each comment was assigned a
number. The first time a comment is cited it is cited by the full
name of the commenter and the assigned number; subsequently, it is
cited by the number and a shortened form of the name. The comments
are available for inspection in the Public Reference Room, Room 130,
Federal Trade Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except federal holidays.
\2\ These comments are: Benjamin Axleroad (1), Baby Togs, Inc.
(2), Judith S. Barton (7), C.M. Offray & Son, Inc. (9), The Schwab
Company (10), Fieldcrest Cannon (11), Ardis W. Koester (12),
University of Kentucky College of Agriculture (15), ASTM Committee
D-13 on Textiles (16), Pittsfield Weaving Co. (17), European Union
(GATT Secretariat) (18), Todd Uniform, Inc. (19), Acqua Clean System
(20), Woolrich, Inc. (21), The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction
Institute (23), Carter's (24), Braham Norwick (25), Oshkosh B'Gosh,
Inc. (27), Ecofranchising, Inc. (28), Consumers Union (31), Clorox
Company (32), The Warren Featherbone Company (33), Industry Canada
(37), Business Habits, Inc. (38), Clothing Manufacturers Association
of the United States of America (40), National Association of
Hosiery Manufacturers (41), Paxar Corporation (42), Jo Ann Pullen
(44), The Warren Featherbone Company (46), United States Apparel
Industry Council (47), Dan River, Inc. (48), American Fiber
Manufacturers Association, Inc. (49), The Leslie Fay Companies, Inc.
(50), Springs Industries, Inc. (51), Salant Corporation (52),
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (53), Milliken (54),
Ruff Hewn (55), American Textile Manufacturers Institute (56),
United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (57),
Authentic Fitness Corporation (60), Warnaco (61), Salant Corporation
(63), Fruit of the Loom (64), Drycleaners Environmental Legislative
Fund (65), Angelica Corporation (66), Department of the Air Force
(67), American Apparel Manufacturers Association (68), Trilateral
Labeling Committee (69), J.C. Penney (70), Liz Claiborne, Inc. (71),
Wemco, Inc. (72), Horace Small Apparel Company (74), Perry
Manufacturing Company (75), Russell Corporation (76), Oxford
Industries, Inc. (77), The GAP, Inc. (78), Haggar Apparel Company
(79), Capital Mercury Shirt Corp. (80), Bidermann Industries (81).
\3\ Evelyn Borrow (4), Margaret Tilden (13), Capital Mercury
Shirt Corp. (26), Ann Geerhart (29), and VF Corporation (36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada and Mexico currently allow the use of symbols to convey
garment care instructions. Many comments focused on trade with Mexico
and Canada, stating or implying that symbols that harmonize with those
used in Mexico and Canada would further the goals of NAFTA.\4\ Some of
these comments stated or implied that, in addition to harmony with
Canada and Mexico, whatever system is adopted should be in harmony with
the symbol system used in Europe.\5\ Other comments placed more
importance on harmony with the European system than with NAFTA.\6\
\4\ Togs (2) p.1; Offray (9) p.1; Fieldcrest (11) p.2; Koester
(12) p.2; Pittsfield (17) pp. 2-3; Mass. Toxics Reduction (23) p.2;
Carter's (24) p.1; Featherbone (33) p.2; Industry Canada (37) p.3;
Paxar (42) p.1; Featherbone (46) p.1; USAIC (47) p.2; Dan River (48)
p.1; AFMA (49) p.1; Salant (52) p.1; AHAM (53) p.2; Milliken (54)
p.2; Ruff Hewn (55) p.2; ATMI (56) p.1; USA-ITA (57) p.3; Authentic
Fitness (60) pp. 1-2; Warnaco (61) pp. 1-2; Salant (63) pp. 1-2;
Fruit (64) p.2; Angelica (66) p.6; AAMA (68) p.1; Trilateral
Committee (69) pp. 1-2; Wemco (72) p.1; Horace Small (74) p.1;
Russell (76) p.2; Oxford (77) p.1; Haggar (79) p.1; Bidermann (81)
p.1.
\5\ E.g., Fieldcrest (11) p.2; Pittsfield (17) p.3.
\6\ European Union (18) pp. 2-3; Leslie Fay (50) p.1; Gap (78)
p.4. The Ginetex/ISO system is used in Europe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some comments said there would be some initial cost to changing to
a symbol system, but they either stated or implied that the long-run
cost savings would exceed these initial ``change-over'' costs. Some
comments explained in more detail why the current Rule impedes trade
within North America. One comment stated that the requirement that care
instructions be written makes for very long labels because it ``forces
manufacturers and retailers wanting to sell products freely within the
NAFTA territory to display care instructions in English, French and
Spanish.'' \7\ Many other comments stated that the use of symbols would
cause production costs to decline because the size of labels would be
reduced and smaller labels are less expensive.\8\
\7\ Fruit (64) p.2.
