Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 423

Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel

and Certain Piece Goods

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

action: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

summary: The Federal Trade Commission (the ``Commission'') proposes to

commence a rulemaking proceeding to amend its Trade Regulation Rule on

Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods, 16

CFR Part 423 (``the Care Labeling Rule'' or ``the Rule''). The

Commission seeks comment on whether the definitions of water

temperatures in the Appendix of the Rule should be amended. In

addition, the Commission seeks comment on possible alternatives for

amending the Rule's current requirement that either a washing

instruction or a dry cleaning instruction may be used. Finally, the

Commission seeks comment on whether the reasonable basis portion of the

Rule should be amended.

date: Written comments must be submitted on or before March 13, 1996.

addresses: Written comments should be identified as ``16 CFR Part 423''

and sent to Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, Room 159, Sixth Street

and Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington D.C. 20580.

for further information contact: Constance M. Vecellio or Laura Koss,

Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of

Consumer Protection, Sixth Street and Pennsylvania, Ave., NW., S-4302,

Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326-2966 or (202) 326-2890.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Part A--General Background Information

This notice is being published pursuant to Section 18 of the

Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'') Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a et seq., the

provisions of Part 1, Subpart B of the Commission's Rules of Practice,

16 CFR 1.7, and 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. This authority permits the

Commission to promulgate, modify, and repeal trade regulation rules

that define with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or

deceptive in or affecting commerce within the meaning of Section

5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1).

The Care Labeling Rule was promulgated by the Commission on

December 16, 1971, 36 FR 23883 (1971). In 1983, the Commission amended

the Rule to clarify its requirements by identifying in greater detail

the washing or dry cleaning information to be included on care

labels.\1\ The Care Labeling Rule, as amended, requires manufacturers

and importers of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods to

attach care labels to these items stating ``what regular care is needed

for the ordinary use of the product.'' (16 CFR 423.6(a) and (b)). The

Rule also requires that the manufacturer or importer possess, prior to

sale, a reasonable basis for the care instructions. (16 CFR 423.6(c)).

\1\ The Rule was amended on May 20, 1983, 48 FR 22733 (1983).

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

As part of its continuing review of its trade regulation rules to

determine their current effectiveness and impact, the Commission

published a Federal Register notice (``FRN'') on June 15, 1994. This

FRN sought comment on the standard regulatory review questions, such as

what changes in the Rule would increase the benefits of the Rule to

purchasers and how those changes would affect the costs the Rule

imposes on firms subject to its requirements.

The FRN elicited 81 comments.\2\ The comments generally expressed

continuing support for the Rule, stating that correct care instructions

benefit consumers by extending the useful life of the garment, by

helping the consumer maximize the appearance of the garment, and/or by

allowing the consumer to take the ease and cost of care into

consideration when making a purchase. Most comments said that the costs

imposed on consumers because of the Rule were minimal when compared to

the benefits. Based on this review, the Commission has determined to

retain the Rule, but to seek additional

[[Page 67103]]

comment on possible amendments to the Rule as discussed below.

\2\ The commenters included cleaners; consumers; public

interest-related groups; fiber, textile, or apparel manufacturers or

sellers (or conglomerates); federal government entities; fiber,

textile, or apparel manufacturers or retailers trade associations;

two label manufacturers; one cleaning products manufacturer; one

association representing the leather apparel industry; one Committee

formed by industry members from the countries signatory to NAFTA;

one appliance technician; one appliance manufacturers trade

association; two standards-setting organizations; and two

representatives from foreign nations. The comments are on the public

record and are available for public inspection in accordance with

the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Commission's

Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 4.11, during normal business days from

8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., at the Public Reference Room, Room 130, Federal

Trade Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.

The comments are referred to within this Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (``ANPR'') by their name and the number assigned to each

submitted comment.

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

The FRN sought comment on possible amendments, which are addressed

below, in this ANPR, including: (1) Whether the Rule should be amended

to require labeling instructions for both washing and dry cleaning,

rather than for just one method of cleaning and (2) whether the

reasonable basis standard set forth in the Rule should be clarified or

changed. The comments also recommended that the Commission consider

other amendments, which also are addressed in detail below.

Several comments suggested expanding the coverage of the Rule. The

Leather Apparel Association (``LAA'') suggested that garments made

completely of leather be included in the Rule, which now applies only

to textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods.3 J.C. Penney

suggested that consumers would benefit by expanding the Rule to cover

items such as ``towels, sheets, window coverings and other textile home

furnishing products.''4 However, the Commission considered and

rejected including these product categories when it amended the Rule in

1983. The comments do not provide sufficient evidence for reopening

these issues.

