Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 47261

area is effective during the specific dates and

times established in advance by a Notice to

Airmen. The effective date and time will

thereafter be continuously published in the

Airport/Facility Directory.

* * * * *

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 21,

2000.

Wade T. Carpenter,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 00–19518 Filed 8–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 00–ACE–7]

Amendment to Class E Airspace;

Hampton, IA; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of

effective date and correction.

SUMMARY: This document confirms the

effective date of a direct final rule which

revises the Class E airspace at Hampton,

IA, and corrects an error in the

coordinates for the Hampton Municipal

Airport, Airport Reference Point (ARP)

and the Hampton Nondirectional Radio

Beacon (NDB) as published in the

Federal Register May 23, 2000 (65 FR

33250), Airspace Docket No. 00–ACE–7.

DATES: The direct final rule published at

65 FR 33250 is effective on 0901 UTC,

October 5, 2000.

This correction is effective on October

5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division,

Airspace Branch, ACE–520C, DOT

Regional Headquarters Building, Federal

Aviation Administration, 901 Locust,

Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone:

(816) 329–2525.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

On May 23, 2000, the FAA published

in the Federal Register a direct final

rule; request for comments which

revises the Class E airspace at Hampton,

IA (FR document 00–12821, 65 FR

33250, Airspace Docket No. 00–ACE–7).

An error was subsequently discovered

in the coordinates for the Hampton

Municipal Airport ARP and the

Hampton NDB. This action corrects

those errors. After careful review of all

available information related to the

subject presented above, the FAA has

determined that air safety and the

public interest require adoption of the

rule. The FAA has determined that

these corrections will not change the

meaning of the action nor add any

additional burden on the public beyond

that already published. This action

corrects the errors in the coordinates of

the Hampton Municipal Airport ARP

and the Hampton NDB and confirms the

effective date to the direct final rule.

The FAA uses the direct final

rulemaking procedure for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA

believes that there will be no adverse

public comment. This direct final rule

advised the public that no adverse

comments were anticipated, and that

unless a written adverse comment, or a

written notice of intent to submit such

an adverse comment, were received

within the comment period, the

regulation would become effective on

October 5, 2000. No adverse comments

were received, and thus this notice

confirms that this direct final rule will

become effective on that date.

Correction to the Direct Final Rule

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me, coordinates

for the Hampton Municipal Airport ARP

and the Hampton NDB as published in

the Federal Register on May 23, 2000

(65 FR 33250), (Federal Register

Document 00–12821; page 33251,

column two) are corrected as follows:

§ 71.1 [Corrected]

ACE IA E5 Hampton, IA [Corrected]

On page 33251, in the second column, after

Hampton Municipal Airport, IA, correct the

coordinates by removing (lat. 42°43′26′′N.,

long. 93°13′35′′W.) and substituting (lat.

42°43′25′′N., long. 93°13′35′′W.) and after

Hampton NDB correct the coordinates by

removing (lat. 42°43′32′′N., long.

93°13′30′′W.) and substituting (42°43′31′′N.,

long. 93°13′30′′W.)

Issued in Kansas City, MO on July 14,

2000.

Richard L. Day,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central

Region.

[FR Doc. 00–19520 Filed 8–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

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: Final amended rule.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission, pursuant to section 18 of

the Federal Trade Commission Act,

issues final amendments to its Trade

Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of

Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain

Piece Goods. The Commission is

amending the Rule: To clarify what can

constitute a reasonable basis for care

instructions; and to change the

definitions of ‘‘cold,’’ ‘‘warm,’’ and

‘‘hot’’ water in the Rule. The

Commission has decided not to amend

the Rule to require that an item that can

be cleaned by home washing be labeled

with instructions for home washing. In

addition, it has decided not to amend

the Rule at this time to include an

instruction for professional wetcleaning.

This document constitutes the

Commission’s Statement of Basis and

Purpose for the amendments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The amended Rule will

become effective on September 1, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the

amended Rule and the Statement of

Basis and Purpose should be sent to the

Consumer Response Center, Room 130,

Federal Trade Commission, 600

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Constance M. Vecellio or James Mills,

Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission,

Division of Enforcement, Bureau of

Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania

Ave., NW, S–4302, Washington, DC

20580, (202) 326–2966 or (202) 326–

3035.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Care

Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel

and Certain Piece Goods; Statement of

Basis and Purpose and Regulatory

Analysis

Introduction

This document is 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 1.14, 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).

I. Background

A. The Care Labeling Rule

The Care Labeling Rule was

promulgated by the Commission on

December 16, 1971. 36 FR 23883. In

47262 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

1The Regulatory Review Notice also sought

comment on whether the Rule should be modified

to permit the use of symbols in lieu of words. On

November 16, 1995, the Commission published a

notice announcing a tentative decision to adopt a

conditional exemption to the Rule to permit the use

of certain care symbols in lieu of words; it also

sought additional comment on specific aspects of

the proposal. 60 FR 57552. On February 6, 1997, the

Commission announced its decision to adopt the

conditional exemption, which became effective on

July 1, 1997. 62 FR 5724.

2The comments were from: Johnson Group

Management Services, Ltd. (‘‘Johnson Group’’) (1);

Mid-Atlantic Cleaners and Launderers Association

(‘‘MACLA’’) (2); Bonnie Peters (3); Aqua Clean

Systems, Inc. (‘‘Aqua Clean’’) (4); J. R. Viola

Cleaners (‘‘Viola’’) (5); David Nobil, Nature’s

Cleaners, Inc. (‘‘Nature’s Cleaners’’) (6); Bruce

Barish, Meurice Garment Care (7); Industry Canada,

Fair Business Practices Branch (‘‘Industry Canada’’)

(8); American Textile Manufacturers Institute

(‘‘ATMI’’) (9); Cleaner By Nature (10); American

Apparel Manufacturers Association (‘‘AAMA’’) (11);

International Fabricare Institute (‘‘IFI’’) (12);

Elizabeth K. Scanlon (‘‘Scanlon’’) (13); National

Association of Hosiery Manufacturers (‘‘NAHM’’)

(14); Associazione Serica (15); Prestige. . .

Exceptional Fabricare (‘‘Prestige’’) (16);

Neighborhood Cleaners Association International

(‘‘NCAI’’) (17); Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’) (18); Dr. Charles Riggs,

Texas Woman’s University (‘‘Riggs’’) (19); Bruce W.

Fifield (‘‘Fifield’’) (20); Consumer Policy Institute of

Consumers Union (‘‘Consumers Union’’) (21); The

Clorox Company (‘‘Clorox’’) (22); Marilyn Fleming,

Natural Cleaners (23); Pollution Prevention

Education and Research Center (‘‘PPERC’’) (24);

Pendleton Woolen Mills (‘‘Pendleton’’) (25); Gap,

Inc. (‘‘Gap’’) (26); Greenpeace (27); National

Coalition of Petroleum Dry Cleaners (‘‘NCPDC’’)

(28); Kathy Knapp (29); Center for Neighborhood

Technology (‘‘CNT’’) (30); The Professional

Wetcleaning Network (‘‘PWN’’) (31); Bowe Permac,

Inc. (32); Alliance Laundry Systems UniMac

(‘‘Alliance’’) (33); The Procter & Gamble Company

(‘‘P&G’’) (34); GINETEX International Association

for Textile Care Labeling (‘‘Ginetex’’) (35); Karen

Smith (Smith) (36); Pellerin Milnor Corporation

(Pellerin Milnor) (37); Mike Lynch (38). 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 Consumer Response Center, Public Reference

Section, Room 130, Federal Trade Commission, 600

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The

comments also are available for inspection on the

Commission’s website at <www.ftc.gov/bcp/

rulemaking/carelabel/comments/comlist.htm>.

3The time and place of the workshop was

announced in 63 FR 69232, December 16, 1998.

4The participants were: Ed Boorstein, Elaine

Harvey, Prestige Cleaners; Martin Coppack,

American Association of Family and Consumer

Sciences; Deborah Davis, Cleaner by Nature; David

DeRosa, Greenpeace; Corey Snyder, Liz Eggert, P&G;

Eric Essma, Clorox; Sylvia Ewing, Anthony Star,

CNT; Gloria Ferrell, Capital Mercury Apparel, Ltd.

(‘‘Ferrell’’); Ann Hargrove, PWN; Nancy Hobbs, Pat

Slaven, Consumers Union; Steve Lamar, Rachel

Subler, AAMA; Cindy Stroup, Steve Latham,

Environmental Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’); Melinda

Oakes, Ronda Martinez, QVC, Inc. (‘‘QVC’’); Karen

Mueser, Sears, Roebuck & Co. (‘‘Sears’’); Jo Ann

Pullen, American Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM); Dr. Charles Riggs; Roy Rosenthal, RCG

Marketing; Mary Scalco, Jackie Stephens, IFI; Dick

Selleh, MACLA; and Peter Sinsheimer, PPERC. Six

Commission staff members also participated in the

proceeding.

1983, the Commission amended the

Rule to clarify its requirements by

identifying in greater detail the washing

or drycleaning information to be

included on care labels. 48 FR 22733.

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).

B. Procedural History

1. Regulatory Review of the Rule

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 on June 15, 1994,

seeking comment on the costs and

benefits of the Rule and related

questions, such as what changes in the

Rule would increase the Rule’s benefits

to purchasers and how those changes

would affect the costs the Rule imposes

on firms subject to its requirements. 59

FR 30733 (‘‘the Regulatory Review

Notice’’).1 The comments in response to

the Regulatory Review Notice 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 by

allowing the consumer to take the ease

and cost of care into consideration when

making a purchase.

2. The ANPR

Based on this review, the Commission

determined to retain the Rule, but to

seek additional comment on possible

amendments to the Rule. To begin the

process, the Commission published an

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking on December 28, 1995. 60

FR 67102 (‘‘the ANPR’’). In the ANPR,

the Commission discussed and solicited

comment on standards for water

temperature, the desirability of a home

washing instruction and a professional

wetcleaning instruction for items for

which such processes are appropriate,

and the Rule’s reasonable basis

standard. The Commission received 64

comments in response to this notice.

3. The NPR

Based on the comments responding to

the ANPR, and on other evidence, the

Commission published a Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking on May 8, 1998,

63 FR 25417 (‘‘the NPR’’), in which the

Commission proposed the following

specific amendments to the Rule and

sought comments thereon:

1. An amendment to require that an item

that can be safely cleaned by home washing

be labeled with instructions for home

washing;

2. An amendment to establish a definition

in the Rule for ‘‘professional wetcleaning’’

and to permit manufacturers to label a

garment that can be professionally

wetcleaned with a ‘‘Professionally Wetclean’’

instruction;

3. An amendment to clarify that

manufacturers must establish a reasonable

basis for care instructions for an item based

on reliable evidence for each component of

the item in conjunction with reliable

evidence for the garment as a whole; and

4. An amendment changing the definitions

of ‘‘cold,’’ ‘‘warm’’ and ‘‘hot’’ water to be

consistent with those of the American

Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists

(‘‘AATCC’’), and adding a new term—‘‘very

hot’’—and corresponding definition

consistent with AATCC’s term and

definition.

In the NPR, at 63 FR 25425–26, the

Commission also made the following

announcement:

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 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 crossexamination of witnesses.

There were no requests for hearings in

the 38 comments received in response

to the NPR.2 Therefore, the Commission

did not hold public hearings in this

matter. The public workshop-conference

(hereinafter ‘‘workshop’’) 3 took place on

January 29, 1999 at the Commission’s

Headquarters Building at 600

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC. There were 28 participants in the

workshop, representing 20 different

interests.4 There also were

approximately 30 observers, some of

whom, upon request, contributed to the

discussion. At the workshop, an

announcement was made that postworkshop comments would be accepted

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 47263

5The post-workshop comments were from:

Specialized Technology Resources (‘‘STR’’) (PW–1);

Jo Ann Pullen (‘‘Pullen’’) (PW–2); EPA (PW–3);

Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute

(‘‘MTURI’’) (PW–4); Rawhide Cleaners (‘‘Rawhide’’)

(PW–5) [consisting of two NPR-comments from June

1998 originally lost in transit]; Valet Cleaners

(‘‘Valet’’) (PW–6); Minnesota Fabricare Institute

(‘‘MFI’’) (PW–7); D.D. French (‘‘French’’) (PW–8);

Coronado Cleaners & Laundry, Inc. (‘‘Coronado’’)

(PW–9); MACLA (PW–10); South Eastern Fabricare

Association (‘‘SEFA’’) (PW–11); Celanese Acetate

(‘‘Celanese’’) (PW–12); Dr. Charles Riggs (PW–13);

Shoemaker’s/COBS, Inc. (‘‘COBS’’) (PW–14); PWN

(PW–15); Prestige (PW–16); Dr. Manfred Wentz

(‘‘Wentz’’) (PW–17); Gloria Ferrell (PW–18);

Consumers Union (PW–19); IFI (PW–20); PPERC

(PW–21); Hallak Cleaners (‘‘Hallak’’) (PW–22);

Avon Cleaners (‘‘Avon’’) (PW–23); AAMA (PW–24);

Comet Cleaners (‘‘Comet’’) (PW–25); CNT (PW–26);

Spear Cleaning & Laundry (‘‘Spear’’) (PW–27);

Greenpeace (PW–28); Cowboy Cleaners (‘‘Cowboy’’)

(PW–29); Aqua Clean (PW–30); Randi Cleaners, Inc.