\8\ Fieldcrest (11) p.2; Pittsfield (17) p.1; Mass. Toxics
Reduction (23) p.2; Carter's (24) p.1; Norwick (25) p.1; Capital
Shirt (26) p.1; Featherbone (33) p.2; VF Corp. (36) p.4; Industry
Canada (37) p.2; Paxar (42) p.1; Pullen (44) p.4; USAIC (47) p.2;
ATMI (56) p.3; USA-ITA (57) p.2; Salant (63) p.1; Fruit (64) p.2;
Air Force (67) p.2; AAMA (68) p.2; Haggar (79) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several comments noted that the use of symbols would help U.S.
consumers who cannot speak English (or whose primary language is not
English) and consumers who cannot read (or cannot read well).\9\ Some
comments noted that smaller labels may improve consumer comfort.\10\
Other comments stated that smaller labels would also make garments more
attractive.\11\ Several comments stated that savings from smaller
labels could be passed on to consumers as reductions in the cost of
apparel.\12\
\9\ Togs (2) p.1; Koester (12) p.2; Pittsfield (17) p.2; Norwick
(25) p.1; Pullen (44) p.2.
\10\ A few comments mention that some labels are scratchy and
irritate the skin. Axleroad (1) p.1; Borrow (4) p.1; Martin (8) p.1;
Pittsfield (17) p.1; Featherbone (33) p.1; Salant (63) p.1; Capital
Shirt (80) p.1.
\11\ AAMA (68) p.2.
\12\ Paxar (42) p.1, Fruit (64) p.2, Haggar (79) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many comments that favored the use of symbols emphasized that the
symbols should not be mandatory, but a voluntary option, and that the
use of written care instructions should continue to be allowed, either
as a supplement to symbols or alone.\13\ Several comments noted that
all possible care instructions cannot be conveyed by symbols; certain
special handling instructions such as ``remove promptly''; ``double
rinse for best results''; ``wash inside out''; ``wash with like
garments''; or ``wash before wearing'' will probably have to be
communicated in words.\14\ But one comment noted that ``symbols alone
could easily accommodate 75-80% of the merchandise sold.'' \15\
\13\ Oshkosh (27) p.1; USAIC (47) p.2; Springs (51) p.1; ATMI
(56) p.2; Salant (63) pp. 1-2; Fruit (64) p.2; Air Force (67) p.2;
AAMA (68) p.3; Trilateral Committee (69) p.2; Penny (70) p.2.
\14\ Fieldcrest (11) p.3; Pittsfield (17) p.1; European Union
(18) p.2, Woolrich (21) p.1, VF Corp. (36) p.4.
\15\ Penney (70) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, most of the comments state that the use of symbols would
benefit both manufacturers, by lowering production costs and increasing
exports, and consumers, by communicating care instructions clearly and
by potentially
[[Page 57554]]
decreasing garment prices. Moreover, one comment stated that it
``considers that the obligation of using mandatory language
instructions would have the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to
international trade.'' 16 Another comment stated that the
mandatory language requirement could function as a non-tariff barrier
to trade which would ``significantly impede the free flow of goods
within the NAFTA territory in direct contravention of the NAFTA.''
17
\16\ European Union (18) p.1.
\17\ Fruit (64) p.2. See also AHAM (53) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The record contains persuasive evidence indicating that allowing
care information to be conveyed by symbols would lower production costs
and would also have benefits for consumers. Moreover, the record
indicates that care symbols are used in many other countries, and
presumably the symbols communicate the information they contain to the
consumers in those countries. Nevertheless, many comments noted the
need for consumer education and expressed confidence that U.S consumers
could adapt to care symbols with appropriate education.18 Some
comments indicated that symbols should be used with words until the
U.S. population understands the symbols.19 Pittsfield, on the
other hand, argued that consumer education based on dual disclosure--
the use of symbols with accompanying written instructions on the
label--will not work, as shown by the U.S. experience with the metric
system.20
\18\ Schwab (10) p.1; Fieldcrest (11) pp. 2-3; ASTM (16) p.8;
Pittsfield (17) p.1; Woolrich (21) p.1; Carter's (24) p.2; Consumers
Union (31) p.1; Clorox (32) p.4; Business Habits (38) p.4; Pullen
(44) p.4; AHAM (53) p.2; Fruit (64) p.3; AAMA (68) p.3. Some
comments stated that symbols should not replace words until a
consumer education program has become effective. Consumers Union
(31) p.1; VF Corp. (36) p.4; Gap (78) p.3. However, consumers do not
need to memorize the symbols if they have ``decoding'' charts they
can place in their laundry rooms and if such ``decoding'' charts, or
hangtags, are available in retail stores.
