[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