[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 29 (Monday, February 12, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5340-5348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2935]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 303
Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products
Identification Act
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (Commission or FTC) has completed
its regulatory review of the Rules and Regulations under the Textile
Fiber Products Identification Act (Textile Rules). Pursuant to that
review, the Commission concludes that the Rules continue to be valuable
to both consumers and firms. The regulatory review comments suggested
various substantive amendments to the Rules. The Commission has
considered these proposals and other proposals that it believes merit
further inquiry. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should
amend the Textile Rules to: (1) allow the listing of generic fiber
names for fibers that have a functional significance and are present in
the amount of less than 5% of the total fiber weight of a textile
product, without requiring disclosure of the functional significance of
the fiber, as presently required by Textile Rule 3(b); (2) eliminate
the requirement of Textile Rule 16(b) that the front side of a cloth
label, which is sewn to the product so that both sides of the label are
readily accessible to the prospective purchaser, bear the wording
``Fiber Content on Reverse Side'' when the fiber content disclosure is
listed on the reverse side of the label; (3) allow for a system of
shared information for manufacturer or importer identification among
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) countries; (4) add a
provision to Textile Rule 20 specifying that a Commission registered
identification number (RN) will be subject to cancellation if, after a
change in the material information contained on the RN application, a
new application that reflects current business information is not
promptly submitted; (5) allow the use of abbreviations for generic
fiber names; (6) allow the use of abbreviations and symbols in country
of origin labeling; and (7) allow the use of new generic names for
manufactured fibers if the name and fiber are recognized by an
international standards-setting organization. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on the possible resolution of apparent
conflict between the Commission's country of origin disclosure
requirements and new U.S. Customs Service regulations pursuant to the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994.
DATES: Written comments will be accepted until May 13, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to: Office of the Secretary,
Federal Trade Commission, Room H-159, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580. Submissions should be marked ``Rules
and Regulations under the Textile Act, 16 CFR Part 303--Comment.'' If
possible, submit comments both in writing and on a personal computer
diskette in Word Perfect or other word processing format (to assist in
processing, please identify the format and version used). Written
comments should be submitted, when feasible and not burdensome, in five
copies.
[[Page 5341]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bret S. Smart, Program Advisor, Los
Angeles Regional Office, Federal Trade Commission, 11000 Wilshire
Blvd., Suite 13209, Los Angeles, CA 90024, (310) 235-7890 or Edwin
Rodriguez, Attorney, Federal Trade Commission, Sixth Street and
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-3147.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (Textile Act), 15
U.S.C. 70 et seq., requires marketers of covered textile products to
mark each product with (1) the generic names and percentages by weight
of the constituent fibers present in the product; (2) the name under
which the manufacturer or other responsible company does business, or
in lieu thereof, the RN issued to the company by the Commission; and
(3) the name of the country where the product was processed or
manufactured. The Textile Act also contains advertising and
recordkeeping provisions. Pursuant to section 7(c) of the Act, 15
U.S.C. 70e(c), the Commission has issued implementing regulations, the
Textile Rules, which are found at 16 CFR Part 303.
As part of the Commission's on-going regulatory review of all its
rules, regulations, and guides, on May 6, 1994, the Commission
published a Federal Register notice (FRN), 59 FR 23646, seeking public
comment on the Textile Rules. The FRN solicited comments about the
overall costs and benefits of the Rules and their regulatory and
economic impact. The FRN also sought comment on what changes in the
Rules would increase the benefits of the Rules to purchasers and how
those changes would affect the costs the Rules impose on firms subject
to their requirements. The Commission further stated that Textile Rules
10, 21, 32, and 45 would be amended to comply with ``metrication''
mandates if the Commission decided to retain those rules in their
current form after the regulatory review.1 The deadline for
submission of comments was extended twice, on July 7, 1994 and
September 12, 1994. The final deadline for comments was October 15,
1994.
\1\ The regulatory review comments do not suggest any change to
Rules 10, 21, 32, and 45, and the Commission does not propose any
substantive changes to these Rules. The Commission has decided to
retain these Rules in their present form. Therefore, in a separate
notice, the Commission announces the final amendments to Rules 10,
21, 32, and 45 to include metric equivalents beside the inch/pound
unit measurements in those Rules, as required by Executive Order
12770 of July 25, 1991 (56 FR 35801, July 29, 1991) and the Metric
Conversion Act, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness
Act (15 U.S.C. 205b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Regulatory Review and Proposed Amendments
A. Support for the Textile Rules
The Commission received twenty-eight comments in response to the
FRN. The comments were submitted by trade associations 2 and
companies 3 subject to the Textile Act and Rules. In addition, one
comment was submitted by an industry-wide committee formed to address
issues concerning the harmonization of textile regulations among the
NAFTA countries.4
\2\ National Knitwear & Sportswear Association [NKSA] (1),
National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers [NAHM] (2), American
Textile Manufacturers Institute [ATMI] (3), Cordage Institute [CORD]
(4), National Retail Federation [NRF] (5), American Fiber
Manufacturers Association, Inc. [AFMA] (7), American Textile
Manufacturers Institute [ATMI] (10), Ross & Hardies, on behalf of
United States Association of Importers of Textiles and Apparel [USA-
ITA] (11), American Apparel Manufacturers Association [AAMA] (15),
Liz Claiborne, Inc. and Labeling Committee, Industry Sector Advisory
Committee on Wholesaling and Retailing [ISAC 17] (17).
\3\ Warren Featherbone Company [WFC] (6), Dan River Inc. [DR]
(8), Ruff Hewn [RUFF] (9), Gap, Inc. [GAP] (12), Fieldcrest Cannon,
Inc. [FIELD] (13), Fruit of the Loom [FRUIT] (14), Wemco Inc.
[WEMCO] (18), Sara Lee Knit Products [SARA] (19), Horace Small
Apparel Company [HORACE] (20), Perry Manufacturing Company [PERRY]
(21), Milliken & Company [MILL] (22), Cranston Print Works Company
[CRAN] (23), Angelica Corporation [ANGEL] (24), Russell Corporation
[RUSS] (25), Haggar Apparel Company [HAGGAR] (26), Capital Mercury
Shirt Corp. [CAP] (27), Biderman Industries Corporation [BIDER]
(28).
