[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 249 (Thursday, December 28, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67102-67108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31411]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 423
Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel
and Certain Piece Goods
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
action: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: The Federal Trade Commission (the ``Commission'') proposes to
commence a rulemaking proceeding to amend its Trade Regulation Rule on
Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods, 16
CFR Part 423 (``the Care Labeling Rule'' or ``the Rule''). The
Commission seeks comment on whether the definitions of water
temperatures in the Appendix of the Rule should be amended. In
addition, the Commission seeks comment on possible alternatives for
amending the Rule's current requirement that either a washing
instruction or a dry cleaning instruction may be used. Finally, the
Commission seeks comment on whether the reasonable basis portion of the
Rule should be amended.
date: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 13, 1996.
addresses: Written comments should be identified as ``16 CFR Part 423''
and sent to Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, Room 159, Sixth Street
and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington D.C. 20580.
for further information contact: Constance M. Vecellio or Laura Koss,
Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of
Consumer Protection, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania, Ave., NW., S-4302,
Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2966 or (202) 326-2890.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Part A--General Background Information
This notice is being published pursuant to Section 18 of the
Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'') Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a et seq., the
provisions of Part 1, Subpart B of the Commission's Rules of Practice,
16 CFR 1.7, and 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. This authority permits the
Commission to promulgate, modify, and repeal trade regulation rules
that define with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or
deceptive in or affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1).
The Care Labeling Rule was promulgated by the Commission on
December 16, 1971, 36 FR 23883 (1971). In 1983, the Commission amended
the Rule to clarify its requirements by identifying in greater detail
the washing or dry cleaning information to be included on care
labels.\1\ The Care Labeling Rule, as amended, requires manufacturers
and importers of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods to
attach care labels to these items 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)).
\1\ The Rule was amended on May 20, 1983, 48 FR 22733 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of its continuing review of its trade regulation rules to
determine their current effectiveness and impact, the Commission
published a Federal Register notice (``FRN'') on June 15, 1994. This
FRN sought comment on the standard regulatory review questions, such as
what changes in the Rule would increase the benefits of the Rule to
purchasers and how those changes would affect the costs the Rule
imposes on firms subject to its requirements.
The FRN elicited 81 comments.\2\ The comments generally expressed
continuing support for the Rule, stating that correct care instructions
benefit consumers by extending the useful life of the garment, by
helping the consumer maximize the appearance of the garment, and/or by
allowing the consumer to take the ease and cost of care into
consideration when making a purchase. Most comments said that the costs
imposed on consumers because of the Rule were minimal when compared to
the benefits. Based on this review, the Commission has determined to
retain the Rule, but to seek additional
[[Page 67103]]
comment on possible amendments to the Rule as discussed below.
\2\ The commenters included cleaners; consumers; public
interest-related groups; fiber, textile, or apparel manufacturers or
sellers (or conglomerates); federal government entities; fiber,
textile, or apparel manufacturers or retailers trade associations;
two label manufacturers; one cleaning products manufacturer; one
association representing the leather apparel industry; one Committee
formed by industry members from the countries signatory to NAFTA;
one appliance technician; one appliance manufacturers trade
association; two standards-setting organizations; and two
representatives from foreign nations. The comments are on the public
record and are available for public inspection in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Commission's
Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 4.11, during normal business days from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., at the Public Reference Room, Room 130, Federal
Trade Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.
The comments are referred to within this Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (``ANPR'') by their name and the number assigned to each
submitted comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FRN sought comment on possible amendments, which are addressed
below, in this ANPR, including: (1) Whether the Rule should be amended
to require labeling instructions for both washing and dry cleaning,
rather than for just one method of cleaning and (2) whether the
reasonable basis standard set forth in the Rule should be clarified or
changed. The comments also recommended that the Commission consider
other amendments, which also are addressed in detail below.
Several comments suggested expanding the coverage of the Rule. The
Leather Apparel Association (``LAA'') suggested that garments made
completely of leather be included in the Rule, which now applies only
to textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods.3 J.C. Penney
suggested that consumers would benefit by expanding the Rule to cover
items such as ``towels, sheets, window coverings and other textile home
furnishing products.''4 However, the Commission considered and
rejected including these product categories when it amended the Rule in
1983. The comments do not provide sufficient evidence for reopening
these issues.
