[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 89 (Friday, May 8, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25417-25428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12233]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 25417]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (the ``Commission'') is
commencing a rulemaking 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
proposes amending the Rule: (1) To require that an item that can be
cleaned by home washing be labeled with instructions for home washing;
(2) to allow that a garment that can be professionally wet cleaned be
labeled with instructions for professional wet cleaning; (3) to clarify
what can constitute a reasonable basis for care instructions; and (4)
to change the definitions of cold, warm, and hot water in the Rule. The
Commission is commencing this rulemaking because of the comments filed
in response to its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``ANPR''),
and other information discussed in this notice. The Commission invites
interested parties to submit written data, views, and arguments. This
notice includes a description of the procedures to be followed, an
invitation to submit written comments, a list of questions and issues
upon which the Commission particularly desires comments, and a
description of a workshop conference that will be held to discuss the
issues. The Commission will announce the time and place of the public
workshop after the close of the comment period. Any persons wishing to
participate in the public workshop must file a comment in response to
this notice and must indicate therein their interest in participating.
The comments will be available on the public record and on the
Commission's web site on the Internet (http://www.ftc.gov) so that
interested parties can review them. After the conclusion of the
workshop, the record will remain open for 30 days for additional or
rebuttal comments. If necessary, the Commission will also hold hearings
with cross-examination and rebuttal submissions, as specified in
Section 18(c) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(c).
Interested parties who wish to request such hearings should file a
comment in response to this notice and indicate therein why they
believe such hearings are necessary and how they would participate in
such hearings.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before July 27, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be identified as ``16 CFR Part 423--
Care Labeling Rule--Comment,'' and sent to Secretary, Federal Trade
Commission, Sixth and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington D.C. 20580.
To facilitate prompt and efficient review and dissemination of the
comments to the public, all written comments should also be submitted,
if possible, in electronic form, on either a 5\1/4\ or a 3\1/2\ inch
computer disk, with a label on the disk stating the name of the
commenter and the name and version of the word processing program used
to create the document. Programs based on DOS are preferred. In order
for files from other operating systems to be accepted, they should be
submitted in ASCII text format.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Vecellio or James Mills,
Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of
Consumer Protection, Sixth St. and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., S-4302,
Washington, D.C. 20580, (202) 326-2966 or (202) 326-3035.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Part A--Introduction
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.
48 FR 22733 (1983). 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)).
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, 59 FR
30733. This FRN sought comment on the costs and benefits of the Rule,
and related 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 comments in response to the 1994 FRN 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.
Based on this review, the Commission determined to retain the Rule,
but to seek additional comment on possible amendments to the Rule. The
Commission published an ANPR on December 28, 1995, 60 FR 67102, which
elicited 64 comments on the several possible amendments of the Rule
described therein.1 Based on the
[[Page 25418]]
comments and the evidence discussed herein, the Commission proposes to
amend the Rule in the following ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The comments were from: 41 consumers; one consumer group;
four academics; one clothing retailer; one textile manufacturers
association; one apparel manufacturers association; one professional
cleaner; one professional cleaners association; one wet cleaning
equipment manufacturer; two manufacturers of cleaning products; one
cleaning products manufacturers association; one environmental
protection group; one non-profit clearinghouse for information on
emissions control; one home appliance manufacturers trade
association; one manufacturer of home appliances; one home
applicance repairman; one international association for textile care
labeling; one federal agency; and the Economic Union of European
Countries. 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, at the Public Reference Room, Room 130, Federal Trade
Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. The
comments are referred to in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(``NPR'') by their name and the number assigned to each submitted
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part B--Analysis of Proposed Amendments
1. Labeling for Home washing
a. Background and Discussion of Comments
The 1994 FRN noted that the Environmental Protection Agency
(``EPA'') had been working with the dry cleaning industry to reduce the
public's exposure to perchloroethylene (``PCE'' or ``perc''), the most
common dry cleaning solvent,2 and asked whether the Rule
poses an impediment to this goal. The Rule currently 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 in some cases be washable, a fact not
ascertainable from such an instruction. The 1994 FRN asked about the
extent of care labeling that fails to indicate both washing and dry
cleaning instructions. Finally, the 1994 FRN asked whether the use of
dry cleaning solvents would be lessened, and whether consumers and
cleaners could make more informed choices as to cleaning method, if the
Rule were amended to require both washing and dry cleaning instructions
for garments cleanable by both methods. 59 FR 30733-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Congress designated PCE as a hazardous air pollutant in
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act; many state legislatures have
followed suit under state air toxics regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1995 ANPR, the Commission analyzed the comments submitted in
response to the 1994 FRN and proposed amending the Rule to ensure that
consumers are provided with information that would allow them the
choice of washing garments when possible. The Commission concluded that
lack of such information can result in substantial injury to consumers
in the form of unnecessary expense and/or the inability to use what
they regard as a more environmentally friendly method of care. 60 FR
67104-05.
The ANPR asked for comment on an amendment of the Rule to require a
home washing instruction for all covered products for which home
washing is appropriate; providing dry cleaning instructions for such
washable items would be optional. Manufacturers marketing items with a
``Dry Clean'' instruction alone would be required to substantiate both
that the items could be safely dry cleaned and that home washing would
be inappropriate for them (as the Rule currently requires them to do
when providing a ``Dry Clean Only'' instruction). 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. Id. at
67105. That is, manufacturers labeling their goods for home washing
(and possessing the appropriate substantiation for that instruction)
would not have to also provide a dry clean instruction or have
substantiation that dry cleaning would harm the garment.
Fifty-three comments addressed whether the Commission should
require a home washing instruction for items that could be safely
washed at home, and only three of those opposed the
proposal.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Aqua Clean Systems, Inc. (``Aqua Clean'') (34) pp. 8-9;
Center for Emissions Control (``CEC'') (44) pp. 5-6; American
Apparel Manufacturers Association (``AAMA'') (57) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eighteen commenters, including individual consumers, academics, and
an appliance manufacturers' trade association, contended that many
manufacturers currently label items that can be both washed and dry
cleaned with a ``dry clean'' or ``dry clean only''
instruction.''4 Many commenters stressed that knowing that
garments can be washed at home would save them (or consumers in
general) garment care dollars.5 Two consumers stated that
washing garments that are labeled ``dry clean'' or ``dry clean only''
but that appear washable (such as 100% cotton) is risky because, if the
garment is ruined, the manufacturer will not stand behind
it.6 AHAM, a trade association for appliance manufacturers,
noted that:
\4\ Henry Gluckstern, Esq. (16) pp. 1-2; Bette Jo Dedic,
University of Kentucky College of Agriculture Extension Service
(``Univ. of KY'') (20) p. 1; Vera Rines (28) p. 1; Thelma Carpenter
(30) p. 1; Katherine King (32) p. 1; Ida Carpenter (33) p. 1; Margie
Helton (38) pp. 1-2; Jewell Brabson (40) p. 1; Susan DuBois (42) p.
1; UCLA Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center (``UCLA
PPERC'') (45) p. 3; Aileen Mills (47) p. 1; Association of Home
Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') (51) p. 2.; Helen DuBois (52) p.
1; M. Adkins (54) p. 1; Teresa Mills (58) p. 1; Sarah O'Neal (59) p.
1; Frances McCarter (61) p. 1; Gladys Bebber (62) p. 1. But see Aqua
Clean (34) p. 8: ``As a general observation, garments which can be
home laundered or drycleaned are usually labeled with both care
instructions.''
\5\ Univ. of KY (20) p. 1; Vera Rines (28) p. 1; Thelma
Carpenter (30) p. 1; Katherine King (32) p. 1; Ida Carpenter (33) p.
1; Carolyn Powers (35) p. 1; Spencer and Diana Hart (36) p. 1;
Margie Helton (38) pp. 1-2; Jewell Brabson (40) p. 1; Susan DuBois
(42) p. 1; Aileen Mills (47) p. 1; Joyce Rash (48) p. 1; S.K. Taylor
(49) p. 1; Helen DuBois (52) p. 1; M. Adkins (54) p. 1; Teresa Mills
(58) p. 1; Sarah O'Neal (59) p. 1; Frances McCarter (61) p. 1;
Gladys Bebber (62) p. 1.
