58338 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

compliance times specified, unless the 

actions have already been done. 

(g) Inspection 

At the later of the times specified in 

paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD: 

Inspect to identify the part number and serial 

number of the airplane’s forward and aft 

cargo doors, as applicable to MSN, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service 

Bulletin A330–52–3083, dated May 31, 2011 

(for Model A330 airplanes); or Airbus 

Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–52–4093, 

dated May 31, 2011 (for Model A340 

airplanes). A review of airplane maintenance 

records is acceptable in lieu of this 

inspection if the part number and serial 

number of the door can be conclusively 

determined from that review. 

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 7,400 total 

flight cycles, or 72 months after the airplane’s 

first flight, whichever occurs first. 

(2) Within 60 days after the effective date 

of this AD. 

(h) Replacement 

If, during the inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, the part number and 

serial number of the airplane’s forward and/ 

or aft cargo doors, as applicable to airplane 

MSN, are identified in Airbus Mandatory 

Service Bulletin A330–52–3083, dated May 

31, 2011 (for Model A330 airplanes); or 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–52– 

4093, dated May 31, 2011 (for Model A340 

airplanes): Before further flight, replace the 

affected door with a new or serviceable door, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Airbus Mandatory Service 

Bulletin A330–52–3083, dated May 31, 2011; 

or Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340– 

52–4093, dated May 31, 2011; as applicable. 

(i) Repair 

If, during the inspection required by 

paragraph (g) of this AD, there is any 

discrepancy between the installed forward 

and/or aft cargo doors part/serial number and 

the airplane MSN, as that part/serial number 

and MSN are identified in Airbus Mandatory 

Service Bulletin A330–52–3083, dated May 

31, 2011 (for Model A330 airplanes); or 

Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin A340–52– 

4093, dated May 31, 2011 (for Model A340 

airplanes): Within 10 days after 

accomplishing the inspection, contact the 

FAA, or the European Aviation Safety 

Agency (EASA) (or its delegated agent), for 

further instructions and time limits, and 

accomplish those instructions within the 

specified time limits. 

(j) Parts Installation Prohibition 

As of the effective date of this AD, no 

person may install on any airplane a forward 

or aft cargo door that was removed from any 

airplane as required by paragraph (h) of this 

AD. 

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, FAA, has the authority to 

approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 

In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your 

request to your principal inspector or local 

Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: 

Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, 

International Branch, ANM–116, Transport 

Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057– 

3356; telephone (425) 227–1138; fax (425) 

227–1149. Information may be emailed to: 9- 

ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. 

Before using any approved AMOC, notify 

your appropriate principal inspector, or 

lacking a principal inspector, the manager of 

the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. The AMOC 

approval letter must specifically reference 

this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(l) Related Information 

Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness 

Directive 2011–0177, dated September 15, 

2011 (corrected September 28, 2011), and the 

service information identified in paragraphs 

(l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD, for related 

information. 

(1) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A330–52–3083, dated May 31, 2011. 

(2) Airbus Mandatory Service Bulletin 

A340–52–4093, dated May 31, 2011. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 6, 2012. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–23147 Filed 9–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 423 

Trade Regulation Rule on Care 

Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel 

and Certain Piece Goods 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Based on comments received 

in response to its Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’), the 

Federal Trade Commission proposes to 

amend its trade regulation rule on Care 

Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel 

and Certain Piece Goods as Amended 

(‘‘Rule’’) to: Allow garment 

manufacturers and marketers to include 

instructions for professional 

wetcleaning on labels; permit the use of 

ASTM Standard D5489–07, ‘‘Standard 

Guide for Care Symbols for Care 

Instructions on Textile Products,’’ or 

ISO 3758:2005(E), ‘‘Textiles—Care 

labelling code using symbols,’’ in lieu of 

terms; clarify what can constitute a 

reasonable basis for care instructions; 

and update the definition of ‘‘dryclean.’’ 

In addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on several other issues. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 16, 

2012. Parties interested in an 

opportunity to present views orally 

should submit a request to do so as 

explained below, and such requests 

must be received on or before November 

16, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a 

comment online or on paper by 

following the instructions in the 

Request for Comment part of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below. Write ‘‘Care Labeling Rule, 16 

CFR Part 423, Project No. R511915’’ on 

your comment, and file your comment 

online at https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

carelabelingnprm by following the 

instructions on the Web-based form. If 

you prefer to file your comment on 

paper, mail or deliver your comment to 

the following address: Federal Trade 

Commission, Office of the Secretary, 

Room H–113 (Annex B), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20580. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert M. Frisby, Attorney, Federal 

Trade Commission, Division of 

Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20580, (202) 326– 

2098. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Commission finds that using expedited 

procedures in this rulemaking will serve 

the public interest. Specifically, they 

support the Commission’s goals of 

clarifying and updating existing 

regulations without undue expenditure 

of resources, while ensuring that the 

public has an opportunity to submit 

data, views, and arguments on whether 

the Commission should amend the Rule. 