\3\ Comment 58, p.1; see also Drycleaners Fund (65) p.4. LAA
stated that consumers ``would benefit from having a label that, in
so many words, advises consumers that leather requires special care
* * *.'' Comment 58, p.1. However, it seems probable that most
consumers know that leather requires special care; in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, the Commission cannot conclude that it is
unfair or deceptive for manufacturers of leather garments to fail to
disclose this information. Secondly, LAA stated that leather
cleaning ``is more art than science'' and that any care label ``must
be non-specific as to the cleaning process.'' LAA suggested a label
that simply states ``Do not wash or dry clean by fabric method. Take
to a leather expert.'' Id. Such a label is unlikely to significantly
assist the average dry cleaner, who presumably already knows that
conventional dry cleaner, who presumably used on leather garments
and knows whether or not he has the ability to clean leather
garments.
\4\ Comment 70, p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part B--Objectives the Commission Seeks To Achieve and Possible
Regulatory Alternatives
1. Definitions of Water Temperature in the Appendix
a. Background
Some comments recommended that the Commission revise the definition
of cold water temperature in the Appendix to the Rule. The Appendix to
the Rule currently states that ``cold'' water means ``cold tap water up
to 85 degrees F (29 degrees C).'' 5 Commenters noted that tap
water temperatures vary across the United States, and that such
differences can cause problems in washing clothes because, in the
winter in colder parts of the country, granular detergents may not
fully dissolve and activate during a cold wash cycle.6 An
appliance technician from Maine noted that consumers may hesitate to
use hotter water when the label advises to use ``cold'' water.\7\ As a
result, clothes may not be thoroughly cleaned and may be left with soap
residue.8
\5\ 16 CFR Part 423, Appendix A, 2.c.
\6\ Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (53) p.2.
\7\ Bruce W. Fifield (62) p.1.
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other comments suggested that the Rule's definition of hot water
(up to 150 degrees F, or 66 C) 9 should be changed. The American
Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (``AATCC'') commented
that the temperatures stated in the Appendix to the Rule should be
changed to match the AATCC definitions, which the AATCC believes ``more
accurately reflect current washing machine settings and consumer
practice.'' 10 The AATCC defines ``hot'' as 120 F plus or minus 5
(49 C plus or minus 3). Another commenter noted the variances in
temperature definitions within the NAFTA countries and suggested they
should be harmonized.11
\9\ 16 CFR Part 423, Appendix A, 2.a.
\10\ Comment 34, p.1.
\11\ Jo Ann Pullen (44) p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Objectives and Regulatory Alternatives
The Commission believes that the definition of cold water in the
Appendix may need to be revised to ensure that consumers understand
that washing clothes in extremely cold water may not be effective. In
addition, the Commission believes that the definitions of warm and hot
water may need to be changed to ``more accurately reflect current
washing machine settings and consumer practice.'' Accordingly, the
Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should amend the
Rule to change the definitions of ``warm'' and ``hot'' water, or to
include a new term such as ``cool'' or ``lukewarm'' in the Appendix.
The Commission further seeks comment on whether the Rule should be
amended to state that care labels recommending ``cold'' wash must
define the highest acceptable temperature for ``cold'' on the label,
and on the benefits and costs to consumers and manufacturers of such an
amendment.
2. Environmental Issues
a. Background
In the June 1994 FRN, the Commission stated that, because of
evidence that dry cleaning solvents are damaging to the environment,
the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') was interested in
reducing the use of such solvents. The Commission stated that EPA's
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics had been working with the dry
cleaning industry to reduce the public's exposure to perchloroethylene
(``PCE''), the most common dry cleaning solvent.\12\ In connection with
this effort, EPA has published a summary of a process referred to as
``Multiprocess Wet Cleaning,'' which is an alternative cleaning process
that relies on the controlled application of heat, steam and natural
soaps to clean clothes that would ordinarily be dry cleaned.\13\
\12\ PCE has been designated as a hazardous air pollutant under
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and under many state air toxics
regulations. On September 15, 1993, EPA set national emission
standards for new and existing PCE dry cleaning facilities.
According to a study conducted on Staten Island and in New Jersey,
PCE is among the toxic air pollutants found at the highest
concentrations in urban air.
