[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5724-5731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3048]



[[Page 5723]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VI





Federal Trade Commission





_______________________________________________________________________



16 CFR Part 423



Textile Wearing Apparel and Piece Goods; Care Labeling; Interim Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 25 / Thursday, February 6, 1997 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 5724]]



FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 423


Concerning Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile 
Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods; Conditional Exemption From 
Terminology Section of the Care Labeling Rule

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Interim rule, with request for public comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (the ``Commission'') has reviewed 
the public comments on a proposed conditional exemption to its Trade 
Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain 
Piece Goods (``the Care Labeling Rule'' or ``the Rule'') and has 
decided to adopt the conditional exemption. The conditional exemption 
will permit the use of the system of care symbols developed by the 
American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') and designated as 
ASTM Standard D5489-96c Guide to Care Symbols for Care Instructions on 
Consumer Textile Products, in lieu of words on the permanently attached 
care label, as long as explanatory information is provided to consumers 
for the first 18-month period after the effective date of the 
conditional exemption. The Commission seeks comments on the minor 
changes made in ASTM D5489 since the Commission last sought comment in 
November 1995.

DATES: This conditional exemption is effective July 1, 1997. The 
incorporation by reference of the ASTM standard is approved by the 
Director of the Federal Register effective July 1, 1997. Comments must 
be received by March 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Secretary, Room 159, Federal Trade 
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20580. Comments should be identified as 
``16 CFR Part 423--Comment.'' Copies of this notice can be obtained 
through the Public Reference Branch, Room 130, Federal Trade 
Commission, Washington, D.C. 20580; (202) 326-2222; or through the 
Commission's homepage on the World Wide Web at http://www.ftc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Vecellio or Edwin 
Rodriguez, Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580, 
(202) 326-2966 or (202) 326-3147.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    On June 15, 1994, the Commission published a Federal Register 
notice (``FRN''), requesting comment on various aspects of the care 
Labeling Rule, including whether the Rule should be modified to permit 
the use of symbols in lieu of words.\1\ On November 16, 1995, the 
Commission published a FRN, 60 FR 57552, announcing that the Commission 
had tentatively determined to adopt a proposed conditional exemption to 
the Care Labeling Rule to permit the use of certain care symbols in 
lieu of words on the permanently attached care label.\2\ The Notice 
sought additional comment on the specifies of the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 59 FR 30733 (June 15, 1994). This notice sought comment 
about the overall costs and benefits of the Rule and its overall 
regulatory and economic impact as part of the Commission's 
systematic review of all its current rules and guides. This notice 
also sought comment on the use of symbols in lieu of words on care 
labels and on certain other issues.
    \2\ On December 28, 1995, the Commission published a notice, 60 
FR 67102, seeking comment on other parts of the Rule and other 
proposed changes. The issues raised in the December 1995 notice will 
be addressed in a separate FRN at a later time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the November 1995 FRN stated that the Commission had 
tentatively decided to allow the use of the system of care symbols 
developed by ASTM and designated as ASTM Standard D5489 Guide to 
Symbols for Care Instructions on Consumer Textile Products, with one 
exception and addition.\3\ Certain other modifications to that system 
were under consideration by ASTM at the time the FRN was published. The 
FRN described these possible modifications and sought comment on 
them.\4\ In the FRN, the Commission noted that the proposed changes 
appeared to be useful, and, if these changes were adopted by ASTM, the 
Commission proposed adopting the ASTM system with those changes. These 
changes were adopted by ASTM, and were reflected in the standard 
designated ASTM Standard D5489-96a.\5\ Certain additional minor changes 
were made later in 1996, and these changes are embodied in the final 
standard designated ASTM Standard D5489-96c.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission note that the ASTM ``do not bleach'' symbol 
(an empty triangle with an ``X'' through it) had a different meaning 
in Mexico. To avoid this conflict, the Commission tentatively 
decided to accept ASTM Standard D5489-93 with the exception of this 
`'do not bleach'' symbol and the addition of a shaded triangle with 
an ``X'' through it. The exception is no longer necessary because 
ASTM deleted the empty triangle with an ``X'' through it. Although 
ASTM replaced it with a shaded triangle with an ``X'' through it, 
ASTM subsequently changed the ``do not bleach'' symbol again as 
discussed in part III.A.1.a. of this Notice infra.
    \4\ These changes are described in part III.A.1.a. of this 
Notice infra.
    \5\ The version of ASTM Standard D5489 discussed in the November 
1995 FRN was adopted by ASTM in 1993 and officially referred to as 
ASTM Standard D5489-93. When ASTM changes a standard, the suffix is 
changed to reflect the year of the revision. Thus, when Standard 
D5489 was revised in early 1996, it was referred to as ASTM Standard 
D5489-96a.
    \6\ These minor changes are also described in parts III.A.1.a. 
and b. of this Notice infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the 39 public comments that were submitted \7\ 
concerning the proposed conditional exemption, the Commission has now 
decided to adopt the exemption and to allow the use of the symbol 
system designated as ASTM Standard D5489-96c.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The commenters included consumers; public interest-related 
groups; fiber, textile, or apparel manufacturers, importers or 
sellers (or conglomerates); a federal government agency; textile and 
clothing educators; fiber, textile, or apparel manufacturers, 
importers or retailers trade associations, including two 
associations from foreign countries; one textile printing company; 
four label manufacturers; one association representing the leather 
apparel industry; one supplier of leather cleaning products and 
equipment; one Committee formed by industry members from the 
countries signatory to NAFTA; one appliance manufacturers trade 
association; two standards-related organizations; and three 
representatives from foreign nations. Each comment was assigned a 
number. The first time a comment is cited it is cited by the full 
name of the commenter and the assigned number; subsequently, it is 
cited by the number and a shortened form of the name. The comments 
are available for inspection in the Public Reference Room, room 130, 
Federal Trade Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except federal holidays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    The Care Labeling Rule was promulgated by the Commission on 
December 16, 1971, 36 FR 23883 (1971), and amended on May 20, 1983, 48 
FR 22733 (1983). The Rule makes it an unfair or deceptive act or 
practice for manufacturers and importers of textile wearing apparel and 
certain piece goods to sell these items without attaching care labels 
stating ``what regular care is needed for the ordinary use of the 
product.'' (16 CFR 423.6 (a) and (b)) The Rule also requires that the 
manufacturer or importer possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis for 
the care instructions. (16 CFR 423.6(c))
    The ``Terminology'' section of the Rule, 16 CFR 423.2(b), currently 
requires that care instructions be stated in ``appropriate terms,'' 
although it also states that ``any appropriate symbols may be used on 
care labels or care instructions, in addition to the required 
appropriate terms so long as the terms