(‘‘Randi’’) (PW–31); Korean Youth & Community

Center (‘‘KYCC’’) (PW–32); Cypress Plaza Cleaners

(‘‘Cypress’’) (PW–33); Waco Comet Cleaners (PW–

34) [an NPR-comment from June 1998 originally

lost in transit]; Swannanoa Cleaners (‘‘Swannanoa’’)

(PW–35); Sno White Cleaners & Launderers (‘‘Sno

White’’) (PW–36); Environmental Finance Center,

Region IX (‘‘EFC9’’) (PW–37); Perrys-Flanagans

Cleaners (‘‘Perrys-Flanagans’’) (PW–38); Ecology

Action, Inc. (‘‘Ecology Action’’) (PW–39); Micell

Technologies (‘‘Micell’’) (PW–40). In addition, two

written statements were read at the workshop and

placed on the record: STR (PW–41), and PPERC

(PW–42); and two presentations were made at the

workshop with respect to which copies of graphic

presentations were placed on the record: Clorox

(PW–43), and P&G (PW–44).

6The ANPR also sought comment on: The option

of indicating in the Rule that whether one or more

of the types of evidence described in § 423.6(c)

constitutes a reasonable basis for care labeling

instructions depends on the factors set forth in the

Advertising Policy Statement; whether the Rule

should be amended to make testing of garments the

only evidence that could serve as a reasonable basis

for certain types of garments and, if so, whether the

Rule should specify particular testing

methodologies to be used; and whether the Rule

should specify standards for determining acceptable

and unacceptable changes in garments following

cleaning as directed and identify properties, such

as colorfastness and dimensional stability, to which

such standards would apply. For reasons set forth

in the NPR, 63 FR at 25423–24, the Commission

decided not to propose any of these changes in the

reasonable basis section of the Rule.

7University of Kentucky College of Agriculture

Cooperative Extension Service, comment 20 to

ANPR, p. 2; Clorox, comment 31 to ANPR, pp. 4–

5; Soap and Detergent Association (SDA), comment

43 to ANPR, pp. 1, 3; Consumers Union, comment

46 to ANPR, pp. 2–3; AHAM, comment 51 to ANPR,

p. 2; IFI, comment 56 to ANPR, p. 3; P&G, comment

60 to ANPR, p. 5.

8ATMI, comment 41 to ANPR, pp. 4–7.

9AAMA, comment 57 to ANPR, pp. 2–4.

10 Ginetex, comment 63 to ANPR, p. 4.

11 IFI, comment 56 to ANPR, p. 3 (in 1995, 40%

of the 25,000 damaged garments in its Garment

Analysis database incurred the damage because of

inaccurate labeling); Clorox, comment 31 to ANPR,

p. 2 (monitoring of bleach instructions on care

labels showed 71% inaccuracy in November 1995).

12ATMI, comment 41 to ANPR, p. 5; see also

AAMA, comment 57 to ANPR, p. 3. The ANPR

noted that the Commission had litigated one case

involving inaccurate care instructions that resulted

in damage to garments (FTC v. Bonnie & Co.

Fashions, No. 90–4454) (D.N.J. 1992)) and had

obtained settlements in several other cases where

the Commission alleged that care instructions were

inaccurate because of damage to trim when the

garments were cleaned according to those

instructions.

13 IFI, comment 56 to ANPR, p. 3.

14A 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.

until March 1, 1999, and 40 such

comments were submitted.5

II. Commission Determination

A. The Reasonable Basis Requirement of

the Rule

1. Background and Current

Requirements

The Rule requires that manufacturers

and importers of textile wearing apparel

possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis

for the care instructions they provide. A

reasonable basis must consist of reliable

evidence supporting the instructions on

the label. Specifically, a reasonable

basis can consist of: (1) Reliable

evidence that the product was not

harmed when cleaned reasonably often

according to the instructions; (2) reliable

evidence that the product or a fair

sample of the product was harmed

when cleaned by methods warned

against on the label; (3) reliable

evidence, like that described in (1) or

(2), for each component part; (4) reliable

evidence that the product or a fair

sample of the product was successfully

tested; (5) reliable evidence of current

technical literature, past experience, or

the industry expertise supporting the

care information on the label; or (6)

other reliable evidence. 16 CFR 423.6(c).

The Regulatory Review Notice

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 Regulatory

Review Notice suggested that a

significant number of care labels lack a

reasonable basis. Based on these

comments, the ANPR proposed

amending the reasonable basis

requirement.

The ANPR sought comment on the

incidence of inaccurate or incomplete

care instructions, 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.6 Ten commenters

responding to the ANPR discussed the

reasonable basis provision. Seven of

these supported modification of the

Rule, contending that clarification

would reduce mislabeling.7 ATMI stated

that the Rule should not be modified to

require testing of completed garments;

however, ATMI also asserted that

‘‘apparel manufacturers should be

responsible for selecting and combining

component materials that can be

refurbished together’’ and should

provide warnings about potential

problems if components cannot be

refurbished by the same method.8

AAMA contended that changing the

Rule was unnecessary.9 Ginetex, the

organization responsible for the

voluntary care labeling system used in

European countries, noted that it

provides technical advice on

appropriate test procedures to ensure

correct care labeling.10

Two commenters provided data on

the incidence of mislabeling, which in

both cases indicated that there is a

significant incidence of inaccurate and/

or incomplete labeling.11 ATMI, while

stating that most home washing labels

are accurate, and that the vast majority

of dryclean instruction labels are

accurate, noted that there are limited

problems associated with care

instructions for special items such as

beaded apparel, sequins, and leather

appliques.12 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.’’ 13

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: Reliable evidence . . . for

each component part of the product.’’ In

the NPR, the Commission proposed 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, noting that the

record establishes that in some cases

care instructions may not be accurate for

the entire garment.14 Thus, in the NPR,

the Commission proposed amending

§ 423.6(c)(3) of the Rule to provide 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.

2. Comments to the NPR

Most commenters favored the

proposal to clarify the reasonable basis

47264 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

15 Johnson Group (1) p. 1; MACLA (2); Industry

Canada (8); ATMI (9); IFI (12) pp. 2–3; NAHM (14)

p. 1; Associazione Serica (15) p. 1; NCAI (17) p. 4;

AHAM (18) p. 3; Consumers Union (21) p. 2;

Pendleton (25) p. 2; Gap (26) p. 1; P&G (34) pp. 2

and 4; Ginetex (35) p. 2.

16Prestige (16) p. 2; Consumers Union (21) p. 2;

Clorox (22) p. 2; P&G (34) pp. 2 and 4; Ginetex (35)

p. 2.

17AAMA (11) p. 3.

18For 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.

19For a detailed discussion of the comments and

the analysis that led the Commission to this

conclusion, see 63 FR 25417, 25424–426.

20The AATCC definitions were submitted as an

attachment to AATCC’s comment responding to the

Regulatory Review Notice: ‘‘cold’’—27 degrees C ±

3 degrees C (80 degrees F ± 5 degrees F); ‘‘warm’’—

41 degrees C ± 3 degrees C (105 degrees F ± 5

degrees F); ‘‘hot’’—49 degrees C ± 3 degrees C (120

degrees F ± 5 degrees F); and ‘‘very hot’’—60

degrees C ± 3 degrees C (140 degrees F ± 5 degrees

F). AATCC (34) Attachment.

21The Commission noted that, although new

water heaters are being set at lower temperatures,

the comments indicated 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.

requirements of the Rule.15 Some

commenters, who believe that only

testing can constitute a reasonable basis,

stated that the proposal did not go far

enough because it does not require

testing.16 Only one commenter, AAMA,

opposed the proposed clarification of

the reasonable basis standard. AAMA

stated that its member manufacturers

specify fabric performance from

suppliers and test new styles to makeder

sure that components are compatible. It

also stated that there is only a very

small portion of garments made in the

United States with incompatible

materials (for fashion reasons) and that

‘‘(t)o require that all garments be made

entirely of compatible components

unduly restricts the creation of

fashion.’’ 17

3. Rule Amendments and Reasons

Therefor

The Commission has decided to

amend § 423.6(c)(3) of the Rule to

provide 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.

This amendment 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 amendment clarifies,

however, that testing of separate

components is not necessarily sufficient

if problems are likely to occur when the

components are combined.18

The Commission does not believe that

this revision of the Rule will unduly

restrict the creativity of fashion, as

AAMA feared. If the combination of

components used to make a garment are

so incompatible that the garment cannot

be cleaned without damage, the Rule

provides that the garment can be labeled

‘‘Do not wash—do not dryclean.’’ 16

CFR 423.6(b). This is information that

the consumer has a right to know, and

indeed, under the Rule, it would be

deceptive to sell a garment with a care

label indicating that it could be

successfully cleaned when in fact it

cannot. With truthful labeling that

indicates the garment cannot be

cleaned, consumers are given adequate

information and can choose to purchase

the garment if they wish to do so even

though it cannot be cleaned without

damage.

B. Definitions of Water Temperatures

1. Background and Current Definitions

The Rule currently requires that a care

label recommending washing also must

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).

Based on the comments filed in

response to the Regulatory Review

Notice and the ANPR, including

recommendations that the Commission

adopt definitions developed by the

AATCC, the Commission, in the NPR,

stated that the definition of ‘‘cold,’’

‘‘warm,’’ and ‘‘hot’’ water should be

changed because of changes in settings

on water heaters and in consumer

washing practices in the years since the

definitions were established.19 The

Commission noted that AATCC has

changed its definitions, which are used

in textile testing by much of the apparel

industry, to take account of these

factors. The NPR proposed changing the

upper range of temperature definitions

in the Rule to the upper range of what

is allowed in tests published by

AATCC.20 Specifically, the Commission

proposed the following definitions for

water temperature in Appendix.1.b-1.d:

‘‘Hot’’—initial water temperature

ranging from 112 to 125 degrees F (45

to 52 degrees C); ‘‘Warm’’—initial water

temperature ranging from 87 to 111

degrees F (31 to 44 degrees C); ‘‘Cold’’—

initial water temperature up to 86

degrees F (30 degrees C).

The Commission also proposed

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 record

indicated 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

Commission asked whether the addition

of the term ‘‘very hot,’’ together with

appropriate consumer education, would

give notice to those consumers whose

hottest water is 120 degrees F that they

may have to use professional laundering

for garments that should be cleaned in

very hot water. The Commission

indicated that it was aware, however,

that the term ‘‘very hot’’ may be

confusing to some consumers because

most washing machine dials offer only

the choices of ‘‘cold,’’ ‘‘warm,’’ and

‘‘hot.’’ The NPR requested comment on

the issue, and, in particular, on

suggestions for methods of consumer

education.

The Commission noted in the NPR

that some comments indicated that

consumers need more precise

information in order to select the

appropriate temperature setting on their

washing machines. For example, the

comments suggested that some

consumers in colder climates may

unknowingly be using water that is too

cold to activate detergents at the ‘‘cold’’

setting on their machines, and that these

consumers would be alerted by a

numerical temperature on the care label

to use the ‘‘warm’’ setting to

compensate. The comments contended

that, similarly, 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. The comments

argued that the addition of a precise

temperature (52 degrees C, 125 degrees

F) after the word ‘‘hot’’ on the care label

of a garment may give some consumers

an indication that their hot water may

be too hot for that garment. 21

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 47265

22MACLA (2); Industry Canada (8); ATMI (9);

AAMA (11); IFI (12); Scanlon (13); NAHM (14);

Associazione Serica (15); NCAI (17); AHAM (18);

Riggs (19); Fifield (20); Consumers Union (21);

Pendleton (25); Gap (26); P&G (34); Ginetex (35).