\13\ 59 FR 30733-34. See also EPA (73) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FRN asked whether the current Rule may pose an impediment to
reducing solvent use because it requires either a washing instruction
or a dry cleaning instruction; it does not require both. Thus, garments
that can legally be labeled with a ``dry clean'' instruction alone also
may be washable, a fact not ascertainable from such an instruction. If
the Rule were amended to require both washing and dry cleaning
instructions for garments cleanable by both methods, consumers and
cleaners could make more informed choices and the use of dry cleaning
solvents might be lessened. To solicit comment on these issues, the
Commission posed a series of questions in the FRN, each of which is
separately addressed below:
(i) Does the current Rule pose an impediment to the EPA's goal of
reducing the use of dry cleaning solvents? Nine commenters addressed
this question. Three responded simply that the Rule does not pose an
impediment to EPA's goals.\14\ Six others, however, contended that the
current Rule impedes EPA's goal of reducing the use of dry cleaning
solvents by permitting manufacturers to disclose only one cleaning
instruction when a
[[Page 67104]]
garment can be either washed or dry cleaned.\15\
\14\ Baby Togs, Inc. (2) p.2; The Warren Featherbone Co. (33)
p.3; VF Corp. (36) p.5.
\15\ Business Habits, Inc. (38) p.4 (the current Rule is a
disincentive for the dry cleaner to consider washing or professional
wet cleaning when the labels state ``Dry Clean Only''); Mothers &
Others (22) pp.1-4 (unless consumers are informed of their options,
the market will be skewed in favor of dry cleaning and consumers may
not use cheaper methods (home laundering) and/or safer methods
(professional wet cleaning)); Aqua Clean System (20) p.4;
Ecofranchising, Inc. (28) pp.3-4; Jo Ann Pullen (44) p.7; Center for
Neighborhood Technology (59) pp.2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) What is the actual incidence of labeling that fails to include
both washing and dry cleaning instructions? Few comments responded
directly to this question. One guessed that the incidence is ``Probably
none,'' reasoning that, because washing is less expensive than dry
cleaning, it would be unimaginable for a manufacturer to put a ``Dry
Clean'' label on a garment that could be washed.\16\ Another stated
that it is common practice to label conservatively (e.g., ``dry clean
only''),\17\ and a third alleged that there is a wide variation in
adherence to the requirements of the Rule, especially among small firms
and importers.\18\ Two cleaners using wet cleaning technology contended
between them that the incidence ranged from 40% to 100% because a
``Professionally Wet Clean'' instruction is never given on labels for
garments that normally would be dry cleaned but also could be
professionally wet cleaned.\19\
\16\ Baby Togs, Inc. (2) p.2.
\17\ Carter's (24) p.3.
\18\ OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc. (27) p.2.
\19\ Aqua Clean System (20) p.4; Ecofranchising, Inc. (28) pp.3-
4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) With regard to a garment that can be either washed or dry
cleaned, should the Commission amend the Rule to require that care
instructions be provided for both washing and dry cleaning? Several
commenters preferred that the Rule not be amended in this regard at
all, contending that apparel manufacturers should be free to select the
best care method based on their own judgment.\20\ Some commenters
favored, without extensive analysis, requiring care instructions for
both dry cleaning and home laundering if neither process would harm the
garment. Most of these expected that such an amendment would enable
consumers to save the expense associated with unnecessary dry cleaning
for products that could safely be laundered at home.\21\ Others
maintained that a reduction in dry cleaning would diminish for humans
and the environment those risks that are associated with the use of
PCE.\22\ One commenter pointed out that some consumers may prefer to
dry clean washable garments and that care instructions should give
these individuals a choice of methods when both laundering and dry
cleaning would be appropriate.\23\
\20\ The Warren Featherbone Co. (33) p.1-2, 3; Clothing
Manufacturers Association (40) p.1; Salant Corp. (52) p.1. See also
Braham Norwick (25) p.3.
\21\ See, e.g., Benjamin Axleroad (1) p.1; Don Pietsch (3) p.1;
Evelyn Borrow (4) p.1; Claudia G. Pasche (5) p.1; Margaret S. Jones
(6) p.1; Judith S. Barton (7) p.1; Virginia J. Martin (8) p.1;
SuzAnne A. Darlington (14) p.1; Ann Geerhar (29) p.1.
\22\ See, e.g., Ardis W. Koester (12) p.1; University of
Kentucky College of Agriculture (15) p.1; Center for Neighborhood
Technology (59) pp. 2-3.