[[Page 5725]]

fulfill the requirements of this regulation.'' (Emphasis added).
    The FRN the Commission published on June 15, 1994 stated that the 
North American Free Trade Agreement (``NAFTA'') ``has created industry 
interest in being permitted to use symbols in lieu of words to provide 
care instructions, and the Commission seeks comment on the costs and 
benefits of such a change.'' Based on the comments submitted in 
response to that notice, the Commission decided to give further 
consideration to the use of symbols. In a FRN published on November 16, 
1995, the Commission proposed a conditional exemption to the 
``Terminology'' section of the Rule to allow the use of care symbols 
without language. The Commission proposed that, for a 12 month period, 
care labels with information conveyed only in symbols must be 
accompanied by hangtags explaining the meaning of the symbols.
    The Commission examined two existing symbol systems--the system of 
care symbols developed by the International Association for Textile 
Care Labeling (``Ginetex'') and adopted by the International 
Organization for Standardization (``ISO'') as International Standard 
3758, and the system of care symbols developed by ASTM and designated 
as ASTM Standard D5489-93--to identify which conveys all or most of the 
information required by the Rule and meets other important criteria.\8\ 
The Commission concluded that ASTM Standard D5489 provided symbols 
relating to the information required by the Rule and that it best met 
the needs of consumers and industry. The Commission also concluded that 
the ASTM system was compatible with the care symbol systems used in 
Canada and Mexico, and that any difference among the symbol systems 
used in these countries did not pose insurmountable problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The ASTM and Ginetex systems use the same five basic 
symbols: a washtub to indicate washing (with a hand in the washtub 
to indicate hand washing), a triangle to indicate bleaching, a 
square to indicate drying (and a circle within a square to indicate 
machine drying), an iron to indicate ironing, and a circle to 
indicate drycleaning. An ``X'' cancelling out the symbol warns 
against using the designated cleaning technique, e.g., ``do not 
dryclean.'' The differences in the systems consist in the manner in 
which refinements to the basic processes are conveyed (or are not 
conveyed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission determined that the use of ISO Standard 3758 was not 
appropriate for the United States for three reasons. The Commission 
concluded that the ISO/Ginetex system does not provide symbols for some 
of the basic information required by the Rule and, therefore, cannot 
convey all the information that the Commission has found to be 
necessary to prevent the unfair and deceptive practices that the Rule 
was designed to prevent.\9\ The Ginetex system also assumes that 
washing machines have internal mechanisms for heating water to a 
precise temperature, and it links symbols for cool-down rinse, reduced 
spin, and reduced mechanical action to precise temperature settings. In 
addition, it includes only normal and low temperature ranges for tumble 
drying. Both of these aspects of the Ginetex system are inconsistent 
with the technology of laundry equipment used in the United States. The 
Commission also determined that Ginetex's assertion of trademark rights 
relating to the ISO/Ginetex symbols weighed against adoption of that 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission noted that the ISO/Ginetex system has no 
symbols for natural drying, the use of non-chlorine bleach, or the 
use of steam in ironing, which are care practices addressed by the 
Rule. The Commission also noted that the ISO/Ginetex system's symbol 
for drycleaning does not address all the warnings required by the 
Rule for drycleaning. In the Ginetex system, an underlined circle 
warns professional drycleaners generally about potential harm from 
``mechanical action and/or drying temperature and/or water addition 
in the solvent.'' But the ISO/Ginetex system does not have a method 
for providing warnings about which specific parts of the drycleaning 
process should be avoided as required by Section 423.6(b)(2)(ii) of 
the Rule. Ginetex (14) stated at p.3 that a symbol that provides 
warnings about all potential problems would be very complicated and 
difficult to understand and that professional cleaners should know 
what drycleaning process is required depending on the textile 
article. But this position shifts the burden from the manufacturer 
or importer subject to the Rule to the cleaner. In adopting the 
Rule, the Commission determined that the manufacturer or importer 
was in the best position to obtain information about the components 
of a garment and how the garment should be cleaned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Analysis of Comments

    The Commission received 39 comments in response to the November 16, 
1995 FRN. These comments overwhelmingly support allowing the voluntary 
use of a system of symbols without language to communicate care 
instructions.\10\ Only two comments opposed the voluntary use of 
symbols without language.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ H.H. Cutler (1) p.1; Salant Corporation (2) p.1; Ardis W. 
Koester (3) p.1; National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers (4) 
p.1; Kirk's Suede-Life, Inc. (5); Consumers Union (7) p.1; Supreme 
International (8) p.1; Host Apparel, Inc. (9) p.1; Cranston Print 
Works Company (10) p.1; United States Association of Importers of 
Textiles and Apparel (11) p.2; Leather Apparel Association, Inc. 
(12); American Textile Manufacturers Institute (13) p.1; 
International Association for Textile Care Labeling (14) p.1; 
American Apparel Manufacturers Association (15) p.1; Trilateral 
Labeling Committee (16) p.2; Paxar Corporation (17) p.1; Robert D. 
Stiehler (18) p.1; Italian Federation of Associations of Textile and 
Clothing Industries (19) p.2; National Knitwear & Sportswear 
Association (20) p.1; Warnaco, Inc. (21) p.1; International 
Fabricare Institute (22) p.1; Springs Industries, Inc. (23) p.1; 
Scott Tag & Label Co., Inc. (25) p.1; Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc. (26) 
p.1; National Cotton Council of America (27) p.1; United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (28) p.1; Association of Home 
Appliance Manufacturers (29) p.1, 2; Pittsfield Weaving Co., Inc. 
(30) p.1; Proctor & Gamble (31) p.1; Labelize, Inc. (32) p.1; The 
European Apparel and Textile Organization (33) p.1; Jo Ann Pullen 
(34) p.1; Industry Canada (35) p.1; ASTM Subcommittee D13.62 on Care 
Labeling (36) p.1; American Association of Family and Consumer 
Sciences (37) p.1; Embassy of Switzerland (38) p.1; European 
Commission, Directorate A (Industrial Policy) (39) p.1.
    \11\ Sheila Settles (6) p.1; Harriet Nelson (24) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some comments noted the need for additional symbols not found in 
either of the symbol systems that were considered. Kirk's and Leather 
stated there was a need for symbols for the care of leather wearing 
apparel.\12\ The Care Labeling Rule, however, applies to textile 
wearing apparel and certain piece goods. In the FRN published in 
December 1995, the Commission rejected a proposal to expand the 
coverage of the Rule to garments made completely of leather. 60 FR 
67103 n.3 (Dec. 28, 1995). EPA noted the need for a symbol for 
professional wet cleaning.\13\ In a separate proceeding, however, the 
Commission is considering whether to initiate a rulemaking to amend the 
Rule specifically to include professional wet cleaning. See 60 FR 67103 
(Dec. 28, 1995). If the Commission later determines to amend the Rule 
to encompass professional wet cleaning, it may be appropriate to amend 
the conditional exemption to add a symbol for professional wet 
cleaning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Comments 5 and 12, respectively.
    \13\ Comment 28, p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Comments Addressing Most Appropriate Symbols System

1. The ASTM System
    Seventeen comments support the use of the ASTM system of care 
symbols.\14\ One comment, however, expressed concern about the 
procedures for amending the ASTM system: that ASTM will only review 
ASTM Standard D5489 every five years, and that, as a private party, 
ASTM may not respond to requests from the public regarding changes to 
the symbol system.\15\ ASTM, however, can amend a standard at any time, 
not merely every five years, and it has already made changes to ASTM