\4\ Trilateral Labeling Committee [TLC] (16). WFC (6), RUFF (9),
WEMCO (18), SARA (19), ANGEL (24), RUSS (25), HAGGAR (26), CAP (27),
and BIDER (28) explicitly adopt or endorse the recommendations of
TLC (16), and other comments appear to track TLC's recommendations
closely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although no comments were received from consumers or consumer
groups, it is clear from the Commission's experience that consumers
benefit directly from the Rules and consider the mandated disclosures
material in making purchase decisions. Ten comments explicitly express
support for the Textile Rules as a whole 5 because the Rules
protect consumers from deceptive fiber claims and provide them with
valuable information about the fiber content of apparel, allowing them
to make educated product comparisons and purchasing decisions.6
The comments do not identify any costs imposed by the Rule on
consumers.7
\5\ NKSA (1) p.1, NAHM (2) p.1, ATMI (3) p.1, CORD (4) p.2, DR
(8) p.1, ATMI (10) p.1, FIELD (13) p.1, FRUIT (14) p.1, PERRY (21)
p.1, MILL (22) p.1. These comments were submitted by companies
covered by the Rules, but they express the belief that the Rules
help consumers.
\6\ NAHM (2) states, at p.1, that the regulations should be
retained ``because they provide a framework for fiber content
disclosure, labeling, country-of-origin clarification, and
provisions for guarantees, all of which protect manufacturers,
buyers, and retail consumers.'' NKSA (1) states, at p.1, that the
Rules serve an important and useful purpose for consumers who may
not be aware of the various fibers in the multi-fiber blends that
have become common in the marketplace. CORD (4) states, at p.2, that
the Rules help purchasers ``select a product best suited for a
specific application and reduce the potential for unsafe use and
danger to life and property.'' PERRY (21) states, at p.1, that the
Rules are ``both necessary and desirable if we are to have orderly
trade within this hemisphere.''
\7\ NAHM (2) states, at p.1, that the Rules impose costs on
consumers, but does not identify what the costs are. The comment
states that ``the assurances offered by the Rules to purchasers far
outweigh the costs associated with fiber content disclosure on
labeling and the use of guarantees.'' ATMI (10) states, at p.1, that
it ``has no knowledge of additional imposed costs to the consumer
because of the rules.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the comments show that the Rules are valuable to
manufacturers and firms. They allow firms to distinguish their products
from others in the marketplace based on the products' fiber
content.8 They improve the credibility of firms and their products
by assuring consumers that the products they are purchasing will meet
specific standards and consumer tastes.9 The Rules also ``maintain
the integrity of fiber type information from the fiber supplier to the
textile manufacturer to the apparel manufacturer to the consumer.''
10 Although the Rules impose labeling and packaging costs,11
they are small and have become an accepted part of doing business in
the textile industry.12 The commenters consider the costs of
compliance to be minimal and the benefits to companies and consumers to
be tangible and great.
\8\ NKSA (1) p.1.
\9\ NAHM (2) p.2.
\10\ ATMI (3) p.1. See also DR (8) p.1; ATMI (10) p.1, MILL (22)
p.2.
\11\ NAHM (2) p.2. ATMI (3) states, at p.1, that ``[t]here are
minimal costs associated with the manufacture of the label, its
attachment to the textile product, and costs carried by the
manufacturer to maintain records.''
\12\ NKSA (1) p.1, ATMI (3) pp.1-2, DR (8) p.1, ATMI (10) p.5,
FIELD (13) p.6, MILL (22) p.6. ATMI (3) states, at pp.1-2, that
``[p]rior to the rules, textile mills typically kept records of
fiber content and performed fiber identification tests to certify
that fiber being supplied to the mill was indeed what the supplier
stated. These costs and practices have become a generic part of
textile business operations. The rules only add the cost of a
consumer label.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short, it is clear that the implementing regulations enjoy the
backing of subject companies and have become an accepted part of
business at all levels of manufacture, distribution, and sales. The
Commission has decided, however, to seek additional comment on possible
amendments to the Rules.
[[Page 5342]]
B. Proposals for Amendments to the Textile Rules
1. Introduction
The comments submitted in response to the regulatory review of the
Textile Rules propose certain amendments to the Rules. The Commission
is also considering other amendments that were not mentioned in the
comments. Many of the changes proposed in the comments were motivated
by the passage of NAFTA, which has highlighted the importance of
reconciling the labeling requirements of the member countries. The goal
of NAFTA is to establish a trade zone in which goods can flow freely
among Canada, Mexico, and the United States, a goal which may be
impeded by the multiple burdens imposed on companies by regulations in
the NAFTA countries. For example, the comments contend that language
differences among the NAFTA countries, and regulations based on these
differences, affect the printing of fiber content information, country
of origin names, and care instructions.13 Manufacturers must
either print separate labels for each market, which may inhibit the
efficient allocation of inventories within the NAFTA territory and
increase costs to consumers,14 or print unwieldy, multilingual
labels that satisfy all of the regulatory requirements of each NAFTA
country.15 In addition, the comments contend that differences and
conflicts involving other labeling requirements, including label
attachment requirements, the definition of key terms, and responsible
party identification systems in the NAFTA countries, may also interfere
with free trade.16 The comments generally agree that the NAFTA
signatories must consult and coordinate with each other to simplify
textile and apparel labeling so that differences in labeling rules and
the manner in which compliance is determined do not pose trade
barriers.17
\13\ This notice does not address the issue of the use of
symbols in care labeling. The Commission has published separately a
notice regarding that issue. 60 FR 57552 (Nov. 16, 1995).
\14\ FRUIT (14) p.3.
\15\ USA-ITA (11) p.2, see also FRUIT (14) p.2. The comments,
however, do not provide extrinsic evidence that long labels cause
consumer confusion or that they are financially burdensome to
manufacturers or distributors.
\16\ AFMA (7) p.1, FRUIT (14) p.2, SARA (19) p.4. FRUIT states
that differences in labeling requirements may ``function as non-
tariff trade barriers and significantly impede the free flow of
goods within the NAFTA territory,'' inhibiting sales and harming
American industry.
\17\ WFC (6) p.1, AFMA (7) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) pp. 1-2,
ATMI (10) pp.1-2, USA-ITA (11) p.2, FIELD (13) pp.1-2, FRUIT (14)
pp.1-2, AAMA (15) p.1, TLC (16) p.1, ISAC 17 (17) p.1, WEMCO (18)
p.1, SARA (19) p.4, HORACE (20) p.2, MILL (22) p.2, ANGEL (24) p.1,
RUSS (25) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The harmonization of labeling regulations is required by NAFTA.
Article 906 of NAFTA states that ``the Parties shall, to the greatest
extent practicable, make compatible their respective standards-related
measures, so as to facilitate trade in a good or service between the
Parties.'' Article 913 of the Act requires the creation of a Committee
on Standards-Related Measures, including a Subcommittee on Labelling of
Textile and Apparel Goods. In accordance with Annex 913.5.a-4, the
Subcommittee
shall develop and pursue a work program on the harmonization of
labelling requirements to facilitate trade in textile and apparel
goods between the Parties through the adoption of uniform labelling
provisions. The work program should include the following matters:
(a) pictograms and symbols to replace, where possible, required
written information, as well as other methods to reduce the need for
labels on textile and apparel goods in multiple languages;
(b) care instructions for textile and apparel goods;
(c) fiber content information for textile and apparel goods;
(d) uniform methods acceptable for the attachment of required
information to textile and apparel goods; and
(e) use in the territory of the other Parties of each Party's
national registration numbers for manufacturers of textile and
apparel goods.