\23\ Drycleaners Environmental Legislative Fund (65) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another group of commenters suggested that the Rule be amended to
require washing instructions for garments that can be safety laundered
as well as dry cleaned, and to require dry cleaning instructions solely
for those garments that must only be dry cleaned, rather than to
require that both instructions be specified for garments that could
withstand both processes.\24\ These commenters reasoned that, although
many items (cotton underwear and outerwear, children's clothing, wash-
and-wear apparel, etc.) could safely be dry cleaned, it would be
neither necessary nor desirable to do so. In fact, they contended, a
requirement for dual instructions for such products would actually
result in an increase in the use of dry cleaning solvents because
manufacturers now exclusively producing washable (but also dry
cleanable) products would have to install dry cleaning facilities and
equipment so they could provide a reasonable basis for the dry cleaning
instruction.
\24\ See, e.g., OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc. (27) p.2; VF Corp. (36) p.
5; see also Fieldcrest Cannon (11) p. 4 (opposed suggested amendment
but advanced the same reasoning as the preceding commenters);
American Textile Manufacturers Institute (56) pp.5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters suggested that the Rule be amended to include a
requirement that labels on garments for which dry cleaning is
appropriate include a ``professionally wet clean'' instruction in
addition to the dry cleaning instruction.\25\ These commenters
contended that the professional wet cleaning process is a viable
alternative to dry cleaning in most cases, and that the process does
little damage to the environment. Because wet-cleaning wash formulas
are created to cover categories of fabric type, two commenters stated
that labels should clearly state the composition of the fabric or
fabrics used so the correct machine wet-cleaning formula may be
used.\26\
\25\ Aqua Clean System (20) pp. 4-6; Mothers & Others (22) pp.
2-3; The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute (23) pp. 1-2;
Ecofranchising, Inc. (28) p. 3; Public Advocate for the City of New
York (39) pp. 8, 73; Friends of the Earth (43) p. 1, Jo Ann Pullen
(44) p. 7; Greenpeace (45) pp. 1-3; Association of Home Appliance
Manufacturers (53) p. 2, Center for Neighborhood Technology (59) pp.
2-4; EPA (73) p. 1. See also American Apparel Manufacturers
Association (68) p. 5.
\26\ Aqua Clean (20) p. 7; Ecofranchising (28) pp. 2, 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) What are the costs and benefits, including environmental
benefits, of such an amendment? Several commenters opposing the
amendment to require instructions for both washing and dry cleaning
contended that a dual labeling requirement would result in increased
costs for manufacturers who would have to test for both methods instead
of only one.\27\ However, those who favored amending the Rule in any of
the ways discussed above cited as benefits the reduced cleaning costs
to consumers, the benefits to human health and the environment, or,
occasionally, both.
\27\ Fieldcrest Cannon (11) p. 4; Woolrich, Inc. (21) p. 1;
OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc. (27) p. 2; VF Corp. (36) p. 5, Industry Canada
(37) p. 3; The GAP, Inc. (78) p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Materials describing methods, training, and equipment in many of
the comments suggesting a requirement for a ``Professionally Wet
Clean'' instruction implied that a significant cost would be incurred
by cleaners wishing to use the new technology. One comments also
concluded that an amendment to require such an instruction should be
accompanied by a consumer education effort.\28\
\28\ See, e.g., Mothers & Others (22) pp. 1-2; Public Advocate
for the City of New York (39) (transmitting the comprehensive report
on ``The Risk to New Yorkers from Drycleaning Emissions and What Can
Be Done About It''); Greenpeace (45) pp. 1-3, Attachment: ``Dressed
to Kill''; Center for Neighborhood Technology (59) pp. 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Objectives and Regulatory Alternatives
The record indicates that PCE is dangerous to humans and the
environment, and that some consumers are interested in avoiding the use
of PCE when possible. Through the proposed amendments to the Rule,
discussed below, the Commission seeks to ensure that consumers are
provided with information that would allow them the choice of washing
garments when possible, or having them professionally wet cleaned. The
information about washability may be important to many consumers,
either for economic or environmental reasons.
When a garment is labeled ``dry clean,'' many consumers may be
misled into believing that the garment cannot be washed in water; if
the garment can be washed in water, the consumer may
[[Page 67105]]
incur the unnecessary expense of dry cleaning the garment.\29\ If the
garment is labeled ``dry clean'' when it in fact could be wet cleaned
by a professional cleaner, the consumer may believe it is necessary to
have the garment dry cleaned although the consumer would prefer a
cleaning method that is less damaging to the environment.