\3\ Comment 58, p.1; see also Drycleaners Fund (65) p.4. LAA

stated that consumers ``would benefit from having a label that, in

so many words, advises consumers that leather requires special care

* * *.'' Comment 58, p.1. However, it seems probable that most

consumers know that leather requires special care; in the absence of

evidence to the contrary, the Commission cannot conclude that it is

unfair or deceptive for manufacturers of leather garments to fail to

disclose this information. Secondly, LAA stated that leather

cleaning ``is more art than science'' and that any care label ``must

be non-specific as to the cleaning process.'' LAA suggested a label

that simply states ``Do not wash or dry clean by fabric method. Take

to a leather expert.'' Id. Such a label is unlikely to significantly

assist the average dry cleaner, who presumably already knows that

conventional dry cleaner, who presumably used on leather garments

and knows whether or not he has the ability to clean leather

garments.

\4\ Comment 70, p.1.

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

Part B--Objectives the Commission Seeks To Achieve and Possible

Regulatory Alternatives

1. Definitions of Water Temperature in the Appendix

a. Background

Some comments recommended that the Commission revise the definition

of cold water temperature in the Appendix to the Rule. The Appendix to

the Rule currently states that ``cold'' water means ``cold tap water up

to 85 degrees F (29 degrees C).'' 5 Commenters noted that tap

water temperatures vary across the United States, and that such

differences can cause problems in washing clothes because, in the

winter in colder parts of the country, granular detergents may not

fully dissolve and activate during a cold wash cycle.6 An

appliance technician from Maine noted that consumers may hesitate to

use hotter water when the label advises to use ``cold'' water.\7\ As a

result, clothes may not be thoroughly cleaned and may be left with soap

residue.8

\5\ 16 CFR Part 423, Appendix A, 2.c.

\6\ Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (53) p.2.

\7\ Bruce W. Fifield (62) p.1.

\8\ Id.

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

Other comments suggested that the Rule's definition of hot water

(up to 150 degrees F, or 66 C) 9 should be changed. The American

Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (``AATCC'') commented

that the temperatures stated in the Appendix to the Rule should be

changed to match the AATCC definitions, which the AATCC believes ``more

accurately reflect current washing machine settings and consumer

practice.'' 10 The AATCC defines ``hot'' as 120 F plus or minus 5

(49 C plus or minus 3). Another commenter noted the variances in

temperature definitions within the NAFTA countries and suggested they

should be harmonized.11

\9\ 16 CFR Part 423, Appendix A, 2.a.

\10\ Comment 34, p.1.

\11\ Jo Ann Pullen (44) p.3.

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

b. Objectives and Regulatory Alternatives

The Commission believes that the definition of cold water in the

Appendix may need to be revised to ensure that consumers understand

that washing clothes in extremely cold water may not be effective. In

addition, the Commission believes that the definitions of warm and hot

water may need to be changed to ``more accurately reflect current

washing machine settings and consumer practice.'' Accordingly, the

Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should amend the

Rule to change the definitions of ``warm'' and ``hot'' water, or to

include a new term such as ``cool'' or ``lukewarm'' in the Appendix.

The Commission further seeks comment on whether the Rule should be

amended to state that care labels recommending ``cold'' wash must

define the highest acceptable temperature for ``cold'' on the label,

and on the benefits and costs to consumers and manufacturers of such an

amendment.

2. Environmental Issues

a. Background

In the June 1994 FRN, the Commission stated that, because of

evidence that dry cleaning solvents are damaging to the environment,

the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'') was interested in

reducing the use of such solvents. The Commission stated that EPA's

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics had been working with the dry

cleaning industry to reduce the public's exposure to perchloroethylene

(``PCE''), the most common dry cleaning solvent.\12\ In connection with

this effort, EPA has published a summary of a process referred to as

``Multiprocess Wet Cleaning,'' which is an alternative cleaning process

that relies on the controlled application of heat, steam and natural

soaps to clean clothes that would ordinarily be dry cleaned.\13\

\12\ PCE has been designated as a hazardous air pollutant under

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and under many state air toxics

regulations. On September 15, 1993, EPA set national emission

standards for new and existing PCE dry cleaning facilities.

According to a study conducted on Staten Island and in New Jersey,

PCE is among the toxic air pollutants found at the highest

concentrations in urban air.

\13\ 59 FR 30733-34. See also EPA (73) p.1.