\19\ Consumers Union (31) p.1; Gap (78) p.3.
\20\ Comment 17, p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 18(g)(2)of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(d)(2)(B), provides
that ``[i]f * * * the Commission finds that the application of a rule
prescribed under subsection (a)(1)(B) to any person or class of persons
is not necessary to prevent the unfair or deceptive act or practice to
which the rule relates, the Commission may exempt such person or class
from all or part of such rule.'' The record indicates that care
information can be conveyed by means of symbols, but it also indicates
that American consumers need to be educated--or to be provided with
``decoding'' charts or hangtags--in order to learn to use a particular
symbol system. Consequently the Commission proposes to grant a
conditional exemption from the ``Terminology'' section of the Care
Labeling Rule. However, for the reasons discussed above, the Commission
proposes that the conditional exemption state that care labels that use
symbols instead of language to convey information must be accompanied
by hangtags explaining the meaning of the symbols. If the symbols on
the label are accompanied by explanatory hangtags, then an exemption
from the requirement that words be used on the label is appropriate
because words on the label are not necessary to ``prevent the unfair or
deceptive act or practice to which the rule relates.''
IV. Symbol Systems That Were Considered
The Commission examined two existing symbol systems--the Ginetex
system and the ASTM system--to identify which conveys all or most of
the information the Rule requires to be conveyed and meets other
important criteria. As explained below, the ASTM system best meets the
needs of consumers and industry at the present time.
A. ISO/Ginetex System
Because the Ginetex system has been adopted by the International
Standards Organization (``ISO'') as International Standard 3758,21
the Commission gave careful consideration to this system.22
However, the ISO/Ginetex system does not provide symbols for some of
the basic information the Rule requires to be conveyed. For example, if
chlorine bleach would harm a product but non-chlorine bleach would not,
section 423.6(b)(1)(iv) of the Rule requires that the label contain a
warning such as ``only non-chlorine bleach when needed.'' However, the
ISO/Ginetex system contains no symbol for non-chlorine bleach.23
Further, the system's symbols for reduced spin and reduced mechanical
action, required under section 423.(b)(1)(v) [``Warnings''] of the
Rule, are linked to temperature.24 (ISO standard 3759 Table 1).
This linkage is inconsistent with the technology of American
washers.25 Its temperature ranges for tumble drying (normal and
low--ISO standard 3759 Table 5) are also inconsistent with American
technology.26 It has no symbols for natural drying, or the use of
steam in ironing, which are care practices addressed by the
Rule.27
\21\ Ginetex (Groupement International d'Etiquetage pour
l'Entretien des Textiles, or International Association for Textile
Care Labeling) is an organization composed of national member
bodies, with a goal, among other things, of drawing up ``guidelines
and compulsory directives for the use of the uniform GINETEX symbols
and to control their application.'' The Ginetex system was adopted
as an international standard by the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) in 1991 as ISO Standard 3758.
\22\ The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 states that any federal
agency must, in developing standards, ``take into consideration
international standards and shall, if appropriate, base the
standards on international standards.'' Trade Agreements Act of
1979, title IV, section 402, 93 Stat. 242 (1979) (codified as
amended at 19 U.S.C. 2532(2)(A) (Supp. 1995)).
\23\ Several comments noted this deficiency. Pittsfield (17)
p.2; Clorox (32) p.4; V.F. Corp. (36) p.4; Pullen (44) p.5; ATMI
(56) p.4; GAP (78) p.4. Consumer Union (31) stated, at p.2, that
``we need a symbol pertinent to non-chlorine bleach as the industry
plans to move away from chlorine bleach.'' The Trilateral Committee
(69), at p.2, and ATMI (56), at p.2, both recommend that any care
symbol system adopted by the U.S. include chlorine and non-chlorine
bleach instructions.
\24\ The system also indicates temperatures for washing in
precise degrees Centigrade, but few washing machines in the United
States have internal heating devices as European machines do.
