[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-14523]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 15, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 its Trade Regulation Rule on Care
Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods (``the Care
Labeling Rule'' or ``the Rule''). The Commission is requesting comments
about the overall costs and benefits of the Rule and its overall
regulatory and economic impact as a part of its systematic review of
all current Commission regulations and guides. The Commission also is
requesting comment on whether the Rule should be modified so as to (1)
permit the use of care symbols in lieu of words; (2) revise the
requirements for care instructions in order to provide consumers with
information about whether a garment can be both washed and dry cleaned;
and (3) clarify the ``reasonable basis'' requirements of the Rule. 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 August 15, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to: Secretary, Federal Trade
Commission, room H-159, Sixth and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20580. Comments about the Care Labeling Rule should be identified as
``16 CFR Part 423--Comment.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Vecellio, Attorney,
Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2966.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission has determined, as part of
its oversight responsibilities, to review Rules and guides
periodically. These reviews will seek information about the costs and
benefits of the Commission's Rules and guides and their regulatory and
economic impact. The information obtained will assist the Commission in
identifying Rules and guides that warrant modification or rescission.
The Commission is also seeking comment on several issues specific
to the Care Labeling Rule. 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. In addition, there
is currently interest by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
others in reducing the use of dry cleaning solvents, because some
evidence indicates that the solvents may be damaging to the
environment. The Care Labeling Rule currently only requires either a
washing instruction or a dry cleaning instruction; it does not require
both. Thus, some garments that are labeled ``dry clean'' also may be
washable, although the Commission does not know the incidence of such
labeling. If the Rule required both washing and dry cleaning
instructions for such garments, consumers and professional cleaners
could make more informed choices. The Commission seeks comment on the
desirability of such a change and, in general, on the extent to which
the current Rule is consistent with the goal of reducing the use of dry
cleaning solvents. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it is
desirable to clarify the ``reasonable basis'' provision of the Rule.
Finally, the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which garments
are being sold with incorrect or incomplete care instructions.
A. 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))
B. Issues for Comment
The Care Labeling Rule currently requires that care instructions be
stated in ``appropriate terms,'' though 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.'' 16 CFR 423.2(b) (emphasis
added). Although the Rule does not specifically state that the
instructions must be in English, they usually are in English. The goal
of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is to establish a
trade zone in which goods can flow freely between Canada, Mexico, and
the United States. However, Canada requires that garments containing
instructions in English also contain instructions in French, and Mexico
requires that they also contain instructions in Spanish. Members of the
textile industry are concerned that care labels in three languages
would be too lengthy. Although manufacturers could separately label
inventory destined for each of the three countries, this would increase
costs and reduce the advantages to be gained from a large free trade
zone.
The Commission solicits comment on whether it is desirable to allow
the use of symbols in lieu of written language on care labels. However,
the Commission recognizes that consumer use and acceptance of symbols
may not be feasible without consumer education about the meaning of the
symbols, which also would impose costs. Moreover, there are several
existing systems of care symbols, and various issues arise concerning
what system would be most feasible and appropriate.1 The
Commission requests comment on the costs and benefits of allowing the
use of care symbols in lieu of words and of the specific systems of
care symbols currently in existence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ E.g., a system developed by the International Association
for Textile Care Labeling (``Ginetex'') and adopted by the
International Standards Organization as International Standard 3758;
system 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. Some of the symbols in
the Ginetex system are trademarked. One issue to be resolved is what
payment, if any, United States companies would have to make if the
Commission were to approve the Ginetex system for use in the United
States and what payment, if any, United States companies would have
to make if they exported goods with these symbols to European
countries. The ASTM system uses the same basic symbols as the
Ginetex system but provides more detail. (For example, the ASTM
system provides a symbol for non-chlorine bleach, while the Ginetex
system does not.) However, because some of the basic symbols used in
the ASTM system are trademarked by Ginetex, United States companies
may not be able to export goods using these symbols to certain
European countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the Care Labeling Rule currently only requires either a
washing instruction or a dry cleaning instruction; it does not require
both. Thus, although garments that are labeled ``dry clean'' also may
be washable, consumers and professional cleaners cannot be certain that
items labeled ``dry clean'' can be washed without damage. If the Rule
required both washing and dry cleaning instructions for such garments,
consumers would be informed that they have a choice between these
cleaning methods.
Perchloroethylene (PCE) is the most commonly used dry cleaning
solvent. PCE has been designated as a hazardous air pollutant under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act and under many state air toxics
regulations. On September 15, 1993, the EPA set national emission
standards for new and existing dry cleaning facilities using PCE. EPA's
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics has been working with the dry
cleaning industry to reduce exposure to PCE. As part of this process,
EPA has published a summary of a process referred to as ``Multiprocess
Wet Cleaning.'' In this summary, EPA stated that it has ``formed a
partnership with the dry cleaning industry to compare the costs and
performance of a potential alternative cleaning process that relies on
the controlled application of heat, steam and natural soaps to clean
clothes that are typically dry cleaned.''2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\EPA Document 744-R-93-004, ``Multiprocess Wet Cleaning: Cost
and Performance Comparison of Conventional Dry Cleaning and an
Alternative Process,'' Executive Summary, pp. ES-i and ES-ii.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment of the Care Labeling Rule to require that care
instructions state both whether a garment can be washed as well as
whether it can be dry cleaned might enable both consumers and
professional cleaners to choose options that would reduce risks to the
environment. The Commission does not know the extent to which such
labeling currently occurs. However, such a change might impose
increased costs on manufacturers and importers. The Commission solicits
comment on whether it is desirable to require that care instructions be
provided for both washing and dry cleaning on garments where either
method is appropriate.