\29\ A Perdue University survey found that 89.3% of the 962
respondents indicated that they would not wash a garment labeled
``dryclean.'' Staff Report to the Federal Trade Commission and
Proposed Revised Trade Regulation Rule (16 CFR Part 423) (May 1978),
p. 141. Other surveys showed similar results. Id. at 142-143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lack of this information can result in substantial injury to
consumers in the form of unnecessary expense and/or damage to the
environment that the consumer wishes to avoid. Moreover, it can be
extremely difficult for consumers to avoid this injury by obtaining the
information about washability of an item for themselves. While fiber
content can be a guide to washability, other factors--such as the type
of dye or finish used--can also determine washability, and consumers
have no way of learning what dyes and finishes were used and whether
they will survive washing. In addition, it may be that some garments
that traditionally have been damaged by washing (e.g., wool business
suits) can be cleaned without damage by new methods of professional wet
cleaning, but consumers have no way of determining for themselves which
of the many garments available to them are now washable.
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should
amend the Care Labeling Rule to require a laundering instruction for
all covered products for which laundering is appropriate. This
amendment would permit optional dry cleaning instructions for such
washable items, provided dry cleaning would be an appropriate
alternative cleaning method.\30\ The amendment would, however, require
that manufacturers marketing items with a ``Dry Clean'' instruction
alone be able to substantiate both that the items could be safely dry
cleaned and that home laundering would be inappropriate for them.\31\
\30\ The Commission has learned from several commenters,
primarily manufacturers, that requiring both washing and dry clean
labels (a ``dual disclosure'' amendment) would require a dry
cleaning instruction on virtually all washable items. According to
these commenters, this would necessitate additional testing expenses
for manufacturers and a resulting increase in PCE use, to the
detriment of human health and the environment. The Commission has no
reason to believe at this time that it is either unfair or deceptive
for a manufacturer or importer to fail to reveal that a garment
labeled for washing can also be dry cleaned. The comments also
indicate that most consumers would not want to spend the additional
money necessary to dry clean such items.
\31\ The Rule currently requires this level of substantiation
for a ``Dry Clean Only'' instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The disclosures required by this proposal would inform consumers
purchasing washable items that the items could be safely laundered at
home. As noted in the comments, this would enable consumers to make a
more informed purchasing choice and provide them with the option of
saving money by laundering at home instead of incurring the higher
expenses of dry cleaning. In addition, consumers who are concerned
about reducing the use of PCE will have information about the
``washability'' of all apparel items they are considering purchasing.
Moreover, this proposal would not result in the additional
substantiation testing (and increased PCE use) that the comments
suggested a ``dual disclosure'' requirement could necessitate, because
a dry cleaning instruction would be optional, as would the necessary
substantiation to support it.
The Commission also seeks comment on the feasibility of requiring,
for all covered products bearing a dry cleaning instruction, the
addition of a professional wet cleaning instruction for items for which
professional wet cleaning would be appropriate. The comments indicate
that the comparatively new processes of professional wet cleaning
technologies are promising alternatives to PCE-based dry cleaning.
However, these comments do not provide enough information about
professional wet cleaning for the Commission to assess whether and how
the Rule should address wet cleaning. Therefore, the Commission seeks
information on the cost of wet cleaning, the availability of wet
cleaning facilities, and any other information that would help the
Commission determine whether it should consider amending the Rule to
require, for all covered products bearing a dry cleaning instruction,
the addition of a professional wet cleaning instruction for items for
which professional wet cleaning would be appropriate. The Commission
also seeks comment on the feasibility of the processes as practical
current alternatives to dry cleaning. In addition, the Commission seeks
comment on whether fiber identification should be on a permanent label,
as is currently required for care information, because this information
may be needed for wet-cleaning processes, and comment on the costs to
manufacturers of such a requirement.
3. The Reasonable Basis Requirement of the Rule
a. Background
The rule requires that manufacturers and importers of textile
wearing apparel possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis for the care
instructions they provide. Under the Rule, a reasonable basis must
consist of reliable evidence supporting the instructions on the label.
16 CFR 423.6(c). Specifically, a reasonable basis can consist of (1)
reliable evidence that the product was not harmed when cleaned
reasonably often according to the instructions; (2) reliable evidence
that the product or a fair sample of the product was harmed when
cleaned by methods warned against on the label; (3) reliable evidence,
like that described in (1) or (2), for each component part; (4)
reliable evidence that the product or a fair sample of the product was
successfully tested; (5) reliable evidence of current technical
literature, past experience, or the industry expertise supporting the
care information on the label; or (6) other reliable evidence. 16 CFR
423.6(c).
