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: 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