\25\ Pittsfield (17), at p.2, noted ``technical inconsistencies
such as the interconnection of temperature and cycle conditions'';
Pullen (44), at p.5, noted the lack of a complete selection of
symbols for all washing cycles and temperatures.
\26\ ATMI (56) p.4; Penney (70), noting at p.2, that the Ginetex
symbols are ``technically incomplete for the American consumer's
laundering practices.''
\27\ Section 423.6(b)(1)(ii) states that the label must state
whether the product should be dried by machine or by some other
method. Section 423.6(b)(1)(v) states that there must be a warning
against any part of the prescribed procedure which consumers can
reasonably be expected to use that would harm the product. However,
without a symbol for steam ironing, it is impossible to warn against
steam ironing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For dry cleaning, the ISO/Ginetex system provides only a symbol
(constituting an underlining of the circle) that means ``strict
limitations on the addition of water and/or mechanical action and/or
temperature during cleaning and/or drying.'' (ISO standard 3759 Table
4). However, section 423.6(b)(2)(ii)(A) provides that, if a dry
cleaning instruction is included on the label, it must also warn
against any part of the dry cleaning process which consumers or dry
cleaners could reasonably be expected to use that would harm the
product or others being cleaned with it.28 The ISO/Ginetex system
does not have a method for providing warnings about which specific
parts of the dry cleaning process should be avoided. Accordingly, the
dry cleaning symbol in the ISO/Ginetex system does not satisfy the
Rule's requirements for dry cleaning instructions.
\28\ The Appendix to the Rule provides specific examples such as
``short cycle,'' ``low moisture,'' ``do not tumble,'' and ``no
steam.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the ISO/Ginetex system cannot convey all the information that
the Commission has found to be necessary to prevent the unfair and
deceptive
[[Page 57555]]
practices that the Rule was designed to prevent.29 Moreover, the
ISO/Ginetex system is inconsistent with American technology in several
ways. The Trade Agreements Act explicitly identifies several reasons
why basing a standard on an international standard may not be
appropriate, including the prevention of deceptive practices and
fundamental technological problems. 19 U.S.C. 2532(2)(B)(i) (1980).
Accordingly, the Commission has concluded the use of ISO standard 3758
is not appropriate for the United States at this time.30
\29\ Section 423.5 describes the unfair or deceptive acts or
practices the Rule was designed to prevent. Section 423.5(a)(2)
states that it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a
manufacturer or importer to fail to disclose instructions which
prescribe a regular care procedure necessary for the ordinary use
and enjoyment of the product. Section 423.5(a)(2) states that it is
an unfair or deceptive act or practice to fail to warn a purchaser
when any part of the prescribed regular care procedure, which a
consumer or professional cleaner could reasonably be expected to
use, would harm the product or others being cleaned with it.
\30\ The European Union (GATT Secretariat), noting that the
Ginetex system was adopted as international standard ISO 3758 in
1991, stated that Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers
to Trade requires U.S. authorities to use international standards as
a basis for technical regulations. Comment 18, pp.1-2. However,
while Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
provides that ``technical regulations shall not be more trade
restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective, taking
account of the risks non-fulfillment would create,'' it recognizes
prevention of deceptive practices as a legitimate objective. It also
states that, in assessing such risks, ``relevant elements of
consideration are, inter alia: available scientific and technical
information, related processing technology or intended end-uses of
products.'' Thus, the differences in U.S. and European technology
provide a valid reason for the U.S. to adopt a system that is
slightly different than the European system. Nevertheless, the
Commission agrees with those comments that indicate that the
creation of a system of care symbols appropriate for use worldwide
is desirable. However, ISO Standard 3758, as it now exists, simply
does not fulfill the legitimate objectives of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another problem that weighed against the ISO/Ginetex system is the
fact that Ginetex asserts trademark rights relating to the symbols.
Annex A to ISO 3758 states that the symbols used in that standard are
registered with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and
owned by Ginetex. Part A.2.1 of Annex A of ISO Standard 3758
constitutes an agreement between ISO and Ginetex that ``GINETEX's
ownership rights related to the marks are preserved under the terms of
this agreement, as well as the structure, rights and obligations of its
national committees.'' The Trilateral Committee (a committee formed by
industry members from the countries signatory to NAFTA), those comments
that explicitly supported its conclusions, and numerous other comments
stated that they could only support a symbol system that was free of
proprietary claims.31 The Commission agrees with these
comments.32
\31\ Carter's (24) p.3; Oshkosh (27) p.1; AHAM (53) p.2;
Milliken (54) p.2; ATMI (56) p.2; Authentic Fitness (60) p.2,
Warnaco (61) p.2; Fruit (64) p.4; Drycleaners Fund (65) p.3; AAMA
(68) p.4; Penney (70) p.1; Trilateral Committee (79) p.2; GAP (78)
p.4. In addition, ATMI (56) objected, at p.4, to the fact that
Ginetex requires that a national body in the country using the
system register with Ginetex and monitor use of the system within
the country. (See section A.1. of Annex A to ISO Standard 3758,
which states, ``Ginetex has delegated to its national committees,
i.e., its members, the task of promoting the implementation of
textile care labelling symbols, of granting the right to reproduce
and use the symbols, and of monitoring their use.'')