23AAMA (11) p. 3; NAHM (14) p. 2; Pendleton

(25) p. 2; Gap (26) p. 2; P&G (34) pp. 2, 4.

24AAMA (11) p. 3; Pendleton (25) p. 2.

25Riggs (19) p. 2. Dr. Riggs contended that the

only realistic solution to the problem would be for

manufacturers to produce clothes washers equipped

with thermostatic temperature controls.

26 IFI (12) p. 3.

27MACLA (2) p. 1. MACLA stated that

manufacturers, especially of bed linens and shirting

materials, already test in water up to 150 degrees

F before attaching care labels associated with

commercial laundering procedures.

28AHAM proposed: ‘‘cold’’: <86 degrees F (30

degrees C) and ‘‘warm’’: 87 degrees F—111 degrees

F (30 degrees C—44 degrees C).

29AHAM (18) pp. 1–2. AHAM also explained that

the ranges of temperatures for each descriptor

depend on several factors, including water heater

temperature setting, heat loss in piping, the mix

ratio of the particular washer, and the temperature

of incoming cold water (which depends on

geographical location and seasonal temperature).

30 In this connection, Consumers Union

recommended consumer education on ‘‘minimum

wash water temperatures.’’

31Consumers Union (21) p. 3.

32 Industry Canada (8) p. 3; ATMI (9) p. 3;

Scanlon (13) p. 1; Associazione Serica (15); NCAI

(17) p. 4; Fifield (20) p. 1; Ginetex (35) p. 2.

33ATMI (9) p. 3; Associazione Serica, (15) p. 2;

Fifield (20) p. 1; Ginetex (35) p. 2. See the separate

discussion of numerical temperatures in section

II.B.2.c., below.

34 Ginetex (35) p. 2 (stating that ’’. . . in Europe,

clothes washers heat their own water internally.

Consumers can choose a precise temperature and

the washer will heat the water to it.’’); Associazione

Serica (15), p. 2, recommended harmonization of

the Commission’s Rule with the Ginetex/ISO

system.

35 Gap (26) p. 2; Associazione Serica (15) p. 2.

36P&G (34) pp. 4–5.

37Riggs (19) p. 2.

38MACLA (2) p. 1; Industry Canada (8) pp. 3–4;

IFI (12) p. 3; Scanlon (13) p. 1 (‘‘I would find it hard

to believe that ‘‘very hot’’ water was really good for

my clothes, and what I would do is use the ‘‘hot’’

setting.’’); AHAM (18) p. 2; Pendleton (25) p. 2;

Ginetex (35) p. 2 (Ginetex opposed the use of word

designations as too imprecise, preferring its own

system of temperature symbols tied to degrees

Celsius.)

39MACLA (2) p. 2; AHAM (18) p. 2.

The Commission did not, however,

propose in the NPR that the Rule be

amended to require that precise

temperatures be listed on care labels,

noting that most Americans do not

know the temperature of water in their

washing machines. Although the

Commission did not propose requiring

precise temperatures on labels, it

expressed interest in non-regulatory

solutions to the problems discussed in

the comments and asked for comment

on the feasibility of a consumer

education campaign to provide

consumers with more precise

information on water temperature in

order to help them more accurately

select the appropriate temperature

setting on their washing machines.

2. Comments Responding to the NPR

a. The Proposal to Amend the Rule

Definitions for ‘‘Cold,’’ ‘‘Warm,’’ and

‘‘Hot’’ to Be Consistent with the AATCC

Definitions. Seventeen comments

addressed the issue of water

temperature definitions.22 Five of the

comments supported the Commission’s

proposal to amend the Rule’s definitions

for ‘‘cold,’’ ‘‘warm,’’ and ‘‘hot.’’ 23

Pendleton supported the proposal

because it ‘‘seems to reflect changes in

consumer washing practices;’’ AAMA

noted that its members already use the

AATCC definitions when testing their

garments.24

Four other comments provided partial

support. Dr. Charles Riggs conceded that

the proposed definitions are probably

realistic for typical household hot water

temperatures, but argued that their

inclusion in the Rule will not address

the problem posed by most detergents

not being activated thoroughly in water

colder than 65 degrees F.25 IFI agreed

that the proposed temperatures reflect

current trends in home water

temperatures but contended that they do

not correlate to current consumer

behavior and consumers’ use of

professional laundering.26 MACLA

favored amending the Rule to adopt the

proposed definitions for ‘‘cold’’ and

‘‘warm,’’ but suggested that the

definition of ‘‘hot’’ include the range

between 125 degrees F and 145 degrees

F (52 degrees C—63 degrees C).27 Like

MACLA, AHAM recommended

establishing definitions for ‘‘cold’’ and

‘‘warm’’ that are consistent with the

definitions proposed in the NPR28 and

suggested a range of between 112

degrees F and 145 degrees F (44 degrees

C—63 degrees C) for ‘‘hot.’’ Contending

that these definitions are ‘‘consistent

with the clothes washer options

available to consumers in their homes,’’

AHAM provided a detailed explanation

of how washing machines use cold and

hot water to attain ‘‘cold,’’ ‘‘warm,’’ and

‘‘hot’’ water.29

Agreeing that the Rule’s definitions

for water temperature should be

consistent with AATCC’s definitions,

Consumers Union suggested a definition

for ‘‘cold’’ (60 degrees F to 80 degrees

F) that was different from the

Commission’s proposed definition,

because ‘‘most consumers are unaware

that detergent becomes increasingly

ineffective as temperatures drop below

60 degrees F,’’ 30 and a definition for

‘‘hot’’ (120 degrees F to 140 degrees F),

‘‘to realistically represent temperatures

produced by domestic water heaters and

scald laws in some states.’’ 31

Seven commenters remarked on the

water temperature issue without making

specific recommendations as to the

proposed definitions.32 For example,

four commenters contended that

consumers need water temperature

numbers on care labels.33 Ginetex stated

that in its system, temperature numbers

(in degrees Celsius) are disclosed in the

system’s washing instruction icons, and

contended that terms like ‘‘hot,’’

‘‘warm,’’ and ‘‘cold’’ are not precise

enough.34

b. The Proposal to Add the Term

‘‘Very Hot’’ to the Rule. Four

commenters expressed some level of

support for the proposal to add the term

‘‘very hot’’ to the Rule. Gap agreed with

the proposal without elaboration and

Associazione Serica suggested

associating the term to a ‘‘reference

temperature.’’ 35 Procter & Gamble

supported the proposal, adding:

Though the term ‘very hot’ will not be

understood by many consumers, our

qualitative research indicates that if

consumers see ‘very hot’ they would be likely

to select ‘hot’ on their washer. This will be

the best of available choices and therefore

this addition of ‘very hot’ will only be a

benefit in providing more efficient cleaning

for consumers.

In addition, the separation of the old hot

definition into ‘very hot’ and ‘hot’ categories

allows more garments (that may have been

harmed at temperatures above 125 degrees F)

to be more efficiently and appropriately

washed in hot temperatures less than 125

degrees F. P&G supports a consumer

education campaign that would help

consumers use appropriate and consistent

water temperatures to achieve more efficient

cleaning (better cleaning at less cost),

especially in northern US states with colder

water.36

While not specifically endorsing

adoption of the proposed definition, Dr.

Charles Riggs suggested that ‘‘very hot’’

have an upper limit of 160 degrees F

rather than 145 degrees F, for use as a

label for professional shirt laundering.37

Seven comments opposed the

Commission’s proposal to add a

definition for ‘‘very hot’’ to the Rule.38

As an alternative to the proposal,

MACLA and AHAM suggested that the

definition for ‘‘hot’’ in the amended

Rule include a range of up to 145

degrees F, rather than the upper limit of

125 degrees F proposed by the

Commission.39 MACLA contended that

the term would be too confusing for

consumers, and AHAM stated: ‘‘It is not

just an issue of confusing consumers or

whether some garments do not need to

be cleaned with temperatures above 125

degrees, it is an issue of the

temperatures a product (clothes washer)

can provide with the existing water inlet

47266 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

40AHAM (18) p. 2.

41 Industry Canada (8) pp. 3–4.

42 IFI (12) p. 3.

43Pendleton (25) pp. 2–3. Pendleton suggested

that: ‘‘If hotter wash temperatures are commonly

used or needed in professional laundering, it would

seem appropriate for this aspect of cleaning to be

controlled by a ‘‘professional laundering’’ care

instruction, much as the specifics of dry cleaning

are controlled by the professional dry cleaner when

the ‘‘dry clean’’ care instruction is used.’’

44ATMI (9) p. 3. ATMI added that magazine

articles, provided the advice is consistent, could

influence consumers’ behavior, and that further

comments on what constitutes ‘‘very hot’’ would be

important.

45AAMA (11) p. 4. In contrast, in responding to

the ANPR, SDA estimated that only ‘‘20% of today’s

homes have hot water heaters set at 120 degrees—

125 degrees F.’’ SDA, comment 43 to ANPR, p. 2.

46AAMA (11) p. 3.

47Fifield (20) p. 1.

48ATMI (9) p. 3.

49 Ginetex (35) p. 2.

50Associazione Serica (15) p. 2.

51AAMA (11) p. 3; P&G (34) p. 2.

52AAMA (11) p. 3. 53Fifield (20) p. 1.

temperatures.’’ 40 Industry Canada

argued that consumers would be

unlikely to use very hot water under

normal washing conditions unless there

were a ‘‘very hot’’ indicator on their

washing machines, and that it is

improbable that they would conclude

that they should use a professional

cleaner. Rather, concluded Industry

Canada, consumers would use the ‘‘hot’’

setting on their machines instead of

incurring the cost of professional

laundering.41 In contrast, IFI stated that

consumer practice is to send out men’s

dress shirts, most of which are labeled

‘‘Machine wash warm, cool iron,’’ to be

commercially laundered and pressed.

Pointing out that commercial laundering

is done at temperatures in excess of 145

degrees F, IFI concluded that the ‘‘very

hot’’ label would not apply even if

manufacturers used it, which current

practice suggests they would not do.42

Noting that the need for the addition of

a ‘‘very hot’’ water designation does not

seem to be clearly demonstrated and

that such an instruction would be

confusing, Pendleton stated that the

trend in home washing practices in

recent years has been away from the use

of hot water, citing as evidence that

none of Pendleton’s 30 or more current

care labels carry a hot water

instruction.43

Two textile industry trade

associations, ATMI and AAMA,

responded to the questions in the NPR

without specifically supporting or

opposing the proposed amendment.

Speculating on how consumers would

understand a care instruction to use

‘‘very hot’’ water, ATMI predicted that

‘‘responses may range from using the

hottest temperature (consumers) can get

from their water heater to adding a pot

of boiling water to using the services of

a professional wetcleaner.’’

ATMI suggested that the care label

indicate that ‘‘consumers should use

‘Temperatures which normally exceed

home laundry and water heater

settings,’ which would justify a larger

label if ‘very hot’ is truly the preferred

method.’’ 44 AAMA observed that ‘‘the

question of whether consumers

understand very hot is important only

when professional cleaning is needed.

For environmental reasons most hot

water heaters in the U.S. do not generate

water above 120 F.’’ 45

c. Numerical Temperatures and

Consumer Education. Although the

Commission did not propose requiring

numerical temperatures on care labels,

it sought comment on the possibility of

a consumer education campaign on the

issues surrounding numerical

temperatures. AAMA agreed without

elaboration with the Commission’s

decision not to require specific

temperatures on labels.46 Appliance

service technician Bruce Fifield

contended that the care label should

include the numerical temperature of

the water.47 ATMI stated that consumers

assume that there is a direct correlation

between what the consumer sees on a

care label (e.g., ‘‘machine wash hot

water’’) and the temperature selection

on their home washers without realizing

the many factors that influence the

water temperature in the machine.