\6\ Dana Dodson (4) p. 1; Margaret Petty (37) p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the cost for testing a garment fabric sample for proper care
instructions is just a fraction of the consumer expense experienced
by many thousands of individuals incurring ongoing dry cleaning
expenses for a garment that could be washed at home.7
\7\ AHAM (51) p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters also noted that consumers believe there are
environmental benefits from home washing rather than dry cleaning
washable items.8 Consumers Union stated, ``If only one
method must appear on the label, it has to be the least expensive and
the least hazardous to the consumer and the environment.'' 9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Linda Smith, Tenn. State Univ. Cooperative Extension Program
(3) p. 1; John & Elizabeth Gray (15) p. 1; Univ. of KY (20) p. 2;
Vera Rines (28) p. 1; Thelma Carpenter (30) p. 1; Katherine King
(32) p. 1; Ida Carpenter (33) p. 1; Margie Helton (38) pp. 1-2;
Jewell Brabson (40) p. 1; Susan DuBois (42) p. 1; Consumers Union
(46) p. 2; Aileen Mills (47) p. 1; S.K. Taylor (49) p. 1; Helen
DuBois (52) p. 1; M. Adkins (54) p. 1; Teresa Mills (58) p. 1; Sarah
O'Neal (59) p. 1; Frances McCarter (61) p. 1; Gladys Bebber (62) p.
1.
\9\ Consumers Union (46) p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three commenters recommended that both washing and dry cleaning
instructions be included if both are appropriate.10 Two
comments specifically opposed this type of ``dual labeling,'' however,
because of the increased levels of dry cleaning substantiation tests
that would follow.11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ International Fabricare Institute (``IFI'') (56) p. 2;
Ginetex (the International Association for Textile Care Labeling)
(63) p. 4; European Union (64) p. 3.
\11\ Univ. of KY (20) p. 2; Consumers Union (46) p. 2. See also
the discussion of ``dual disclosures'' in the ANPR:
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. (60 FR 67105, n. 30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two commenters (one of which is an association for apparel
manufacturers) argued that manufacturers (having made the items) are
best qualified to make the decision as to how garments can best be
cleaned and urged the Commission to leave apparel manufacturers the
[[Page 25419]]
flexibility to decide which care instructions to use.12 A
third commenter in opposition to the proposal, a non-profit
clearinghouse for information on emission control in chlorinated
solvent applications, including dry cleaning, stated that there did not
appear to be many instances of washable items being labeled ``dry
clean.'' 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Aqua Clean (34) pp. 8-9; AAMA (57) p. 2, noting that
``There are some garments with `dry clean only' labels that can be
washed at home * * * but if the cleaning is not done correctly, it
can lead to damage.
\13\ CEC (44) p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Proposed Amendments and Reasons Therefor
Based on the comments, the Commission has reason to believe that
``dry clean'' labels on home-washable items are prevalent and that
consumers have a preference for being told when items that they are
purchasing can be safely washed at home. Moreover, the information
about washability may be important to consumers for economic or
environmental reasons, or both. Some consumers wish to avoid the use of
PCE and clean in water when possible because they believe it is better
for the environment. The record also supports the conclusion that this
aspect of the Rule is an impediment to EPA's goal of reducing the use
of dry cleaning solvents.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ EPA's comment (73) to the 1994 FRN stated, at p. 1, that
the Rule should be revised to require manufacturers to state whether
a garment ``can be cleaned by solvent-based methods, water-based
methods, or both. We believe this change is necessary to advance the
use of water-based cleaning technology.'' EPA's comment to the 1995
FRN referred to the 1994 comment, and stressed the need for
recognition in the Rule of professional wet cleaning. EPA (17) p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a garment that can be washed at home is labeled ``dry clean,''
many consumers may be misled into believing that the garment cannot be
washed at home, and they may incur the unnecessary expense of dry
cleaning the garment and/or potential damage to the environment that
they wish to avoid.\15\ Moreover, it can be extremely difficult for
consumers to obtain the information about washability of an item for
themselves. Although 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ A Perdue University survey found that 89.3% of the 962
respondents indicated that they would not wash a garment labeled
``dry clean.'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Commission proposes amending the Rule to require a
home washing instruction for garments for which home washing is
appropriate. This amendment would permit optional dry cleaning
instructions for such washable items, provided dry cleaning would be an
appropriate alternative cleaning method. The amendment would, however,
require that manufacturers selling items with a ``dry clean''
instruction alone be able to substantiate both that the items could be
safely dry cleaned and that home washing would be inappropriate for
them.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The Rule currently requires this level of substantiation
for a ``dry clean only'' instruction. Under the proposed amendment,
any garment for which home washing is not recommended and dry
cleaning is recommended, would have to be labeled ``dry clean
only.'' In other words, a ``dry clean'' instruction by itself would
no longer be permissible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted in the comments, the proposed amendment would enable
consumers to make a more informed purchasing choice and provide them
with the option of saving money by washing 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.
The Commission agrees, as it did in the ANPR, with the commenters
(primarily manufacturers) that cautioned against a ``dual labeling''
instruction requiring both home washing and dry cleaning instructions
if both methods are appropriate. Such an instruction would result in
some manufacturers of traditionally washable products performing dry
cleaning tests to substantiate that dry cleaning was an appropriate
care method, which would be contrary to EPA's goal of reducing the use
of dry cleaning solvents. Moreover, the comments do not indicate a
consumer preference for such dual labeling. 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, and to require such dual labeling
might raise costs without providing any real benefit to consumers.
The proposed amendments would permit a home washing instruction
only for those covered products for which home washing--and traditional
home finishing processes such as ironing--would be an appropriate
method of care. Many commenters cautioned that, for some items that
could be washed in water, there would be many additional finishing
steps required for the garment that the average consumer could not
perform at home. In the case of some garments, such as suits made from
wool or silk (fibers that generally can be safely washed in water),
post-home washing finishing processes like steampressing and pleat and
crease setting are necessary for proper refurbishing. These processes
are beyond the capabilities of most consumers and the equipment
available to them.\17\ Under the proposed amendments, a home washing
instruction would not be appropriate or required for an item that could
be safely washed in water with the proper cleaning agents but could not
be finished properly at home by the average consumer. Moreover, the
Commission recognizes that manufacturers have experience with the
consumers who buy their garments, and the Commission would expect to
defer to manufacturers' decisions in the case of garments that would be
difficult to refurbish for some but not all consumers.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Aqua Clean (34) pp. 8-9.
\18\ In addition, manufacturers that wished to stress that a
particular garment could be refurbished at home but might be
difficult for some consumers to refurbish adequately at home could
add a phrase such as ``For best results, dry clean.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The ``Professionally Wet Clean'' Instruction
a. Background and Discussion of Comments
The ANPR asked whether the Rule should be amended to recognize the
new technology referred to as ``professional wet cleaning'' by
requiring a professional wet cleaning instruction for products that
cannot be washed at home but could be cleaned by means of this new
technology.\19\ (Professional wet cleaning uses computer-controlled
washers and dryers to achieve precise control of mechanical action,
fluid levels, temperatures, and other important factors.) The ANPR
asked for information on the cost of wet cleaning, the availability of
wet cleaning facilities, whether the process currently could serve as a
practical alternative to dry cleaning, and whether fiber
[[Page 25420]]
identification should be on a permanent label. 60 FR 67105, 67107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ In the narrative discussing this issue in the ANPR, the
Commission sought information on the feasibility of a
``professionally wet clean'' instruction on ``all covered products
bearing a dry cleaning instruction.'' 60 FR 67105. In the Request
for Comments Section of the Notice, however, the Commission limited
the applicability of the question to ``a garment that cannot be home
laundered but can be dry cleaned.'' 60 FR 67107. Most of the
commenters responded in the latter context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-nine commenters addressed the ``professionally wet clean''
instruction.20 Only four opposed the proposal to amend the
Rule to require a ``professionally wet clean'' instruction for wet
cleanable garments that cannot be washed at home. The Soap and
Detergent Association and Procter & Gamble contended that the term
``professionally wet clean'' may be confused with a home washing
instruction by consumers.21 The Center for Emissions Control
contended that wet cleaning is a new technology that is neither well
understood nor widely available, and that a required wet cleaning
instruction now would therefore be unreasonable and
counterproductive.22 SDA, P&G, and CEC all recommended
requiring some version of a ``professionally clean'' instruction that
would encompass both dry cleaning and professionally wet
cleaning.23 CEC also suggested that eventually the Rule
could provide for a ``professionally wet clean'' instruction that would
be permitted, but not required, when the manufacturer thought
professional wet cleaning would be appropriate.24 AAMA
opposed any provision in the Rule for professional wet cleaning on the
ground that it is too new and that there are too few cleaners who can
provide the service.25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Joyce McCarter (14) p.1; John & Elizabeth Gray (15) p.1;
Henry Gluckstern, Esq. (16) pp.1, 3; EPA (17) p.1; Linda Arant (18)
p.1; Vera Rines (28) p.1; Thelma Carpenter (30) p.1; Ida Carpenter
(33) p.1; Aqua Clean (34) pp. 6-7; Margie Helton (38) p.1; Jewell
Brabson (40) p.1; American Textile Manufacturers Institute
(``ATMI'') (41) p.3; Susan DuBois (42) p.1; The Soap and Detergent
Association (``SDA'') (43) pp.1; 3; CEC (44) pp.1-2, 5; UCLA PPERC
(45) pp.2-3; Consumers Union (46) pp.1-2; Center for Neighborhood
Technology (``CNT'') (55) pp.2, 4; IFI (56) p.2.; AAMA (57) p.2;
Teresa Mills (58) p.1; Sarah O'Neal (59) p.1; P&G (60) pp.2; 4;
Frances McCarter (61) p.1; Gladys Bebber (62) p.1; Ginetex (63) p.3.