Many of the comments address these subject areas and contend that
harmonizing labels would benefit manufacturers and consumers alike by
decreasing the costs of production and distribution. One commenter
stated that prices charged to consumers may decline if the costs
associated with labeling decline.18 A few comments contend that
harmonized labeling would be less confusing to consumers.19
\18\ FRUIT (14) p.2.
\19\ WFC (6) p.1, AAMA (15) pp.1, 2, TLC (16) p.2, WEMCO (18)
p.1, SARA (19) pp.2, 3, ANGEL (24) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27)
p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the comments and other available information, the
Commission has considered proposals to amend the Rules to: (a) allow
the listing of generic fiber names for fibers that have a functional
significance and are present in the amount of less than 5% of the total
fiber weight of a textile product, without requiring disclosure of the
functional significance of the fiber, as presently required by Rule
3(b); (b) make cordage subject to the Textile Rules; (c) modify country
of origin disclosure requirements; (d) eliminate the requirement of
Textile Rule 16(b) that the front side of a cloth label, only one end
of which is sewn to the product in such a manner that both sides of the
label are readily accessible to the prospective purchaser, bear the
wording ``Fiber Content on Reverse Side'' when the fiber content
disclosure is listed on the reverse side of the label; (e) allow for a
system of shared information for manufacturer or importer
identification among the NAFTA countries; (f) add a provision
specifying that a Commission RN will be subject to cancellation if,
after a change in the material information contained on the RN
application, a new application that reflects current business
information is not promptly submitted; (g) allow the use of
abbreviations for generic fiber names; (h) allow the use of
abbreviations and symbols in country of origin labeling; and (i) allow
the use of new generic names for manufactured fibers if the name and
fiber are recognized by an international standards-setting
organization.
After considering these recommendations, the Commission has
rejected some of the suggested changes as not feasible or not in the
public interest at this time. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR)
seeks comment concerning the remaining proposed changes. All of the
recommendations for change are discussed below.
2. Proposals
a. Use of Generic Fiber Names for Fibers with a Functional
Significance Present in the Amount of Less than 5% of the Total Fiber
Weight of a Textile Product
One commenter recommended that the Commission eliminate Rule 3(b)
to allow the listing of generic fiber names for fibers that have a
functional significance and are present in the amount of less than 5%
of the total fiber weight of a textile product, without disclosing the
functional significance of the fibers, as the Rule currently
requires.20 The commenter maintains that the existing Rule is
``archaic'' because consumers know, for example, that the functional
significance of spandex is elasticity. In addition, the commenter
claims that the Rule is not well known in the textile industry and
therefore creates problems with U.S. Customs for imports that are not
properly labeled and must be delayed and remarked.
\20\ GAP (12) p. 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that amending Rule 3 in the manner
suggested might benefit manufacturers
[[Page 5343]]
and importers by dispensing with an unnecessary labeling requirement.
In addition, the amendment may not harm consumers because consumers
generally know the functional significance of many fibers and
manufacturers probably will disclose voluntarily the functional
significance of some fibers. Therefore, the Commission proposes to
amend Rule 3 to read as follows:
Sec. 303.3 Fibers present in amounts of less than 5 percent.
Except as permitted in sections 4(b)(1) and 4(b)(2) of the Act,
as amended, no fiber present in the amount of less than 5 per centum
of the total fiber weight shall be designated by its generic name or
fiber trademark in disclosing the constituent fibers in required
information, but shall be designated as ``other fiber.'' Where more
than one of such fibers are present in a product they shall be
designated in the aggregate as ``other fibers.'' Provided, however,
That nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the
disclosure of any fiber present in a textile fiber product which has
a clearly established and definite functional significance when
present in the amount contained in such product, as for example:
96 percent Acetate
4 percent Spandex
when spandex has the functional significance of elasticity. In
making such disclosure all of the provisions of the Act and
regulations setting forth the manner and form of disclosure of fiber
content information, including the provisions of Secs. 303.17 of
this part (Rule 17) and 303.41 of this part (Rule 41) relating to
the use of generic names and fiber trademarks, shall be applicable.
Current Section 303.3(b) would be deleted. The proposed amendment would
still prohibit disclosing fiber names for fibers that usually have a
functional significance, but do not have that functional significance
when present in the amount contained in the textile product. In
addition, it would prohibit disclosing the fiber names for fibers
present in the amount of less than 5% when the fiber has no functional
significance. Thus, the proposed amendment would still allow the
consumer to distinguish between fibers constituting less than 5% of the
total weight that have a functional significance and those that do not.
The Commission seeks comment on the benefits and costs to consumers and
manufacturers of the proposed amendment and on whether the proposed
change would be in the public interest.
b. Make Cordage Subject to the Textile Rules.
One commenter suggests that cordage products like rope and twine,
which currently are not covered by the Textile Rules, be covered by the
Rules because cordage is an assemblage of fibers. The commenter
contends that mislabeling of cordage is a considerable problem which
harms consumers.21
\21\ CORD (4) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Textile Act's marking requirements apply to ``household textile
articles,'' defined in Section 2(g) of the Act as: ``articles of
wearing apparel, costumes and accessories, draperies, floor coverings,
furnishings, beddings, and other textile goods of a type customarily
used in a household regardless of where used in fact.'' 22 Certain
products, not including cordage, are specifically exempt from the Act.
In addition, the Commission has discretion to exclude ``other textile
fiber products (1) which have an insignificant or inconsequential
textile fiber content, or (2) with respect to which the disclosure of
textile fiber content is not necessary for the protection of the
ultimate consumer.'' 23
\22\ 15 U.S.C. 70(g).
\23\ 15 U.S.C. 70j(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 45, ``Exclusions from the Act,'' implements Section 12(b) of
the Act by (1) declaring that all textile fiber products except those
specifically listed in Rule 45(a)(1) are excluded and (2) by naming
certain specifically excluded products in Rules 45(a)(2) through (9).
Rule 45(a)(1) therefore contains a list of all the products that are
covered by the Textile Act and its implementing regulations. Cordage
does not appear on this list. Consequently, Rule 45(a)(1) implicitly
excludes cordage from coverage under the Textile Act.