The FRN solicited comment on whether the Commission should amend
the Rule ``to make clear that a variety of types of evidence, alone or
in combination, might provide a reasonable basis [for cleaning
directions] in specific instances,'' but that as reflected in the
Rule's original Statement of Basis and Purpose, the Rule should not be
read to suggest that the reasonable basis standard necessarily is met
whenever a seller possesses at least one of the types of evidence set
forth as examples of how the standard might be satisfied. The FRN also
sought comment on whether the Commission should clarify in the Rule
that the criteria for determining the proper level of substantiation
that were recited in the Commission's Policy Statement Regarding
Advertising Substantiation,\32\ apply to care labeling claims, whether
analyzed directly under Section 5 or under the Rule.
\32\ FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation,
104 F.T.C. 839 (1984). The Commission issued this statement to
``reaffirm[]'' its commitment under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 45, to requiring adequate substantiation for objective
advertising claims before they are disseminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Commission expressed interest in whether
particular types of garments or garment components might necessitate
special treatment. Question 9 in the FRN asked:
Should the Commission amend the Rule to specify under what
conditions a manufacturer or importer must possess a particular type
of basis among those listed in
[[Page 67106]]
Sec. 423.6(c) of the Rule, such as test results? Should the
``reasonable basis'' requirements of the Rule be modified in any
other way?
The comments responding to these portions of the FRN suggest that
some care labels may lack a reasonable basis. One commenter stated that
inaccurate care labels were responsible for 33-45% of the damaged
garments sent in to the International Fabricare Institute for testing
during a 1988-1993 period.\33\ Furthermore, many of the commenters'
responses to Question 10 in the FRN (``Are there garments in the
marketplace that contain inaccurate or incomplete care instructions?'')
indicate that many garments are labeled ``dry clean only'' without a
reasonable basis for warning that they cannot be washed.\34\ The
comments additionally suggest that care instructions may not be
appropriate for all components of a garment, such as trims.\35\
Colorfastness and shrinkage were also identified as problems
experienced with inaccurate or incomplete care instructions.\36\
\33\ Drycleaners Environmental Legislative Fund (65) p.4.
\34\ Evelyn Borrow (4) p.1; Claudia G. Pasche (5) p.1; Margaret
S. Jones (6) p.1; University of Kentucky College of Agriculture (15)
p.1; Aqua Clean System (20) p.3; Carter's (24) p.3; Braham Norwick
(25) p.1; Ecofranchising, Inc. (28) pp.3-4; Jo Ann Pullen (44) pp.2-
3; J.C. Penney (70) p.3.
\35\ VF Corp. (36) p.7; Drycleaners Environmental Legislative
Fund (65) p.4.
\36\ J.C. Penney (70) p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve commenters stated that they were in favor of modifying the
reasonable basis portion of the Rule, suggesting that the reasonable
basis requirement should be clarified and strengthened to reduce the
problem of inaccurate and incomplete care labels.\37\ Seven commenters
were opposed to modifying the reasonable basis requirements of the
Rule.\38\ These commenters expressed concern, for example, that
requiring tests would be too expensive and would ultimately increase
costs for consumers.
\37\ Clorox Co. (32); Industry Canada (37); Business Habits,
Inc. (38); Jo Ann Pullen (44); Salant Corp. (52); Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers (53); Center for Neighborhoods
Technology (59); Drycleaners Environmental Legislative Fund (65);
Department of the Air Force (67); American Apparel Manufacturers
Association (68); EPA (73); The Gap, Inc. (78).
\38\ Baby Togs, Inc. (2); Carter's (24); OshKosh B'gosh, Inc.
(27); The Warren Featherbone Co. (33); VF Corp. (36); American
Textile Manufacturers Institute (56); Fruit of the Loom (64).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters recommended clarifying the Rule by specifying
the circumstances in which a manufacturer or importer must possess test
results or another specific type of evidence to establish a reasonable
basis.\39\ One commenter said that testing might not always be required
and suggested that the Rule should specify different types of required
evidence for different circumstances.\40\ This commenter stressed,
however, that the Rule should require a reasonable basis for a garment
in its finished state, noting that the current Rule suggests that it is
satisfactory to have reliable evidence ``for each component part'' of a
garment.\41\ Another Commenter suggested that the Rule should set out
performance standards for certain properties of garments (e.g.,
dimensional stability and colorfastness) and should identify both
testing methodologies and evaluation criteria for those properties.\42\
\39\ E.g., Center for Neighborhood Technology (59) p.1; Salant
Corp. (52) p.2; Drycleaners Environmental Legislative Fund (65) p.4;
Clorox Co. (32) p.3.