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

The FRN asked whether the current Rule may pose an impediment to

reducing solvent use because it requires either a washing instruction

or a dry cleaning instruction; it does not require both. Thus, garments

that can legally be labeled with a ``dry clean'' instruction alone also

may be washable, a fact not ascertainable from such an instruction. If

the Rule were amended to require both washing and dry cleaning

instructions for garments cleanable by both methods, consumers and

cleaners could make more informed choices and the use of dry cleaning

solvents might be lessened. To solicit comment on these issues, the

Commission posed a series of questions in the FRN, each of which is

separately addressed below:

(i) Does the current Rule pose an impediment to the EPA's goal of

reducing the use of dry cleaning solvents? Nine commenters addressed

this question. Three responded simply that the Rule does not pose an

impediment to EPA's goals.\14\ Six others, however, contended that the

current Rule impedes EPA's goal of reducing the use of dry cleaning

solvents by permitting manufacturers to disclose only one cleaning

instruction when a

[[Page 67104]]

garment can be either washed or dry cleaned.\15\

\14\ Baby Togs, Inc. (2) p.2; The Warren Featherbone Co. (33)

p.3; VF Corp. (36) p.5.

\15\ Business Habits, Inc. (38) p.4 (the current Rule is a

disincentive for the dry cleaner to consider washing or professional

wet cleaning when the labels state ``Dry Clean Only''); Mothers &

Others (22) pp.1-4 (unless consumers are informed of their options,

the market will be skewed in favor of dry cleaning and consumers may

not use cheaper methods (home laundering) and/or safer methods

(professional wet cleaning)); Aqua Clean System (20) p.4;

Ecofranchising, Inc. (28) pp.3-4; Jo Ann Pullen (44) p.7; Center for

Neighborhood Technology (59) pp.2-3.

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

(ii) What is the actual incidence of labeling that fails to include

both washing and dry cleaning instructions? Few comments responded

directly to this question. One guessed that the incidence is ``Probably

none,'' reasoning that, because washing is less expensive than dry

cleaning, it would be unimaginable for a manufacturer to put a ``Dry

Clean'' label on a garment that could be washed.\16\ Another stated

that it is common practice to label conservatively (e.g., ``dry clean

only''),\17\ and a third alleged that there is a wide variation in

adherence to the requirements of the Rule, especially among small firms

and importers.\18\ Two cleaners using wet cleaning technology contended

between them that the incidence ranged from 40% to 100% because a

``Professionally Wet Clean'' instruction is never given on labels for

garments that normally would be dry cleaned but also could be

professionally wet cleaned.\19\

\16\ Baby Togs, Inc. (2) p.2.

\17\ Carter's (24) p.3.

\18\ OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc. (27) p.2.

\19\ Aqua Clean System (20) p.4; Ecofranchising, Inc. (28) pp.3-

4.

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

(iii) With regard to a garment that can be either washed or dry

cleaned, should the Commission amend the Rule to require that care

instructions be provided for both washing and dry cleaning? Several

commenters preferred that the Rule not be amended in this regard at

all, contending that apparel manufacturers should be free to select the

best care method based on their own judgment.\20\ Some commenters

favored, without extensive analysis, requiring care instructions for

both dry cleaning and home laundering if neither process would harm the

garment. Most of these expected that such an amendment would enable

consumers to save the expense associated with unnecessary dry cleaning

for products that could safely be laundered at home.\21\ Others

maintained that a reduction in dry cleaning would diminish for humans

and the environment those risks that are associated with the use of

PCE.\22\ One commenter pointed out that some consumers may prefer to

dry clean washable garments and that care instructions should give

these individuals a choice of methods when both laundering and dry

cleaning would be appropriate.\23\

\20\ The Warren Featherbone Co. (33) p.1-2, 3; Clothing

Manufacturers Association (40) p.1; Salant Corp. (52) p.1. See also

Braham Norwick (25) p.3.

\21\ See, e.g., Benjamin Axleroad (1) p.1; Don Pietsch (3) p.1;

Evelyn Borrow (4) p.1; Claudia G. Pasche (5) p.1; Margaret S. Jones

(6) p.1; Judith S. Barton (7) p.1; Virginia J. Martin (8) p.1;

SuzAnne A. Darlington (14) p.1; Ann Geerhar (29) p.1.

\22\ See, e.g., Ardis W. Koester (12) p.1; University of

Kentucky College of Agriculture (15) p.1; Center for Neighborhood

Technology (59) pp. 2-3.

\23\ Drycleaners Environmental Legislative Fund (65) p.2.