\32\ Before the ISO subcommittee voted to make the Ginetex
system an international standard, several countries (including the
U.S.) objected to the use of a proprietary system as an
international standard, but they were outvoted. Subsequent to the
adoption of ISO 3758, the USA delegation to the ISO textile
committee submitted to ISO a document entitled ``USA Comments and
Questions Related to ISO 3758'' in which they stated, ``The USA
opposes any standard that requires royalty fees from any
organization. Therefore, USA opposes `ISO 3758-1991- Care labelling
code using symbols' and recommends it be withdrawn as an ISO
Standard.'' Attachment to ASTM comment (16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. The System
ASTM is a scientific and technical organization that publishes
voluntary consensus standards. Its Committee D-13 on Textiles contains
a Subcommittee D13.62 on Care Labeling, which developed the voluntary
consensus standard D5489 referenced in the FRN. A copy of Standard
D5489 is attached to ASTM's comment. A copy of an explanatory or
``decoding'' chart can be found at the end of this notice.
The ASTM system provides symbols relating to the basic information
required by the Rule. It includes machine and hand washing, with hand
washing indicated by a hand in the washtub. It indicates permanent
press cycle by underlining the washtub, and gentle cycle by underlining
it twice. It includes chlorine and non-chlorine bleach instructions
(the latter indicated by a shaded triangle), and tumble drying and
natural drying instructions. It indicates dryer cycles by underlining,
with single underlining for permanent press and double underlining for
gentle cycle. The iron symbolizes ironing and pressing, and includes an
indication as to whether steam can be used (an instruction that may be
particularly important for commercial laundries). Temperature--for
water, dryers, or ironing--is indicated by a series of dots, with one
dot indicating cold, two indicating warm, three indicating hot, four
indicating very hot. Five and six dots may be used for even higher
temperatures. (Alternatively, temperature may be stated in degrees
Celsius.)
For dry cleaning, it indicates short cycle, no steam finishing,
reduce moisture, and low heat, respectively, by means of a line drawn
under, above, to the left, or to the right of the circle. Finally, the
ASTM system (in Standard section 5.10) allows for optional symbols that
may be used for additional procedures or warnings (e.g., do not wring).
More comments favored the ASTM system than the Ginetex system for a
variety of reasons, including the fact that it is more
comprehensive.33 One comment noted that it is easier to add new
symbols in the ASTM system.34
\33\ Togs (2) p.1; Fieldcrest (11) pp. 3-4; Koester (12) pp. 1-
2; U. of Kentucky (15) p.2; ASTM (16) p.1; Pittsfield (17) p.2;
Carter's (24) p.3; Norwick (25) p.3, Oshkosh (27) p.1, Clorox (32)
pp. 3-4; Pullen (44) pp. 4-7, Salant (52) p.1; Milliken (54) pp. 1-
2; ATMI (56) pp. 4-5; Air Force (67) p.2; J.C. Penney (70) p.2.
\34\ VF Corp. (36), although not supporting the use of symbols
without words, did note, at pp.4-5, that under Ginetex, ``current
symbols cannot be modified and additional symbols cannot be added''
and that an advantage of the ASTM system is that there ``is a
procedure to modify or add other symbols.'' According to the forward
to the Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 7 Textiles, an ASTM
standard ``is subject to revision at any time by the responsible
technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and if not
revised, either reapproved or withdrawn.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that ASTM has obtained a copyright for the
entire Standard D5489, including an explanatory chart.35 Several
comments expressed concern over possible copyright licensing fees for
the use of the chart.36 However, ASTM recently submitted to the
Commission a document entitled ``Conditions for Republishing the ASTM D
5489 Care Symbol Chart'' which states that ASTM will grant other
organizations a royalty free license for the republication of the
complete chart, or portions thereof, provided that the charts include a
line crediting ASTM and providing that the copies are not sold
separately from the products to which the copies are affixed.37
This document may alleviate
[[Page 57556]]
concerns about ASTM's copyright and remove any impediments to the
dissemination of explanatory materials about the system. However, the
Commission seeks comment on this issue.