ATMI suggested that clothes washer

manufacturers, with input from other

affected parties, work towards a

consensus on temperatures and a

method for standardizing them.48

Ginetex stated that in the Ginetex/ISO

system numerical temperatures (in

degrees Celsius) appear along with

washing instructions icons.49

Associazione Serica joined Ginetex in

recommending harmonization of the

Commission’s Rule with the ISO/

Ginetex system.50

Three comments expressed their

support for consumer education in

connection with the wash water

temperature issue, although none

offered specific consumer education

plans. AAMA and P&G stated that

consumer education would be necessary

to help consumers understand the

variability issues (geographical and

seasonal temperature differences) that

affect water temperature.51 AAMA

stated that ‘‘Part of the education

process will take place as consumers

use care symbols. The current NAFTA

care symbol guide indicates the median

temperature for ‘hot,’ ‘warm,’ and ‘cold,’

in both Fahrenheit and Celsius.’’ 52

Bruce Fifield, who lives in Maine, noted

the importance of information about the

low end of the temperature range and

suggested educating the public by

disclosing temperature degrees along

with words on detergent packages and

clothes washer owners manuals as well

as on care labels.53

3. Rule Amendments and Reasons

Therefor

The Commission has decided to

amend the definitions of ‘‘cold’’ and

‘‘warm’’ in the Rule to make them

consistent with the AATCC definitions

for these terms. The Commission has

decided against adding the term ‘‘very

hot’’ to the Rule. Rather, the

Commission amends the Rule so that

the term ‘‘hot’’ now includes the

temperature range encompassed by both

‘‘hot’’ and ‘‘very hot’’ in the AATCC

definitions. Finally, the Commission

will leave unchanged its decision,

announced in the NPR, not to require

numerical temperatures on labels.

The Commission is changing the

Rule’s definitions for ‘‘cold’’ and

‘‘warm’’ to be consistent with the

AATCC definitions primarily because

the AATCC definitions are currently in

widespread use in the textile industry

and because of the changes in water

heater settings, as discussed in the NPR

and mentioned above. The Commission

agrees with MACLA and AHAM that a

‘‘very hot’’ instruction on labels could

be confusing to consumers and

impractical in light of the temperature

limitations on new water heaters and

the majority of home clothes washers.

Moreover, there is no evidence of

consumer need or demand for

information on such an instruction; nor

is there evidence of any harm to

garments because of the absence of such

an instruction. Thus, the Commission

will not create a separate temperature

range for ‘‘very hot.’’ Because AATCC

defines ‘‘very hot’’ water as a maximum

of 145 degrees F (63 degrees C), the

Commission will lower the current

range in place under the description of

‘‘hot water,’’ with the top end of the

range changed from 150 degrees F (66

degrees C) to 145 degrees F (63 degrees

C), to be consistent with the AATCC

definitions of ‘‘hot’’ and ‘‘very hot’’

taken together.

The Commission is not persuaded to

add a requirement that labels include

numerical temperatures. As indicated in

the NPR, the Commission believes that

requiring this type of additional

information may not be cost-effective

because most American consumers

know so little about the temperature of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 47267

54Congress 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.

55When it amended the Rule in 1983, the

Commission had considered and rejected an

‘‘alternative care labeling’’ requirement that

garments be labeled for both washing and

drycleaning if both are appropriate. 48 FR 22742–

43. (See Section II.C.3, infra.) In 1983, however,

evidence about the harmful effects of PCE was not

available. Therefore, it was appropriate for the

Commission to revisit the issue during the recent

regulatory review proceeding.

56EPA’s comment (73) to the Regulatory Review

Notice 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, waterbased methods, or both. We believe this change is

necessary to advance the use of water-based

cleaning technology.’’ EPA’s comment to the ANPR

suggested that the Rule be amended to recognize

professional wetcleaning. EPA, comment 17 to

ANPR, p. 1.

57 Johnson Group (1) p. 1 (anecdotal evidence is

more to the effect that consumers interpret the

instruction to mean that a garment labeled

‘‘Dryclean’’ will last longer if drycleaned, than it is

to the effect that they think it cannot be washed);

Nature’s Cleaners (6) p. 1 (no evidence, but the

perception is true); Industry Canada (8) p. 1 (no

data, but assume that’s how most Canadian

consumers read it); ATMI (9) p. 1 (it is possible that

consumers make that assumption—a ‘‘casual poll’’

indicates that most consumers do make that

interpretation, but do not necessarily follow their

interpretation of the instruction); Scanlon

(consumer) (13) (‘‘Certainly I interpret a ‘dry clean’

instruction to mean that a garment cannot be

washed; why else would the manufacturer put dry

clean? If that’s not what it means, I would

appreciate it if you would require manufacturers to

be more accurate. If what they really mean is ‘dry

cleaning preferred,’ then they should say so.’’);

Associazione Serica (15) (Comments ‘‘mainly based

on European consumers’ behavior’’) (‘‘Yes, there is

(evidence). This instruction is considered as a

prohibition (against) other washing methods.’’);

Prestige (16) p. 1 (experience has shown that many

consumers who trust the care label will not attempt

a non-listed care method).

their tap water, the water from their

water heaters (especially after it has

passed through plumbing pipes), or the

water in their washing machines at the

various settings. The Commission

recognizes that more information could

help consumers avoid using water that

is too hot and may damage some items,

or not hot enough to clean others

thoroughly, or so cold that detergents

will not be effective. The Commission

believes that non-regulatory approaches,

such as industry-sponsored consumer

education campaigns or voluntary

product labeling, hold the most promise

for helping consumers understand how

to use water temperatures to their best

advantage in cleaning their washable

items. The Commission is willing to

consider partnering with industry,

consumer, or public interest groups or

others in such an undertaking.

C. Proposal to Require Home Washing

Instruction

1. Background of Proposed Amendment

The Regulatory Review Notice noted

that the EPA had been working with the

dry-cleaning industry to reduce the

public’s exposure to perchloroethylene

(‘‘PCE’’ or ‘‘perc’’), the most common

drycleaning solvent,54 and asked

whether the Rule poses an impediment

to this goal. The Rule currently requires

that the manufacturer provide

instruction as to one appropriate

method of cleaning the garment, i.e.,

either a washing instruction or a

drycleaning instruction. Thus, garments

legally labeled with a ‘‘Dryclean’’

instruction alone may also be washable,

but the manufacturer is not required to

provide that additional information. In

contrast, a ‘‘Dryclean Only’’ label

constitutes a warning that the garment

cannot be washed, and the manufacturer

is required to have a reasonable basis for

this instruction. The Regulatory Review

Notice asked about the prevalence of

care labeling that does not indicate both

washing and drycleaning instructions.

In addition, it asked whether the use of

drycleaning 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

drycleaning instructions for garments

cleanable by both methods.55 59 FR

30733–34. The response to this proposal

was mixed; some commenters favored a

required dual instruction, while others

opposed it because of the increased cost

to manufacturers of testing garments for

both methods. Some pointed out that

although many items routinely washed

by consumers (such as ‘‘wash and wear’’

apparel) could safely be drycleaned, few

consumers would choose to do so.

In the ANPR, the Commission

requested comment on a proposed

amendment of the Rule to require a

home washing instruction for all

covered products for which home

washing is appropriate. Under the

proposal, drycleaning instructions for

such washable items would be optional.

Manufacturers marketing items with a

‘‘Dryclean’’ instruction alone, however,

would be required to substantiate both

that the items could be safely

drycleaned and that home washing

would be inappropriate for them; thus,

a ‘‘Dryclean’’ instruction would be

subject to the same burden of

substantiation presently required for a

‘‘Dryclean Only’’ instruction. This

revised proposal would eliminate some

of the additional substantiation testing

costs that a ‘‘dual disclosure’’

requirement would necessitate. 60 FR

67104–05.

Eighteen commenters to the ANPR,

including individual consumers,

academics, and an appliance

manufacturers’ trade association,

contended that many manufacturers

currently label items that can be both

washed and drycleaned with a

‘‘Dryclean’’ or ‘‘Dryclean Only’’

instruction. Many of these commenters

suggested that a required home washing

instruction could save consumers

garment care dollars. Some commenters

also noted that many consumers believe

there are environmental benefits from

home washing rather than drycleaning

washable items. 63 FR 25418.

Based on the ANPR comments, the

Commission concluded that it had

reason to believe that ‘‘Dryclean’’ labels

on home-washable items are prevalent,

that consumers have a preference for

being told when items that they are

purchasing can be safely washed at

home, and that this aspect of the Rule

is an impediment to EPA’s goal of

reducing the use of drycleaning

solvents.56 The Commission also

concluded that when a washable

garment is labeled ‘‘Dryclean,’’

consumers may be misled into believing

that the garment cannot be washed at

home and therefore incur a drycleaning

expense that they would otherwise

prefer to avoid. 63 FR 25419.

Accordingly, in the NPR the

Commission proposed amending

§ 423.6(b) of the Rule to read, in

pertinent part, 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

drycleaning 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. * * *

2. Response to the NPR and Public

Workshop-Conference

In the NPR, the Commission solicited

empirical information about how

consumers interpret a garment label that

merely says ‘‘Dryclean.’’ The NPR posed

the following question:

(1) Is there empirical evidence regarding

whether consumers interpret a ‘‘dry clean’’

instruction to mean that a garment cannot be

washed? What does the evidence show?

Several commenters offered opinions

on this issue,57 but only two—Clorox

and P&G—offered empirical evidence.

47268 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

58A description of the survey and its results are

attached to Clorox’s comment (22). Telenation

conducted the survey using a single-stage, random

digit-dial sample technique to select respondents

from all available residential telephone numbers in

the contiguous United States. Up to three attempts

were made on the selected telephone numbers.

Telenation’s standard data tabulations are provided

in a weighted format. The data are weighted on an

individual multi-dimensional basis to give

appropriate representation to the interaction

between various demographic factors. The multidimensional array covers gender, within age, within

household income in the four National Census

regions, resulting in 144 different cells. The current

Population Survey from the U.S. Census Bureau is

used to determine the weighting targets for each of

these 144 cells. Clorox (22) p. 5.

59A copy of Mr. Essma’s presentation was placed

on the public record as Clorox (PW–43).

60P&G (34) p. 3.

61P&G’s two-page summary of the data was

placed on the public record as P&G (PW–44).

62Workshop Transcript (‘‘Tr.’’), pp. 26–27. The

difference between the results of the P&G survey

(44% mentioned only drycleaning) and the Clorox

survey (73.2% said the garment must be drycleaned

or otherwise specially taken care of) may be due to

the fact that the respondents in the P&G survey

were female heads of household who currently do

the laundry, whereas the Clorox respondents were

a random sample of the population. Female heads

of household who currently do the laundry may be

more aware than the general population that items

labeled ‘‘Dryclean’’ may also be washable.

63Clorox (22) Weighted Data, p. 6.

64Clorox (22) Weighted Data, p. 10.

65Clorox (22) Weighted Data, p. 44. Pendleton

(25) also stated, at p. 1, that its own market

information indicates ‘‘the importance of

washability to consumers.’’

66Consumers Union (21) p. 1; AHAM (18) p. 2;

Pendleton (25) pp. 1–2; Greenpeace (27) p. 1; Smith

(36) p 1; Clorox (22) p. 1; and P&G (34) pp. 2, 3.

67AHAM (18) p. 2.

68 Greenpeace (27) p. 1. 69Pendleton (25) p. 1. 70 IFI (PW–20), p. 2. 71 IFI (12) p. 1. Many other cleaners and cleaners’

trade associations also favored requiring

instructions for both washing and drycleaning or for

all methods by which an item can be cleaned

(including, presumably, professional wetcleaning

and newly emerging techniques such as the use of

liquid carbon dioxide for cleaning): MACLA (2) p.

1; Viola (5) p. 2; Prestige (16) p. 1; NCAI (17) p. 2

(otherwise consumers might pay more in the long

run because of ‘‘excess wear potentially caused by

home care’’); Valet (PW–6) p. 1; MFI (PW–7), p. 1;

French (PW–8), p. 1; Coronado (PW–9), p. 1;

MACLA (PW–10) p. 1; SEFA (PW–11) p. 1; COBS

(PW–14) p. 1; Hallak (PW–22) p. 1; Avon (PW–23)

p. 1; Comet (PW–25), p. 1; Spear (PW–27), p. 1;

Cowboy (PW–29), p. 1; Randi (PW–31), p. 1;

Swannanoa (PW–35) p. 1; Sno White (PW–36) p. 1;

Perrys-Flanagans (PW–38) p. 1. One yarn

manufacturer and one academic expert also favored

dual or alternative labeling. Celanese (PW–12) p. 1;

Riggs (PW–13) p. 3. EPA (PW–3) at pp.1–2, favored

alternative labeling. Other cleaners and cleaners’

trade associations opposed the proposed change

and favored retaining the status quo—i.e., that

either washing or drycleaning may be listed on the

label of a garment that can either be washed or

drycleaned. Rawhide (PW-5) pp. 1–4 (cleaning by

consumers is more hazardous to the environment

than cleaning by drycleaners); NCPDC (28) pp. 1–

2 (recommending home washing as the preferred

method is not necessarily providing consumers

with the best method of cleaning their garments).