The Commission does not propose to amend the Textile Rules to
include cordage. Although cordage has some household uses, it is not a
common household textile, and there is no evidence that consumers rely
on fiber content information in making purchase decisions about twine
or other cordage products.24 Any significant affirmative
misrepresentations or failures to disclose material information
relating to cordage fiber content can be addressed through Section 5 of
the FTC Act, if necessary.
\24\ The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA), 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1451 et seq., requires that consumer commodities ``bear a label
specifying the identity of the commodity and the name and place of
business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor.'' 15 U.S.C.
1453(a)(1). 16 CFR 503.2(b) defines cordage as a ``consumer
commodity'' under the Act. In addition, although the commenter
claims that cordage is often not marked with the country of origin,
it adds that this is true for ``other than prepackaged consumer/
household cordage,'' CORD (4) p.1, which means that country of
origin information does reach consumers of cordage destined for
household use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Country of Origin Labeling
Under the Textile Act and Textile Rule 33(a)(1), an imported
textile fiber product must bear a label disclosing the name of the
country where the product was processed or manufactured. One commenter
recommends that companies that add value to imported greige goods
(unfinished plain fabric) through printing and finishing be allowed to
label the finished product as ``Made in USA.'' 25 Such a label
would not comport with Rule 33, which states that a textile product
made in the United States of imported fabric must contain a label
disclosing those facts, as for example: ``Made in USA of imported
fabric.'' Only those textile products completely made in the United
States of fabric that was also made in the United States may be labeled
``Made in USA,'' without qualification.26 At present, the
Commission does not propose any amendments to this Rule. However, the
Commission is currently examining issues pertaining to ``Made in USA''
advertising and labeling claims generally in a separate context.27
\25\ CRAN (23) pp.1-2.
\26\ In determining the appropriate disclosure for country of
origin, the manufacturer or processor needs to look only one step
back in the process. Thus, the label ``Made in USA'' would be
appropriate if the finished article were made from fabric produced
in the US. The manufacturer need not consider whether the yarn that
went into the fabric was imported for purposes of determining the
correct label.
\27\ On July 11, 1995, the Commission announced that it would
re-examine its ``Made in U.S.A.'' policy by (1) conducting a
comprehensive review of consumers' perceptions of ``Made in USA''
and similar claims and (2) holding a public workshop to examine
issues relevant to the standard. The Commission issued a notice, 60
FR 53922 (Oct. 18, 1995), requesting public comment in preparation
for the workshop. The workshop will be held on March 26-27, 1996. 60
FR 65327 (Dec. 19, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many comments recommend that the FTC and U.S. Customs Service
harmonize their regulations regarding country of origin marking for
textile goods.28 In particular, the Commission is aware that there
may be a conflict between Rule 33 and Section 334 of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, signed into law on December 8, 1994,29 and U.S.
Customs Service implementing regulations that will be effective July 1,
1996.30 For certain categories of textile products, including
household furnishings, such as linens, and apparel accessories, such as
scarves and handkerchiefs, the country of origin under the new tariff
laws will be the country where the fabric was produced, not the country
where the item was finished. Commission staff has begun to meet with
U.S. Customs Service staff to explore ways this apparent conflict might
be resolved without unduly
[[Page 5344]]
burdening U.S. businesses and causing confusion to consumers. In
addition, the Commission welcomes industry suggestions as to how this
apparent conflict might be resolved in a way that will comply with the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act marking requirements, provide meaningful
information to consumers, and not require lengthy label disclosures.
\28\ RUFF (9) p.1, ATMI (10) p.3, FRUIT (14) pp.2 and 4, SARA
(19) p.2.
\29\ Public Law 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809. Section 334 is codified
at 19 U.S.C. 3592.
\30\ 60 FR 46188 (Sept. 5, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Label Mechanics and Textile Rule 16(b)'s ``Fiber Content on
Reverse Side'' Disclosure Requirement
Many comments discussed the interrelated issues of label type,
label attachment, label placement, and use of both sides of a label to
set out required information.31 The comments recommend that the
Textile Rules not specify a type of label (e.g., woven, non-woven,
printed) to be used for required disclosures or the method of label
attachment, to allow for changes in labeling technology. The comments
recommend that the Rules require only that the label remain securely
affixed to the product; the information be legible and remain legible
for the useful life of the product; and both sides of a label be
allowed to be used to display the information required by the
Rules.32 The comments discuss the issue of label attachment in the
context of NAFTA and recommend that U.S. label attachment regulations
be harmonized with those of the NAFTA countries. However, the comments
do not explain whether inconsistencies in those regulations do in fact
exist.
\31\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) p.2, ATMI (10) p.5, FIELD
(13) p.6, FRUIT (14) p.5, AAMA (15) p.3, TLC (16) p.4, WEMCO (18)
p.1, SARA (19) p.4, HORACE (20) p.2, MILL (22) p.6, ANGEL (24) p.1,
RUSS (25) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1. The
work program of the NAFTA subcommittee on labeling includes ``a
uniform method of attachment'' as one of its issues.
\32\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUSS (9) p.2, ATMI (10) p.5, FIELD
(13) p.6, AAMA (15) p.3, TLC (16) p.4, WEMCO (18) p.1, SARA (19)
p.4, HORACE (20) p.2, MILL (22) p.6, ANGEL (24) p.1, RUSS (25) p.1,
HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current Rules already address many of the recommendations made
by the comments regarding the mechanics of labeling. Rule 15--
``Required Label and Method of Affixing''--allows any type of label
(e.g., a hangtag, a gummed-on label) to be used, so long as the label
is securely affixed and durable enough to remain attached to the
product until the consumer receives it. Rule 15 does not require a
permanent label for any of the disclosures required by the Textile Act,
and there is therefore no requirement that the label remain legible for
the useful life of the product. Rule 16 provides only that the Textile
Act disclosures must be ``clearly legible and readily accessible to the
prospective purchaser.''
In addition, although Rule 16(b) requires that all three Textile
Act disclosures--country of origin, company name or RN, and fiber
content--be made on the front of the required label, two provisos allow
the use of both sides of the label. The first proviso allows the
company name or RN to be on the back of the required label or on the
front of another label in immediate proximity to the required label.
When the required label is a cloth label, sewn to the product at one
end so that both sides of the label are readily accessible to the
prospective purchaser, the second proviso allows the fiber content
disclosure to be placed on the back of the required label ``if the
front side of such label clearly and conspicuously shows the wording
'Fiber Content on Reverse Side'.''
One commenter proposed that this second proviso of Textile Rule 16
be amended to eliminate the requirement that manufacturers place the
phrase ``Fiber content on Reverse Side'' on the front side of the
required label because ``consumers today are aware that both sides of
the label contain information important to their purchasing decision.''
33 The Commission agrees that consumers probably are in the habit
of looking on the back of labels for needed information, such as fiber
content or care instructions, and do not need a specific direction to
do so. Thus, the requirement that the front side of a cloth label
indicate that the fiber content information is on the reverse side is
probably unnecessary.