Finally, the Commission solicits comment on the reasonable basis
requirement of the Rule. The Rule now says that a reasonable basis can
consist of ``(1) Reliable evidence that the product was not harmed when
cleaned reasonably often according to the instructions * * * (2)
Reliable evidence that the product or a fair sample of the product was
harmed when cleaned by methods warned against on the label* * *. (3)
Reliable evidence, like that described in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of
this section, for each component part* * * (4) Reliable evidence that
the product or a fair sample of the product was successfully tested* *
*; (5) Reliable evidence of current technical literature, past
experience, or the industry expertise supporting the care information
on the label; or (6) Other reliable evidence.'' 16 CFR 423.6(c). The
intent of this provision is to make clear that a variety of types of
evidence, alone or in combination, might provide a reasonable basis in
specific instances.3 At the same time, however, the Statement of
Basis and Purpose to the Care Labeling Rule does not indicate that this
provision is meant to suggest that a seller will be deemed to possess a
reasonable basis whenever it possesses evidence of any one type of
basis. In some instances, testing of garments may be the only
acceptable basis, for example. This must be determined case-by-case,
just as the minimum ``reasonable basis'' in advertising substantiation
cases must be determined case-by-case.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\In the Statement of Basis and Purpose accompanying the
publication of the amended Rule on May 20, 1983, the Commission
indicated that it viewed the reasonable basis requirement for care
labeling claims to be the same as the reasonable basis requirement
for any claim. It described the reasonable basis requirement as
``implicit but not directly stated'' in the original rule. 48 FR
22736. It also stated that it believed that an explicit reasonable
basis requirement ``may benefit consumers to the extent that
manufacturers are not already aware of their obligation to have a
reasonable basis for care instructions.'' 48 FR 22740. The
Commission also stated that the enumeration in the amended Rule of
types of evidence that can constitute a reasonable basis would
``enable manufacturers to adopt efficient, as well as effective
methods of obtaining a reasonable basis for care instructions.'' Id.
(Emphasis added.)
\4\In the FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising
Substantiation, 104 F.T.C. 839 (1984), the Commission set forth
criteria to consider in establishing the minimum required basis for
objective advertising claims, where no specific basis was stated or
implied: ``These factors include: The type of claim, the product,
the consequences of a false claim, the benefits of a truthful claim,
the cost of developing substantiation for the claim, and the amount
of substantiation experts in the field believe is reasonable.'' 104
F.T.C. at 840.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Commission solicits comment on whether it is
desirable to change the Rule itself to clarify that the criteria used
to determine the level of substantiation required under the FTC Policy
Statement on Advertising Substantiation are applicable in the care
labeling context as well.5 The Commission also solicits comment on
whether the definition of a ``reasonable basis'' in the Rule should be
changed to provide members of the industry with additional guidance
about the level of substantiation required in specific circumstances.
In particular, the Commission solicits comment on whether the existing
Rule needs to be clarified to indicate that in certain circumstances
test results may be the only way to establish a reasonable basis for
care instructions because of the peculiarity of some components of the
garment or because reliable expert testimony states that such tests are
necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\See 48 FR 22733, 22737 (May 20, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Request for Comment
At this time, the Commission solicits written public comments on
the following questions:
(1) Is there a continuing need for the Rule?
(a) What benefits has the Rule provided to purchasers of the
products or services affected by the Rule?
(b) Has the Rule imposed costs on purchasers?
(2) What changes, if any, should be made to the Rule to increase
the benefits of the Rule to purchasers?
(a) How would these changes affect the costs the Rule imposes on
firms subject to its requirements?
(3) What significant burdens or costs, including costs of
compliance, has the Rule imposed on firms subject to its requirements?
(a) Has the Rule provided benefits to such firms?
(4) What changes, if any, should be made to the Rule to reduce the
burdens or costs imposed on firms subject to its requirements?
(a) How would these changes affect the benefits provided by the
Rule?
(5) Does the Rule overlap or conflict with other federal, state, or
local laws or regulations?
(6) Since the Rule was issued, what effects, if any, have changes
in relevant technology or economic conditions had on the Rule?
(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?
(8) Does the current Rule pose an impediment to the EPA's goal of
reducing the use of dry cleaning solvents? What is the actual incidence
of labeling that fails to include both washing and dry cleaning
instructions? With regard to a garment that can be either washed or dry
cleaned, should the Commission amend the Rule to require that care
instructions be provided for both washing and dry cleaning? What are
the costs and benefits, including environmental benefits, of such an
amendment?
(9) Should the Commission amend the Rule to specify under what
conditions a manufacturer or importer must possess a particular type of
basis among those listed in Sec. 423.6(c) of the Rule, such as test
results? Should the ``reasonable basis'' requirements of the Rule be
modified in any other way?
(10) Are there garments in the marketplace that contain inaccurate
or incomplete care instructions?
(a) To what extent is this a problem with respect to washing
instructions?
(b) To what extent is this a problem with respect to dry cleaning
instructions?
(c) To what extent are there problems with respect to shrinkage?
(d) To what extent are there problems with respect to
colorfastness?
(e) Are there any other significant problems that occur because of
inaccurate or incomplete care label instructions?
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.
[FR Doc. 94-14523 Filed 6-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