[[Page 5726]]

Standard D5489 at the request of interested parties. Moreover, the 
Commission notes that the Commission itself must authorize changes to 
whatever system of symbols the Commission allows. In addition, the 
public may, at any time, file a petition with the Commission seeking to 
change the conditional exemption, and, if necessary, the Commission can 
adopt exceptions and additions to the ASTM system for the purposes of 
this Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Cutler (1) p.1; Koester (3) p.1; NAHM (4) p.1; ATMI (13) 
p.1; AAMA (15) p.2; TLC (16) p.2; Stiehler (18) p.1; NKSA (20) p.1; 
IFI (22) p.1; Springs (23) p.1; Fieldcrest (26) p.1; NCCA (27) p.1; 
AHAM (29) p.1; Pittsfield (30) p.1; P&G (31) p.2; Pullen (34) p.1; 
ASTM (36) p.1. The comments stated that the ASTM system is more 
comprehensive, more consistent with American technology, and more 
flexible and easily amended than the Ginetex system. See NAHM (4) 
p.1; Pullen (34) p.1, 5.
    \15\ P&G (31) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Changes Affecting the Manner in Which the ASTM Symbol System May Be 
Used To Comply With the Rule
    The November 1995 FRN described a specific version of the ASTM 
system--ASTM Standard D5489-1993--and minor modifications that were 
being considered by ASTM to that system.\16\ The FRN sought comment on 
these changes, which have already been made by ASTM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ These modifications were discussed in note 45 in the 
November 1995 FRN. They are: (1) two additions to the symbols for 
machine drying [a circle in the square with no dots to indicate any 
heat; a blacked-in circle to indicate air dry only (no heat)]; and, 
(2) a change to the refinements to the drycleaning symbol (a circle) 
so that lines indicating refinements to dryccleaning are placed next 
to the circle at an acute angle; if all four refinements were used, 
the symbol would consist of a circle surrounded by four lines in a 
diamond formation rather than a square, which avoids conflict with 
the symbol for machine drying (a circle in a square).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only Industry Canada addressed the proposed changes. Industry 
Canada stated that, for clarity, the proposed new symbol for ``tumble 
dry, no heat (air only)'' should be an empty circle rather than a 
blacked-in circle.\17\ The Commission believes, however, that clarity 
is enhanced by the use of the blacked-in circle, as originally 
proposed. In addition, Industry Canada's suggested change would not 
improve harmonization with the Canadian system, which requires that the 
tumble dry symbol be either green [to indicate normal heat] or yellow 
[to indicate low heat]. Industry Canada also opposed having a symbol 
that means ``any heat,'' stating that it believes a temperature should 
be given for tumble drying.\18\ The Rule, however, allows manufacturers 
who are conveying instructions in words to omit a temperature 
instruction for drying if the hottest temperature for drying would not 
harm the garment; the symbol for ``tumble dry, any heat'' is thus 
consistent with the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Comment 35 p.4-5.
    \18\ Comment 35 p.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Industry Canada also suggested a change to the ASTM ``do not 
bleach'' symbol. ASTM previously changed the ``do not bleach'' symbol 
from an empty triangle with an ``X'' through it to a shaded triangle 
with an ``X'' through it to prevent confusion with other systems.\19\ 
Industry Canada pointed out that confusion might nevertheless result 
because consumers may interpret the revised symbol as meaning ``do not 
use non-chlorine bleach'' rather than do not use any bleach.'' \20\ 
This concern was addressed by ASTM, which changed the ``do not bleach'' 
symbol to a blacked-in triangle with an ``X'' through it to make clear 
that no bleach, whether chlorine or non-chlorine, should be used. The 
Commission welcomes public comment on this change and on the other 
minor modifications discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See n.3 supra.
    \20\ Comment 35 at p.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many changes made by ASTM to Standard D5489 solve harmonization 
problems that were raised by commenters. The European Commission 
commented that water temperature indications in words--such as ``very 
hot,'' ``warm,'' and ``cool/cold,''--may be linked to different 
specific temperatures in different countries.\21\ Industry Canada also 
noted this problem, and pointed out that in the Canadian system 
``warm'' is defined as 50 degrees Centigrade, whereas in the United 
States ``warm'' is defined as a maximum of 43 degrees Centigrade.\22\ 
ASTM has changed ASTM Standard D5489 by deleting the water temperature 
word indicators in its explanatory chart. Thus, a consumer consulting 
the ASTM chart to find the meaning of one, two, or three dots, in the 
wash tub would be told the temperatures in Centigrade and Fahrenheit 
that correspond to one, two, or three dots rather than ``cool,'' 
``warm'' or ``hot.'' This change in the ASTM chart solves the problem 
of, for example, a Canadian consumer interpreting warm to mean 50 
degrees Centigrade.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Comment 39 p.2. The comment, which was from the European 
Commission, Directorate A (Industrial Policy), Unit III A/1 
(International Technology and Industrial Relations) responded to the 
November 16, 1995 FRN, described above, and to the December 28, 1995 
FRN, which addressed certain other issues about the Care Labeling 
Rule, including definitions of temperatures. The comment was 
numbered comment 39 in response to the November 1995 notice.
    \22\ Comment 35 p.6; Care Labeling Rule Appendix A.1.b.
    \23\ The ISO/Ginetex system used in Europe conveys temperature 
for wash water by means of a specific centigrade temperature in the 
washtub (e.g., 50 C). ASTM system allows temperature for wash water 
to be conveyed by one, two, or three dots; the Centigrade 
temperature can also be placed in the washtub. The dots were 
originally also defined as cool, warm, and hot, with a specific 
temperature range (identical to that in the Appendix to the Care 
Labeling Rule) to precisely define those terms. However, as noted 
above, ASTM deleted the word indicators from its explanatory chart 
because of conflicting definitions of those terms in different 
countries.
    ASTM also changed the definition of ``one dot'' from the 
definition in the Appendix to the Care Labeling Rule (a maximum of 
85 Fahrenheit, with no minimum) to a range from 65 to 85 degrees 
Fahrenheit. The reason given for this change was to educate 
consumers that detergents ``are not effective at lower 
temperatures.'' ASTM Standard D5489-96c Note 5. In the advance 
notice of proposed rulemaking published on December 28, 1995 (60 FR 
67102, 67103), the Commission noted that changes in the definitions 
of water temperature for ``cold,'' ``warm,'' and ``hot'' water may 
be necessary. The Commission will address this issue in a notice in 
a separate issue of the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that this change in the ASTM explanatory chart 
may mean that the chart does not communicate adequate information about 
temperature settings on washing machines to American consumers. 
Commission staff, industry members, and others, however, are 
coordinating a major educational campaign designed to educate consumers 
about the care symbols, and materials distributed through that campaign 
will explain the correlation of the temperature dot system to dial 
selections on washing and drying machines. Moreover, the conditional 
exemption requires that, for the first 18 months after the effective 
date of the conditional exemption, explanatory material ``decoding'' 
the care symbols used on a care label must be provided to the consumer 
purchasing the garment. If a ``machine wash'' symbol is used with a 
temperature indication (e.g., one dot for cold), the explanatory 
material provided to the consumer would have to explain what washing 
machine cycle should be selected.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ American washing machines set on ``cool'' may deliver water 
below 65 Fahrenheit in the winter in many parts of the United 
States; as noted above, the Commission will address the issue of 
whether the definition of cold water in the Appendix to the Care 
Labeling Rule needs to be revised in a later Federal Register 
Notice. Under the current provisions of the Rule, there is no 
requirement that consumers be advised that the cold water they use 
should not be below 65 Fahrenheit. However, the ASTM system 
encourages informing consumers that detergents are not effective at 
lower temperatures, and the Rule would not prohibit any such 
truthful information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other recent ASTM changes simply clarify that the symbols used in 
the Canadian system of care symbols for a washtub and an iron are 
acceptable although they differ slightly in shape from the ASTM 
symbols.\25\ In addition, ASTM modified the standard so as to make 
clear that instructions for ``permanent press'' or ``gentle cycle'' may 
be reported in symbols (i.e.,