\33\ FRUIT (14) p.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission, therefore, proposes to amend Rule 16(b). The Rule
might be amended narrowly to eliminate the ``Fiber Content on Reverse
Side'' disclosure requirement for cloth labels with one end sewn to
textile products. Another alternative would be to amend Rule 16(b) to
allow the required fiber content information to appear on the reverse
side of any kind of permissible label (e.g., a cardboard label or a
hang-tag label) as long as the information remains ``conspicuous and
accessible.'' The latter alternative is broader than the amendment
suggested by the comment, but comports with the contention that
consumers are in the habit of looking on the back of labels. The
Commission solicits comments on these alternative amendment proposals,
including comments on the benefits and costs to consumers and
manufacturers of the proposed amendments. It also solicits amendment
language alternatives.
The Commission also requests comment on whether fiber content
identification should be printed on labels that are permanently
attached to a textile product,34 and on whether the other two
required disclosures should similarly appear on a permanent label. This
information may continue to be useful to consumers throughout the life
of the product. For example, fiber content identification may assist
professional cleaners in determining whether certain newly developed
wet-cleaning techniques are appropriate for an item of textile apparel.
Moreover, due to advances in labeling technology, requiring a permanent
label may not be burdensome to manufacturers. Many manufacturers
already make the required disclosures on a permanent label. Finally,
the Commission seeks comment concerning any specific conflicting rules
and regulations for label attachment in Mexico and Canada, and whether
such conflicts pose trade impediments that could be removed by changing
the Commission's Rules.
\34\ Comment on this issue was also requested in a Federal
Register notice seeking comment on proposed amendments to the
Commission's Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR Part 423. 60 FR 67102 (Dec.
28, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. System of Shared Information for Manufacturer or Importer
Identification Among the NAFTA Countries.
Under the Textile Act,35 the Wool Products Labeling
Act,36 and the Fur Products Labeling Act,37 the required
label on covered products must bear the identification of one or more
companies responsible for the manufacture, importation, offering for
sale, or other handling of the product, either by the full name under
which the company does business or, in lieu thereof, by the RN issued
by the Commission. Canada has a similar system of identification
numbers known as CA numbers. Mexico does not have a similar system, but
the Mexican government issues tax identification numbers to companies.
\35\ Section 4(b)(3) of the Textile Act and Rules 16(a)(2), 19,
and 20 thereunder, require manufacturers or other responsible
parties to include their name or registered identification number on
a textile label.
\36\ 15 U.S.C. 68 et seq.
\37\ 15 U.S.C. 69 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To eliminate the need for a company to register in more than one
country, the comments recommend that the FTC and appropriate government
agencies in the NAFTA countries develop an integrated system for
identifying the manufacturer, importer, or dealer of a textile product
that would allow any RN, CA, or Mexican tax identification number to
suffice as legal company identification
[[Page 5345]]
in all three NAFTA countries.38 The comments repeatedly state that
it would not be necessary to create one identification number system.
They recommend that each NAFTA country continue its policy and
procedure of registration, with the U.S. continuing the present system
of RN numbers. The countries could then exchange information on
computer databases so that a textile product can be traced to a
manufacturer or other responsible party using either an RN number, a CA
number, or a Mexican tax number.
\38\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) pp.1-2, ATMI (10) p.2,
USA-ITA (11) p.2, FIELD (13) pp.2-3, FRUIT (14) p.5, AAMA (15) pp.2-
3, TLC (16) p.4, ISAC 17 (17) p.1, WEMCO (18), p.1, SARA (19) p.2,
HORACE (20) p.2, MILL (22) p.3, ANGEL (24) p.1, RUSS (25) p.2,
HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the Textile Act and the Rules would have to be amended to
allow CA numbers and Mexican tax numbers, which are not registered by
the Commission, to be used on textile products shipped for distribution
in the United States. At this time, the Commission is not considering
any amendments to the Textile Rules related to responsible party
identification. Before the Commission considers whether to recommend
that Congress amend the Textile Act, it seeks comment on the advantages
and disadvantages of a system of shared information, the feasibility of
implementing such a system across borders, and the impact such a system
would have on the ability of the Commission, consumers, and firms to
track responsible parties. The Commission would recommend that Congress
amend the Textile Act only if the NAFTA countries reach an agreement to
share information. Such agreement would be critical to the
effectiveness of any amendments to the Textile Act and Rules.
f. Require Holders of RN Numbers to Update their Registration
Information when Changes in that Information Occur
The success of a system of shared information would also depend to
a great extent on the availability and the quality of the information
in the Commission's RN registry and the registration systems of the
other NAFTA signatories. To increase the usefulness of the RN registry,
the Commission plans to improve its accuracy and the ease of access to
its contents.
Since initially being issued their RN's, many companies have
changed their legal business name, business address, and/or company
type (e.g., from proprietorship to corporation) without notifying the
FTC about the change(s), as requested in the RN number application.
Since the 1940's many RN holders have gone out of existence, and
others, while still in existence, no longer have any need for their
RN's. As a result, a large percentage of the official FTC records are
inaccurate (i.e., not reflecting an actual user's correct name, place
of business, and/or company type) or obsolete (e.g., reflecting an RN
held by a non-existent company).
Registered identification numbers are subject to cancellation
whenever any such number was procured or has been used improperly or
contrary to the requirements of the Acts administered by the Federal
Trade Commission, and regulations promulgated thereunder, or when
otherwise deemed necessary in the public interest. The Commission
proposes to add a provision to the Textile Rules that would subject an
RN number to cancellation if, after a change in the material
information contained on the RN application, a new application that
reflects current business information is not promptly submitted. The
new, updated application would replace the old one in the Commission's
files; there would be no charge for processing the new application. Any
company whose RN application does not reflect current business
information by a specified deadline would have its RN cancelled.
Commission staff would make every reasonable effort to identify and
locate all companies actually using an RN and help them update their
applications before the specified deadline.
The Commission seeks comment on the following proposed amendment to
Rule 20(b):
Sec. 303.20 Registered identification numbers.
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
(2) Registered identification numbers will be subject to
cancellation if the Federal Trade Commission fails to receive prompt
notification of any change in name, business address, or legal
business status of a person or concern to whom a registered
identification number has been assigned by application duly executed
in the form set out in subsection (d) of this section, reflecting
the current name, business address, and legal business status of the
person or concern.
(3) Registered identification numbers will be subject to
cancellation whenever any such number was procured or has been used
improperly or contrary to the requirements of the Acts administered
by the Federal Trade Commission, and regulations promulgated
thereunder, or when otherwise deemed necessary in the public
interest.
g. Use of Abbreviations for Fiber Content Identification.