\21\ SDA (43 pp.1, 3; Procter & Gamble (``P&G'') (60) pp.2, 4.
\22\ CEC (44) p.5.
\23\ SDA (43) pp.1, 3; CEC (44) pp.1-1, 5; P&G (60) pp.2, 4.
\24\ CEC (4) p.5.
\25\ AAMA (57) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Defining Professional Wet Cleaning.\26\ Six organizations
provided information describing the wet cleaning process.27
They defined ``machine wet cleaning'' or ``professional wet cleaning''
as an automatic, water-based cleaning process that relies on the use of
sophisticated, computer-controlled washers and dryers in which the
washing and drying cycles, including heat, moisture, and agitation, can
be precisely controlled according to the requirements of the various
fiber, fabric, and garment types.28
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The ANPR noted that EPA had published a summary of an
alternative cleaning process referred to as ``Multiprocess Wet
Cleaning.'' 60 FR 67103 (Dec. 28, 1995). According to several
commenters, ``multiprocess wet cleaning'' is a cleaning process that
involves knowledgeable individuals hand-cleaning individual
garments, often employing a ``spot cleaning'' technique rather than
full immersion, and using water, heat, steam and natural soaps
instead of perchloroethylene or petroleum solvents. Aqua Clean (34)
pp.1-2, noting that ``Professional wet cleaning has already
supplanted multiprocess wet cleaning. Indeed, those cleaners
(Ecofranchising, NY; Cleaner Image, CT) which initially used
multiprocess wet cleaning have converted to professional wet
cleaning because of the economic advantages.'' See also CEC (44)
p.4. Consequently, Multiprocess Wet Cleaning is not addressed in the
remainder of this Notice.
\27\ Aqua Clean (34) pp.1-2; CEC (44) p.4; UCLA PPERC (45) p.3;
CNT (55) p.2; IFI (56) p.2; Ginetex (63) p.3.
\28\ Aqua Clean (34) pp.1-2; UCLA PPERC (45) p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three organizations provided information about the equipment used
in professional wet cleaning.29 UCLA PPERC and CNT said that
five companies provide the equipment systems necessary for professional
wet cleaning.30 Aqua Clean provided a detailed description
of the equipment needed to provide professional wet cleaning services:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Aqua Clean (34) pp.2-3; UCLA PPERC (45) p.3; CNT (55) p.2.
\30\ UCLA PPERC (45) p.3; CNT (55) p.2.
All professional wet cleaning systems consist of a computer-
controlled washer and dryer, wet cleaning software, and
biodegradable chemicals specifically formulated to safely wet clean
wool, silk, rayon, and other natural and man-made fibers. The washer
always uses a frequency-controlled motor, which allows the computer
to precisely control the degree of mechanical action imposed on the
garments by the wet cleaning process. The computer also controls
time, fluid levels, temperatures, extraction, chemical injection,
drum rotation and extraction parameters, etc. The dryer always
incorporates a residual moisture (or humidity) control to prevent
overdrying of delicate garments. The wet cleaning chemicals are
formulated from constituent chemicals which are on the EPA's public
inventory of approved chemicals pursuant to the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA).31
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Aqua Clean (34) pp.2-3.
(2) As an Alternative to Dry Cleaning. The ANPR asked two related
questions about the feasibility of wet cleaning as a practical
alternative to dry cleaning, and the extent to which items that have
historically been dry cleaned could successfully be professionally wet
cleaned. Five commenters responded directly to the first question. ATMI
and AAMA pointed out that, while the fibers and dyes now in use will
stand up to the chemical solvents used in the dry cleaning process, the
textile industry does not know if they will stand up to professional
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
wet cleaning.32 ATMI predicted that:
\32\ ATMI (41) p.3; AAMA (57) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If consumers just assume that they can use the new cleaning method
on their existing wardrobe and current clothing purchases, we would
expect to see an increase in apparel damage claims. This is because
the fabrics used in these clothing items have finishes and
formulations designed for dry cleaning. We told EPA that the
industry would need a long phase-in time (2--3 years) to adjust our
dyes and finishes to work compatibly with ``wet clean''
processes.33
\33\ ATMI (41) p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ginetex, which is responsible for the care labeling system used in
European countries, indicated its interest in the wet cleaning
technique, but said it is waiting for a standardized test method so
manufacturers can test garments to determine whether wet cleaning would
be a safe care method.34 IFI cautioned that wet cleaning
technology is new and stated its determination to undertake research
into the process:
\34\ Ginetex (63) p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of machine wet cleaning is still in the investigative or
infant stage. The technology originated in Europe and the most
extensive analysis of these systems has been completed by two
European research groups--Hohenstein and FCRA. The conclusion of
these studies is that machine wet cleaning is an adjunct to dry
cleaning, not a complete replacement. The Environmental Protection
Agency, as a result of its evaluation of wet cleaning under its
Design for the Environment Program, concludes that machine wet
cleaning is not a complete replacement for drycleaning. There is
still much investigative work to be done in this area. To that end,
IFI has formed a partnership with Greenpeace, other industry groups,
and other environmental and labor groups to explore the
possibilities of wet cleaning--The Professional Wet Cleaning
Partnership.35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ IFI (56) p.2.
Aqua Clean estimated that 90% of garments can be safely and
satisfactorily cleaned by professional wet cleaning. Aqua Clean stated
that it has found no significant wetcleanability versus drycleanability
differences applicable to wool, silk, rayon, acetate, linen, etc. with
the exception of heavier wool suits, which are made with linings and
shoulder pads that dry at a rate different from the wool, and thus
require extra time.36 CEC stated that estimates of the
percentage of garments labeled ``dry clean only'' that can be
successfully wet
[[Page 25421]]
cleaned vary from 30% to 70%, with industry experts narrowing that
spread to 30% to 50%.37 IFI contended that it is too early
to estimate the percentage with any certainty, but stated that early
indications are that the percentage of ``dry clean'' labeled garments
that could be effectively machine wet cleaned could be anywhere from
25% to 75%.38 CNT estimated, based on its own research and
research conducted by Environment Canada, that from 30% to 70% of
clothes generally cleaned in PCE could be safely cleaned using standard
commercial or domestic laundering equipment.39
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Aqua Clean (34) p.4. Aqua Clean said that it has
corresponded with the International Wool Secretariat (IWS), the
research and marketing arm of the wool industry, and anticipates
cooperating with the IWS's announced intention to develop wool
processing technologies at the mill level that will make wool
garments better suited to professional wet cleaning, so they can be
dried faster at higher temperatures. Id. at 5.
\37\ CEC (44) p.4.
\38\ IFI (56) p.2.
\39\ CNT (55) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Businesses that Provide Wet Cleaning. When it filed its comment
in early 1996, Aqua Clean estimated that, by the end of 1996,
approximately 350 businesses would have professional wet cleaning
systems.40 Three other commenters estimated that
professional wet cleaning is currently being offered by 100
businesses.41 CEC also estimated that it will be several
years, even at best, before a substantial number of the nation's 30,000
cleaners have purchased professional wet cleaning
technology.42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Aqua Clean (34) p.3.
\41\ UCLA PPERC (45) p.3; CNT (55) p.3; AAMA (57) p.2.
\42\ CEC (44) p.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Costs to Consumers. ATMI said that the additional costs
incurred by textile and apparel manufacturers to substantiate a wet
cleaning instruction would be passed on to consumers.43 Both
UCLA PPERC and CNT stated that the costs to consumers for wet cleaning
services are comparable to the costs of dry cleaning.44 CNT
estimated that the range for wet cleaning a two-piece wool suit was
from $4.50 to $9.00, and added that interviews with cleaners indicated
that those who provided both types of cleaning were providing them for
approximately the same cost, and that in no case were charges for wet
cleaning higher than for dry cleaning.45
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ ATMI (41) p.3.
\44\ UCLA PPERC (45) p.4; CNT (55) p.4.