\35\ Letter of June 7, 1994, from Bode Buckley, Manager,
Technical Committee Operations, ASTM, to Kay Villa, ATMI, attached
to ATMI comment (56). The letter states that a fee will be
established for the use of the chart. A copy of the chart was
attached to the ASTM comment (16).
\36\ Milliken (54), noting, at p.2, that ``there is some concern
that ASTM (the organization) has not completely followed the wishes
of its volunteer members in making the symbol chart. . . freely
available without copyright licensing considerations''; ATMI (56),
asking, at p.5, that the FTC ``obtain official information from the
ASTM about this fee structure and assure that there would be no fee
for use of the symbol chart prior to any adoption of the standard by
the FTC''; AAMA (68), stating, at p.4, that ``the most important
reason for not accepting the ASTM system is the copyright issue.''
\37\ Moreover, it states that if the chart or symbols are
modified, then they may not be represented as being the ASTM
standard. By implication, however, modified charts could be
distributed under some other title (e.g., Care Symbols Used in the
U.S.) This document has been placed on the public record for
examination by interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Use of the ASTM System in Canada and Mexico
Although the Commission's first criterion in considering a symbol
system was whether it could fulfill the requirements of the Rule, an
equally important criterion was whether the system could be harmonized
with the symbol systems used in Canada and Mexico. NAFTA specifically
requires the U.S. to attempt to harmonize its textile labeling
requirements with those of Canada and Mexico. Article 906 of NAFTA
states that ``the Parties shall, to the greatest extent practicable,
make compatible their respective standards-related measures, so as to
facilitate trade in a good or service between the Parties.'' Article
913 requires the creation of a Committee on Standards-Related Measures,
which shall include a Subcommittee on Labelling of Textile and Apparel
Goods, in accordance with Annex 913.5.a-4. Annex 913.5.a-4. states that
the Subcommittee on Labelling of Textile and Apparel Goods
shall develop and pursue a work program on the harmonization of
labelling requirements to facilitate trade in textile and apparel
goods between the Parties through the adoption of uniform labelling
provisions. The work program should include the following matters:
(a) pictograms and symbols to replace, where possible, required
written information, as well as other methods to reduce the need for
labels on textile and apparel goods in multiple languages; (b) care
instructions for textile and apparel goods;
* * * * *
The Canadian and Mexican systems use the same five basic symbols
that are used in the Ginetex and ASTM systems: a washtub to indicate
washing (with a hand in the washtub to indicate hand washing), a
triangle to indicate bleaching, a square to indicate drying (and a
circle within a square to indicate machine drying), an iron to indicate
ironing, and a circle to indicate dry cleaning. An ``X'' cancelling out
the symbol warns against using the designated cleaning technique, e.g.,
``do not dry clean.''
One commenter suggested that the Commission adopt the Canadian
system, which uses the five generic symbols and three colors (red,
green, and yellow).38 However, several comments noted that the use
of color makes labels much more expensive.39 In addition, neither
the Canadian nor the Mexican system provides a method of communicating
all the information required by the current Care Labeling Rule. For
example, if chlorine bleach would harm a product but non-chlorine
bleach would not, section 423.(b)(1)(iv) of the Rule requires that the
label contain a warning such as ``only non-chlorine bleach when
needed.'' However, these systems do not address the use of non-chlorine
bleach.40 Moreover, with respect to dry cleaning, they do not have
a method for providing warnings about parts of the dry cleaning process
that might damage the garment.41
\38\ Todd Uniform (19), p.1.
\39\ Woolrich (21) p.1; Carter's (24) p.1. Fruit (64), at p.4,
stated that it could not endorse a system which required the use of
color, but, with that proviso, it endorsed the Canadian system.
\40\ Several comments noted this deficiency. Pittsfield (17)
p.2; Clorox (32) p.4; V.F. Corp. (36) p.4; Pullen (44) p.5; ATMI
(56) p.4; GAP (78) p.4. Consumer Union (31) stated, at p.2, that
``we need a symbol pertinent to non-chlorine bleach as the industry
plans to move away from chlorine bleach.'' The Trilateral Committee
(69), at p.2, and ATMI (56), at p.2, both recommend that any care
symbol system adopted by the U.S. include chlorine and non-chlorine
bleach instructions.