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

Another group of commenters suggested that the Rule be amended to

require washing instructions for garments that can be safety laundered

as well as dry cleaned, and to require dry cleaning instructions solely

for those garments that must only be dry cleaned, rather than to

require that both instructions be specified for garments that could

withstand both processes.\24\ These commenters reasoned that, although

many items (cotton underwear and outerwear, children's clothing, wash-

and-wear apparel, etc.) could safely be dry cleaned, it would be

neither necessary nor desirable to do so. In fact, they contended, a

requirement for dual instructions for such products would actually

result in an increase in the use of dry cleaning solvents because

manufacturers now exclusively producing washable (but also dry

cleanable) products would have to install dry cleaning facilities and

equipment so they could provide a reasonable basis for the dry cleaning

instruction.

\24\ See, e.g., OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc. (27) p.2; VF Corp. (36) p.

5; see also Fieldcrest Cannon (11) p. 4 (opposed suggested amendment

but advanced the same reasoning as the preceding commenters);

American Textile Manufacturers Institute (56) pp.5-6.

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

Other commenters suggested that the Rule be amended to include a

requirement that labels on garments for which dry cleaning is

appropriate include a ``professionally wet clean'' instruction in

addition to the dry cleaning instruction.\25\ These commenters

contended that the professional wet cleaning process is a viable

alternative to dry cleaning in most cases, and that the process does

little damage to the environment. Because wet-cleaning wash formulas

are created to cover categories of fabric type, two commenters stated

that labels should clearly state the composition of the fabric or

fabrics used so the correct machine wet-cleaning formula may be

used.\26\

\25\ Aqua Clean System (20) pp. 4-6; Mothers & Others (22) pp.

2-3; The Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute (23) pp. 1-2;

Ecofranchising, Inc. (28) p. 3; Public Advocate for the City of New

York (39) pp. 8, 73; Friends of the Earth (43) p. 1, Jo Ann Pullen

(44) p. 7; Greenpeace (45) pp. 1-3; Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers (53) p. 2, Center for Neighborhood Technology (59) pp.

2-4; EPA (73) p. 1. See also American Apparel Manufacturers

Association (68) p. 5.

\26\ Aqua Clean (20) p. 7; Ecofranchising (28) pp. 2, 4.

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

(iv) What are the costs and benefits, including environmental

benefits, of such an amendment? Several commenters opposing the

amendment to require instructions for both washing and dry cleaning

contended that a dual labeling requirement would result in increased

costs for manufacturers who would have to test for both methods instead

of only one.\27\ However, those who favored amending the Rule in any of

the ways discussed above cited as benefits the reduced cleaning costs

to consumers, the benefits to human health and the environment, or,

occasionally, both.

\27\ Fieldcrest Cannon (11) p. 4; Woolrich, Inc. (21) p. 1;

OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc. (27) p. 2; VF Corp. (36) p. 5, Industry Canada

(37) p. 3; The GAP, Inc. (78) p. 5.

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

Materials describing methods, training, and equipment in many of

the comments suggesting a requirement for a ``Professionally Wet

Clean'' instruction implied that a significant cost would be incurred

by cleaners wishing to use the new technology. One comments also

concluded that an amendment to require such an instruction should be

accompanied by a consumer education effort.\28\

\28\ See, e.g., Mothers & Others (22) pp. 1-2; Public Advocate

for the City of New York (39) (transmitting the comprehensive report

on ``The Risk to New Yorkers from Drycleaning Emissions and What Can

Be Done About It''); Greenpeace (45) pp. 1-3, Attachment: ``Dressed

to Kill''; Center for Neighborhood Technology (59) pp. 2-3.

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

b. Objectives and Regulatory Alternatives

The record indicates that PCE is dangerous to humans and the

environment, and that some consumers are interested in avoiding the use

of PCE when possible. Through the proposed amendments to the Rule,

discussed below, the Commission seeks to ensure that consumers are

provided with information that would allow them the choice of washing

garments when possible, or having them professionally wet cleaned. The

information about washability may be important to many consumers,

either for economic or environmental reasons.

When a garment is labeled ``dry clean,'' many consumers may be

misled into believing that the garment cannot be washed in water; if

the garment can be washed in water, the consumer may

[[Page 67105]]

incur the unnecessary expense of dry cleaning the garment.\29\ If the

garment is labeled ``dry clean'' when it in fact could be wet cleaned

by a professional cleaner, the consumer may believe it is necessary to

have the garment dry cleaned although the consumer would prefer a

cleaning method that is less damaging to the environment.

\29\ A Perdue University survey found that 89.3% of the 962

respondents indicated that they would not wash a garment labeled

``dryclean.'' Staff Report to the Federal Trade Commission and

Proposed Revised Trade Regulation Rule (16 CFR Part 423) (May 1978),

p. 141. Other surveys showed similar results. Id. at 142-143.