Although supporting the fiber content disclosure requirements, the
comments recommend that the Rules be amended to allow abbreviations of
generic fiber names in fiber content disclosures.39 Many comments
state that spelling out complete fiber names in three languages for the
marketing of textile products in the NAFTA countries is unwieldy and
that abbreviations of generic fiber names would permit the required
information to be conveyed on a smaller label.40 The comments
contend that if abbreviations were permitted, they could lead to a
single label for NAFTA countries and eventually to an international
label.41
\39\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) p.2: ATMI (10) p.4-5,
USA-ITA (11) p.2, FIELD (13) pp.4-5, FRUIT (14) p.3, AAMA (15) p.2,
TLC (16) pp.3-4, ISAC 17 (17) p.2, WEMCO (18) p.1, SARA (19) p.2,
HORACE (20) p.2, MILL (22) pp.4-5, ANGEL (24) p.1, RUSS (25) p.2,
HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.
\40\ WFC (6) p.1, USA-ITA (11) p.2, FRUIT (14) p.2, AAMA (15)
p.2, TLC (16) p.3, ISAC 17 (17) p.2, WEMCO (18) p.1, SARA (19) p.1,
ANGEL (24) p.1, RUSS (25) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER
(28) p.1.
\41\ ISAC 17 (17) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many comments urge that the FTC and the appropriate agencies in the
NAFTA countries adopt abbreviations for the most common fibers--
acrylic, cotton, nylon, polyester, rayon, silk, spandex, and wool--
which purportedly represent more than 80% of all apparel and textile
products sold in the marketplace, and an abbreviation for designating
``other fibers'' that are present in amounts of less than 5% of total
fiber weight.42 The result would be three abbreviations, one in
each language--English, Spanish, and French--for the most common
generic fibers.43 Although abbreviations eventually could be
developed for other fibers, the comments emphasize the need to develop
abbreviations for the more common generic fibers first. Other fibers
which the rules do not permit to be lumped together as ``other fibers''
can be identified by their full fiber names.44 A few comments
recommend three- to four-letter abbreviations for fiber names.45
One commenter states that any abbreviations used for fiber
identification should not arbitrarily be limited to a specific number
of letters, as in three- to four-letter abbreviations.46
\42\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, ATMI (10) p.4, FIELD (13) pp.4-5,
FRUIT (14) p.3, AAMA (15) p.2, TLC (16) p.3, WEMCO (18) p.1, SARA
(19) p.2, MILL (22) pp.4-5, ANGEL (24) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP
(27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1. Some comments omit acrylic from this list
of fibers. RUFF (9) p.2, HORACE (20) p.2, RUSS (25) p.2.
\43\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) p.2, ATMI (10) p.4, AAMA
(15) p.2, TLC (16) p.3, WEMCO (18) p.1, SARA, (19) p.2, ANGEL (24)
p.1, RUSS (25) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.
\44\ DR (8) p.1, ATMI (10) p.4, FIELD (13) p.5, FRUIT (14) p.3,
MILL (22) p.5.
\45\ FIELD (13) p.4, ISAC 17 (17) p.2.
\46\ AFMA (7) states, at p. 2, that ``[a]s labeling requirements
are simplified, the quality and consistency of information provided
to the consumer should be maintained,'' so as not to compromise
``the two decades of education and experiences developed under the
current system in the United States.''
[[Page 5346]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments recognize that when fiber names are entirely different
in different languages, arriving at common abbreviations may be
difficult.47 But the comments point out that when fiber names are
identical or similar, the same abbreviation could be used by more than
one country, thereby reducing the use of abbreviations on
labels.48
\47\ AFMA (7) p.3.
\48\ WFC (6) p.1, AFMA (7) p.3, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) p.2, ATMI
(10) p.4, FIELD (13) p.4, FRUIT (14) p.3, AAMA (15) p.2, TLC (16)
p.3, WEMCO (18) p.1, SARA (19) p.2, HORACE (20) p.2, MILL (22) p.4,
ANGEL (24) p.1, RUSS (25) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER
(28) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments also recommend that the use of abbreviations should be
optional,49 and that manufacturers should be allowed to use full
labeling and still qualify for NAFTA benefits in all signatory
countries.50 To educate the public about the meaning of
abbreviations, the comments recommend that manufacturers or retailers
provide hangtags, explanatory charts, or other consumer education
labels for a limited period.51
\49\ AAMA (15) p.2.
\50\ AFMA (7) p.3.
\51\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) p.1, ATMI (10) p.4, FIELD
(13) p.5, FRUIT (14) p.3, AAMA (15) p.2, TLC (16) p.4, WEMCO (18)
p.1, SARA (19) p.2, MILL (22) p.5, ANGEL (24) p.1, HAGGAR (26) p.1,
CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the use of abbreviations for fiber
names may be beneficial to companies without harming consumers. The
Commission therefore proposes to amend Rules 5 and 6 to allow the use
of abbreviations for generic fiber names. At present Textile Rule 5
does not allow the use of abbreviations for disclosures of required
information, except for the country of origin. To allow the use of
abbreviations, the Commission proposes to amend Rules 5 and 6 (Sections
303.5 and 303.6) to read as follows:
Sec. 303.5 Abbreviations, ditto marks, and asterisks prohibited.
(a) In disclosing required information, words or terms shall not
be designated by ditto marks or appear in footnotes referred to by
asterisks or other symbols in required information, and shall not be
abbreviated except as permitted in Rule 33(e) and Rule 6.
* * * * *
Sec. 303.6 Generic names of fibers to be used.
(a) Except where another name is permitted under the Act and
Regulations, the respective generic names of all fibers present in
the amount of five per centum or more of the total fiber weight of
the textile fiber product shall be used when naming fibers in the
required information; as for example: cotton, rayon, silk, linen,
nylon, etc., provided, however, that the following abbreviations may
be used for cotton, wool, polyester, rayon, nylon, spandex, silk,
and acrylic:
cotton--cot
wool--wl
polyester--poly
rayon--ryn
nylon--nyl
spandex--spdx
silk--slk
acrylic--acrl
* * * * *
The Commission solicits comments on these proposed amendments, as well
as alternative amendment language, other suggestions for English-
language abbreviations for the above-listed fibers, and abbreviations
for the catch-all classifications, ``other fiber'' and ``other
fibers.'' The Commission also seeks submission of empirical data (copy
tests, etc.) about consumer understanding of abbreviations and the
impact that the use of abbreviations may have on consumers and firms.