\41\ For dry cleaning, section 423.(b)(2)(ii) of the Rule
states that there must be a warning about any part of the normal dry
cleaning process that would harm the product, and the Appendix
provides examples such as ``short cycle,'' ``low moisture,'' ``do
not tumble,'' and ``no steam.'' Canada uses a yellow circle to
indicate ``dry clean with caution,'' but that warning is too vague
to satisfy the requirements of the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to machine washing, the Mexican system does not convey
any refinements, such as ``gentle cycle,'' and the Canadian system does
so by means of color (a yellow washtub means ``gentle setting.'')
Neither system offers a means of referring to ``permanent press cycle''
in washing, or various cycles in dryers. Both offer symbols for natural
drying (dry flat, hang to dry, and, in Canada, drip dry.) Both systems
require that temperature for washing be indicated in Celsius in the
washtub. For tumble drying, Mexico has no indication of temperature,
and Canada uses a yellow symbol to mean ``low temperature.'' In both
systems, temperatures for ironing can be indicated by a system of three
dots, one for low, two for medium, and three for high.
The Commission has concluded that the ASTM system basically is
compatible with the Canadian and Mexican systems. Although there are
differences among the systems, they do not pose insurmountable
problems.42 The ASTM system includes some refinements that are not
a part of those systems (e.g., underlining to indicate gentle or
permanent press cycles in washers and dryers). The Commission has
tentatively decided that consumer education would be more effective if
the system was introduced as a whole, including the use of
underlining.43 Nevertheless, the Commission seeks comment on
whether the ASTM system, with its use of underlining to reflect cycle
variations, should be permitted or whether only the basic symbols,
without refinements, should be allowed.
\42\ The Canadian system is not mandatory; thus, the use of
symbols without colors should be acceptable.
\43\ Some comments expressed the concern that the ASTM system
may be too complicated. USA-ITA (57) p.3; Fruit (64) p.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to temperature indications, the ASTM system differs
slightly from the Canadian and Mexican systems. Nevertheless, the dot
system for temperature, which can be combined with the Celsius
temperature as required for the washtub symbol in Mexico and Canada,
seems the best compromise for temperature indications.44
\44\ The ASTM standard is not entirely clear as to whether
temperature can be indicated by the use of dots and the Celsius
temperature. The Commission solicits comment on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``do not bleach'' symbol (a triangle with an ``X'' through it)
represents the only instance in which a symbol in the ASTM system has a
different meaning in Canada or Mexico. In Mexico, this symbol means
``do not use chlorine bleach''; in the ASTM system, it means ``do not
[use any] bleach,'' chlorine or non-chlorine. To avoid this conflict,
the Commission has tentatively decided to accept the ASTM system with
one exception and addition - i.e., the elimination of the triangle with
an ``X'' through it and the substitution of a shaded triangle with an
``X'' through it for the ``do not bleach'' symbol. However, the
Commission has been informed that members of the ASTM subcommittee that
developed that care symbol system are considering making this
modification to the system. If this change is made by ASTM prior to the
final issuance by the Commission of a conditional exemption for the use
of symbols, the Commission will simply reference the modified version
of the ASTM system, without exceptions or additions.45
\45\ The ASTM subcommittee recently voted on two additions to
the symbols for machine drying: a circle in the square with no dots
to indicate any heat; a blacked-in circle to indicate air dry only
(no heat). These changes must still be submitted to the entire
membership of ASTM. In addition, the subcommittee has discussed
modifying the dry cleaning symbol so that lines indicating
refinements to dry cleaning are placed next to the circle at an
acute angle; if all four refinements were used, the symbol would
consist of a circle surrounded by four lines in a diamond formation
rather than a square. This avoids conflict with the symbol for
machine drying (which is a circle in a square). These changes
provide useful additional symbols, and, if these changes are adopted
by ASTM, the Commission proposes adopting the ASTM system with these
changes. However, if adopted, the conditional exemption will
reference a specific version of the ASTM system.
[[Page 57557]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Consumer Education
Many comments noted the need for education, although most expressed
confidence that U.S consumers could adapt to care symbols with
appropriate education.46 Some comments indicated that symbols
should be used with words until the U.S. population understands the
symbols.47 Pittsfield, on the other hand, argued that consumer
education based on dual disclosure--the use of symbols with
accompanying written instructions on the label--will not work, as shown
by the U.S. experience with the metric system.48
\46\ Schwab (10) p.1; Fieldcrest (11) pp. 2-3; ASTM (16) p.8;
Pittsfield (17) p.1; Woolrich (21) p.1; Carter's (24) p.2; Consumers
Union (31) p.1; Clorox (32) p.4; Business Habits (38) p.4; Pullen
(44) p.4; AHAM (53) p.2; Fruit (64) p.3; AAMA (68) p.3. Some
comments stated that symbols should not replace words until a
consumer education program has become effective. Consumers Union
(31) p.1; VF Corp. (36) p.4; Gap (78) p.3.