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

The lack of this information can result in substantial injury to

consumers in the form of unnecessary expense and/or damage to the

environment that the consumer wishes to avoid. Moreover, it can be

extremely difficult for consumers to avoid this injury by obtaining the

information about washability of an item for themselves. While fiber

content can be a guide to washability, other factors--such as the type

of dye or finish used--can also determine washability, and consumers

have no way of learning what dyes and finishes were used and whether

they will survive washing. In addition, it may be that some garments

that traditionally have been damaged by washing (e.g., wool business

suits) can be cleaned without damage by new methods of professional wet

cleaning, but consumers have no way of determining for themselves which

of the many garments available to them are now washable.

Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should

amend the Care Labeling Rule to require a laundering instruction for

all covered products for which laundering is appropriate. This

amendment would permit optional dry cleaning instructions for such

washable items, provided dry cleaning would be an appropriate

alternative cleaning method.\30\ The amendment would, however, require

that manufacturers marketing items with a ``Dry Clean'' instruction

alone be able to substantiate both that the items could be safely dry

cleaned and that home laundering would be inappropriate for them.\31\

\30\ The Commission has learned from several commenters,

primarily manufacturers, that requiring both washing and dry clean

labels (a ``dual disclosure'' amendment) would require a dry

cleaning instruction on virtually all washable items. According to

these commenters, this would necessitate additional testing expenses

for manufacturers and a resulting increase in PCE use, to the

detriment of human health and the environment. The Commission has no

reason to believe at this time that it is either unfair or deceptive

for a manufacturer or importer to fail to reveal that a garment

labeled for washing can also be dry cleaned. The comments also

indicate that most consumers would not want to spend the additional

money necessary to dry clean such items.

\31\ The Rule currently requires this level of substantiation

for a ``Dry Clean Only'' instruction.

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

The disclosures required by this proposal would inform consumers

purchasing washable items that the items could be safely laundered at

home. As noted in the comments, this would enable consumers to make a

more informed purchasing choice and provide them with the option of

saving money by laundering at home instead of incurring the higher

expenses of dry cleaning. In addition, consumers who are concerned

about reducing the use of PCE will have information about the

``washability'' of all apparel items they are considering purchasing.

Moreover, this proposal would not result in the additional

substantiation testing (and increased PCE use) that the comments

suggested a ``dual disclosure'' requirement could necessitate, because

a dry cleaning instruction would be optional, as would the necessary

substantiation to support it.

The Commission also seeks comment on the feasibility of requiring,

for all covered products bearing a dry cleaning instruction, the

addition of a professional wet cleaning instruction for items for which

professional wet cleaning would be appropriate. The comments indicate

that the comparatively new processes of professional wet cleaning

technologies are promising alternatives to PCE-based dry cleaning.

However, these comments do not provide enough information about

professional wet cleaning for the Commission to assess whether and how

the Rule should address wet cleaning. Therefore, the Commission seeks

information on the cost of wet cleaning, the availability of wet

cleaning facilities, and any other information that would help the

Commission determine whether it should consider amending the Rule to

require, for all covered products bearing a dry cleaning instruction,

the addition of a professional wet cleaning instruction for items for

which professional wet cleaning would be appropriate. The Commission

also seeks comment on the feasibility of the processes as practical

current alternatives to dry cleaning. In addition, the Commission seeks

comment on whether fiber identification should be on a permanent label,

as is currently required for care information, because this information

may be needed for wet-cleaning processes, and comment on the costs to

manufacturers of such a requirement.

3. The Reasonable Basis Requirement of the Rule

a. Background

The rule requires that manufacturers and importers of textile

wearing apparel possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis for the care

instructions they provide. Under the Rule, a reasonable basis must

consist of reliable evidence supporting the instructions on the label.

16 CFR 423.6(c). Specifically, a reasonable basis can consist of (1)

reliable evidence that the product was not harmed when cleaned

reasonably often according to the instructions; (2) reliable evidence

that the product or a fair sample of the product was harmed when

cleaned by methods warned against on the label; (3) reliable evidence,

like that described in (1) or (2), for each component part; (4)

reliable evidence that the product or a fair sample of the product was

successfully tested; (5) reliable evidence of current technical

literature, past experience, or the industry expertise supporting the

care information on the label; or (6) other reliable evidence. 16 CFR

423.6(c).