In addition, the notice asks whether the use of abbreviations on the
required fiber content labels should be conditioned upon use of
explanatory hangtags, indefinitely or for a limited period of time, and
if the latter, for how long.
h. Use of Abbreviations and Symbols in Country of Origin Labeling
Rule 33 requires that the name of the country where the textile
product was processed or manufactured be indicated on a label. The
comments recommend that the Rules be amended to allow the optional use
of three-letter abbreviations for country of origin names (such as CAN
for Canada, MEX for Mexico, and USA for the United States),52 and
a symbol, such as a solid flag, to denote the words ``made in'' or
``product of'' in country of origin disclosures.53 The commenters
assert this would facilitate trade under NAFTA by reducing the label
size, eliminating the need for three languages, and reducing consumer
confusion. The comments contend that consumer education programs could
be instituted to educate the consumer as to the meaning of the
abbreviations and the symbol.54 Only one comment opposed the use
of abbreviations of country names.55
\52\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) p.1, ATMI (10) p.3, FRUIT
(14) p.4, AAMA (15) p.1, TLC (16) p.3, ISAC 17 (17) p.3, WEMCO (18)
p.1, SARA (19) p.2, ANGEL (24) p.1, RUSS (25) p.2, HAGGAR (26) p.1,
CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.
\53\ WFC (6) p.1, DR (8) p.1, RUFF (9) p. 1, ATMI (10) p.3,
FRUIT (14) p.4, AAMA (15) p.1, TLC (16) p.3, ISAC 17 (17) p.3, WEMCO
(18) p.1, SARA (19) p.2, MILL (22) p.4, ANGEL (24) p.1, RUSS (25)
p.2, HAGGAR (26) p.1, CAP (27) p.1, BIDER (28) p.1.
\54\ RUFF (9) p.1.
\55\ MILL (22) pp.1-2, 4. MILL states, at p.1, that ``[a]nything
less than the complete country name would obscure for consumers the
country of origin information intended by the Congress in the
labeling acts and the current F.T.C. rules.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 33(e) already permits abbreviations of country of origin names
if they ``unmistakably indicate the name of a country.'' The challenge
will be to develop abbreviations that convey the country of origin and
also harmonize with abbreviations used in the other NAFTA countries.
Because Rule 33(e) already allows abbreviations for country of origin
names, the Commission does not recommend any change to that Rule at
this time. Nor does it recommend any change to permit the use of
symbols in country of origin labeling because it lacks sufficient
knowledge about the feasibility of doing so.
The Commission solicits more information from consumers, textile
industry representatives, and U.S. Customs about the use of
abbreviations and symbols in country of origin labeling. The Commission
seeks specific recommendations for the abbreviations to be used for
``Canada,'' ``Mexico,'' and the ``United States,'' as well as comments
on the viability of using symbols in making country of origin
disclosures. The Commission seeks comment on the benefits and costs to
consumers and firms of adding specific country of origin abbreviations
to the Rules and allowing symbols.
i. Procedures for Establishing New Generic Names for Manufactured
Fibers.
Under Section 7(c) of the Textile Act, the Commission is
``authorized and directed to make such rules and regulations, including
the establishment of generic names of manufactured fibers * * * as may
be necessary and proper for administration and enforcement.'' 15 U.S.C.
70e(c) (emphasis added). Currently, Rule 7 sets out the generic names
and definitions for manufactured fibers that are recognized by the
Commission. If a manufacturer or producer develops a new fiber that is
not listed in Rule 7, the fiber content identification label must
identify the new fiber by using one of the already recognized generic
names or the manufacturer or producer of the new fiber must file, under
Rule 8, a written application with the Commission, requesting the
establishment of a new generic name for the new fiber. Such a
requirement limits the proliferation of new fiber names and therefore
benefits consumers, who need only acquaint themselves with a few
generic names to understand fiber content disclosures. But at the same
time, the limitation on
[[Page 5347]]
new generic names may place manufacturers of new fibers at a
competitive disadvantage because identifying a new fiber with an
inappropriate recognized generic name may disparage the new fiber and
harm the manufacturer.
The Commission proposes to amend Rules 7 and 8 to allow the use of
new generic names for manufactured fibers if the name and fiber are
recognized by an international standards-setting organization, such as
the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) or the
International Bureau for the Standardization of Man-Made Fibers
(BISFA). Textile Rules 7 and 8 could be amended to state that if such a
body recognizes a new fiber and a new generic name, then the use of the
new generic fiber name in this country would not violate the Textile
Act and the Textile Rules. The Commission would retain its own list of
manufactured fiber names. This would allow manufacturers that use
generic names recognized by the Commission, but not recognized by ISO,
to continue to use their names. By relying on a standards-setting body,
the Commission could save the resources of duplicating the inquiry in a
proceeding under Textile Rule 8. At the same time, manufacturers could
continue to apply to the FTC for the recognition of new generic fiber
names.
The Commission seeks comment on the following proposed amendments
to Textile Rules 7 and 8. The Commission proposes to amend Rule 7 by
adding the following language at the end of the Rule, after the list of
definitions of generic names for manufactured fibers:
Sec. 303.7 Generic names and definitions for manufactured fibers.
* * * * *
(u) * * *
In addition to the above-defined names, the generic names and
their respective definitions recognized by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) in its International Standard
ISO 2076 are incorporated by reference into this Rule section and
are recognized as generic names and definitions for purposes of
these Rules, unless and until the Commission finds that a generic
name in such International Standard is inappropriate for use in the
United States.
The Commission proposes to amend Rule 8 to read as follows:
Sec. 303.8 Procedure for establishing generic names for
manufactured fibers.
(a) Prior to the marketing or handling of a manufactured fiber
for which no generic name has been established or otherwise
recognized by the Commission, the manufacturer or producer thereof
shall file a written application with the Commission, requesting the
establishment of a generic name for such fibers, stating therein:
* * * * *
III. Invitation To Comment and Questions for Comment
A. Invitation
Members of the public are invited to comment on any issues or
concerns they believe are relevant or appropriate to the Commission's
consideration of the proposed amendments to the Textile Rules. The
Commission requests that factual data upon which the comments are based
be submitted with the comments. In addition to the issues raised above,
the Commission solicits public comment on the specific questions
identified below. These questions are designed to assist the public and
should not be construed as a limitation on the issues on which public
comment may be submitted.
B. Questions
Use of Generic Fiber Names for Fibers with a Functional Significance
and Present in the Amount of Less Than 5% of the Total Fiber Weight of
a Textile Product
1. Should Textile Rule 3 be amended to allow manufacturers to list
the generic fiber name(s) of fiber(s) that have a functional
significance and are present in the amount of less than 5% of the
weight of the textile product, without also requiring disclosure of the
functional significance of the fiber(s)?
a. What benefits and costs to consumers and businesses would result
from such an amendment?
b. Is the proposed amendment language set out in this notice
appropriate? If not, what amendment language should be used?