\45\ CNT (55) p.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aqua Clean said that it was not aware of any cleaner charging more
for wet cleaning services than for dry cleaning services, and that in
some cases the cost of wet cleaning is less, because many dry cleaners
impose a surcharge (typically 50 cents) to cover the rising cost of
disposing of hazardous dry cleaning waste.46
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Aqua Clean (34) p.5. Aqua Clean also raised an issue that
was not addressed in the ANPR--consumer access to cleaning services:
Many developers and owners of strip centers and shopping
centers, which is where most consumers access cleaning services, are
refusing to rent space to or renew leases for drycleaners. These
landlords simply do not want to bear the legal exposure or insurance
expense associated with drycleaning machines and their toxic waste
stream. Aqua Clean Systems is currently negotiating with a major
national shopping center owner to become their exclusive tenant for
100% perc-free cleaning facilities. At present, they refuse to allow
a drycleaner in any of their 1,800 shopping centers. Similar
discussions are taking place with a major chain in the Southeast.
This trend will continue. If the Rule is not amended to accommodate
professional wet cleaning, access to cleaning services will decline
as regulatory and landlord pressures cause a decline in the number
of drycleaners, which will eventually reduce competition and cause
an increase in consumer prices. Id., pp. 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(5) The Environmental Impact of the Process. Aqua Clean and CNT
stated that none of the substances used in the process are prohibited
by EPA; further, Aqua Clean said that the only materials released into
the environment in connection with the process are chemicals that
appear on EPA's public inventory of approved chemicals under the Toxic
Substances Control Act.47 CEC suggested, however, that the
primary environmental issue associated with the wet cleaning process is
water consumption, because the process uses 2.5 gallons of water to
clean a pound of clothes. CEC pointed out that, although this compares
favorably to the 6 gallons per pound used by home clothes washers, the
wet cleaning process uses more water than the dry cleaning process,
which uses water primarily for cooling purposes, and typically recycles
it.48 UCLA PPERC stated that research suggests that wet
cleaning is a safe alternative to dry cleaning.49
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Aqua Clean (34) p.3; CNT (55) p.3.
\48\ CEC (44) p.3.
\49\ UCLA PPERC (45) p.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission notes that it has not made an independent assessment
of the environmental desirability of the various methods of cleaning
textile wearing apparel. Rather, it has noted EPA's goal of reducing
the use of dry cleaning solvents and the preference of numerous
consumers for information about whether garments can be cleaned in
water. The Commission has prepared a proposed Environmental Assessment
in which it analyzed whether the amendments to the Rule were required
to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement. Because the
main effect of the proposed amendments is to provide consumers with
additional information rather than directly to affect the environment,
the Commission concluded in the proposed Environmental Assessment that
an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary. The Commission
requests comment on this issue. The Environmental Assessment is on the
public record and is available for public inspection at the Public
Reference Room, Room 130, Federal Trade Commission, 6th and
Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. It can also be obtained at the
FTC's web site at http://www.ftc.gov on the Internet.
(6) The Requirement for Fiber Identification on a Permanent Label.
Eight comments addressed the desirability of a requirement for fiber
identification on a permanent label, and all favored the
idea.50 Five recommended that the fiber identification be on
the same label as the care instructions.51 Several
commenters said that fiber information need not necessarily be on the
care label but should be on a permanent label.52 Most of the
commenters said that cleaners need fiber identification information in
order to provide the best cleaning services for their customers. Aqua
Clean explained as follows:
\50\ Univ. of KY (20) p. 1; Aqua Clean (34) p. 7; ATMI (41) p.
4; CEC (44) p. 2; UCLA PPERC (45) p. 3; Consumers Union (46) p. 2;
AHAM (51) p. 2; P&G (60) p. 4.
\51\ CEC (44) p. 2; UCLA PPERC 945) p. 3; Consumers Union (46)
p. 2; AHAM (51) p. 2; P&G (60) p. 4.
\52\ Univ. of KY (20) p. 1; Aqua Clean (34) p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[F]abric identification [should] be on a permanent label because it
is essential information for all cleaners regardless of the
technology employed; requiring this by regulation will merely codify
a nearly uniform practice at no measurable cost to manufacturers. A
secondary consideration is that individuals with allergies to
certain fibers (e.g., wool) should be provided with this
information. It is clear that requiring fiber identification on a
permanent label should be acceptable to manufacturers and consumers
because it has already become an accepted part of business at all
levels of manufacture, distribution, sales, and garment
care.53
\53\ Aqua Clean (34) p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Proposed Amendment and Reasons Therefor. The comments show that
professional wet cleaning is a process that is of interest to
consumers, especially those who believe it has the potential for less
negative impact on the environment than dry cleaning. Thus, the
Commission is proposing amendments that will incorporate professional
wet cleaning into the Rule's system of instructions for care.
Nevertheless, professional wet cleaning is a very new technology,
and it does not appear to be widely available. Moreover, there is not a
standardized test by which manufacturers can establish a reasonable
basis for a professional wet
[[Page 25422]]
cleaning instruction.54 For these reasons, the Commission is
not at this time proposing an amendment to the Rule that would require
a wet cleaning instruction. Instead, the Commission is proposing
amendments that would add a definition to the Rule for ``professional
wet cleaning'' and would permit manufacturers to include a
``professionally wet clean'' instruction on labels for those items for
which they have a reasonable basis for a professional wet cleaning
instruction. The proposed amendments do not require manufacturers who
label items with a ``dry clean only'' instruction to be able to
substantiate that professional wet cleaning would be an inappropriate
method of care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Testing is one of several types of evidence that can serve
as a reasonable basis for a care instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission also concludes that fiber identification on a
permanent label is important to professional wet cleaners.55
The record contains numerous references to the need for precise fiber
content information due to the complexity of the computer-controlled
equipment used in the wet cleaning process. Therefore, the proposed
amendment requires that, if a care instruction recommends professional
wet cleaning, the fiber content must be provided on the permanent care
label along with the care instructions. The Commission seeks comment as
to whether any accompanying change should be made to the Textile
Rules.56
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (``Textile
Act''), 15 U.S.C. 70 et seq., requires marketers of covered textile
products to mark each product with the generic names and percentages
by weight of the constituent fibers present in the product. The
Commission has issued Rules and Regulations under the Textile Act
(``Textile Rules''). Rule 15 of the Textile Rules, 15 CFR 303.15,
allows any type of label to be used as long as the label is securely
affixed and durable enough to remain attached to the product until
the consumer receives it; Rule 15 does not require a permanent
label.
\56\ Rule 16 of the Textile Rules, 16 CFR 303.16, requires, with
some exceptions, that all information required by the Textile Act
shall be set out on one label, and on the same side of the label.
The Commission recently sought comment on modifications of the
Textile Rules. 61 FR 5344 (Feb. 12, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, it should be noted that at this time, the Commission
proposes allowing a ``professional wet clean'' instruction along with a
conventional care instruction because many consumers do not currently
have access to professional wet cleaners. Nevertheless, because
professional wet cleaning appears to be growing rapidly, the Commission
seeks comment on this point.
3. The Reasonable Basis Requirement of the Rule
a. Background and Discussion of Comments
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. Id.
The 1994 FRN solicited comment on whether the Commission should
amend the Rule to conform with the interpretation of ``reasonable
basis'' described in the FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising
Substantiation, (``Advertising Policy Statement'') 104 F.T.C. 839
(1984), or to change the definition of ``reasonable basis'' in some
other manner. The comments in response to the 1994 FRN suggested that a
significant number of care labels lack a reasonable basis. Based on
these comments, the ANPR proposed amending the reasonable basis
requirement to reduce the incidence of inaccurate and incomplete
labels. The ANPR sought comment on that incidence, the extent to which
it might be reduced by clarifying the reasonable basis standard, and
the costs and benefits of such a clarification.
The Commission further solicited comment on whether to amend the
Rule to clarify that the reasonable basis requirement applies to a
garment in its entirety rather than to each of its individual
components. In addition, the Commission asked for comment on whether
the Rule should specify standards for determining acceptable and
unacceptable changes in garments following cleaning as directed, and
whether the Rule should identify properties, such as colorfastness and
dimensional stability, to which such standards would apply.