Because written comments should 

adequately present the views of all 

interested parties, the Commission is 

not scheduling a public hearing or 

workshop. However, if any person 

would like to present views orally, he or 

she should follow the procedures set 

forth in the DATES, ADDRESSES, and 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of 

this document. Pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20, 

the Commission will use the procedures 

set forth in this document, including: (1) 

Publishing this Notice of Proposed 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58339 

1 16 CFR 423.5 and 423.6(a) and (b). 

2 16 CFR 423.6(c). 

3The Rule provides that the symbol system 

developed by ASTM International, formerly the 

American Society for Testing and Materials, and 

designated as ASTM Standard D5489–96c ‘‘Guide 

to Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Consumer 

Textile Products’’ may be used on care labels or 

care instructions in lieu of terms so long as the 

symbols fulfill the requirements of Part 423. 16 CFR 

423.8(g). 

4 Federal Trade Commission: Care Labeling of 

Textile Wearing Apparel: Promulgation of Trade 

Rule and Statement of Basis and Purpose, 36 FR 

23883 (Dec. 16, 1971). 

5 Federal Trade Commission: Amendment to 

Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Care Labeling of 

Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods, 

48 FR 22733 (May 20, 1983). 

6 Federal Trade Commission: Concerning Trade 

Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile 

Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods; 

Conditional Exemption from Terminology Section 

of the Care Labeling Rule, 62 FR 5724 (Feb. 6, 

1997). 

7 Federal Trade Commission: Trade Regulation 

Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel 

and Certain Piece Goods, Final Amended Rule, 65 

FR 47261 (Aug. 2, 2000). 

8 Id. at 47269. 

9The Commission proposed a definition of 

professional wetcleaning, stating, in part, that it is 

‘‘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 manmade fibers.’’ Id. at 47271 n. 99. 

10 Id. at 47272. The Commission explained that 

the definition must either describe all important 

variables in the process, so that manufacturers can 

determine that the process would not damage the 

garment, or be coupled with a specific test 

procedure that manufacturers can use to establish 

a reasonable basis for the instruction. Id. 

11 Id. at 47273. 

12 Federal Trade Commission: Trade Regulation 

Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel 

and Certain Piece Goods, Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking; request for comment, 76 FR 

41148 (July 13, 2011). 

13The Commission publishes this NPRM 

pursuant to Section 18 of the Federal Trade 

Commission Act (‘‘FTC Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 57a et seq., 

the provisions of Part 1, Subpart B of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 1.7, and 5 

U.S.C. 551 et seq. This authority permits the 

Commission to promulgate, modify, and repeal 

trade regulation rules that define with specificity 

acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive in or 

affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 

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

14The comments are posted at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/comments/carelabelinganpr/ 

index.shtm. The Commission has assigned each 

comment a number appearing after the name of the 

commenter and the date of submission. This notice 

cites comments using the last name of the 

individual submitter or the name of the 

organization, followed by the number assigned by 

the Commission. 

15Three California agencies filed comments: The 

Air Resources Board (18), Department of Toxic 

Substances Control (123), and the San Francisco 

Department of the Environment (89). 

16ASTM International (‘‘ASTM’’) (111) and 

GINETEX (83), which is responsible for the care 

labeling system used in European countries. 

17The Coalition for Clean Air (119), the Toxic Use 

Reduction Institute (86), and the UCLA Sustainable 

Technology & Policy Program (84). 

18Miele (108), Miele & Cie. KG (110), The 

Children’s Place (90), and The Clorox Company 

(122). 

19The Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers (‘‘AHAM’’) (114), American Apparel 

& Footwear Association (113), Professional Wet 

Cleaners Association (‘‘PWA’’) (73) and (102), 

Association of Wedding Gown Specialists 

(‘‘AWGS’’) (22), National Cleaners Association and 

Drycleaning & Laundry Institute (124), Professional 

Leather Cleaners Association (‘‘PLCA’’) (109), 

International Drycleaners Congress (‘‘IDC’’) (47), 

and Textile Industry Affairs (112). 