The FRN solicited comment on whether the Commission should amend

the Rule ``to make clear that a variety of types of evidence, alone or

in combination, might provide a reasonable basis [for cleaning

directions] in specific instances,'' but that as reflected in the

Rule's original Statement of Basis and Purpose, the Rule should not be

read to suggest that the reasonable basis standard necessarily is met

whenever a seller possesses at least one of the types of evidence set

forth as examples of how the standard might be satisfied. The FRN also

sought comment on whether the Commission should clarify in the Rule

that the criteria for determining the proper level of substantiation

that were recited in the Commission's Policy Statement Regarding

Advertising Substantiation,\32\ apply to care labeling claims, whether

analyzed directly under Section 5 or under the Rule.

\32\ FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation,

104 F.T.C. 839 (1984). The Commission issued this statement to

``reaffirm[]'' its commitment under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15

U.S.C. Sec. 45, to requiring adequate substantiation for objective

advertising claims before they are disseminated.

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

In addition, the Commission expressed interest in whether

particular types of garments or garment components might necessitate

special treatment. Question 9 in the FRN asked:

Should the Commission amend the Rule to specify under what

conditions a manufacturer or importer must possess a particular type

of basis among those listed in

[[Page 67106]]

Sec. 423.6(c) of the Rule, such as test results? Should the

``reasonable basis'' requirements of the Rule be modified in any

other way?

The comments responding to these portions of the FRN suggest that

some care labels may lack a reasonable basis. One commenter stated that

inaccurate care labels were responsible for 33-45% of the damaged

garments sent in to the International Fabricare Institute for testing

during a 1988-1993 period.\33\ Furthermore, many of the commenters'

responses to Question 10 in the FRN (``Are there garments in the

marketplace that contain inaccurate or incomplete care instructions?'')

indicate that many garments are labeled ``dry clean only'' without a

reasonable basis for warning that they cannot be washed.\34\ The

comments additionally suggest that care instructions may not be

appropriate for all components of a garment, such as trims.\35\

Colorfastness and shrinkage were also identified as problems

experienced with inaccurate or incomplete care instructions.\36\

\33\ Drycleaners Environmental Legislative Fund (65) p.4.

\34\ Evelyn Borrow (4) p.1; Claudia G. Pasche (5) p.1; Margaret

S. Jones (6) p.1; University of Kentucky College of Agriculture (15)

p.1; Aqua Clean System (20) p.3; Carter's (24) p.3; Braham Norwick

(25) p.1; Ecofranchising, Inc. (28) pp.3-4; Jo Ann Pullen (44) pp.2-

3; J.C. Penney (70) p.3.

\35\ VF Corp. (36) p.7; Drycleaners Environmental Legislative

Fund (65) p.4.

\36\ J.C. Penney (70) p.3.

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

Twelve commenters stated that they were in favor of modifying the

reasonable basis portion of the Rule, suggesting that the reasonable

basis requirement should be clarified and strengthened to reduce the

problem of inaccurate and incomplete care labels.\37\ Seven commenters

were opposed to modifying the reasonable basis requirements of the

Rule.\38\ These commenters expressed concern, for example, that

requiring tests would be too expensive and would ultimately increase

costs for consumers.

\37\ Clorox Co. (32); Industry Canada (37); Business Habits,

Inc. (38); Jo Ann Pullen (44); Salant Corp. (52); Association of

Home Appliance Manufacturers (53); Center for Neighborhoods

Technology (59); Drycleaners Environmental Legislative Fund (65);

Department of the Air Force (67); American Apparel Manufacturers

Association (68); EPA (73); The Gap, Inc. (78).

\38\ Baby Togs, Inc. (2); Carter's (24); OshKosh B'gosh, Inc.

(27); The Warren Featherbone Co. (33); VF Corp. (36); American

Textile Manufacturers Institute (56); Fruit of the Loom (64).

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

Several commenters recommended clarifying the Rule by specifying

the circumstances in which a manufacturer or importer must possess test

results or another specific type of evidence to establish a reasonable

basis.\39\ One commenter said that testing might not always be required

and suggested that the Rule should specify different types of required

evidence for different circumstances.\40\ This commenter stressed,

however, that the Rule should require a reasonable basis for a garment

in its finished state, noting that the current Rule suggests that it is

satisfactory to have reliable evidence ``for each component part'' of a

garment.\41\ Another Commenter suggested that the Rule should set out

performance standards for certain properties of garments (e.g.,

dimensional stability and colorfastness) and should identify both

testing methodologies and evaluation criteria for those properties.\42\

\39\ E.g., Center for Neighborhood Technology (59) p.1; Salant

Corp. (52) p.2; Drycleaners Environmental Legislative Fund (65) p.4;

Clorox Co. (32) p.3.