The ANPR sought comment on the option of indicating 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 Advertising Policy Statement
and whether the Rule should be amended to make testing of garments the
only evidence that could serve as a reasonable basis under certain
circumstances. Finally, the ANPR sought comment on whether the Rule
should specify particular testing methodologies to be used. Ten
commenters responding to the ANPR discussed the reasonable basis
provision.57 Seven supported the modification of the Rule,
arguing that the provision should be clarified and strengthened to
reduce mislabeling.58 Two maintained that the reasonable
basis provision should not be amended, because the proposed changes
would likely increase the cost to consumers and apparel firms without
materially increasing the benefits to consumers.59
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Univ. of KY (20) p.2; Clorox (31) pp. 4-5; ATMI (41) pp. 5-
7; SDA (43) pp. 1,3; Consumers Union (46) pp. 2-3; AHAM (51) p.2;
IFI (56) p. 3; AAMA (57) p. 2; P&G (60) p. 5; Ginetex (63) p.4.
\58\ Univ. of KY (20) p. 2; Clorox (31) pp. 4-5; SDA (43) pp.
1,3; Consumers Union (46) pp. 2-3; AHAM (51) p. 2; IFI (56) p. 3;
P&G (60) p. 5.
\59\ AAMA (57) p. 2; ATMI (41) pp. 5-7. Ginetex, the European
care labeling organization, stated that it gives technical advice
``to give indications how to test in the case of uncertainty to
choose the correct care label.'' Ginetex (63) p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only two commenters provided data on the incidence of mislabeling.
Both concluded that there is a high incidence of inaccurate and/or
incomplete labeling. IFI cited statistics from its Garment Analysis
database (which, in 1995, consisted of 25,160 damaged garments)
indicating that inaccurate care labels were responsible for 40% of the
damaged garments. 60 Clorox concluded from its own study
that 70% of all home washing instructions provide inaccurate bleach
information.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ IFI (56) p.3.
\61\ Clorox (31) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATMI, however, stated that most home washing labels are accurate,
and that the vast majority of dry clean instruction labels are
accurate, despite limited problems associated with care instructions
for special items such as beaded apparel, sequins, and leather
appliques.\62\ ATMI and AAMA both
[[Page 25423]]
stated that the costs to consumers of complaining to manufacturers or
retailers about garments damaged in cleaning is minimal, usually
consisting of returning that item to the store, a telephone call, or
postage for mailing a letter.\63\ Moreover, according to both
commenters, garment or piece goods manufacturers generally offer
refunds for products damaged in cleaning despite adherence to care
label directions if numerous consumers complain about an item.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ ATMI (41) p.5. See also AAMA (57) p.3 (``There are a few
problems with leather patches and some other materials attached to
garments.'') The Commission has litigated one case involving
inaccurate care instructions that resulted in damage to garments.
FTC v. Bonnie & Company Fashions, Inc. and Bonnie Boerer, Civ.
Action No. 90-4454) (D.N.J.). In addition, since that litigation,
the Commission has obtained five settlements that alleged violation
of the Rule due to inaccurate care instructions; in three of those
five settlements, the Commission alleged that the trim on the
garments was damaged when cleaned.
\63\ ATMI (41) p.7; AAMA (57) p.4. But see Univ. of KY (20) p.2
(consumers may not complain to stores because they are intimidated
or do not think their problems will be resolved).
\64\ ATMI (41) p.7 (noting that if only one consumer complains
about an item ``of which thousands were produced, it is likely that
the damage was caused by a commercial cleaner or by the consumer'');
AAMA (57) p.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters specifically addressed whether the Rule should
require testing as a reasonable basis in certain situations. Two
commenters argued that testing should be the only permissible
reasonable basis.\65\ Clorox stated that tests performed on a
representative sample of each garment are ``the most reliable evidence
of care instruction accuracy,'' and that textbooks and manuals should
not be allowed as evidence of a reasonable basis.\66\ Clorox maintained
that such a requirement would place little additional expense on
manufacturers because ``published tests on specific fabric and dye
combinations are already shared among the trade.''\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ IFI (56) p. 3; Clorox (31) pp. 4-5.
\66\ Clorox (31) p. 4.
\67\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two commenters, ATMI and AAMA, however, opposed such an amendment
to the Rule.\68\ ATMI expressed its concern that a testing requirement
would substantially increase the prices for apparel and home furnishing
items.\69\ AAMA noted that its members already test new styles and
fabrics for use in garments; thus, it is unaware of any garments which
``would need a legal requirement to be tested.''\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ ATMI (41) p. 5; AAMA (57) p. 3.
\69\ ATMI (41) p. 7.
\70\ AAMA (57) p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of commenters discussed whether the rule should specify
testing methodologies to be used. Consumers Union asserted that the
Rule should specify test methods that relate to consumer expectations,
assessing ``product performance after repeated cleaning, shrinkage,
colorfastness, appearance retention, and at least one fabric strength
test.''\71\ In contrast, AAMA contended that requiring specific test
methods may impede the introduction of new fibers and fabrics.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Consumers Union (46) p. 2.
\72\ AAMA (57) p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters responded to the Commission's questions relating
to whether the Rule should require a reasonable basis for a whole
garment versus each component. Three commenters maintained that the
Rule should require a reasonable basis for a garment in its
entirety.\73\ IFI noted that its database shows that ``a large portion
of the garments damaged are the result of the trim or component part of
the garment failing in a specified care procedure.''\74\ Consumers
Union also argued that ``to state an instruction that excludes its
applicability to garment trim is not often practical as some trim are
hard to remove and reposition after cleaning.''\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Univ. of KY (20) p. 2; Consumers Union (16) p. 3.; IFI (56)
p. 3.
\74\ IFI (56) p. 3.
\75\ Consumers Union (46) p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two commenters stated that the Rule should not require testing on a
complete garment.\76\ AAMA asserted that many garments are made of just
one major fabric. Accordingly, there may not be a need to test an
entire garment, as opposed to the materials used, if the other
materials used in the garment are of the same fiber and basic
construction.\77\ Moreover, AAMA argued that it is sufficient for
manufacturers to specify in care instructions that a specific trim is
excluded, because consumers are thereby warned that care must be taken
when refurbishing the garment.\78\ ATMI stated that testing of
completed garments would significantly raise the cost of manufacturing
apparel, but noted that trim should be covered by the Rule, and that
manufacturers should be responsible for selecting and combining
component materials that can be refurbished together.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ AAMA (57) p. 4; ATMI (41) pp. 5-6.
\77\ AAMA (57) p. 4.
\78\ Id.
\79\ ATMI (41) p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters responded to the Commission's request for comments
on whether the Rule should refer to performance standards, concluding
that it may not be feasible for the Rule to do so. Consumers Union, for
example, noted that because fabrics and apparel items are continually
offered and discontinued, it may not be possible for the Commission to
set performance standards in a timely fashion to cover all properties
and types of garments.\80\ AAMA asserted that although there is
``reason to look at minimum performance standards, including
colorfastness, abrasion resistance, etc.,'' the Commission should not
modify the reasonable basis requirement until the United States, Mexico
and Canada have harmonized their labeling standards.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Consumers Union (46) p. 2 (suggesting that the FTC
implement a rule that requires manufacturers, retailers, and
importers to issue refunds for products damaged in cleaning despite
adherence to the label).
\81\ AAMA (57) p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, two commenters stated that the Commission would improve
the effectiveness of the Rule by incorporating the criteria from the
Advertising Policy Statement.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ SDA (43) p. 3; P&G (60) p. 5 (also suggesting that the
Commission consider methods of certification and other tools such as
U.S. Customs requirements to reduce the number of mislabeled
imported goods, especially those labeled ``Dry Clean Only.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Proposed Amendments and Reasons Therefor
Section 423.6(c)(3) of the Rule currently states that a
manufacturer or importer establishes a reasonable basis for care
information by ``possessing prior to sale: [r]eliable evidence * * *
for each component part of the product.'' Based on its review of the
comments, the Commission proposes to amend the reasonable basis
standard to make clear that the reasonable basis requirement applies to
the garment in its entirety rather than to each of its individual
components. The Commission believes that the record establishes that in
some cases care instructions may not be accurate for the entire
garment. A garment component that may be cleaned satisfactorily by
itself might, for example, bleed onto the body of a garment of which it
is a part. Thus, in the proposed Rule, Section 423.6(c)(3) has been
amended to clarify that a manufacturer must possess a reasonable basis
for the garment as a whole, including any trim.83 Proposed
Section 423.6(c)(3) provides that ``Reliable evidence * * * for each
component part of the product, in conjunction with reliable evidence
for the garment as a whole'' can constitute a reasonable basis for care
instructions. The proposed Rule does not require testing of the entire
garment if there is an adequate reasonable basis for the garment as a
whole without such testing; the proposed change would clarify, however,
that testing of separate components is not necessarily sufficient if
problems are likely to occur when the components are
combined.84
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ The Commission notes that an instruction to clean
``exclusive of trim'' is only a valid care instruction if the trim
can be easily removed and easily reattached.