20 GINETEX argued that the Rule should not be 

mandatory for textile and apparel companies 

because a voluntary scheme would adapt in a 

timely manner to technical and environmental 

developments as well as innovations, while 

adjustments to mandatory rules are very 

cumbersome to implement. It also argued that 

national rules not in line with international 

standards can create a nontariff barrier to trade, and 

that the ASTM standard creates an unnecessary 

obstacle to international trade. A retailer argued 

that the time and effort spent on labels required by 

the Rule does not really serve the ultimate goal of 

educating consumers on laundering habits. 

Kambam (4). 

Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’); (2) soliciting 

written comments on the Commission’s 

proposals to amend the Rule; (3) 

holding an informal hearing (such as a 

workshop) if requested by interested 

parties; (4) obtaining a final 

recommendation from staff; and (5) 

announcing final Commission action in 

a document published in the Federal 

Register. Any motions or petitions in 

connection with this proceeding must 

be filed with the Secretary of the 

Commission. 

I. Introduction 

The Rule makes it an unfair or 

deceptive act or practice for 

manufacturers and importers of textile 

wearing apparel and certain piece goods 

to sell these items without attaching 

labels stating the care needed for the 

ordinary use of the product.1 The Rule 

also requires that the manufacturer or 

importer possess, prior to sale, a 

reasonable basis for care instructions 2

and allows the use of approved care 

symbols in lieu of words to disclose 

those instructions.3

The Commission promulgated the 

Rule in 1971 and has amended it three 

times since.4 In 1983, the Commission 

clarified its requirements regarding the 

disclosure of washing and drycleaning 

information.5 In 1997, the Commission 

adopted a conditional exemption to 

allow the use of symbols in lieu of 

words.6 In 2000, the Commission 

amended the Rule to clarify what 

constitutes a reasonable basis for care 

instructions and to change the Rule’s 

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

‘‘hot’’ water.7

In 2000, the Commission rejected two 

proposed amendments. First, the 

Commission did not require labels with 

instructions for home washing on items 

that one can safely wash at home, 

because the evidence was not 

sufficiently compelling to justify this 

change and the benefits of the proposed 

change were highly uncertain.8 Second, 

the Commission did not establish a 

definition for ‘‘professional 

wetcleaning’’ or permit manufacturers 

to label a garment with a ‘‘Professionally 

Wetclean’’ instruction.9 The 

Commission stated that it was 

premature to allow such an instruction 

before the development of a suitable 

definition and an appropriate test 

method 10 and added that it would 

consider such an instruction if a more 

specific definition and/or test procedure 

were developed.11

As part of its ongoing regulatory 

review program, the Commission 

published an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’) in July 

2011 seeking comment on the economic 

impact of, and the continuing need for, 

the Rule; the benefits of the Rule to 

consumers; and the burdens the Rule 

places on businesses.12 The ANPR also 

sought comment on whether and how 

the Rule should address professional 

wetcleaning and updated industry 

standards regarding the use of care 

symbols, as well as whether the 

Commission should address nonEnglish disclosures. 

This NPRM summarizes the 

comments received by the Commission, 

explains the Commission’s decision to 

retain the Rule, proposes several 

amendments to the Rule, and explains 

why the Commission has declined to 

propose certain amendments.13 It also 

poses questions soliciting additional 

comment and provides a regulatory 

analysis as well as analyses under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. Finally, the 

NPRM sets forth the Commission’s 

proposed Rule language. 

II. Summary of Comments 

The Commission received 120 

comments in response to the ANPR.14

Most were filed by individuals. At least 

70 of these individuals identified 

themselves as owning or operating a 

cleaning business or working in the 

drycleaning or wetcleaning industries. 

The Commission also received 

comments from government agencies,15

industry standard-setting 

organizations,16 environmental 

advocacy organizations,17

manufacturers and retailers,18 and trade 

associations representing industries 

affected by the Rule.19

All but two of the numerous 

comments that addressed retention of 

the Rule favored it.20 Comments from 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58340 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

21AHAM urged the Commission to gather data on 

consumer knowledge and the availability of 

wetcleaning before amending the Rule to address it. 

AHAM (114). One commenter stated that 

wetcleaning is not a viable alternative to 

drycleaning. Enderlin (63). PLCA did not take a 

position on wetcleaning, but noted that there are 

not enough cleaners trained in wetcleaning. PLCA 

(109). 

22San Francisco Department of the Environment 

(89). This comment included a chart showing the 

results of its analysis. 23Toxic Use Reduction Institute (86). 24 Id. 25 Id. The California Department of Toxic 

Substances Control also explained the 

environmental problems caused by perc. (123). 26Air Resources Board (18) and NCA and DLI 

(24). 27E.g., Addison (81); Bohnet (80); Chung (70); and 

Xu (101). 28One comment explained that the absence of 

wetcleaning labels limits cleaners in offering the 

best process when it comes to cleaning performance 

(e.g., water-soluble stains) or fabric-related cleaning 

processes (e.g., polyurethane). Miele & Cie. KG 

(110). A comment from a cleaner noted that some 

stains can be removed only with water. Kaplan (57). 