\40\ Drycleaners Environmental Legislative Fund (65) p.4. Thus,
for example, for garments made entirely of material with a long
history of care, such as 100% undyed cotton, historical knowledge
may be sufficient to constitute a reasonable basis. In contrast,
when the garment is made of a new fiber and is dyed with a new dye
or when the garment is a cotton garment with a bright trim, a
manufacturer may be required to conduct multiple tests on various
samples of the garment in order to establish a reasonable basis.
\41\ Drycleaners Environmental Legislative Fund pointed out that
a trim might not noticeably bleed when cleaned by itself but might
bleed onto the body of a garment when the finished garment is
cleaned. Thus, it would not suffice to have one ``reasonable basis''
for the body of a garment and another for the trim. Comment 65, p.4.
\42\ Industry Canada (37) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Objectives and Regulatory Alternatives
The Commission appreciates the comments submitted on the FRN and
continues to explore this area. The Commission seeks comment on the
incidence of inaccurate and incomplete labels, the extent to which that
incidence might be reduced by clarifying the reasonable basis standard,
and the costs and benefits of such a clarification. Section 423.6(c)(3)
of the Rule provides that a reasonable basis may consist of reliable
evidence that ``each component'' of the garment can be cleaned
according to the care instructions. As several commenters pointed out,
however, a garment component that may be cleaned satisfactorily by
itself might not be cleaned satisfactorily when cleaned as part of an
assembled garment made of different components, for example, by
bleeding noticeably onto the other parts of the garment. The
Commission, therefore, seeks comment on whether to amend the Rule to
specify that the reasonable basis requirement applies to the garment in
its entirety rather than to each of its individual components.
If the Commission decides to amend the reasonable basis standard,
one option is to indicate in the Rule that whether one or more of the
types of evidence described in Section 423.6(c) constitutes a
reasonable basis for care labeling instructions depends on the factors
set forth in the FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising
Substantiation.\43\ Another option, as reflected in Question 9 of the
FRN, is to require in the Rule that cleaning directions for certain
garments, fabrics or materials will comply with the Rule only if they
are supported by the results of appropriately designed and conducted
scientific tests recognized by experts in the field as probative of
whether the item can be cleaned as directed without damage. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether, if testing is required under
certain circumstances, the Rule should specify particular testing
methodologies to be used.
\43\ In the Statement, the Commission set forth criteria to
consider in establishing the minimum required basis for objective
advertising claims, where no specific basis was stated or implied:
``These factors include: the type of claim, the product, the
consequences of a false claim, the benefits of a truthful claim, the
cost of developing substantiation for the claim, and the amount of
substantiation experts in the field believe is reasonable.'' FTC
Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, 104 F.T.C.
839, 840 (1984).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the Commission solicits comment on whether the Rule should
set forth standards for acceptable and unacceptable changes in garments
following cleaning as directed. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether it would be useful for the Rule to specify properties, such as
dimensional stability and colorfastness, to which such standards would
apply.
Part C--Request for Comments
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 proposed amendments to the Care Labeling Rule. 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.
Questions
A. Definitions of Water Temperatures in the Appendix
(1) Is it feasible and desirable to use the words ``lukewarm'' or
``cool'' on a care label rather than ``cold''? Should
[[Page 67107]]
these terms be required instead of the word ``cold''? What benefits
would consumers derive from such a change?
(2) Is it feasible and desirable to amend the Rule to require that
the highest acceptable temperature for ``cold'' water be stated on the
care label? What benefits would consumers derive from such an
amendment? What costs would such an amendment impose on manufacturers?
(3) Should the Rule's definition of ``warm'' water be amended, and
if so, what temperature should be specified instead? What benefits
would consumers derive from such an amendment?
(4) Should the Rule's definition of ``hot'' water be amended, and
if so, what temperature should be specified instead? What benefits
would consumers derive from such an amendment?
B. Environmental Issues
(1) Please describe the process, or the processes, commonly
referred to as ``Wet Cleaning,'' ``Multiprocess Wet Cleaning,''
``Professional Wet Cleaning,'' or other similar terms, and provide as
much technical detail as possible.
(2) What equipment and what materials are necessary for a
professional cleaning establishment to employ the wet cleaning
processes?
(3) What effects do the materials used in the wet cleaning process
have on human beings, animals, plants, and the environment? Please be
as specific as possible.