\84\ For example, red trim that is to be placed on white fabric
should be evaluated to determine if it is likely to bleed onto the
surrounding fabric. A company may possess reliable evidence--for
example, past experience with particular dyes and fabrics--that a
particular red trim does not bleed onto surrounding fabric. In such
a case testing of the entire garment might not be necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25424]]
The Commission, however, believes that the comments do not provide
sufficient reason to propose modifying other aspects of the reasonable
basis provision at this time. As noted by the AAMA, the United States,
Mexico, and Canada are in the process of harmonizing their labeling
requirements. Until this harmonization is complete, the Commission
believes that further modification of the reasonable basis provision
may be premature.
4. Definitions of Water Temperatures
a. Background and Discussion of Comments
The Rule currently requires that a care label that recommends
washing must also state a water temperature that may be used unless
``the regular use of hot water will not harm the product.'' 16 CFR
423.6(b)(1)(i). The Rule also provides that if the term ``machine
wash'' is used with no temperature indication, ``hot water up to 150
degrees F (66 degrees C) can regularly be used.'' 16 CFR 423.1(d). This
definition is repeated in Appendix 1.a. ``Warm'' is defined in Appendix
1.b. as ranging from 90 to 110 degrees F (32 to 43 degrees C), and
``cold,'' in Appendix 1.c., as cold tap water up to 85 degrees F (29
degrees C).
Some comments to the 1994 FRN recommended that the Commission
revise the definition of cold water. Commenters noted that tap water
temperatures vary across the United States, and that such differences
can cause problems because, in the winter in colder parts of the
country, detergents may not fully activate during a cold wash cycle.
Other comments suggested that the Rule's definition of hot water should
be changed. The American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists
(``AATCC'') commented that the temperatures stated in the Appendix
should be changed to match the AATCC definitions, which the AATCC
believes ``more accurately reflect current washing machine settings and
consumer practice.'' 85 The AATCC defines ``hot'' as 120
degrees F plus or minus 5 degrees (49 degrees C plus or minus 3
degrees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Comment 34 to 1994 FRN, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ANPR sought 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 sought 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.
All eleven comments received in response to the ANPR that discussed
the definitions of cold, warm, and hot water favored some
change.86 ATMI stated that it is very important that the
Rule's water temperature definitions be consistent with those used in
standard test methods developed by AATCC because those test methods are
used by the textile and apparel industries.87 Six of the
commenters also supported the idea of including a numerical temperature
on the care label.88 Consumers Union, for example, stated
that consumers need to know the actual range of water temperature in
which they can safely wash their clothes.
\86\ Bruce Fifield (22); ATMI (41); SDA (43); Consumers Union
(46); AHAM (51); Maytag Appliances (``Maytag'') (53); IFI (56); AAMA
(57); P&G (60); Ginetex (63); European Commission (64).
\87\ ATMI (41) p.1.
\88\ Fifield (22) p.1; Consumers Union (46) p.1.; AHAM (51) p.1;
AAMA (57) p.1; European Commission (64) p.2; Ginetex (63) p.2. In a
meeting with staff on August 7, 1996, AHAM indicated that it no
longer favors this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Words such as lukewarm, cold, warm or hot serve their purposes
only if the consumers are aware of safe water temperature ranges.
Testing laboratories have assigned temperature ranges onto each of
these words. They use these ``safe temperature ranges'' to test
products for durability to repeated cleaning. Consumers should know
what these safe water temperature ranges are.89
\89\ Consumers Union (46) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Definition of cold water. As noted, six commenters favored the
inclusion of a numerical temperature on the care label. Two others
favored a numerical temperature when the label recommends a ``cold''
wash. SDA noted that in northern locations in winter, cold water washes
can be as cold as 40 degrees F and that ``the performance of all
laundry products is seriously diminished if they are used in water
temperatures below 60 degrees F.'' 90 SDA suggested the
following care instruction, in lieu of ``cold'':
\90\ SDA (43) p.2. P&G (60) stated, at p.3, that ``all
detergency and cleaning performance decreases substantially in cold
water below 70 degrees F.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wash in the warmest available water, not to exceed (approximate
temperature) degrees F.
Maytag suggested that a range of 65 to 80 degrees F should be
stated on the care label because
consumers are not aware that water can be too cold to activate
detergents, thus they experience poor cleaning and other laundry
problems. By incorporating a temperature range consumers would know
exactly what temperatures will provide good results. 91
\91\ Maytag (53) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P&G said that a national consumer study it had conducted showed
that 78% of ``cold'' loads washed in January and February were in
temperatures below 65 degrees F (with some as low as 34 degrees F), and
that, year round, 50% of ``cold'' loads were washed in temperatures
below 65 degrees F.92
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ P&G (60) p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATMI suggested that ``cold'' be defined consistently with the
definition specified in AATCC test methods [27 degrees C plus or minus
3 degrees, or 82 degrees F plus or minus 5 degrees] and with standards
developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'')
[30 degrees C, or 86 degrees F].93
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ ATMI (41) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Definition of warm water. Section 1.b of the Appendix to the
Rule defines warm water as 90 to 110 degrees F (32 to 42 degrees C).
Several commenters recommended maintaining this definition, but adding
the term ``lukewarm,'' defined as 70 to 89 F (21 to 31 C).94
Other commenters opposed ``lukewarm,'' stating that it would be
confusing to consumers because washing machine dials only offer the
choices of cold, warm, and hot.95 ATMI suggested a
definition of 40 degrees C plus or minus 5 degrees (104 degrees F plus
or minus 9 degrees), which it described as consistent with the
definition established by AATCC for use in garment testing [41 degrees
C plus or minus 3 degrees, or 106 degrees F plus or minus 5 degrees]
and by ASTM in its standards [40 degrees C or 104 F].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ SDA (43) p.2; P&G (60) p.2.
\95\ ATMI (41) p.1; AHAM (51) p.2; Maytag (53) p.1; AAMA (57)
p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Definition of hot water.
Maytag stated that ``the current definition of hot water as up to
150 degrees is unrealistic due to scald laws in some states'' and
because new water heaters are preset at 120 degrees F.96 P&G
also noted that hot water heaters are now usually preset at 120 F,
``much less than the 140 degrees F of older models.'' 97 SDA
estimated that ``20% of today's homes have hot water heaters set at
120-125 F.'' 98 Maytag favored
[[Page 25425]]
defining hot as 120 to 140 degrees F, and SDA and P&G favored defining
hot as 111 to 140 F. ATMI recommended 50 degrees C plus or minus 5
degrees C, which it described as consistent with definitions used by
AATCC [49 degrees C plus or minus 3 degrees C, or 120 F plus or minus 5
degrees F] and ASTM [50 C or 122 F].99
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Maytag (53) p. 2; see also SDA (43) p. 2, P&G (60) p. 2.
\97\ P&G (60) p. 3.
\98\ SDA (43) p. 2.
\99\ ATMI (41) p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters argued for the addition of ``very hot.''
100 P&G noted that some American consumers will be able to
achieve the higher temperatures ``as new washing machines from Europe
with onboard heaters enter the U.S.'' 101 IFI noted that
professional laundries can achieve the higher temperatures, and that
the higher temperatures are necessary to clean certain types of
clothes, such as men's dress shirts.102
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ ATMI (41) p. 1.
\101\ P&G (60) p. 3.
\102\ P&G (60) p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Proposed Amendments and Reasons Therefor
The Commission believes that the definition of cold, warm, and hot
water should be changed because of changes in settings on hot water
heaters and in consumer washing practices in the years since the
definitions were established. The AATCC has changed its definitions,
which are used in textile testing, to take account of these factors,
and AATCC test methods are used by much of the apparel industry.
Consequently, the Commission believes that the definitions in the Rule
should be changed to be consistent with the definitions used by AATCC.
The Commission proposes changing the upper range of temperature
definitions in the Rule to the upper range of what is allowed in tests
published by AATCC. Thus, the upper range for ``cold'' would be 30
degrees C (86 degrees F); for ``warm,'' 44 degrees C (111 degrees F);
and for hot, 52 degrees C (125 degrees F).
Finally, the Commission proposes adding the term ``very hot'' to
the rule, defined consistently with the AATCC definition, i.e., with an
upper range of 63 degrees C (145 degrees F). The comments indicate that
some garments do need to be cleaned at temperatures higher than 125
degrees F, and that some consumers have access to water hotter than 125
degrees F, either at home or through laundering by professional
cleaners. The addition of the term ``very hot,'' together with
appropriate consumer education, should give notice to those consumers
whose hottest water is 120 degrees F that they may have to have
garments that should be cleaned in very hot water professionally
laundered. The Commission is aware, however, that the term ``very hot''
may be confusing to some consumers because most washing machine dials
only offer the choices of ``cold,'' ``warm,'' and ``hot.'' The
Commission requests comment on this issue, and, in particular, on
suggestions for methods of consumer education to alleviate this
problem.