72 IFI (12) p. 2.

Clorox provided, with its comment, the

results of a nationally representative

survey of 1013 respondents (507 males

and 506 females) performed by Market

Facts, Inc. and Telenation from June 19

to June 21, 1998.58 This research was

presented at the workshop by Eric

Essma of Clorox.59 Question 3 of the

survey asked:

When the care instruction on an article of

clothing reads ‘‘Dry Clean’’ what does that

mean to you? (Probe:) How would you care

for clothing like that? (Probe:) Any other

ways? (Record Verbatim. Probe for

Clarification. Probe to Exhaustion.)

A majority of the respondents (73.2%)

said a ‘‘Dryclean’’ instruction means the

garment must be drycleaned,

professionally cleaned, or otherwise

specially taken care of.

P&G stated, in its comment to the

NPR, that it ‘‘has much experience and

qualitative evidence to indicate that

consumers interpret a ‘‘dry clean’’

instruction or a ‘dry clean only’

instruction to mean that a garment

cannot be washed or cared for in the

home.’’ 60 At the workshop, P&G

presented a description of data obtained

from a nationally representative survey

of about 1,000 female heads of

household who currently do the

laundry.61 Respondents were asked

which of five methods they would use

to clean a garment labeled ‘‘Dryclean.’’

Although multiple responses were

allowed, 44% of respondents said

drycleaning was the only acceptable

way to clean such a garment.62

Thus, empirical data in the record

indicates that many consumers interpret

a ‘‘Dryclean’’ label to mean that the

garment cannot be washed. In addition,

question 4 in the Market Facts survey

asked respondents whether they had

‘‘ever washed or laundered any clothing

labeled ‘Dry Clean.’ ’’ Almost half (49%)

of the respondents said ‘‘yes.’’ 63 These

respondents were then asked (in

question 8) whether they were ‘‘satisfied

with the results of washing or

laundering ‘Dry Clean’ items,’’ and

63.4% said ‘yes’ and 11.1% said

‘‘sometimes.’’ 64 Thus, the Market Facts

study indicates that some garments

labeled ‘‘Dryclean’’ can in fact be

washed at home to the satisfaction of

the consumer.

Several post-workshop comments

discussed the Clorox research, but none

questioned the finding that a large

number of consumers interpret a

‘‘Dryclean’’ instruction to mean that a

garment cannot be cared for at home.

Rather, these comments focused on the

data about consumer care label

preferences. Question 9 in the Market

Facts survey asked respondents:

For clothing items that can be either

washed or dry cleaned if the label can

only show one instruction, which

instruction would you prefer to see

included on the label: (Read List. Enter

Single Response. If Unsure Encourage

Best Guess.)

Washing instructions, or ..................... 1

Dry cleaning instructions .................... 2

(Do Not Read):

Don’t know ................................... X

Refused ....................................... R

The responses indicated that 88.8% of

respondents would prefer washing

instructions. 65

Support for the proposed amendment

came from Consumers Union, AHAM,

Pendleton, Greenpeace, and individual

consumers, as well as from Clorox and

P&G.66 AHAM, for example, stated that

the proposed amendment ‘‘will result in

consumers saving garment care dollars

and will lead to reduction in adverse

environment impact resulting from the

use of percloroethylene.’’ 67 Greenpeace

asserted that ‘‘consumers want to know

from a care label whether a garment can

be cleaned at home, in water-based

laundry systems.’’ 68 Pendleton Woolen

Mills stated:

This proposed change is consistent with

Pendleton’s current direction for increased

emphasis on garment washability. Market

information gathered by Pendleton staff has

indicated the importance of washability to

consumers. This requirement may mean a

relatively small increase in the amount of

testing, but Pendleton is already seeking to

put washable care instructions on garments

when possible. 69

Commenting on the Clorox survey

results, the International Fabricare

Institute opposed the proposed

amendment. IFI stated:

the fabricare industry takes issue with

much of the data presented and believes that

an additional consumer survey is required to

provide the FTC with sufficiently broad

information to determine consumer care label

preferences. Clorox asked only whether

consumers wanted to know when a garment

can be home washed. The question should

have been ‘‘Would you like to know if a

garment can be washed or drycleaned, would

you like to know all appropriate methods of

care?’ 70

In its comment to the NPR, IFI argued

that failure to provide drycleaning

instructions when appropriate is an

injustice to those consumers who wish

to have their garments professionally

cleaned and that all appropriate

methods of care should be listed on the

care label (a concept which it referred

to as ‘‘alternative labeling’’).71 IFI

further asserted that ‘‘there are

consumers who want some of their

washable items drycleaned.’’ 72

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 47269

73AAMA (PW–24) p. 3.

74AAMA (11) p. 2.

75 Id.

76AAMA (PW–24) p. 2. Johnson Group (1) made

a similar point, at p. 2, stating that appropriate

criteria must be developed ‘‘specifying the product

performance after a given number of cleaning

cycles.’’

77AAMA (PW–24) p. 2.

78 Id. at 2–3.

79 Id. at 4.

80 16 CFR 1.14.

81 In the absence of standards for a successful

wash result (in terms of the durability of the

garment as compared to its durability when

drycleaned), there is, as suggested by the AAMA,

a ‘‘gray area’’ where deference would have to be

accorded the manufacturer’s best judgment. AAMA

(11) p. 2, (PW–24) p. 2. In addition, the use of

‘‘Dryclean’’ labels on garments that also could be

washed seems to be limited to certain kinds of

fabrics. Silk, wool, and rayon have been mentioned

most frequently as fabrics often labeled ‘‘Dryclean’’

when in fact they could be washed. Other factors,

such as the type of weave in the fabric and the dyes

used also affect washability. Tr. 38–39; ATMI (9) p.

1.

The AAMA also criticized the Clorox

Market Facts survey, noting that it

showed ‘‘nothing more than a

preference for home washable garments

and not a preference for a change in the

rule.’’ 73 AAMA opposed requiring that

garments that can be either washed or

drycleaned be labeled for home

washing, stating: ‘‘Responsible apparel

firms label their garments according to

what they believe to be the best method

of cleaning.’’ 74 AAMA contended that

the proposed change in the Rule would

not reduce underlabeling (i.e., labeling

washable garments ‘‘Dryclean’’) without

increased enforcement of the Rule; that

the proposed change would increase

costs to manufacturers; and that there is

a ‘‘gray area between garments that need

some type of professional cleaning and

finishing and those that can be

maintained with home washing and

finishing.’’ 75

In its post-workshop comment,

AAMA also argued that the proposed

change would be burdensome because

of a lack of specific standards:

the definition of ‘‘successful home washing’’

is yet to be established. . . . While a definition

may exist for a manufacturer establishing a

reasonable basis for a garment that is

traditionally home washed, it is unclear if

this definition also applies to a garment that

is traditionally dry cleaned. Does such a

garment have to pass an absolute or a

comparative test when reasonable basis is

established? For example, is a garment

‘‘successfully’’ home washed if it can

withstand a certain number of home wash

cycles, even though it can withstand a greater

number of dry clean cycles? Similarly, a

mandatory home wash standard suggests that

a garment must fail every conceivable home

care method before the label can warn against

home care. We are concerned that

manufacturers will be expected to establish

a reasonable basis with a law that is not fully

defined.76

AAMA reiterated its belief that the

proposed change would increase costs

to manufacturers, including costs of

‘‘additional testing, increased

paperwork, lost production time,

increased liabilities, and damaged

garments,’’ but stated that its members

were unable to quantify these costs.77

AAMA asserted that the proposed

change would result in manufacturers

losing revenues and customers because

of high garment return rates for

garments labeled for home washing

when they should ‘‘ideally be dry

cleaned’’ and because of ‘‘consumer

anger at prematurely worn-out

clothes.’’ 78

In addition to its argument that the

proposed change would harm

manufacturers, AAMA contended that it

would harm consumers for several

reasons, including increased costs.

AAMA stated: ‘‘One apparel

manufacturer currently carries a

‘performance-satisfaction guarantee’ that

it vows to revoke if the proposed

amendment were to become part of the

Rule.’’ Consumers will also be hurt,

according to AAMA, because they may

not feel certain that they are caring for

their garments in the best way: ‘‘AAMA

believes that consumers prefer to be

given the best care instructions, not just

the possible care instructions.’’ AAMA

further suggested that the proposed

change would be confusing to

consumers because the meaning of a

simple ‘‘ Dryclean’’ instruction will in

effect change to ‘‘Dryclean Only.’’

Finally, AAMA argued that the

proposed change should not be adopted

because it would be difficult to convey

in symbols. 79

3. Commission Decision Not to Adopt

the Proposed Amendment

In promulgating or amending a trade

regulation rule pursuant to section 18 of

the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, the

Commission must act within its

statutory mandate to ‘‘define with

specificity acts or practices which are

unfair or deceptive . . . (within the

meaning of (section 5(a)(1) of the FTC

Act))’’ and to ‘‘include requirements

prescribed for the purpose of preventing

such acts or practices.’’ In promulgating

the Rule in 1971 and amending it in

1983, the Commission found that it is

both unfair and deceptive to fail to

disclose any instructions of a method by

which a garment can be cleaned. 36 FR

23889 and 48 FR 22736. The

Commission did not find, however, that

it is either unfair or deceptive to label

a garment with only one method of

cleaning when another method also can

be used. Indeed, in amending the Rule

in 1983, the Commission considered but

rejected requiring that instructions for

both washing and drycleaning (which

the Commission referred to as

‘‘alternative care labeling’’) be included

on care labels, stating that the record

did not show that the benefits of such

a requirement would exceed its costs:

An alternative care labeling requirement

would impose significant testing and

substantiation costs on manufacturers. For

example, it would require [manufacturers] to

give drycleaning instructions, and to have a

reasonable basis for those instructions, for all

items they already label as washable. 48 FR

at 22742.

In order to amend the Rule to require

that a garment manufacturer list a

particular cleaning method on the care

label in all cases where that method is

applicable, the Commission would have

to find evidence indicating that the

failure to list the method is both a

prevalent practice and an unfair or

deceptive one. The Commission also

would have to conclude that the

particular remedy was an appropriate

and cost effective way to address the

unfair or deceptive practice. 80 There is

evidence in the record that some

garments labeled ‘‘Dryclean,’’ or even

‘‘Dryclean Only,’’ are in fact home

washable. There is also evidence that

some consumers believe a ‘‘Dryclean’’

instruction means that a garment cannot

be washed; thus, they may be misled by

the instruction and incur a cleaning cost

they would not otherwise incur. The

Commission is not convinced, however,

that the evidence is sufficiently

compelling to justify a change in the

Care Labeling Rule at this time.

Moreover, the benefits of the proposed

amendment are highly uncertain. For

example, it is not clear from the record

how many garments currently labeled

‘‘Dryclean’’ would have to be labeled for

home washing if the amendment were

adopted. 81 In addition, it appears that

there have been changes in the

marketplace, since the beginning of this

rulemaking proceeding, that suggest

regulatory change may not be needed.

Therefore, after carefully weighing the

evidence and the competing

considerations at stake, the Commission

has decided not to adopt the proposed

amendment to require a home washing

instruction for all garments that may be

washed.

One impetus for the proposed

amendment to require a home washing

instruction where applicable was the

environmental goal of reducing use of

PCE. 63 FR at 25418–19. Discussion at

the workshop and some post-workshop

47270 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

82An EPA representative stated: ‘‘From the

numbers that I have seen . . . it would appear that

the dry cleaners, the dry cleaning industry, has

done an excellent job of reducing the use of PERC

over the last ten and twenty years. . . . I think it’s

less than half of what it was ten years ago.’’ Tr. p.

115. A representative of a drycleaners trade

association in the Southwest stated in a written

comment that improvements in the manner of using

PERC over the last ten or fifteen years has resulted

in a 75% reduction of usage of the solvent even

though more clothes are cleaned in it every year.

He further asserted that with the development of

alternative solvents, including liquid carbon

dioxide, drycleaning could become the

environmentally preferable method of cleaning

clothes in the future. Rawhide (PW–5) p. 2. IFI

contends that PERC consumption has declined 70%

over the past 10 years. IFI (PW–20) p. 2.