(4) How many domestic businesses provide professional wet cleaning
to the public on a regular basis? Please specify the type(s) of
professional wet cleaning provided. Does the service comprise all, or a
part of, each such company's business? If part, what percentage?
(5) What percentage of garments and other items for which
professional dry cleaning has historically been the only appropriate
cleaning method are safely and satisfactorily cleanable by professional
wet cleaning? Please be as specific as possible as to fiber, fabric,
and garment type. What difference, if any, would there be in customer
satisfaction between the results of the two processes?
(6) What is the average cost, for as many items as respondents can
reasonably describe, of professional wet cleaning compared to
professional dry cleaning? The Commission requests information both as
it pertains to the cost to the cleaner providing the service and the
cost to the consumer using it.
(7) With regard to a garment that cannot be home laundered but can
be dry cleaned, should the Commission amend the Rule to require a
professional wet cleaning instruction too (provided wet cleaning is
appropriate for the garment)? What would be the benefits and costs to
consumers and manufacturers of such an amendment?
(8) Should fiber identification be on a permanent label? Should
fiber identification be on the same label as care information? What
costs would such requirements impose on manufacturers?
(9) How many garments currently labeled ``dry clean'' or ``dry
clean only'' could be washed at home by consumers? Should the Rule be
amended to require a laundering instruction for all covered products
for which laundering is appropriate? What would be the benefits and
costs to consumers and manufacturers of such an amendment?
C. The Reasonable Basis Requirement of the Rule
(1) Are care label instructions generally accurate? If not, in what
ways are they inaccurate, and do these inaccuracies result in damage to
the affected garments or other costs to consumers?
(2) Are any types of garments or piece goods particularly prone to
damage even when the care label instructions are followed?
(3) Are home laundering directions on care labels incomplete or
inaccurate in ways that result in damage to garments when they are
laundered as directed? If so, what are the most common problems, and
how widespread are they?
(4) Are dry cleaning directions on care labels incomplete or
inaccurate in ways that result in damage to garments when they are dry
cleaned as directed? If so, what are the most common problems, and how
widespread are they?
(5) What actions, if any, do garment or piece goods manufacturers
ordinarily take to assure that care labels are accurate? To what extent
do garment manufacturers rely solely on care information provided by
the suppliers of components of garments?
(6) Do garment manufacturers typically analyze or test garments for
appropriate cleaning procedures in their completed form or before the
garments' components are assembled?
(7) In what situations, if any, should the testing of garments be
the only evidence that would be legally acceptable?
(8) Should the Rule specify testing methodologies to be used in
situations in which testing would be required? What should those
methodologies be?
(9) Should the Rule refer to performance standards for certain
properties of garments? If so, which properties, and what should these
performance standards be?
(10) What steps, if any, do garment manufacturers take to provide
cleaning instructions for products comprising more than one fabric or
material, such as those with metallic trim or trim of a fabric or color
different from that of the main part of the product?
(11) What evidence is there concerning the effectiveness of current
actions by garment manufacturers to ensure appropriate cleaning of
their products?
(12) Do garment labels stating, for example, that particular
cleaning instructions apply to the garment ``exclusive of trim''
provide sufficient guidance to consumers or cleaners to enable them to
avoid damaging the garments by improper cleaning?
(13) Should the Rule be amended to delete Section 423.6(c)(3),
which provides that a reasonable basis can consist of reliable evidence
that each component of the garment can be cleaned according to the care
instructions and to state, instead, that a manufacturer must possess a
reasonable basis for the garment as a whole?
(14) Should the Rule be amended to clarify that whether one or more
of the types of evidence described in Section 423.6(c) constitutes a
reasonable basis is based on the factors set forth in the FTC Policy
Statement Regulating Advertising Substantiation?
(15) Do garment or piece goods manufacturers or retailers offer
refunds for products damaged in cleaning despite adherence to care
label directions? What is the typical refund policy? How is the
existence of such refunds made known to consumers?
(16) What are the costs to consumers of complaining to
manufacturers or retailers about garments damaged in cleaning? Are
there factors that discourage consumers whose garments have been
damaged in cleaning from complaining to manufacturers or retailers?
(17) What would be the benefits and costs to consumers and
manufacturers of these amendments clarifying the Rule's reasonable
basis requirement?
Authority: Section 18(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission
Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(d)(2)(B).
[[Page 67108]]
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423
Care labeling of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods;
Trade Practices.
By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31411 Filed 12-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