In addition, some comments indicate that consumers need more
precise information in order to select the appropriate temperature
setting on their washing machines. Consumers may be using water that is
too cold to activate detergents. Similarly, the addition of a precise
temperature (52 degrees C, 125 degrees F) after the word ``hot'' on the
care label of a garment might give those consumers some notice that
their hot water may be too hot for that garment.103 An upper
range for ``warm'' might also be helpful to consumers because on many
machines the dial setting for warm simply produces a mixture of hot and
cold, and if the incoming tap water is very cold, the water in the
machine may be too cold to produce optimal cleaning of the clothes
being washed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ Although new water heaters are being set at lower
temperatures, the comments indicate that many homes still have older
heaters that produce water at 140 degrees F or even hotter. A
garment that has been tested in water heated to 125 degrees F may
withstand washing in that temperature without damage but
nevertheless be damaged by water at 140 degrees F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission does not believe, however, that the solution to
these problems at this time is to require numerical temperatures on
care labels. Such additional information may not be cost-effective
because most American consumers do not know the temperature of the tap
water entering their homes or the cold or warm water in their washing
machines. Indeed, some may also lack precise information about the
temperature of the hot water heated by their water heaters, and, even
those who know the upper limit of their hot water may not know the
temperature of the hot water that enters their washing machines given
the heat loss that occurs as water is piped to washing machines.
Therefore, at this time the Commission is not proposing to modify
the Rule to require that precise temperatures be listed on care labels.
The Commission is interested, however, in non-regulatory solutions to
this problem. Accordingly, this notice asks questions about the
possibility of a consumer education campaign on these issues. The
Commission solicits comment on the feasibility of such a consumer
education campaign, the form it should take, and industry members and
consumer groups that would be interested in participating. Moreover,
should the comments provide additional information about how numerical
temperatures on care labels could be of use to American consumers, the
Commission is willing to reconsider that issue.
The following changes are proposed in the definitions Section of
the Rule and in the Appendix to the Rule.
Section 6.(b)(1)(I) of the Rule would be modified to read as
follows:
The label must state whether the product should be washed by
hand or machine. The label must also state a water temperature--in
terms such as cold, warm, hot, or very hot--that may be used.
However, if the regular use of very hot water will not harm the
product, the label need not mention any water temperature. [For
example, ``Machine wash'' means very hot, hot, warm or cold water
can be used.]
The last sentence of Section 1(d) of the Rule would be modified to
read as follows:
When no temperature is given, e.g., ``warm'' or ``cold,'' very
hot water up to 145 degrees F (63 C) can be regularly used.
``Hot'' water would be defined in Appendix 1.a as ranging from 112
to 125 degrees F [45 to 52 degrees C], ``warm'' water would be defined
in Appendix 1.b as ranging from 87 to 111 degrees F [31 to 44 degrees
C], and ``cold'' water would be defined in Appendix 1.c as ranging up
to 86 degrees F [30 degrees C]. In addition, ``very hot'' water would
be defined in Appendix 1.a as ranging from 126 to 145 degrees F [53 to
63 degrees C].
The Commission seeks comment on these proposed changes, their
importance to consumers, the necessity for a consumer education
campaign to help consumers understand and use information about water
temperature, and the form such a campaign might take.104
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Some companies have already begun to educate consumers
about these issues. A consumer chart prepared by Maytag, with
numerical definitions for hot, warm, and cold water, states, ``The
clothes washer will not ensure these temperatures because the actual
water temperatures entering the washer are dependent on water heater
settings and regional water supply temperatures. For example, cold
water entering the home in the northern states during winter may be
40 degrees F which is too cold for effective cleaning. The water
temperature in this situation will need to be adjusted by selecting
a warm setting or adding some hot water to the fill.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part C--Rulemaking Procedures
The Commission has determined, pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20, to follow
the procedures set forth in this notice for this proceeding. The
Commission has
[[Page 25426]]
decided to employ a modified version of the rulemaking procedures
specified in Section 1.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice. The
proceeding will have a single Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and
disputed issues will not be designated.
The Commission will hold a public workshop conference to discuss
the issues raised by this NPR. Moreover, if comments in response to
this NPR request hearings with cross-examination and rebuttal
submissions, as specified in Section 18(c) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(c), the Commission will also hold such
hearings. After the public workshop, the Commission will publish a
notice in the Federal Register stating whether hearings will be held in
this matter, and, if so, the time and place of hearings and
instructions for those desiring to present testimony or engage in
cross-examination of witnesses.
Part D--Section-By-Section Description of Proposed Amendments
1. Amendments Relating to Required or Permissible Care Instructions
The Commission proposes to amend section 423.1, ``Definitions'' to
include the following definition:
(h) Professional wet cleaning means a system of cleaning by means
of equipment consisting of a computer-controlled washer and dryer, wet
cleaning software, and biodegradable chemicals specifically formulated
to safely wet clean wool, silk, rayon, and other natural and man-made
fibers. The washer uses a frequency-controlled motor, which allows the
computer to control precisely the degree of mechanical action imposed
on the garments by the wet cleaning process. The computer also controls
time, fluid levels, temperatures, extraction, chemical injection, drum
rotation, and extraction parameters. The dryer incorporates a residual
moisture (or humidity) control to prevent overdrying of delicate
garments. The wet cleaning chemicals are formulated from constituent
chemicals on the EPA's public inventory of approved chemicals pursuant
to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
The Commission proposes to amend section 423.6(b) of the Rule to
read as follows:
(b) Care labels must state what regular care is needed for the
ordinary use of the product. In general, labels for textile wearing
apparel must have either a washing instruction or a dry cleaning
instruction. If an item of textile wearing apparel can be successfully
washed and finished by a consumer at home, the label must provide an
instruction for washing. If a washing instruction is not included, or
if washing is warned against, the manufacturer or importer must
establish a reasonable basis for warning that the item cannot be washed
and adequately finished at home, by possessing, prior to sale, evidence
of the type described in paragraph (c) of this section. If a washing
instruction is included, it must comply with the requirements set forth
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If a dry cleaning instruction is
included, it must comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section. An instruction for professional wet cleaning
may also be given. If an instruction for professional wet cleaning is
given, it must comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section. If the product cannot be cleaned by any
available cleaning method without being harmed, the label must so
state. [For example, if a product would be harmed both by washing and
by dry cleaning, the label might say, ``Do not wash--do not dry
clean,'' or ``Cannot be successfully cleaned.''] The instructions for
washing, dry cleaning, and professional wet cleaning are as follows:
It should be noted that, in addition to the additions to section
(b) noted in bold, the following sentence has been deleted: ``If either
washing or dry cleaning can be used on the product, the label need have
only one of these instructions.''
The Commission also proposes to add the following subsection to
section (b).
(3) Professional wet cleaning.
If a professional wet cleaning instruction is included on the
label, it must state at least one type of professional wet cleaning
equipment that may be used to clean the garment. However, if the
product can be successfully cleaned by all commercially available types
of professional wet cleaning equipment, the label need not mention any
type of wet cleaning equipment. A care label that recommends
professional wet cleaning must list the fiber content of the garment
and must recommend one other method of cleaning, such as washing or
drycleaning, or must warn that the garment cannot be washed or
drycleaned if such is the case.
2. Amendment of Reasonable Basis Section
The Commission proposes to amend Sec. 423.6(c)(3) as follows:
(c) A manufacturer or importer must establish a reasonable basis
for care information by possessing prior to sale:
(3) Reliable evidence, like that described in paragraph (c)(1) or
(2) of this section, for each component part of the product in
conjunction with reliable evidence for the garment as a whole;
3. Amendment of Definitions of Water Temperatures
The Commission proposes to amend the last sentence of Sec. 423.1(d)
of the Rule to read as follows:
When no temperature is given, e.g., ``warm'' or ``cold,'' very hot
water up to 145 degrees F (63 C) can be regularly used.
The Commission proposes to amend section 423.6(b)(1)(I) of the Rule
to read as follows:
The label must state whether the product should be washed by hand
or machine. The label must also state a water temperature--in terms
such as cold, warm, hot, or very hot--that may be used. However, if the
regular use of very hot water will not harm the product, the label need
not mention any water temperature. [For example, ``Machine wash'' means
very hot, hot, warm or cold water can be used.]