\47\ Consumers Union (31) p.1; Gap (78) p.3.
\48\ Comment 17, p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission agrees that the use of symbols with explanatory
written instructions on the permanently attached label would probably
not be an effective way to teach the symbol system. However, other
comments suggested strategies that would allow consumers to use the
symbols while learning them, such as hangtags on garments or charts
placed on washing machines, product packaging, or on the back of
detergent boxes.49 ASTM, cognizant of this issue, formed a Task
Group on Care Symbol Education that includes the Soap and Detergent
Association, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and
numerous other trade associations and representatives from the USDA
Extension Service.50 The members of this task group are interested
in educating consumers about the symbols. In addition, numerous
commenters stated they would participate in a program of consumer
education. The Commission seeks comment on the amount of time that
would be needed to develop and disseminate consumer education and what
forms consumer education might take. The Commission itself would be
pleased to work with industry members on such campaigns if the
Commission ultimately adopts the proposed conditional exemption.
\49\ Fieldcrest (11) p.3; Pittsfield (17) p.2; Carter's (24)
p.2; Fruit (64) p.3; AAMA (68) p.3.
\50\ Attachment to Subcomm. D13.62 Minutes, attached to ASTM
comment (16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes, however, that although educational
campaigns will be necessary and helpful, for at least for an initial 12
month period, manufacturers and importers who choose to use symbols
without words should be required to attach explanatory hangtags to each
such garment. This will ensure that consumers continue to have access
to information about garment care when they make their purchases.
Consumers who wish to do so could keep one or more of these hangtags in
their laundry rooms. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed
requirement of the exemption.
VII. Request for Comment
A. Terms of the Proposed Conditional Exemption
The Commission proposes a conditional exemption to the Rule to
allow the use of certain care symbols without language. The proposed
conditional exemption from the Care Labeling Rule simply expands the
terminology that those covered by the Rule can use to convey the
required information. Specifically, the proposed conditional exemption
would (1) permit the use of the ASTM system of symbols with an
exception and addition (i.e., the substitution of a different ``do not
bleach'' symbol) and (2) require that, for a 12 month period, care
labels with information conveyed only in symbols be accompanied by
hangtags explaining the meaning of the symbols.
B. Questions on Proposed Conditional Exemption
The Commission specifically solicits written public comments on the
following questions, as well as any other issues relevant to granting
or denying the conditional exemption described above:
1. Will the underlining of the washtub or the machine drying symbol
be confusing to Canadian and Mexican consumers? Will the underlining be
confusing to American consumers? If so, should the Commission
``except'' this part of the ASTM system from the conditional exemption?
51 Will ``excepting'' the underlining of symbols reduce the
benefit of symbols or impose costs on manufacturers?
\51\ Mexico does not indicate cycles at all, and Canada does so
by the use of color.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Should the Commission specify the minimum size of the symbols or
are existing requirements of legibility sufficient? 52
\52\ Pittsfield, a woven label manufacturer, stated that
``after surveying the label-producing industry, we would also
recommend that care symbols on a label be a minimum of 5 mm in
height to ensure legibility.'' Comment 17, p.3. Paxar, which
described itself as the ``world's largest manufacturer of various
forms of identification for the textile and apparel industry,''
stated that woven label manufacturers may find it difficult to weave
symbols clearly, but no problems should exist with printed labels.
Comment 42, p.1. The Rule currently defines a ``care label'' as a
permanent label or tag that ``will remain legible during the useful
life of the product.'' 16 CFR 423.1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Should explanatory hangtags providing care information in
language be required for more than one year? Less than one year? How
long would it take for hangtags to be prepared and affixed to garments?
4. What types of consumer education should be planned and to what
extent are industry members willing to participate in such campaigns?
How long would it take to develop and undertake such campaigns?
5. If the Commission were to grant a conditional exemption, when
should it become effective?
6. Does ASTM's copyright pose a barrier to the use of the ASTM
system?
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423
Care labeling of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods;
Trade practices.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
[[Page 57558]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP16NO95.000
[FR Doc. 95-28290 Filed 11-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-C