83Riggs Tr. p. 118 and (PW–13) p. 2; IFI (PW–20)

p. 2.

84Stroup (EPA) Tr. pp. 115–16.

85As noted above, it is speculative as to how

many garments now labeled ‘‘Dryclean’’ would

actually have to be re-labeled for home washing. In

addition, it has been suggested that some

consumers take washable garments to a drycleaner

rather than washing them at home simply for the

convenience of professional cleaning and/or

because they believe the clothing will look better

or last longer if professionally cleaned. French

(PW–8); IFI (12) p. 2; MFI (PW–7) p. 1; MACLA

(PW–10) pp. 1–2; Spear (PW–27) p. 1; Greenpeace

(27) p. 2; Tr. 107–08.

86See discussion in Part II.D, infra.

87See discussion in Part III, infra.

88EPA (PW–3) pp. 1–2.

89See discussion in Part III, infra. Although such

products are not likely to be total replacements for

professional drycleaning, they do offer consumers

additional, and less costly, cleaning options.

90E.g., IFI (PW–20) p. 2; Valet (PW–6) p. 1; MFI

(PW–7) p. 1; MACLA (PW–10) p. 1; SEFA

p. 1; Celanese (PW–12).

91EPA (PW–3) p. 2.

92As some commenters noted, however, this

study does not necessarily provide insight about the

total percentage of garments labeled ‘‘Dryclean’’

that might also be washable. The consumers who

answered ‘‘yes’’ to this question could be referring

to only one garment out of many wardrobe items

with a ‘‘Dryclean’’ label or one garment over a

period of many years.

93For example, Consumers Union published an

article describing results obtained when blouses

and sweaters with a ‘‘Dryclean’’ or ‘‘Dryclean Only’’

label were washed. Consumers Union concluded

that many such garments can be home washed. Tr.

pp. 38–39; article attached to comment of

Consumers Union (21).

94Tr. pp. 58–60.

95E.g., Pendleton (25) p. 1. A recent trade press

article notes that, in direct response to consumer

demand, some other manufacturers are dramatically

increasing the number of washable items they offer

for sale. ‘‘Cleaning Up With Washable Fabrics,’’ A.

D’Innocenzio, Women’s Wear Daily, April 12, 2000.

96The AAMA agreed that ‘‘underlabeling’’ (i.e.,

labeling a garment simply ‘‘Dryclean’’ when

washing at home is also a viable option) is a

problem in the clothing industry. AAMA (PW–24)

p. 6.

97Pendleton (25) p. 2.

comments indicated, however, that use

of this solvent by the drycleaning

industry has already been dramatically

reduced. 82 The discussion suggested

that the reason for this decline may be

higher recovery rates for PCE during the

cleaning process, as opposed to the use

of other solvents or methods. 83

Furthermore, the discussion showed

that the effect of a mandatory wash

instruction on consumer behavior

simply could not be predicted. 84 While

it is clear that many consumers have a

preference for more information,

including washing instructions, it is not

at all clear that a required washing

instruction would change consumer

behavior sufficiently to reduce either

the use of PCE or the cost to consumers

of caring for their garments. 85

Another change in the marketplace is

the emergence of new cleaning

technologies, including professional

wetcleaning 86 and liquid carbon

dioxide. 87 These new technologies are

considered to be more ‘‘environmentally

friendly’’ than PCE 88 and provide

additional options for consumers.

Another new technology is the

formulation of home cleaning products,

such as Dryel (a new P&G product). 89

A number of commenters urged the

Commission to amend the Rule to

require that all appropriate methods of

care be listed on the care label. 90 While

this proposal would have the advantage

of maximizing the information and

options provided to consumers, it is

potentially costly and burdensome on

manufacturers for the Commission to

require that an evolving list of cleaning

technologies be named on a permanent

garment label and that manufacturers

have substantiation for all of them

(including contrary evidence for those

not mentioned). The EPA suggested that

the Commission not establish a

preference for one environmentally

friendly technology over others. 91 The

Commission agrees with this position;

the Commission does not agree,

however, that the rulemaking record

supports a determination that it is an

unfair or deceptive act or practice for a

manufacturer to fail to provide a label

listing all methods or technologies that

could be used to clean a garment.

Moreover, the rapidly changing nature

of the garment care industry suggests

that the Commission should not

intervene with a regulatory change that

might in the future prove to be

inadequate or inappropriate.

The Market Facts study shows that

despite the perception by some

consumers that a ‘‘Dryclean’’ instruction

is tantamount to a ‘‘Dryclean Only’’

instruction, nearly half of those

surveyed had in fact washed a garment

with a ‘‘Dryclean’’ label. 92 Moreover,

the majority of that group was satisfied

with the results of washing. This

suggests that consumers may be getting

information about the ability to wash

some garments with a ‘‘Dryclean’’ label

from other reliable sources. Such

sources could include retailers,

consumer publications 93 or media

sources, professional cleaners, other

consumers, or a consumer’s own past

experience.

Representatives of some large

retailers, including J.C. Penney, Sears,

and QVC, indicated that frequently they

ask manufacturers to change the care

labels of garments with a ‘‘Dryclean’’

instruction where the retailers’’ own

testing shows them to be machine

washable. 94 They do so because they

believe that a washing instruction will

be the most useful one for their

customers. This is an example of the

marketplace responding to consumer

preferences and demonstrates the ability

of retailers to ensure that their

customers get the type of care

information they want. In addition,

some manufacturers themselves indicate

they are responding to consumers’

desire for information on washability by

putting washing instructions on

garments when possible. 95

Finally, to the extent that consumers

are being misled by ‘‘Dryclean Only’’

labels on clothing that can be home

laundered, the Commission points out

that such an instruction would be illegal

under the current Rule. 16 CFR

423.6(c)(2). The term conveys to

consumers a warning that the item

cannot be washed successfully. A

manufacturer using such a label must

have a reasonable basis for this warning,

just as the manufacturer must also have

a reasonable basis for stating that the

garment can be drycleaned successfully.

Although the Commission has not to

date brought enforcement actions based

on a misleading instruction of

‘‘Dryclean Only,’’ it may do so in the

future if this practice occurs.

The Commission hopes that

manufacturers and their trade

associations will respond affirmatively

to the evidence in this proceeding that

consumers want more information about

cleaning options, particularly washing

instructions where applicable. 96 One

manufacturer suggested, for example,

use of label language such as: ‘‘machine

wash...or dry clean for best results.’’ 97 If

manufacturers are reluctant to lengthen

labels to communicate that washing is

possible, although drycleaning may be

preferred for best long term results, they

certainly can find other ways to convey

the information. They could use hang

tags, for example, to inform consumers

that a ‘‘Dryclean’’ instruction on the

label does not mean that the garment

cannot be cleaned by washing or other

methods, but rather that drycleaning is

an appropriate way to clean the item

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 47271

98 Ginetex, comment 63 to ANPR, p. 3

99See 63 FR 25417 at 25426:

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. 100See, e.g., Viola (5) p. 2; AHAM (18) p. 3 (Delay

incorporating a ‘‘Professionally Wet Clean’’

instruction in the Rule ‘‘until the manufacturers can

establish a reasonable basis for this method of

garment refurbishment.’’); Alliance (33) p. 1 (‘‘To

create special labeling at this time is premature.’’). 101See, e.g., Aqua Clean (4) p. 1; Cleaner By

Nature (10) p. 1; Riggs (19) p. 2; PPERC (24) p. 2;

Pendleton (25) p. 2; Greenpeace (27) p. 3; CNT (30)

p. 2. 102See, e.g., Johnson Group (1) p. 1; MACLA (2)

p. 1; Industry Canada (8) p. 2; ATMI (9) p. 2; IFI

(12) p. 2; Scanlon (13) p. 1; Riggs (19) p. 2;

Pendleton (25) p. 2. 103See, e.g., Nature’s Cleaners (6) p. 1;

Associazione Serica (15) p. 1; CNT (30) pp. 2–3.

104See, e.g., Riggs (19) p. 2; Consumers Union

(21) p. 2; CNT (30) p. 3 (label should not specify

equipment type, but should specify finishing

instructions, when needed.); PWN (31) p. 2; P&G

(34) pp. 2, 3 (equipment statement should not be

required; allow an optional statement of at least one

type of equipment that can be used, unless all

would work). But, see PPERC (24) p. 4 (require

‘‘Professionally Wetclean’’ instructions to specify

wetclean finishing equipment, if necessary).

105See, e.g., Consumers Union (21) p. 2; PPERC

(24) p. 2; Greenpeace (27) p. 2; CNT (30) p. 3; PWN

(31) p. 2.

106 IFI (12) p. 2; Prestige Cleaners (16) p. 1; NCAI

(17) p. 1; Riggs (19) p. 1; Consumers Union (21) p.

3; PPERC (24) p. 2; Greenpeace (27) p. 2; CNT (30)

pp. 2–3; PWN (31) p. 2; P&G (34) pp. 2–3; Pellerin

Milnor (37) p. 1.

107Star (CNT) Tr. pp. 155–59; Hargrove (PWN) Tr.

p. 169; Boorstein (Prestige) Tr. p. 171; Sinsheimer

(PPERC) Tr. p. 180; Oakes (QVC) Tr. p. 189; Davis

(Cleaner by Nature) Tr. pp. 190–91; Scalco (IFI) Tr.

p. 244.

108Riggs Tr. pp. 172–75; Easter (Univ. Ky.)

[Observer] Tr. p. 176; Pullen Tr. pp. 181–83; Ferrell

(Capital Mercury Apparel, Ltd.) Tr. p. 186; Lamar

(AAMA) Tr. p. 189; Essma (Clorox) Tr. pp. 207–08;

Jones, General Electric Company (‘‘GE’’) [Observer]

Tr. pp. 230–32; Stroup (EPA) Tr. p. 261.

109For example, Ms. Hargrove of PWN asked if

IFI would agree that most of the nation’s 30–35,000

cleaners do some amount of wetcleaning. Ms.

Scalco of IFI agreed, but with the qualification that

‘‘there’s vast differences in how they do that wet

cleaning from shop to [shop].’’ Tr. p. 169.

110Ewing (CNT) Tr. p. 178.

and, in some cases, may be the preferred

method for garment appearance or

longevity. On a hang tag, consumers

could be given additional useful

information, not conducive to shortened

form on a label, such as, with certain

fabrics, white garments can be washed

without harm, but brightly colored

garments might fade if washed rather

than drycleaned.

D. Professional Wetcleaning Instruction

1. Background of Proposed Amendment

Several comments submitted in

response to the Regulatory Review

Notice suggested that new technologies

of professional wetcleaning offer

promising alternatives to PCE-based

drycleaning. Therefore, in the ANPR,

the Commission requested information

about the professional wetcleaning

process. It also sought comment on the

feasibility of amending the Rule to

require such an instruction, when

appropriate and in addition to a

drycleaning instruction, for items that

cannot be home laundered. 60 FR at

67105, 67107. Twenty-nine commenters

addressed the wetcleaning issue. Some

opposed amending the Rule to require

such an instruction, arguing that the

technology is too new and not yet well

understood nor widely available. A

number of commenters provided

information about the available

processes and equipment. In addition,

they offered widely varying estimates of

the percentage of garments now labeled

‘‘Dryclean’’ or ‘‘Dryclean Only’’ that

could also be wetcleaned effectively. 63

FR at 25420–21. Ginetex stated that it is

waiting for development of a

standardized test method before

incorporating wetcleaning into the

European care labeling system.98

2. Response to the NPR

In the NPR, the Commission sought

comment on a proposed amendment

that would permit, though not require,

a ‘‘Professionally Wetclean’’ instruction

on care labels. Under the proposed

amendment, this instruction would be

in addition to, not in place of, a care

instruction for another method of

cleaning, such as washing or

drycleaning. The NPR also set forth a

proposed definition of ‘‘professional

wetcleaning.’’ 99 The proposed

amendment specified that a label with

a ‘‘Professionally Wetclean’’ instruction

must state one type of professional

wetcleaning equipment that may be

used, unless the garment could be

cleaned successfully by all

commercially available types of

professional wetcleaning equipment.

The proposed amendment further

specified that a label recommending

professional wetcleaning must also list

the fiber content of the garment.