[[Page 5727]]

underlining the washtub) or words on a label with the symbolic 
instructions for machine wash or machine dry. This option can be used 
by garment manufacturers who believe that the underlining might be 
confusing, especially to Canadian or Mexican consumers, whose existing 
symbol systems do not include underlining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The ASTM Standard now specifies that it allows the use, in 
addition to the ASTM symbols, of a washtub symbol without the 
representation of the water wave inside the tub and an iron symbol 
with a closed handle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ASTM also removed the steam markings from the iron symbol and has 
clarified that the iron symbol may mean ``Iron--dry or steam.'' This 
makes the ASTM system more compatible with the Canadian, Mexican, and 
European systems, none of which contain a separate symbol for steam 
ironing. ASTM, however, also created a symbol--an iron symbol with 
steam markings that have been canceled out by an ``X''--that can be 
used for the warning ``do not steam.'' Finally, ASTM added a statement 
to the text of the Standard explaining that ``the iron symbol may be 
used with the drycleaning symbol to report how to restore the item by 
ironing after wearing.''
b. Other Changes
    Other recent ASTM changes relate to changes in the Standard that 
are not an integral part of the symbol system (e.g., the Table of 
Additional Words to Use with Care Symbols) or that involve additions 
to, or linguistic changes in, the explanatory text of the Standard or 
the text appearing under the symbols in the explanatory chart. These 
changes help explain the system but do not change its use. In addition, 
one change relates to the order in which the symbols should be used. 
This change is not relevant to the use of the ASTM system to fulfill 
the requirements of the Care Labeling Rule because the Rule does not 
require that instructions appear in any particular order (though of 
course they must be intelligible).
    Finally, several changes relate to safety concerns raised by 
commenters. ASTM revised the text in Standard D5489 that explains the 
meaning of dots within the iron symbol to refer to maximum temperatures 
for the iron heat setting rather than simply to ironing temperatures. 
This at least partially addresses safety concerns raised by one 
commenter.\26\ Another safety concern was raised by Industry Canada, 
which commented that, at least theoretically, the symbol for hand 
washing could be combined with the hottest water temperatures.\27\ ASTM 
revised the text of the Standard to state that the only water 
temperatures that may be used with the hand washing symbol are 40 C 
(105 F) or 30 C (85 F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Stiehler (18) stated at p. 1 that the ASTM chart shows 
three iron symbols with indications for the use of steam at 200, 
150, or 110 degrees Celsius and expressed the concern that the use 
of steam at these temperatures could be dangerous.
    \27\ Comment 35 p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The Ginetex/ISO System
    Six comments stated that the Commission should adopt the Ginetex 
care symbol system to harmonize with the system used in Europe.\28\ Two 
comments recommended either that the Commission allow ``the use of 
GINETEX symbols supplemented by ASTM symbols for those care labeling 
elements required by the FTC but not conveyed by Ginetex symbols'' \29\ 
or allow the use of either the ASTM or the GINETEX systems until there 
is a consensus on an international system.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Cranston (10) p. 4; GINETEX (14) p. 5; FEDERTESSILE (19) p. 
1-2; EURATEX (33) p. 1; Switzerland (38) p. 1-2; European Commission 
(39) p. 1-2. These comments noted that if the U.S. adopts the ASTM 
system, European Community manufacturers will be obliged to continue 
to use different care labels for goods intended for export to the 
U.S. and U.S. manufacturers would have to do the same for goods 
destined for export to Europe, which would diminish the utility of 
symbols.
    \29\ Warnaco (21) p. 2.
    \30\ USA-ITA (11) p. 2. However, the Commission has concluded 
that allowing the use of both systems at the same time in the United 
States would result in the inconsistent use of symbols by 
manufacturers and confusion on the part of consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some comments also noted that trademark issues should not prevent 
the Commission from adopting the GINETEX system, but should become the 
focus of investigation and consultation.\31\ One comment indicated that 
country-specific royalty waivers may be a possibility.\32\ Despite this 
possibility, the Commission continues to have concerns about Ginetex's 
assertion of trademark rights over the ISO/Ginetex system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ FEDERTESSILE (19) p. 2, 3; Warnaco (21) p. 2; EURATEX (33) 
p. 2.
    \32\ Warnaco (21) p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the comments, the Commission reaffirms its 
conclusion that the use of the ISO standard 3758 is not appropriate for 
the United States at this time.\33\ The Commission's concerns with the 
comprehensiveness of the ISO/Ginetex system, with the system's 
inconsistency with U.S. technology, and with trademark issues have not 
been adequately resolved. The Commission therefore has decided to adopt 
the ASTM Standard D5489-96c system of care symbols for the conditional 
exemption. The Commission agrees, however, that harmonization of the 
symbol system adopted in the United States with the system used in 
Europe is very important. The Commission is aware that representatives 
of ASTM and Ginetex have been discussing harmonization of the two 
systems, and a Commission representative has attended ISO and Ginetex 
meetings. The Commission intends to continue its liaison efforts with 
Ginetex and ISO in an effort to promote harmonization. But, the 
Commission does not believe it is necessary to wait for a consensus on 
an international system before it allows the use of symbols without 
words. Many countries--Canada, Mexico, and Japan, among them--allow the 
use of symbols without language in the absence of an international 
consensus. Efforts to harmonize the U.S. and European care symbol 
systems can continue even though the Commission has decided to adopt 
the ASTM system at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Switzerland (38) at p. 2 and European Commission (39) at 
pp. 1-2 stated that Article 2.4 of the Agreement on Technical 
Barriers to Trade requires that technical regulations be based on 
international standards and encouraged the Commission to adopt the 
Ginetex/ISO standard because the adoption of a different system 
could create technical barriers to trade. In the Federal Register 
notice of November 16, 1995, the Commission gave careful 
consideration to ISO Standard 3758, acknowledging that the Trade 
Agreements Act of 1979 encourages federal agencies to use 
international standards whenever possible. But the Commission also 
noted that the Trade Agreements Act explicitly identifies several 
reasons why basing a standard on an international standard may not 
be appropriate, including the prevention of deceptive practices and 
fundamental technological problems. 19 U.S.C. 2532(2)(B)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments Responding to Questions Posed in the FRN

    The November 16, 1995 FRN included the following questions about 
the possible introduction of the ASTM system in the United States:

    1. Will the underlining of the washtub or the machine drying 
symbol be confusing to Canadian and Mexican consumers? Will the 
underlining be confusing to American consumers? If so, should the 
Commission ``except'' this part of the ASTM system from the 
conditional exemption? Will ``excepting'' the underlining of symbols 
reduce the benefit of symbols or impose costs on manufacturers?

