[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