\40\ Drycleaners Environmental Legislative Fund (65) p.4. Thus,

for example, for garments made entirely of material with a long

history of care, such as 100% undyed cotton, historical knowledge

may be sufficient to constitute a reasonable basis. In contrast,

when the garment is made of a new fiber and is dyed with a new dye

or when the garment is a cotton garment with a bright trim, a

manufacturer may be required to conduct multiple tests on various

samples of the garment in order to establish a reasonable basis.

\41\ Drycleaners Environmental Legislative Fund pointed out that

a trim might not noticeably bleed when cleaned by itself but might

bleed onto the body of a garment when the finished garment is

cleaned. Thus, it would not suffice to have one ``reasonable basis''

for the body of a garment and another for the trim. Comment 65, p.4.

\42\ Industry Canada (37) p.2.

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

b. Objectives and Regulatory Alternatives

The Commission appreciates the comments submitted on the FRN and

continues to explore this area. The Commission seeks comment on the

incidence of inaccurate and incomplete labels, the extent to which that

incidence might be reduced by clarifying the reasonable basis standard,

and the costs and benefits of such a clarification. Section 423.6(c)(3)

of the Rule provides that a reasonable basis may consist of reliable

evidence that ``each component'' of the garment can be cleaned

according to the care instructions. As several commenters pointed out,

however, a garment component that may be cleaned satisfactorily by

itself might not be cleaned satisfactorily when cleaned as part of an

assembled garment made of different components, for example, by

bleeding noticeably onto the other parts of the garment. The

Commission, therefore, seeks comment on whether to amend the Rule to

specify that the reasonable basis requirement applies to the garment in

its entirety rather than to each of its individual components.

If the Commission decides to amend the reasonable basis standard,

one option is to indicate in the Rule that whether one or more of the

types of evidence described in Section 423.6(c) constitutes a

reasonable basis for care labeling instructions depends on the factors

set forth in the FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising

Substantiation.\43\ Another option, as reflected in Question 9 of the

FRN, is to require in the Rule that cleaning directions for certain

garments, fabrics or materials will comply with the Rule only if they

are supported by the results of appropriately designed and conducted

scientific tests recognized by experts in the field as probative of

whether the item can be cleaned as directed without damage. The

Commission also seeks comment on whether, if testing is required under

certain circumstances, the Rule should specify particular testing

methodologies to be used.

\43\ In the Statement, the Commission set forth criteria to

consider in establishing the minimum required basis for objective

advertising claims, where no specific basis was stated or implied:

``These factors include: the type of claim, the product, the

consequences of a false claim, the benefits of a truthful claim, the

cost of developing substantiation for the claim, and the amount of

substantiation experts in the field believe is reasonable.'' FTC

Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, 104 F.T.C.

839, 840 (1984).

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

Finally, the Commission solicits comment on whether the Rule should

set forth standards for acceptable and unacceptable changes in garments

following cleaning as directed. The Commission also seeks comment on

whether it would be useful for the Rule to specify properties, such as

dimensional stability and colorfastness, to which such standards would

apply.

Part C--Request for Comments

Members of the public are invited to comment on any issues or

concerns they believe are relevant or appropriate to the Commission's

consideration of proposed amendments to the Care Labeling Rule. The

Commission requests that factual data upon which the comments are based

be submitted with the comments. In addition to the issues raised above,

the Commission solicits public comment on the specific questions

identified below. These questions are designed to assist the public and

should not be construed as a limitation on the issues on which public

comment may be submitted.

Questions

A. Definitions of Water Temperatures in the Appendix

(1) Is it feasible and desirable to use the words ``lukewarm'' or

``cool'' on a care label rather than ``cold''? Should

[[Page 67107]]

these terms be required instead of the word ``cold''? What benefits

would consumers derive from such a change?

(2) Is it feasible and desirable to amend the Rule to require that

the highest acceptable temperature for ``cold'' water be stated on the

care label? What benefits would consumers derive from such an

amendment? What costs would such an amendment impose on manufacturers?

(3) Should the Rule's definition of ``warm'' water be amended, and

if so, what temperature should be specified instead? What benefits

would consumers derive from such an amendment?

(4) Should the Rule's definition of ``hot'' water be amended, and

if so, what temperature should be specified instead? What benefits

would consumers derive from such an amendment?

B. Environmental Issues

(1) Please describe the process, or the processes, commonly

referred to as ``Wet Cleaning,'' ``Multiprocess Wet Cleaning,''

``Professional Wet Cleaning,'' or other similar terms, and provide as

much technical detail as possible.

(2) What equipment and what materials are necessary for a

professional cleaning establishment to employ the wet cleaning

processes?