    A few comments stated that underlining (which denotes what cycle--
i.e., ``gentle'' or ``permanent press''--should be used) may be 
confusing to consumers, at least initially.\34\ But most of the 
comments

[[Page 5728]]

stated that the underlining of symbols will not be confusing and should 
not be an exception from the ASTM system.\35\ Two comments stated that 
the elimination of the underlining would decrease the specificity and 
effectiveness of the symbol system.\36\ For example, eliminating the 
underlining may lead some consumers to wash and dry apparel items in a 
normal cycle, which could damage the items,\37\ or might require 
consumers to interpret the fiber content and finish of a garment to 
determine the specific cycle to use.\38\ Some comments noted that 
deleting the underlining would require substituting written cycle 
instructions, probably in multiple languages, increasing the label size 
and imposing additional costs on manufacturers.\39\ One comment stated 
that adopting a care symbol system in phases, with the basic symbols 
adopted at one time and the underlining at another, may confuse 
consumers.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Koester (3) p. 1; USA-ITA (11) p.4; AAMA (15) p.2; TLC (16) 
p.2; Springs (23) p.1; NCCA (27) p.1. Paxar (17) stated at p.8 that 
consumers might find a color code easier to understand than 
underlining. Industry Canada (35) stated at p.2 that the use of 
underlining would probably confuse Canadian consumers, who would 
probably find written instructions for ``Permanent Press'' or 
``Delicate/Gentle'' more helpful. The Care Labeling Rule presently 
allows the use of symbols and words together. The conditional 
exemption does not change that aspect of the Rule. Thus, ``permanent 
press'' or ``gentle cycle'' could be used with symbols, such as the 
washtub or drying symbol. (As noted above, ASTM's recent revision of 
Standard D5489 makes clear that these symbols can be used with 
words.)
    \35\ Koester (3) p.1; Cranston (10) p.2; USA-ITA (11) p.4; ATMI 
(13) p.1; AAMA (15) p.2; TLC (16) p.2; IFI (22) p.2; Springs (23) 
p.1; Fieldcrest (26) p.1; NCCA (27) p.1; Pittsfield (30) p.1; Pullen 
(34) p.1; AAFCS (37) p.1.
    \36\ Cranston (10) p.2; Pittsfield (30) p.1.
    \37\ Cranston (10) p.2.
    \38\ Pullen (34) p.1.
    \39\ ATMI (13) p.1; Springs (23) p.1; Pittsfield (30) p.1; 
Pullen (34) p.1.
    \40\ AAMA (15) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these comments, the Commission has decided to allow the 
use of underlining. A comprehensive educational program, including the 
use of explanatory hangtags and other materials, should convey what the 
underlining means.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Koester (3) p.1; USA-ITA (11) p.4; ATMI (13) p.1; AAMA (15) 
p.2; TLC (16) p.2; IFI (22) p.2; Springs (23) p.1; NCCA (27) p.1; 
Pullen (34) p.1; AAFCS (37) p.1.

    2. Should the Commission specify the minimum size of the symbols 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
or are existing requirements of legibility sufficient?

    A few comments recommended that the Rule specify a point type size 
for symbols \42\ in part because a legibility standard might allow 
arbitrary judgment concerning what is legible and what is not.\43\ One 
comment stated that care instructions often become difficult to read 
after repeated cleanings and that therefore the printing used on care 
labels should be large enough to remain legible through several care 
cycles; \44\ specifying a minimum type size would help ensure that 
symbols on both printed and woven labels remain legible after repeated 
washings.\45\ A few comments stated that using 20 point type \46\ or a 
symbol height of not less than 5mm \47\ would ensure legibility of the 
more complex symbols, prevent eye strain and help people with less than 
perfect eyesight and senior citizens. Another comment stated that, 
because of the different characteristics of printed and woven labels, 
care instructions on printed labels should be printed in a minimum 20 
point type and instructions on woven labels should be printed in a 
minimum 25 point type.\48\ One comment stated that the Commission 
should work with ASTM to determine the minimum size necessary to convey 
the symbols.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Koester (3) p.1; Paxar (17) p.3; Pittsfield (30) p.1.
    \43\ Paxar (17) p.14; Pittsfield (30) p.1. Paxar (17) stated at 
p.4 that a legibility standard may result in problems in the 
international transport of apparel.
    \44\ Koester (3) p.1.
    \45\ Pullen (34) p.2.
    \46\ Koester (3) p.1.
    \47\ Pittsfield (930) p.1; Pullen (34) p.2. Pittsfield (30) 
stated at pp.1-2 that symbol size becomes critical when both dots 
and a temperature designation are used inside the washtub symbol.
    \48\ Paxar (17) noted at p.4 that the use of any point size less 
than 25pt on woven labels would make the washing temperature and the 
lines that indicate steam in the ironing symbol difficult to read. 
The recommended minimum point sizes include only the basic symbols 
and not any underlining of symbols. Koester (3) at p.1 stated that a 
20pt type size would make temperature indications in the washtub 
symbol legible, but did not distinguish between woven and printed 
labels.
    \49\ AHAM (20) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, many other comments stated that the existing 
requirement of legibility is sufficient and that the Commission should 
not specify the minimum size of the symbols.\50\ The GINETEX system 
does not require a minimum point size; it requires that the symbols be 
legible and proportional to the size of the textile article.\51\ 
Industry Canada stated that Canada also follows a legibility standard 
and does not specify a minimum size for symbols.\52\ A few comments 
stated that the marketplace will address the needs of the consumer so 
that specifying a minimum print size is not necessary.\53\ Because 
different garments have different label size needs, some comments 
stated that requiring a minimum point size would unnecessarily restrict 
manufacturers.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Cranston (10) p.2; USA-ITA (11) p.4; ATMI (13) p.2; AAMA 
(15) p.2; TLC (16) p.2; NKSA (20) p.1; Springs (23) p.1; Fieldcrest 
(26) p.2; NCCA (27) p.1; AAFCS (37) p.1.
    \51\ GINETEX (14) p.4.
    \52\ Comment 35 p.2.
    \53\ ATMI (13) p.2; AAMA (15) p.2.
    \54\ ATMI (13) p.2; Springs (23) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the existing requirement of legibility is 
sufficient and that the interim conditional exemption should not 
specify a type size for symbols. The Commission has no evidence that 
the existing legibility standard has caused problems with written 
instructions and no evidence that the legibility standard would cause 
problems with the comprehension of care symbols. The Commission agrees 
that the marketplace will provide incentives for manufacturers to print 
legible care symbols. In addition, the failure to provide legible 
symbols would be an unfair or deceptive practice, and a violation of 
the Rule for which the Commission could seek civil penalties.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See Section 5(m)(1)(A) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 
15 U.S.C. 45(m)(1)(A); and, the Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 423.1(a), 
423.2, and 423.5.