In response to the NPR, 25 comments

addressed the issue of professional

wetcleaning. A few of these opposed the

proposed amendment, stating that the

technology and availability of this

process are not yet sufficiently

advanced to justify a care labeling

instruction.100 Most of the comments

favored amending the Care Labeling

Rule to recognize professional

wetcleaning. They did not agree,

however, on how this should be

accomplished. Several argued that the

Rule should require a ‘‘Professionally

Wetclean’’ instruction whenever the

method would be appropriate.101 Some

believed that a ‘‘Professionally

Wetclean’’ instruction should always be

accompanied by another appropriate

care method,102 while others asserted

that a second instruction should be

allowed, but not required.103 With

regard to the issue of specifying

wetcleaning equipment, most thought it

would be unnecessary and overly

restrictive.104 Of those addressing the

issue of whether fiber content should be

stated on a label with a ‘‘Professionally

Wetclean’’ instruction, most suggested

that fiber content should be required on

all care labels, not just labels that

recommend professional

wetcleaning.105 Eleven comments

addressed the proposed definition of

‘‘wetcleaning;’’ 106 a few favored it,

others suggested modifications, and

others rejected it as too narrow,

encompassing only the newest

technology.

3. Public Workshop-Conference and

Post-Workshop Comments

At the workshop, seven participants

stated that professional wetcleaning is

an established care method that is

currently used not only by those who

specialize in wetcleaning but also by

many, if not most, conventional

cleaners.107 Six of the participants and

two observers agreed that a definition

and test procedure should be developed

before the Commission amends the Rule

to permit or to require a wetcleaning

instruction.108 The discussion made

clear, however, that there is not one,

clearly defined process performed by

those who do professional

wetcleaning.109

There was considerable discussion at

the Workshop about the need to define

‘‘wetcleaning’’ and develop a test

procedure that manufacturers could use

to establish a reasonable basis for using

a ‘‘Professionally Wetclean’’ instruction

on labels. A representative of the Center

for Neighborhood Technology read the

definition CNT proposed in its comment

responding to the NPR,110 and

representatives of ASTM and AATCC

offered to consider establishing a

definition and test procedure at the next

meetings of those organizations, using

47272 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

111Pullen Tr. p. 211; Riggs Tr. pp. 172–74.

112See Engle (FTC) Tr. pp. 228, 270–71; Kolish

(FTC) Tr. pp.234–36, 294–95.

113See, e.g., Jones (GE) [Observer] Tr. pp. 230–32;

Pullen Tr. p. 234. Sinsheimer (PPERC), however,

asserted that, although some time would be

necessary to standardize a definition and test, nine

months would be too long a delay. Tr. pp. 229–30.

114E.g., EPA (PW–3) p. 1; Aqua Clean (PW–30)

pp. 1–2; KYCC (PW–32) pp. 1–2.

115CNT (PW–26) p. 1.

116Pullen (PW–2) p. 1.

117EPA (PW–3) p. 2; Valet (PW–6) p. 2; Celanese

(PW–12) p. 1; COBS (PW–14) p. 1; PWN (PW–15)

p. 1; Prestige (PW–16) p. 1; Wentz (PW–17) p. 2;

Consumers Union (PW–19) p. 1; IFI (PW–20) pp. 1,

4; Hallak (PW–22) p. 1; Avon (PW–23) p. 1; AAMA

(PW–24) p. 7; Comet (PW–25) p. 2; CNT (PW–26)

pp. 1–2; Randi (PW–31) p. 1; Swannanoa (PW–35)

p. 3; Sno White (PW–36) p. 1; EFC9 (PW–37) p. 2;

Perrys-Flanagans (PW–38) p. 1.

118PPERC (PW–21) pp. 2, 6; Greenpeace (PW–28)

p.1; KYCC (PW–32) p. 3; Cypress (PW–33) p. 2.

119Presumably, all garments that could be safely

washed at home also could be cleaned by

professional wet cleaning. The record indicates,

however, that the reverse is not true: there are

certain garments that can be professionally wet

cleaned but cannot be successfully washed and

finished at home. Under the Care Labeling Rule, the

first category of garments can be labeled for

washing. No amendment of the Rule is needed to

provide cleaners with the information about

cleaning such garments in water. A proposed

definition of ‘‘professional wet cleaning’’ needs to

focus, therefore, only on the second category of

garments, i.e., those that cannot be washed at home

but could be professionally wet cleaned.

120Although the Rule does not require a

manufacturer to conduct testing to establish a

reasonable basis (see discussion, Part II.A.1, supra),

other indices of reliability, such as past experience,

would likely not be present with respect to a new

technology such as professional wetcleaning.

121Sinsheimer (PPERC) Tr. pp. 179–81, 229, and

241.

122NCAI (17) p 2.

123SEFA (PW–11) p. 1. SEFA further stated:

‘‘Wetcleaning, as practiced in our industry, to date,

includes everything from hand washing to

computerized equipment to specialized finishing

equipment.’’ Id.

the CNT definition and the definition

proposed by the Commission in the NPR

as a basis for discussion.111 Responding

to many participants’ expressed need for

additional time to standardize a

definition and test method for

wetcleaning, Commission staff

conducting the workshop suggested that

the rulemaking record could be kept

open for nine months to a year to allow

time for affected interests to develop a

definition and test procedure before the

Commission makes a final decision on

whether to add a wetcleaning

instruction to the Rule.112 It was the

general sense of the participants that

this would be a desirable approach.113

Post-workshop comments confirmed

that wetcleaning is a growing and viable

technology for professional garment

care,114 and overwhelmingly supported

the idea that the rulemaking record

remain open on this issue for an

extended period of time. The Center for

Neighborhood Technology, for example,

reported that at the February 1999

meeting of the AATCC, steps were taken

to form a subcommittee to begin the

development of the necessary test

methods.115 Another conference

participant reported that the issue of

defining ‘‘professional wetcleaning’’ had

been placed on the ASTM D13.62

agenda.116 Nineteen of the 23 postworkshop comments that addressed the

timing question supported the idea of

keeping the rulemaking record open to

allow the relevant stakeholders a

reasonable interval of time to continue

the dialogue begun at the FTC’s

workshop.117 The other four

commenters believed the Commission

should amend the Care Labeling Rule

without delay so as not to hinder the

development of this ‘‘environmentally

friendly’’ cleaning technology.118

4. Commission Decision Not to Adopt

the Proposed Amendment and To Close

the Record

Based on the discussion of

professional wetcleaning at the

workshop, combined with the NPR

comments and the post-workshop

comments, the Commission has

concluded that it would be premature at

this time to amend the Rule to allow a

‘‘Professionally Wetclean’’ instruction.

The Commission believes that a final

definition of ‘‘professional wetcleaning’’

and an appropriate test method for the

process must be developed before the

Commission can amend the Rule to

permit a ‘‘Professionally Wetclean’’

instruction on required care labels.119

This is necessary in order to give

manufacturers clear guidance as to how

they may establish a reasonable basis for

a wetclean instruction. Currently,

manufacturers can test garments for

drycleaning by having them drycleaned

in perchloroethylene. They can test for

home washing by having them

laundered at various water

temperatures. In order to have a

reasonable basis for a ‘‘Professionally

Wetclean’’ instruction, manufacturers

would need to be able to subject the

garments to such a cleaning method. In

this case, however, the ‘‘method’’ may

encompass many different processes,

and the one chosen would depend in

large part on the particular cleaner. In

recommending a particular cleaning

method, manufacturers must have

assurance that the method they are

recommending—and for which they

have established a reasonable basis—is

the same method that cleaners actually

would use to clean the garment labeled

for that method. For this reason, a

definition of ‘‘professional

wetcleaning,’’ for purposes of amending

the Care Labeling Rule, must either

describe all important variables in the

process, so that manufacturers could

determine that their garments would not

be damaged by the process, or be

coupled with a specific test procedure

that manufacturers could use to

establish a reasonable basis.120

One workshop participant suggested

that a reasonable basis already exists in

the marketplace in the form of

wetcleaning being performed on a daily

basis by professional wetcleaners, and

that the Commission should add a

wetcleaning instruction to the Rule

while the definition and test are being

formally standardized.121 The

Neighborhood Cleaners Association

International suggested, in its NPR

comment, that the use of a computercontrolled washer and dryer is not

necessary and that it is the operator’s

knowledge of the chemistry of

wetcleaning and of fabrics, fibers, and

dyes that is determinative.122 It is not

clear how this body of knowledge could

be incorporated into a definition,

however, given that there is no way to

ensure that persons who attempt such

cleaning will have such knowledge. A

regional drycleaners association stated

that professional wetcleaning is an

emerging technology that ‘‘has yet to be

standardized.’’ 123

The Commission has concluded that

some level of standardization is

necessary before a ‘‘Professionally

Wetclean’’ instruction can be placed on

garments that are to be sold throughout

the entire country. The Commission is

encouraged by the fact that, during the

year since the workshop took place,

standards-setting organizations and

other interested participants in this

proceeding appear to have been working

independently to resolve these

outstanding issues. It appears, however,

that progress has been slow toward

developing a definition and test

procedure that would enable

manufacturers to have a reasonable

basis for a wetcleaning instruction.

The Commission has learned, for

example, that although AATCC is close

to a final definition for the wetcleaning

process, the draft definition appears to

be general enough in its terminology

that a test procedure would be needed

to complement it before manufacturers

could have a reasonable basis to

determine if their garments would

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 47273

124According to the Winter, 2000 volume of

Wetcleaning Update, published by the Center for

Neighborhood Technology, AATCC’s RA43

Committee on Professional Textile Care approved

the following definition for wetcleaning:

Professional Wetcleaning—A process for cleaning

sensitive textiles (e.g., wool, silk, rayon, linen) in

water by professionals using special technology,

detergents and additives to minimize the potential

for adverse effects. It is followed by appropriate

drying and restorative finishing procedures.

Wetcleaning Update reported that the Committee

on Textile Cleaning of the International Standards

Organization also is conducting a ballot on this

definition.

125As part of a project known as AQUACARB

(partially funded by the European Union), six

European research institutes are also attempting to

develop a test procedure for professional

wetcleaning. AATCC is coordinating its efforts with

AQUACARB , as well as with research efforts at

North Carolina State University. ‘‘Dynamics of

Change in Professional Garment Cleaning,’’ Textile

Chemist and Colorist & American Dyestuff Reporter,

December 1999, pp. 38, 41.

126Micell (PW–40) p. 1. 127EPA (PW–3) p. 2. While not specifically

referring to liquid carbon dioxide, Greenpeace (PW–

28) also commented, at p. 2, that it encouraged the

FTC ‘‘to find a way to streamline and accelerate the

proper labeling of these [new] processes’ and

suggested that environmental impact studies are a

good way ‘‘to objectively prioritize the value of

consumer technologies.’’

128 If such an instruction is to be the only

instruction on the care label, the Commission

would also inquire into the accessibility of the

method to consumers, who are accustomed to

garments that are labeled for one of two widely

available cleaning methods, washing or

drycleaning.

129P&G (34) p. 4.

130CNT (30) p. 2, (PW–26) p. 2. PWN (PW–15)

p. 1 and EFC9 (PW–37) p. 2 also supported a

‘‘Professionally Clean’’ label.

survive the process.124 If, as currently

seems to be the case with the AATCC

draft, the definition is not sufficiently

specific for a manufacturer to make such

a determination, there must be a test

procedure in place upon which

manufacturers can rely before the

Commission can amend the Rule in this

respect.

It is clear to the Commission that

additional time is necessary for

standards-setting organizations such as

AATCC or ASTM to develop a test

procedure.125 Given the fact that more

than one year has already elapsed since

the workshop, with development of

only a very general draft definition for

professional wetcleaning and no

agreement on an appropriate test

procedure, it appears unlikely that a

final test procedure will be established

in the near future.

Accordingly, the Commission is not

amending the Rule to include a

definition and instruction for

wetcleaning. If a more specific

definition and/or test procedure, which

would provide manufacturers with a

reasonable basis for a wetcleaning

instruction, is developed in the future,

the Commission will consider a

proposal to add such an instruction to

the Rule. In the meantime, the

Commission is concluding this

rulemaking proceeding.

III. Other Issues Raised in the

Comments and the Workshop

Other proposals introduced in the

comments or in the workshop included:

Care instructions for liquid carbon

dioxide; home fabric care instructions

for products such as Dryel; a

‘‘professionally clean’’ instruction; and

requiring specific dryer temperatures on

care labels. Neither the ANPR nor the

NPR afforded notice or solicited

comment about these issues; hence,

their inclusion in the rulemaking

proceeding at this final stage would be

inappropriate.