(3) What effects do the materials used in the wet cleaning process

have on human beings, animals, plants, and the environment? Please be

as specific as possible.

(4) How many domestic businesses provide professional wet cleaning

to the public on a regular basis? Please specify the type(s) of

professional wet cleaning provided. Does the service comprise all, or a

part of, each such company's business? If part, what percentage?

(5) What percentage of garments and other items for which

professional dry cleaning has historically been the only appropriate

cleaning method are safely and satisfactorily cleanable by professional

wet cleaning? Please be as specific as possible as to fiber, fabric,

and garment type. What difference, if any, would there be in customer

satisfaction between the results of the two processes?

(6) What is the average cost, for as many items as respondents can

reasonably describe, of professional wet cleaning compared to

professional dry cleaning? The Commission requests information both as

it pertains to the cost to the cleaner providing the service and the

cost to the consumer using it.

(7) With regard to a garment that cannot be home laundered but can

be dry cleaned, should the Commission amend the Rule to require a

professional wet cleaning instruction too (provided wet cleaning is

appropriate for the garment)? What would be the benefits and costs to

consumers and manufacturers of such an amendment?

(8) Should fiber identification be on a permanent label? Should

fiber identification be on the same label as care information? What

costs would such requirements impose on manufacturers?

(9) How many garments currently labeled ``dry clean'' or ``dry

clean only'' could be washed at home by consumers? Should the Rule be

amended to require a laundering instruction for all covered products

for which laundering is appropriate? What would be the benefits and

costs to consumers and manufacturers of such an amendment?

C. The Reasonable Basis Requirement of the Rule

(1) Are care label instructions generally accurate? If not, in what

ways are they inaccurate, and do these inaccuracies result in damage to

the affected garments or other costs to consumers?

(2) Are any types of garments or piece goods particularly prone to

damage even when the care label instructions are followed?

(3) Are home laundering directions on care labels incomplete or

inaccurate in ways that result in damage to garments when they are

laundered as directed? If so, what are the most common problems, and

how widespread are they?

(4) Are dry cleaning directions on care labels incomplete or

inaccurate in ways that result in damage to garments when they are dry

cleaned as directed? If so, what are the most common problems, and how

widespread are they?

(5) What actions, if any, do garment or piece goods manufacturers

ordinarily take to assure that care labels are accurate? To what extent

do garment manufacturers rely solely on care information provided by

the suppliers of components of garments?

(6) Do garment manufacturers typically analyze or test garments for

appropriate cleaning procedures in their completed form or before the

garments' components are assembled?

(7) In what situations, if any, should the testing of garments be

the only evidence that would be legally acceptable?

(8) Should the Rule specify testing methodologies to be used in

situations in which testing would be required? What should those

methodologies be?

(9) Should the Rule refer to performance standards for certain

properties of garments? If so, which properties, and what should these

performance standards be?

(10) What steps, if any, do garment manufacturers take to provide

cleaning instructions for products comprising more than one fabric or

material, such as those with metallic trim or trim of a fabric or color

different from that of the main part of the product?

(11) What evidence is there concerning the effectiveness of current

actions by garment manufacturers to ensure appropriate cleaning of

their products?

(12) Do garment labels stating, for example, that particular

cleaning instructions apply to the garment ``exclusive of trim''

provide sufficient guidance to consumers or cleaners to enable them to

avoid damaging the garments by improper cleaning?

(13) Should the Rule be amended to delete Section 423.6(c)(3),

which provides that a reasonable basis can consist of reliable evidence

that each component of the garment can be cleaned according to the care

instructions and to state, instead, that a manufacturer must possess a

reasonable basis for the garment as a whole?

(14) Should the Rule be amended to clarify that whether one or more

of the types of evidence described in Section 423.6(c) constitutes a

reasonable basis is based on the factors set forth in the FTC Policy

Statement Regulating Advertising Substantiation?

(15) Do garment or piece goods manufacturers or retailers offer

refunds for products damaged in cleaning despite adherence to care

label directions? What is the typical refund policy? How is the

existence of such refunds made known to consumers?

(16) What are the costs to consumers of complaining to

manufacturers or retailers about garments damaged in cleaning? Are

there factors that discourage consumers whose garments have been

damaged in cleaning from complaining to manufacturers or retailers?

(17) What would be the benefits and costs to consumers and

manufacturers of these amendments clarifying the Rule's reasonable

basis requirement?

Authority: Section 18(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission

Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(d)(2)(B).

[[Page 67108]]

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423

Care labeling of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods;

Trade Practices.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95-31411 Filed 12-27-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750-01-M