    3. Should explanatory hangtags providing care information in 
language be required for more than one year? Less than one year? How 
long would it take for hangtags to be prepared and affixed to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
garments?

    Some comments stated that requiring hangtags for at least a twelve 
month period is sufficient to introduce the care symbols \56\ because 
one year would insure that products with a wide range of product 
distribution and life cycles would reach the market with the 
explanatory labels.\57\ Other comments stated that one year is not 
enough for the public to learn the symbols and get used to doing 
without words.\58\ Several comments stated that explanatory hangtags 
should be required for two years to help consumers learn the details of 
the system, such as the underlining, and to increase the chances that 
consumers who do not buy clothing frequently, such as the elderly, 
would encounter the hangtags explaining the care symbols.\59\ One 
comment stated that explanatory hangtags should be required for at 
least five years.\60\ Other comments, while supporting the use of 
hangtags did not specify a time period for their use.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ NAHM (4) p.2; Paxar (17  p.5; Warnaco (21) p.2; Pullen (34) 
p.2.
    \57\ ATMI (13) p.2.
    \58\ Consumers Union (7) p.2; GINETEX (14) p.4; IFI (22) p.2.
    \59\ Koester (3) p.1; Cranston (10) p.3; AAFCS (37) p.1.
    \60\ Salant (2) p.1.
    \61\ P&G (31) pp.2, 3. Consumers Union (7) stated, at p.2, that 
explanatory hangtags should be used until the public is fully aware 
of what the care symbols mean; the comment suggested that the 
Commission conduct a poll after one year to gauge public awareness, 
and issue another call for comments. Industry Canada (35) stated, at 
p.3, that the adequacy of the one year period can only be assessed 
in the context of the total campaign implemented to educate 
consumers about the symbols.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 5729]]

    A few comments stated that hangtags may not be the most effective 
way of educating consumers in part because consumers tend to discard 
hangtags after purchasing apparel.\62\ Many comments suggested that the 
Commission condition the use of symbols on the provision of explanatory 
information without specifying the means by which that information 
should be conveyed, to allow for the use of stickers, ultrasound and 
thermal labeling, and other labeling methods that are appropriate for 
different products.\63\ One comment noted, for example, that the use of 
hangtags on packaged products is not practical and may require changes 
to manufacturing operations.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Cranston (10) p.3; Pittsfield (30) p.2. FEDERTESSILE (19) 
stated, at p.2, that requiring explanatory hangtags would impose 
significant costs on manufacturers and that educating consumers 
through media outlets and ``ad hoc activities at points of sale'' 
would be more appropriate and equally effective. Labelize (32) p.1 
also considered requiring hangtags an unnecessary burden on 
manufacturers.
    \63\ USA-ITA (11) p.5; ATMI (13) p.2; AAMA (15) p.1, 3; TLC (16) 
p.2; NKSA (20) p.1; Springs (23) p.1; Fieldcrest (26) p.2; 
Pittsfield (30) p.2.
    \64\ Springs (23) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing these comments, the Commission has determined that 
conditioning the exemption on the provision of explanatory information 
for 18 months after the effective date of the conditional exemption is 
sufficient to prevent the unfair or deceptive practices to which the 
Rule relates.\65\ The conditional exemption does not require that 
manufacturers or importers print the whole chart on the explanatory 
information provided to the consumer.\66\ The conditional exemption 
does not alter the requirements of the Care Labeling Rule, and the Rule 
only requires that the care instruction indicate ``what regular care is 
needed for the ordinary use of the product.'' Section 423.6(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Consumers Union (7) p.1 and Paxar (17) p.1 recommended that 
care labels contain a combination of words and care symbols for the 
period during which explanatory information will be required because 
the explanatory hangtags or other information may get lost on the 
selling floor or misplaced in consumers' homes, leaving the 
consumers without a guide to interpret the symbols. The Care 
Labeling Rule permits the joint use of symbols and written 
instructions on a care lable. The conditional exemption permits the 
use of symbols alone on care labels. The decision whether to use 
both words and symbols on the permanent care label during the 18 
month period during which explanatory information is required has 
been left to the parties subject to the Rule.
    \66\ Paxar (17) at p.5 interpreted the requirement that 
manufacturers or importers provide explanatory information as a 
requirement that they print the whole care symbol chart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission has determined that limiting the 
explanatory information to hangtags is not warranted because other 
methods of conveying the meaning of the symbols would be equally 
effective. Allowing manufacturers to determine the best way to convey 
the information--whether by hangtags, stickers, or by other means--
would allow them to tailor the means of conveying the information to 
the textile item and its packaging.

    4. What types of consumer education should be planned and to 
what extent are industry members willing to participate in such 
campaigns? How long would it take to develop and undertake such 
campaigns?