Label Mechanics and Textile Rule 16(b)'s ``Fiber Content on Reverse
Side'' Disclosure Requirement
2. Should Textile Rule 16 be amended to eliminate the requirement
that the front side of a cloth label, sewn to the product so that both
sides of the label are readily accessible to the prospective purchaser,
bear the words ``Fiber Content on Reverse Side'' when the fiber content
disclosure is listed on the reverse side of the label? Is there a
continuing need for such a requirement?
3. Should Textile Rule 16 be amended to allow the required fiber
content information to appear on the reverse side of any kind of
allowable label as long as the information remains ``conspicuous and
accessible?''
a. What benefits and costs to consumers and firms would result from
each of these alternative amendments?
4. Are there any rules or regulations concerning label attachment
in Canada or Mexico that conflict with the Textile Rules? If so, what
are they, and how do they conflict?
Identification Numbers of Manufacturers or Other Responsible Parties
5. Should the Commission amend the Textile Rules to allow the
interchangeable use of RN, CA, or Mexican tax numbers?
a. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a system of shared
information?
b. Would the implementation of a system of shared information
across national borders be feasible?
c. What impact would a system of shared information have on the
ability of consumers and businesses to track responsible parties?
d. What benefits and costs to consumers and businesses would result
from such an amendment?
Fiber Identification Labeling
6. Should the Commission amend the Textile Rules to permit the
abbreviation of fiber names on fiber content identification labels?
a. What costs and benefits to consumers and businesses would accrue
from allowing the use of abbreviations for fiber content
identification?
b. Are there existing abbreviations for fibers that would clearly
convey the required fiber content identification information?
c. Is the proposed amendment language set out in this notice
appropriate? If not, what amendment language should be used?
7. Do Canadian and Mexican regulations allow the use of
abbreviations of fiber names on fiber content identification labels?
8. Do any empirical data (copy tests, etc.) exist concerning
consumer understanding of fiber name abbreviations?
9. Should the Textile Rules be amended to require that the required
disclosures be printed on labels that are permanently attached to
textile products? Should a permanent label be required only for fiber
content identification or for all three required disclosures?
Country of Origin Labeling
10. Are there existing abbreviations that would ``unmistakably
indicate the name'' of each of the NAFTA countries?
a. Do Canadian and Mexican regulations allow the use of
abbreviations for country of origin names?
[[Page 5348]]
b. Would U.S. Customs regulations pose any impediment to an
amendment of Commission rules to allow abbreviations of country names?
11. Should the Commission amend the Textile Rules to allow a symbol
to be used to mean ``made in'' or ``product of,'' or other similar
phrases, in country of origin labeling?
a. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of allowing the
use of a symbol?
b. If the Commission decides to allow the use of a symbol, which
symbol should be used?
c. What benefits and costs would allowing a symbol have for
purchasers of the products affected by the Textile Rules?
d. What actions can be taken to ensure that consumers understand
what the symbol means?
e. How would the use of a symbol work when manufacturers wish to
distinguish between the country of origin of an unfinished textile
product and the country where another phase of the manufacturing
process takes place, as in ``Made in the Dominican Republic of United
States components''?
12. How can the apparent conflict between the Commission's country
of origin labeling requirements and the new marking requirements
imposed by U.S. Customs, with regard to household furnishings and
apparel accessories, be resolved in a manner that will be consistent
with statutory requirements, provide meaningful information to
consumers, and not be burdensome to U.S. businesses?
13. Are there additional conflicts between Commission and Customs
regulations on country of origin labeling for textile products? If so,
what is the specific nature of the conflict, and how can it be resolved
in the best interests of both businesses and consumers?
Procedures for Establishing New Generic Names for Manufactured Fibers
14. Should the Commission amend the Textile Rules to allow the use
of new generic names for manufactured fibers if the name and fiber are
recognized by an international standards-setting organization?
a. If the Commission decided to amend the Textile Rules in this
manner, what international standards-setting organization(s) should the
Commission follow?
b. Is the proposed amendment language set out in this Notice
appropriate? If not, what amendment language should be used?
IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-11, requires an
analysis of the anticipated impact of the proposed amendments to the
Textile Rules on small businesses. The analysis must contain, as
applicable, a description of the reasons why action is being
considered, the objectives of and legal basis for the proposed actions,
the class and number of small entities affected, the projected
reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements being
proposed, any existing federal rules which may duplicate, overlap or
conflict with the proposed actions, and any significant alternatives to
the proposed actions that accomplish their objectives and, at the same
time, minimize their impact on small entities.
A description of the reasons why the proposed amendments are being
considered and the objectives of the proposed amendments to the Rules
have been explained elsewhere in this Notice. The proposed amendments
do not appear to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small businesses. To the extent they do have an effect on
such entities, the effect should be to reduce the costs of compliance
with Textile Act requirements.
Therefore, based on available information, the Commission
certifies, pursuant to section 605 of RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, that, if the
Commission amends the Textiles Rules as proposed, that action will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. To
ensure that no substantial economic impact is being overlooked,
however, the Commission requests comments on this issue. After
reviewing any comments received, the Commission will determine whether
it is necessary to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Textile Rules contain various collection of information
requirements for which the Commission has current clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., pursuant to
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number 3084-0101.
In addition, the amendments proposed in this notice would lower the
paperwork burden associated with the current Rules. The proposed
amendments would eliminate the functional significance disclosure
requirement of Rule 3(b) and the ``Fiber Content on Reverse Side''
disclosure requirement of Rule 16(b). They would allow abbreviations
for generic fiber names and the use of new generic names for
manufactured fibers if the name and fiber are recognized by an
international standards-setting organization.
VI. Additional Information for Interested Persons
A. Motions or Petitions
Any motions or petitions in connection with this proceeding must be
filed with the Secretary of the Commission.
B. Communications by Outside Parties to Commissioners or Their Advisors
Pursuant to Rule 1.18(c) of the Commission Rules of Practice, 16
CFR 1.18(c), communications with respect to the merits of this
proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's
advisor during the course of this rulemaking shall be subject to the
following treatment. Written communications, including written
communications from members of Congress, shall be forwarded promptly to
the Secretary for placement on the public record. Oral communications,
not including oral communications from members of Congress, are
permitted only when such oral communications are transcribed verbatim
or summarized at the discretion of the Commissioner or Commissioner's
advisor to whom such oral communications are made, and are promptly
placed on the public record, together with any written communications
relating to such oral communications. Memoranda prepared by a
Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor setting forth the contents of
any oral communications from members of Congress shall be placed
promptly on the public record. If the communication with a member of
Congress is transcribed verbatim or summarized, the transcript or
summary will be placed promptly on the public record.
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 303
Textile fiber products identification; Trade practices.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 70 et seq.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-2935 Filed 2-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