The use of liquid carbon dioxide as a

cleaning solvent is a new technique that

was introduced last year at one site in

the United States. Micell Technologies,

Inc. (‘‘Micell’’), the corporation that

developed this new technology and

launched it on February 9, 1999,

recommended that the Commission

require a care instruction for ‘‘Liquid

Carbon Dioxide Process.’’ 126 In its postworkshop comment, EPA urged the

Commission ‘‘to begin the process to

develop a standard definition and test

protocol, and eventually a ‘‘Liquid

Carbon Dioxide Process’’ care label

instruction requirement.’’ 127

As noted above, the Commission will

consider amending the Rule to

recognize a new technology for care

label purposes when there is a standard

definition of that technology, so that

manufacturers can give an instruction

for ‘‘Method X’’ with assurance that the

‘‘Method X’’ they are describing (and

which they have a reasonable basis to

believe will refurbish their garments

without damage) is the same ‘‘Method

X’’ that cleaners who attempt to clean

their garments are using.128 The

development of a standardized process

must precede the development of a

standardized definition, however, and

the standardization of a new technology

must, to a large extent, occur within the

industry that is offering the new

technology to the public. The

Commission can help articulate a

definition for a new technology when

the technology has progressed to a stage

where there is at least some

standardization of the process. It is not

within the Commission’s mandate,

however, to try to create demand for

new technologies that might be

environmentally desirable; nor does the

Commission have the expertise

necessary to evaluate the environmental

effects of such new technologies.

Procter & Gamble recommended that

the Commission modify the Rule to

permit manufacturers to include an

optional ‘‘home fabric care instruction’’

on labels of garments that could be

cleaned at home with the use of a

product such as Dryel, a new product

marketed by P&G. P&G described Dryel

as an ‘‘in-dryer ‘‘dryclean only’’ fabric

care product which offers the

consumers a convenient, safe and

inexpensive method for cleaning and

freshening garments at home.’’ P&G also

stated that it has developed test

methods for Dryel performance.129

The Commission does not believe it is

appropriate at this time to include in the

Rule provisions for labeling for products

such as Dryel. The only evidence the

record contains about Dryel is evidence

P&G submitted in response to the NPR.

Hence, inclusion of a labeling

instruction for products such as Dryel

would be premature. The product can

be offered to consumers regardless of

whether instructions for its use appear

on garment care labels. Indeed, if

garment manufacturers wish to

recommend the use of this type of

product on their garments, they are free

to do so as long as they have a

reasonable basis for whatever

recommendations they give consumers.

The Center for Neighborhood

Technology suggested that the

Commission consider a ‘‘Professionally

Clean’’ label, which would leave the

choice of solvent to the cleaner and

would encompass both wet and

drycleaning, along with future

technologies. It also stated that ‘‘if a

particular garment would not be

serviceable in a specific solvent, this

label could have an exclusion for that

solvent.’’ 130

The Commission does not believe it is

appropriate to include the option of a

‘‘Professionally Clean’’ label in the Rule

at this time. Currently, the Rule refers to

one method of professional cleaning—

drycleaning—and requires the

manufacturer to provide warnings when

the normal drycleaning process (as

defined in the Rule) must be modified

to prevent damage to the garment.

CNT’s proposal for a ‘‘Professionally

Clean’’ label would absolve the

manufacturer of the responsibility to

provide such warnings but would make

the manufacturer responsible for

warning that particular solvents could

not be used on the garment. In fact,

however, whether or not certain

drycleaning solvents can be used can

depend on whether or not warnings

(such as, for example, ‘‘short cycle’’) are

provided. The responsibility to provide

47274 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

131Consumers Union (21) p. 4.

132Pursuant to section 12(d)(1) and (3) of the

National Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995, P.L. 104–13, 110 Stat. 783, when

setting standards, federal agencies are required to

use ‘‘technical standards that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies’

except when use of such standards is ‘‘inconsistent

with other laws or otherwise impractical.’’

133The RFA addresses the impact of rules on

‘‘small entities,’’ defined as ‘‘small businesses,’’

‘‘small governmental entities,’’ and ‘‘small (not-forprofit) organizations,’’ 5 U.S.C. 601. The Rule does

not apply to the latter two types of entities.

134SBA’s revised small business size standards

are published at 61 FR 3280 (Jan. 31, 1996).

warnings as to how the normal

drycleaning process should be modified

for a particular garment is currently

placed on the manufacturer. This is

appropriate because, as the Commission

said when it amended the Rule in 1983,

the manufacturer, having chosen all the

components of a garment, would be able

to determine the ‘‘care traits of a given

item’’ and ‘‘professional drycleaners

may be unable to determine the

combination of fibers and finishes used

in a particular fabric and thus may not

be able to determine the appropriate

solvent and drycleaning procedure to be

followed.’’ 48 FR 22739.

Consumers Union recommended that

the Rule require specific dryer

temperatures (instead of ‘‘high,’’

‘‘medium,’’ and ‘‘low’’) on care labels

that recommend washing and machine

drying because there are no

standardized temperature definitions in

the dryer industry for these words.131

The Commission agrees that consumers

would benefit if the terms that appear

on clothes dryers—such as ‘‘high,’’

‘‘medium,’’ and ‘‘low’’—had

standardized definitions, and it urges

the industry to develop such definitions

through private standards-setting

organizations.132 At the present time,

the Commission does not believe that

requiring specific dryer temperatures on

care labels would be helpful to

consumers because consumers have no

way of knowing the temperature in their

clothes dryers.

IV. Regulatory Analysis and Regulatory

Flexibility Act Requirements

Under section 22 of the FTC Act, 15

U.S.C. 57b, the Commission must issue

a final regulatory analysis for

amendments to a rule only when it (1)

estimates that the amendments will

have an annual effect on the national

economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2)

estimates that the amendments will

cause a substantial change in the cost or

price of goods or services that are used

extensively by particular industries, that

are supplied extensively in particular

geographic regions, or that are acquired

in significant quantities by the federal

government, or by state or local

governments; or (3) otherwise

determines that the amendments will

have a significant effect upon covered

entities and upon consumers. A final

regulatory analysis is not required

because the Commission finds that the

amendments to the Rule will not have

such effects on the national economy,

on the cost of textile wearing apparel or

piece goods, or on covered businesses

and consumers.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–12, requires

agencies to conduct an analysis of the

anticipated economic impact of

proposed amendments on small

businesses.133 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.

The Care Labeling Rule covers

manufacturers and importers of textile

wearing apparel and certain piece

goods, and the Commission

preliminarily concluded in the NPR 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 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.134 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.

Nevertheless, for reasons stated in the

NPR, the Commission certified under

the RFA that the proposed amendments

to the Care Labeling Rule, if

promulgated, would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small businesses,

and concluded, therefore, that a

regulatory analysis was not necessary.

To ensure that no significant economic

impact was being overlooked, however,

the Commission requested comments on

this issue. The only commenters to

address this issue did so with respect to

the proposed amendment to require a

home wash instruction for garments that

can safely be washed at home ‘‘ a

proposal that the Commission has

decided not to adopt at the present time.

The comments addressed no issues

with regard to the impact of other

proposed amendments on small

businesses. The amendment to the

reasonable basis provision of the rule is

simply a clarification of the fact that the

manufacturer or importer must have a

reasonable basis for care instructions for

the garment as a whole, not simply for

the separate components. It does not

impose any significant additional

burden on covered entities. The

amendments to the Rule’s definitions of

‘‘cold,’’ ‘‘warm,’’ and ‘‘hot’’ simply

conform the Rule to standards currently

used in the textile industry and do not

impose any additional burdens on

manufacturers and importers. Therefore,

the Commission has determined that the

Rule will not have a significant impact

on a substantial number of small entities

and concludes that a regulatory

flexibility analysis is not required. In

light of the above, the Commission

certifies, under section 605 of the RFA,

5 U.S.C. 605, that the Rule amendments

adopted herein will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Rule contains 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. A notice

soliciting public comment on extending

the clearance for the Rule through

December 31, 2001, was published in

the Federal Register on October 6, 1999,

64 FR 54324. OMB subsequently

extended the clearance until December

31, 2001.

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 record keeping requirements.

The Rule also provides a procedure

whereby an industry member may

petition the Commission for an

exemption for products that are claimed

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 2, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 47275

135The proposed Environmental Assessment is

on the public record and is available for public

inspection at the Public Reference Room, Room

130, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania

Avenue, Washington, DC. It can also be obtained at

the FTC’s web site at http://www.ftc.gov on the

Internet.

136Consumers Union (21) p. 2.

137 Greenpeace (27) p. 3.

to be harmed in appearance by the

requirement for a permanent label. Such

petitions have been filed only rarely in

recent years.

In the NPR, the Commission

preliminarily concluded that the

proposed amendments to the Rule, if

enacted, would not increase the

paperwork burden associated with these

paperwork requirements. The

Commission stated that the proposed

amendment to change the numerical

definitions of the words ‘‘hot,’’ ‘‘warm,’’

or ‘‘cold,’’ when they appear on care

labels, would 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

would not be burdened with

determining what temperature ranges

should be included within the terms

‘‘hot,’’ ‘‘warm,’’ or ‘‘cold’’ because the

Rule would provide the appropriate

numerical temperatures. OMB

regulations, at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2),

provide that ‘‘the 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].’’

The Commission concludes on the

basis of the information now before it

that the amendments to the Care

Labeling Rule adopted herein will not

increase the paperwork burden

associated with Rule compliance.

VI. Environmental Assessment

In the NPR, the Commission noted

that it had prepared a proposed

Environmental Assessment in which it

analyzed whether the proposed

amendments to the Rule were required

to be accompanied by an Environmental

Impact Statement. Because the main

effect of the 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.135

In the NPR, the Commission

requested comment on this issue.

Consumers Union stated that it believed

the proposed amendment to permit

labeling for professional wetcleaning (as

opposed to requiring labeling for

professional wetcleaning) would be a

disincentive to the widespread adoption

and use of wetcleaning, and therefore

the Rule as proposed in the NPR would

require an environmental impact

statement for its potential negative

impacts on the increase of wetcleaning

technology.136 Greenpeace also stated

that an environmental impact statement

‘‘would be helpful in deciding how to

finally amend the proposed Care

Labeling Rule.’’ 137

The Commission has concluded that a

final Environmental Assessment and an

Environmental Impact Statement are not

necessary. The Commission is not

amending the Rule at this time to

include an instruction for professional

wetcleaning. Even if the Commission

were deciding to include professional

wetcleaning in the Rule, the main effect

of that decision would be to provide

consumers with additional information

rather than directly to affect the

environment. With respect to the final

amendments of the Rule that are

adopted herein, the Commission

concludes that there is no discernible

effect on the environment.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423

Clothing; Labeling, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements; Textiles;

Trade practices.

VII. Final Amendments

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Commission amends title 16, chapter I,

subchapter D of the Code of Federal

Regulations, as follows:

PART 423—CARE LABELING OF

TEXTILE WEARING APPAREL AND

CERTAIN PIECE GOODS AS

AMENDED

1. The authority for part 423

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 Stat. 717, as amended; (15

U.S.C. 41, et seq.)

2. In § 423.1, the last sentence of

paragraph (d) is revised to read as

follows:

§ 423.1 Definitions.

* * * * *

(d) * * * When no temperature is

given, e.g., warm or cold, hot water up

to 145 degrees F (63 degrees C) can be

regularly used.

3. In § 423.6, paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and

(c)(3) are revised to read as follows:

§ 423.6 Textile wearing apparel.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(i) Washing. 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, or hot—that may be

used. However, if the regular use of hot

water up to 145 degrees F (63 degrees

C) will not harm the product, the label

need not mention any water

temperature. [For example, Machine

wash means hot, warm or cold water

can be used.]

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(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; or

* * * * *

4. In Appendix A to Part 423—

Glossary of Standard Terms, paragraphs

1.d. through 1.o. are redesignated as

paragraphs 1.e. through 1.p., paragraphs

1.a. through 1.c. are revised, and a new

paragraph 1.d. is added to read as

follows:

Appendix A to Part 423—Glossary of

Standard Terms

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,’’

hot water up to 145 degrees F (63 degrees C)

can be regularly used.

b. ‘‘Hot’’—initial water temperature

ranging from 112 to 145 degrees F [45 to 63

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].

* * * * *

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–19491 Filed 8–1–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 30

RIN 3038–AB46

Exemption From Registration for

Certain Foreign FCMs and IBs

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Final rules.