    Many comments expressed the need for and willingness to participate 
in a strong, nationwide consumer education effort.\67\ The comments 
emphasized the importance of coordinating consumer education efforts; 
\68\ consumer education must include the participation of the textile 
and apparel industries, dry-cleaning and laundering industries, 
consumer groups, and the government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Salant (2) p.1; Koester (3) p.2; NAHM (4) p.2; Cranston 
(10) p.3; TLC (16) p.2; Paxar (17) p.1, 6, 7; Warnaco (21) p.2; IFI 
(22) p.1, 2; Springs (23) p.2; Fieldcrest (26); NCCA (27) p.2: AHAM 
(29) p.2; P&G (31) p.3; Pullen (34) p.2; AAFCS (37) p.1, 2. 
Consumers Union (7) stated, at p.1, that it will publish an article 
in Consumer Reports explaining the symbols. ATMI (13) stated, at 
p.3, that it is willing to participate, by helping to plan an 
educational campaign, disseminating information, compiling a media 
contact list, providing limited printing services, and educating 
trade associations in Canada and Mexico. GINETEX (14) stated, at 
p.4, that, if the Ginetex and the ASTM systems could be harmonized 
closely, a common educational campaign could be developed that would 
strengthen the media impact of the new system. AAMA (15 stated, at 
p.3, that two of its members desired to know the scope and cost of 
an educational campaign before they would be willing to endorse it. 
Paxar stated, at p.7, that it intends ``to conduct extensive 
educational programs through print, electronic and other means of 
distribution.'' NKSA (20) stated at p.1 that it ``will assist in 
developing and promoting such a consumer information effort through 
our Association's normal publications, including the Knitting 
Times.'' AAFCS stated at p.1 that ``[b]ecause of their expertise in 
both the areas of textiles and education, AAFCS members should be 
enlisted to provide nation-wide educational programs * * *. Members 
of AAFCS can be of great assistance in educating the public through 
the communications channels they already have in place.''
    \68\ Paxar (17) p.6; AHAM (29) p.2; Industry Canada (35) p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comments suggested many specific consumer education 
initiatives. Many comments suggested that home laundering equipment 
manufacturers include the symbol chart on new equipment and in 
instruction packages.\69\ Laundry detergent manufacturers could also 
print the symbol charts on laundry detergent containers.\70\ A few 
comments focused on the importance of home economics extension programs 
and other school programs in educating consumers with the help of 
training materials provided by apparel, equipment, and detergent 
manufacturers.\71\ Many comments stated that clothing retailers and 
cleaners can display and distribute educational information and can 
educate their employees to answer consumer questions about caring for 
clothing. Two comments recommended posting the care symbol chart at 
laundromats and apartment laundry rooms.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Koester (3) p.2; USA-ITA (11) p.5; Springs (23) p.2; 
Pittsfield (30) p.2. AHAM (29) stated at p.1 that ``AHAM members 
likely will use ASTM-devised care symbols with equipment use and 
care booklets and on the actual washer and dryer equipment.'' AHAM 
also stated at pp.1-2 that iron manufacturers might place the care 
symbols on iron control dials so that consumers can refer to them to 
interpret the meaning of the ironing care symbols on garments; AHAM 
urged the Commission to consider the value of this measure.
    \70\ Koester (3) p.2; Consumers Union (7) p.1; Cranston (10) 
p.3; USA-ITA (11) p.5; Springs (23) p.2; Pittsfield (30) p.2. ATMI 
(13) suggested, at p.3, that home laundering product manufacturers 
provide stickers of the chart, so that consumers can place the chart 
on or near laundering appliances.
    \71\ Koseter (3) p.2; ATMI (13) p.3; AAFCS (37) p.1. P&G (31) 
stated at p.3 that it has educated consumers on proper garment care 
through toll free 1-800 numbers and by providing publications to 
home economics teachers.
    \72\ Koester (3) p.2; ATMI (13) p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission agrees that a strong consumer education campaign 
will be necessary to educate consumers about the meaning of the 
symbols, and intends to work with all interested parties to plan and 
coordinate an educational campaign. The Commission's staff will contact 
all commenters (and any other relevant groups and associations) in the 
near future to announce a public meeting to coordinate an educational 
campaign.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Parties who would like to participate in such a meeting but 
who have not submitted comments on the Rule in the past two years 
should contact staff listed in the information section of this 
Notice to receive information about the meeting.

    5. If the Commission were to grant a conditional exemption, when 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
should it become effective?

    Numerous comments stated that the conditional exemption should not 
become effective until interested parties have had the opportunity to 
prepare a consumer education campaign.\74\ Several comments stated that 
it would take about 6 to 8 months to prepare explanatory labels and 
approximately six months to one year for manufacturers to dispose of 
existing inventory and to start affixing hangtags to apparel.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ Cranston (10) p.3; ATMI (13) p.4; Paxar (17) p.6; IFI (22) 
p.2; Springs (23) p.2.
    \75\ ATMI (13) p.2-3; AAMA (15) p.3; Paxar (17) p.5, 6; IFI (22) 
p.2. Koester (3) at p.3 recommended that the exemption not become 
effective until 1\1/2\ years after the exemption is adopted to allow 
time for educators and manufacturers to prepare themselves. USA-ITA 
(11) stated at p.5 that its members indicated that it would not take 
longer than eight months to prepare explanatory labels. Industry 
Canada (35) stated at p.3 that conversion to the use of symbols may 
take several clothing seasons because manufacturers consider their 
existing label stock and the capacities of their printing equipment 
before they convert.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 5730]]

    A few comments noted that the conditional exemption does not impose 
any new labeling requirements and provides for the voluntary, not 
mandatory, use of care symbols, and that, therefore, the effective date 
of the exemption is important only in terms of the requirement that 
manufacturers and importers provide explanatory information for a 
certain period.\76\ The Commission finds that approximately six months 
will be sufficient to allow manufacturers to prepare explanatory labels 
and to allow the coordination of a consumer education campaign. The 
Commission has therefore decided that the conditional exemption will 
become effective July 1, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Pittsfield (30) p. 2; Industry Canada (35) p. 3.

    6. Does ASTM's copyright pose a barrier to the use of the ASTM 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
system?

    A few comments stated that ASTM's copyright could pose problems to 
using the ASTM symbols if, for example, ASTM requires a reference to 
the copyright on clothing labels or hangtags or if it insists on 
royalty payments.\77\ One comment stated that the utility of a symbol-
based system would be reduced if Condition #2 of the Conditions for 
Republishing the ASTM Standard Care Symbol Chart \78\ requires an ASTM 
credit line even when the entire chart is not used; however, the 
comment assumed correctly that no obligation to credit ASTM exists if 
the entire ASTM chart is not copied.\79\ The same comment correctly 
assumed that Condition #3, which permits duplication of the ASTM chart 
royalty-free when the chart is affixed to goods, would also allow the 
duplication of the chart royalty-free for consumer education programs 
even though the chart is not attached to goods.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Cranston (10) p. 4; AHAM (29) p. 2.
    \78\ See Conditions for Republishing the ASTM D5489 Care Symbol 
Chart, attached to this notice.
    \79\ Paxar (17) p. 7.
    \80\ Paxar (17) p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most comments stated that ASTM's copyright would not pose a barrier 
to the use of the ASTM system.\81\ A few comments expressed the opinion 
that the five basic care symbols are non-proprietary and in the public 
domain and could therefore not be copyrighted or trademarked in the 
U.S. and stated that ASTM's Conditions for Republishing the ASTM 
Standard D5489 Care Symbol Chart adequately addresses any concerns 
regarding ASTM's copyright for use of the symbol system chart.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ Koester (3) p. 3; USA-ITA (11) p. 6; AAMA (15) p. 3; TLC 
(16) p. 2; IFI (22) p. 1; Springs (23) p. 2; Fieldcrest (26) p. 2; 
NCCA (27) p. 2; Pittsfield (30) p. 2; Pullen (34) p. 2. Industry 
Canada (35) stated at p. 4 that if Canadian manufacturers are able 
to use the ASTM symbols ``license-free,'' ASTM's copyright would not 
pose a problem.
    \82\ ATMI (13) p. 4; Springs (23) p. 2; Fieldcrest (26) p. 2; 
Pullen (34) p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the ASTM copyright is not an impediment 
to adopting the ASTM system. ASTM holds a copyright on ASTM Standard 
D5489 and on the ASTM Care Symbol Chart, but not on the ASTM symbols. 
Although ASTM has placed certain conditions on the use of its Care 
Symbol Chart, the conditional exemption does not require the use of 
ASTM's Care Symbol Chart. ASTM's Condition #1 would not allow modified 
charts or symbols to be represented as the ASTM Standard, but modified 
charts could be distributed under some other title, thus avoiding the 
credit line requirement of ASTM's Condition #2. In the event that 
manufacturers, or others, wish to use ASTM's chart, they must comply 
with its conditions. But the Commission does not believe that those 
conditions pose an impediment to adopting the system.