The Commission proposes that Appendix A.1.a-1.c be modified to read
as follows:
1. Washing. Machine Methods:
a. Machine wash--a process by which soil may be removed from
products or specimens through the use of water, detergent, or soap,
agitation, and a machine designed for this purpose. When no temperature
is given, e.g., ``warm'' or ``cold,'' very hot water up to 145 degrees
F (63 degrees C) can be regularly used.
b. Hot--initial water temperature ranging from 112 to 125 degrees F
[45 to 52 degrees C].
c. Warm--initial water temperature ranging from 87 to 111 degrees F
[31 to 44 degrees C].
d. Cold--initial water temperature up to 86 degrees F [30 degrees
C].
Part E--Regulatory Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act
Requirements
Under section 22 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b, the Commission must
issue a preliminary regulatory analysis for a proceeding to amend a
rule only when it (1) estimates that the amendment will have an annual
effect on the national economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) estimates
that the amendment will cause a substantial change in the cost or price
of certain categories of goods or services; or (3) otherwise determines
that the amendment will have a significant effect upon covered entities
or upon consumers. The Commission has preliminarily determined that the
proposed amendments to the Rule will not have such effects on the
national
[[Page 25427]]
economy, on the cost of textile wearing apparel or piece goods, or on
covered businesses or consumers. The Commission, however, requests
comment on these effects.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601-12, requires
that the agency conduct an analysis of the anticipated economic impact
of the proposed amendments on small businesses.105 The
purpose of a regulatory flexibility analysis is to ensure that the
agency considers impact on small entities and examines regulatory
alternatives that could achieve the regulatory purpose while minimizing
burdens on small entities. Section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605,
provides that such an analysis is not required if the agency head
certifies that the regulatory action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ The RFA addresses the impact of rules on ``small
entities,'' defined as ``small businesses.'' ``small businesses,''
``small governmental entities,'' and ``small [not-for-profit]
organizations,'' 5 U.S.C. 601. The Rule does not apply to the latter
two types of entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Care Labeling Rule covers manufacturers and importers
of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods, the Commission
believes that any amendments to the Rule may affect a substantial
number of small businesses. For example, unpublished data prepared by
the U.S. Census Bureau under contract to the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'') show there are some 288 manufacturers of men's
and boys'' suits and coats (SIC Code 2311), more than 75% of which
qualify as small businesses under applicable SBA size
standards.106 There are more than 1,000 establishments
manufacturing women's and misses' suits, skirts, and coats (SIC Code
2337), most of which are small businesses. Other small businesses are
likely covered by the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ SBA's revised small business size standards are published
at 61 FR 3280 (Jan. 31, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, the proposed amendments would not appear to have a
significant economic impact upon such entities. The amendment to allow
for labeling for professional wet cleaning simply provides an option
that can be taken advantage of by businesses if they wish. The
amendment to require that garments that can be safely washed at home be
labeled for home washing will also not add significantly to the cost of
compliance for most businesses because businesses will still only be
required to provide instructions for one method of cleaning. It is true
that those businesses that currently label garments for dry cleaning
without investigating whether they can be washed at home would have to
make that determination. Most businesses, however, obtain information
about the washability of the components of their garments from the
sources of those components, and in many cases this simple inquiry will
provide a reasonable basis for either a dry clean instruction or a home
washing instruction. Although some businesses may have to engage in
additional efforts, such as testing, to make this determination, it
does not seem likely that this will be the case for most businesses.
The Rule specifies that a reasonable basis can consist of various types
of reliable evidence other than testing, and most businesses do not
routinely test each garment style they manufacture or import.
Nevertheless, the Commission specifically seeks comment regarding these
amendments' potential impact on small businesses.
In addition, the Commission is proposing to amend one category of
the types of evidence that can constitute a reasonable basis, i.e.,
evidence of testing of components of the garment, to clarify that the
manufacturer or importer must also have reliable evidence that the
garment as a whole can be cleaned as directed without damage. The
Commission specifically has indicated that testing of the garment as a
whole is not required in all instances, however; what is required is an
evaluation of whether the garment as a whole can be successfully
cleaned without damage in the manner recommended on the care label. The
Commission views the amendment of this section of the Rule as simply a
clarification of the fact that the manufacturer or importer must have a
reasonable basis for the garment as a whole, not simply for the
separate components.
Based on available information, the Commission certifies that
amending the Care Labeling Rule as proposed will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. To ensure
that no significant economic impact is being overlooked, however, the
Commission requests comments on this issue. The Commission also seeks
comments on possible alternatives to the proposed amendments to
accomplish the stated objectives. After reviewing any comments
received, the Commission will determine whether a final regulatory
flexibility analysis is appropriate.
Part F--Paperwork Reduction Act
The Rule contain various information collection requirements for
which the Commission has obtained clearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Office of Management and Budget
Control Number 3084-0103. As noted above, the Rule requires
manufacturers and importers of textile wearing apparel to attach a
permanent care label to all covered items and requires manufacturers
and importers of piece goods used to make textile clothing to provide
the same care information on the end of each bolt or roll of fabric.
These requirements relate to the accurate disclosure of care
instructions for textile wearing apparel. Although the Rule also
requires manufacturers and importers to base their care instructions on
reliable evidence, it does not contain any explicit recordkeeping
requirements.
The Rule also provides a procedure whereby a member of the industry
may petition the Commission for an exemption for products that are
claimed to be harmed in appearance by the requirement for a permanent
label, but only one petition, subsequently withdrawn, has been filed in
recent years. A Notice soliciting public comment on extending the
clearance for the Rule through December 31, 1999, was published in the
Federal Register on August 26, 1996, 61 FR 43764. OMB has extended the
clearance until December 31, 1999.
The proposed amendments would not increase the paperwork burden
associated with these paperwork requirements. The Commission's proposed
amendment regarding professional wet cleaning does not increase the
paperwork burden because it is optional. Businesses that do not believe
it is beneficial to label for professional wet cleaning are not
required to do so. The proposed amendment of the Rule to require that
any garment or fabric that can be washed at home be so labeled will not
increase the burden for businesses because they will still need to
label for only one method of cleaning.
The proposed amendment to change the numerical definition of the
words ``hot,'' warm,'' or ``cold,'' when they appear on care labels,
and to add the term ``very hot,'' will not add to the burden for
businesses because they are already required to indicate the
temperature in words and to have a reasonable basis for whatever water
temperature they recommend. Moreover, businesses are not burdened with
determining what temperature should accompany the words ``very hot,''
``hot,'' ``warm,'' or ``cold''; the proposed amendment would provide
the numerical temperature that should accompany each term. OMB
regulations provide, at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2), that ``the
[[Page 25428]]
public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal
government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public
is not included within [the definition of collection of information.]''
Thus, the Commission concludes that the proposed amendments would
not increase the paperwork burden associated with compliance with the
Rule. To ensure that no significant paperwork burden is being
overlooked, however, the Commission requests comments on this issue.
Part G--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 costs and benefits to
industry members and consumers of each of the proposals as well as 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. Requiring Instructions for Cleaning in Water
(1) Is there empirical evidence regarding whether consumers
interpret a ``dry clean'' instruction to mean that a garment cannot be
washed?
(2) How many domestic businesses provide professional wet cleaning,
as defined in Part D.1. above, to the public on a regular basis?
(3) Should the Rule provide that, if an instruction for
professional wet cleaning is provided, no other instruction need be
given, or should a professional wet cleaning instruction only be
allowed along with another cleaning instruction?
B. The Reasonable Basis Requirement of the Rule
(4) Would the amendment of Section 423.6(c)(3) of the Rule, 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, to state, additionally, that a manufacturer or importer
must possess a reasonable basis for the garment as a whole, clarify the
reasonable basis requirements? Is any additional clarification needed?
C. Definitions of Water Temperatures
(5) How can consumers best be made aware of the approximate water
temperatures in which they can safely and effectively wash their
clothing? How can consumers best be made aware of how these
temperatures correlate to the descriptors ``hot,'' ``warm,'' and
``cold''? Do consumers need to determine the actual or approximate
water temperature in their washing machines when they select ``hot,''
``warm,'' and ``cold'' on their washing machine dials, and, if so, how
could they easily and practically do this? Could consumers use this
information to select the optimal temperature offered by their washing
machines for clothes labeled for ``hot,'' ``warm,'' or ``cold''
washing?
(6) Would consumers understand an instruction to use ``very hot''
water? Could consumers use this information either to select the
optimal temperature offered by their washing machines for clothes
labeled for ``very hot'' washing or to determine that such clothes
should be washed by a professional cleaner?
Authority: Section 18(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission
Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(d)(2)(B).
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, Commissioner Azcuenaga not
participating.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-12233 Filed 5-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