IV. Summary of Commission's Decision

    Section 18(g)(2) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 
57a(d)(2)(B), provides that ``[i]f * * * the Commission finds that the 
application of a rule prescribed under subsection (a)(1)(B) to any 
person or class of persons is not necessary to prevent the unfair or 
deceptive act or practice to which the rule relates, the Commission may 
exempt such person or class from all or part of such rule.'' The 
Commission now finds that the provision presently found in the 
Terminology section of the Care Labeling Rule, that appropriate care 
symbols may be used on care labels or care instructions only in 
addition to the required appropriate terms, is not necessary to prevent 
the unfair or deceptive act or practice to which the rule relates. 
Specifically, the Commission exempts manufacturers and importers of 
textile wearing apparel who use the system of care symbols designated 
ASTM Standard D5489-96c from the requirement that written care 
instructions accompany care instructions in symbols. The Commission has 
not specified a type size for the symbols, but they must be legible. 
The exemption is adopted on the condition that the parties subject to 
the Rule provide explanatory information with any garment offered for 
sale in the period from July 1, 1997 to December 31, 1998 to consumers 
regarding the meaning of the care symbols that appear on the label of 
that garment. To implement this conditional exemption, the Commission 
revises Sections 423.2 and 423.8, the Terminology and Exemptions 
sections of the Rule, respectively.
    The incorporation by reference of ASTM Standard D5489-96c was 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of ASTM Standard D5489-96c 
Guide to Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Consumer Textile 
Products may be obtained from the American Society for Testing and 
Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or may 
be inspected at the Federal Trade Commission, room 130, 600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC, or at the Office of the 
Federal Register, suite 700, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC.
    Pursuant to the requirements of section 18(g) of the Federal Trade 
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(g), and the provisions of the 
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Commission published 
notices requesting comment on the proposed conditional exemption on 
June 15, 1994 (59 FR 30733) and November 16, 1995 (60 FR 57552). This 
conditional exemption is not subject to the requirements of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, because the conditional 
exemption does not create requirements for information collection; 
rather, it provide an alternative method of communicating information. 
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 44 U.S.C. 601(2), does not apply to 
this conditional exemption because, pursuant to section 18(d)(2)(B) of 
the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(d)(2)(B), an exemption 
to a rule under section 18(g) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 
U.S.C. 57(a)(g), shall not be treated as an amendment or repeal of a 
rule. The conditional exemption will become effective on July 1, 1997. 
The Commission welcomes comment on the minor changes that have been 
made in ASTM D5489 since the Commission last sought comment on this 
subject in November 1995. The Commission will consider further revision 
of this interim conditional exemption, as appropriate. Such comments 
may be filed with the Office of the Secretary until March 10, 1997.

[[Page 5731]]

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423

    Labeling; Incorporation by reference; Textiles; Trade practices.

Appendix to the Preamble--Conditions for Republishing the ASTM D 5489 
Care Symbol Chart

    Upon written request, ASTM will grant other organizations a 
royalty-free license for republication of the Care Symbol Chart 
provided the following conditions are agreed to:
    1. Should the chart or the symbols be modified, then they may 
not be represented as being the ASTM standard.
    2. The following credit line shall appear on all copies made of 
the chart: ``Copyright American Society for Testing and Materials, 
1916 Race St., Philadelphia, PA 19103.''
    3. Copies of the chart shall not be made available for sale 
except by separate license under which royalty payments to ASTM are 
required. This would not apply to copies of the chart affixed to 
goods such as appliances, cleaning agents, apparel, or home 
furnishings which are in fact sold. In these cases the chart is 
being used to convey information about the care symbol system to the 
ultimate consumer.
    4. The license for republishing the chart is for a specific 
number of copies and for a specific period of time which is to be 
agreed upon by ASTM and the licensee.
    5. The original standard or original art work for the symbols, 
if needed, may be purchased separately from ASTM.

6 September 1995, ASTM

Text of Amendments

    Accordingly, the Commission amends 16 CFR Part 423 as follows:

PART 423--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 423 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 38 Stat. 717, as amended; (15 U.S.C. 41, et seq.)

    2. Section 423.2 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 423.2  Terminology

* * * * *
    (b) 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. See 
Sec. 423.8(g) for conditional exemption allowing the use of symbols 
without terms.
* * * * *
    3. Section 423.8 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 423.8  Exemptions

* * * * *
    (g) The symbol system developed by the American Society for Testing 
and Materials (ASTM) and designated as ASTM Standard D5489-96c, 
Standard Guide for Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Textile 
Products may be used on care labels or care instructions in lieu of 
terms so long as the symbols fulfill the requirements of this 
regulation. In addition, symbols from the symbol system designated as 
ASTM Standard D5489-96c may be combined with terms so long as the 
symbols and terms used fulfill the requirements of the regulation. 
Provided, however, that for the 18-month period following the effective 
date of this section, such symbols may be used on care labels in lieu 
of terms only if an explanation of the meaning of the symbols used on 
the care label in terms is attached to, or provided with, the item of 
textile wearing apparel. This incorporation by reference was approved 
by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of ASTM Standard D5489-96c, Standard 
Guide for Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Textile Products may be 
obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr 
Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, or may be inspected at the 
Federal Trade Commission, room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, DC, or at the Office of the Federal Register, suite 700, 
800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Washington, DC.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41-58.

    By direction of the Commission.
Benjamin I. Berman,
Acting Secretary.

Statement of Commissioner Christine A. Varney, Conditional Exemption to 
the Care Labeling Rule, December 16, 1996

    I am voting today to support adopting a conditional exemption to 
the Care Labeling Rule to permit the use of symbols, without 
accompanying written instructions, to convey the care information 
required by the Rule. We live in an increasingly global marketplace, 
and, by allowing the use of symbols, the Commission has taken a 
positive step towards enhancing global harmonization.
    In moving toward a symbol-based system, the Commission had the 
opportunity to decide which system would be permitted: the one 
developed by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), 
the one adopted by the International Standards Organization (ISO), 
currently in use in Europe, or a hybrid of the two. Although the two 
systems are very similar, they are not identical.
    The Commission adopted the ASTM system over the ISO system 
because it believed ASTM was preferable for several reasons. The ISO 
system is trademarked, which could require U.S. companies to pay 
royalties, and the ISO system does not provide all of the 
information required by the Rule. The Commission also determined 
that allowing manufacturers to use either the ASTM system or the ISO 
system (at the manufacturer's choice) could confuse consumers.
    Although I understand the Commission's rationale for selecting 
the ASTM system, I am not convinced that the differences between the 
two schemes are so great that some sort of accommodation could not 
have been reached. While I support the current proposal for 
achieving harmony with our NAFTA partners, I nonetheless believe we 
may have missed an opportunity to achieve global consistency.
    I understand, however, that staff will continue to pursue 
further harmonization efforts through negotiations with the 
International Standards Organization. I strongly support such 
efforts.

[FR Doc. 97-3048 Filed 2-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M