Another comment stated that wetcleaning is a 

necessary method for certain combinations of soil 

and fabric. Riggs (53). 

29NCA and DLI (124). 

30Press on Cleaners (120). 

31Patterson (14). 

32Coalition for Clean Air (119). 

33Chang and PWA (73) and Sim (116). Another 

comment stated that there are over 120 professional 

wetcleaners in California that clean over 250,000 

pieces of garments across the state daily. Press on 

Cleaners (120). 

34Miele (108). 

35 Id. 

36Peltier (43). 

37Behzadi (69). 

the apparel manufacturing and cleaning 

industries uniformly supported the 

Rule. For example, the American 

Apparel & Footwear Association 

(‘‘AAFA’’) stated that the labels benefit 

consumers, manufacturers, and business 

in general, as they allow for the 

necessary flow of information along the 

commodity chain. Similarly, the 

National Cleaners Association (‘‘NCA’’) 

and the Drycleaning & Laundry Institute 

(‘‘DLI’’) stated that the Rule provides 

valuable guidance on care to consumers 

and industry. Textile Industry Affairs 

(‘‘TIA’’) noted that the Rule has 

generated dramatic benefits to both 

consumers and manufacturers, and that 

no apparel manufacturers that have 

complied with the Rule have ever 

reported any negative consumer impact. 

While the comments indicate 

widespread support for the Rule, most 

argued that the Commission should 

update or expand it in various ways. In 

particular, many comments urged the 

Commission to address professional 

wetcleaning by either requiring or 

allowing manufacturers to disclose a 

wetcleaning instruction. Still others 

urged the Commission to update the 

Rule’s provisions allowing the use of 

care symbols by incorporating the latest 

ASTM or International Organization for 

Standardization (‘‘ISO’’) care symbol 

standards, allowing manufacturers to 

follow either standard, or adopting new 

symbols for professional cleaning. 

Several comments requested 

clarification of the Rule’s reasonable 

basis provisions or imposition of testing 

requirements on manufacturers. Others 

advocated updating the definition of 

‘‘dryclean’’ and the Appendix to reflect 

the development of new solvents and 

cleaning technologies and practices. 

Some comments urged the Commission 

to require manufacturers to disclose all 

appropriate methods of care on labels. 

Further, some comments urged the 

Commission to amend the Rule to 

require the disclosure of additional 

information such as fiber content or 

more detailed care instructions, to 

disallow certain instructions currently 

permitted by the Rule, or to impose 

additional obligations. Several 

comments addressed disclosures made 

in multiple languages. 

A. Professional Wetcleaning 

Slightly more than half of the 120 

comments received by the Commission 

stated or implied that the Commission 

should permit, or require, a professional 

wetcleaning instruction on garments 

that can be wetcleaned. Wetcleaning is 

an alternative to drycleaning and 

involves professionals cleaning 

products in water using special 

technology (cleaning, rinsing, and 

spinning), detergents, and additives to 

minimize adverse effects, followed by 

appropriate drying and restorative 

finishing procedures. Of the comments 

addressing this issue, only three 

expressed concerns.21 Comments 

favoring a wetcleaning instruction made 

several arguments in support of their 

position. 

First, they touted the economic, 

health, and environmental benefits of 

wetcleaning. For example, based on its 

analysis of scientific literature on the 

health and environmental impacts of 

drycleaning solvents, and its review of 

operational costs and compliancerelated impacts, the San Francisco 

Department of the Environment 

determined that professional 

wetcleaning is the most 

environmentally-preferable professional 

cleaning option.22 The Toxic Use 

Reduction Institute stated that the 

benefits from professional wetcleaning 

include decreased use of energy and 

water, significant air quality 

improvement in the shop, and improved 

employee health and satisfaction.23 It 

explained that over 80% of the U.S. 

professional garment cleaning industry 

uses perchloroethylene (‘‘perc’’), and 

that studies have identified ecological 

and human health hazards associated 

with its use.24 It added that the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health has recommended handling perc 

as a human carcinogen, and the 

Environmental Protection Agency has 

classified it as a probable human 

carcinogen.25 Two comments noted 

that, starting in 2023, California 

drycleaners can no longer use perc.26 A 

number of others favored wetcleaning 

due to concerns about using toxic or 

unhealthy drycleaning solvents.27

Others noted that wetcleaning can 

produce better results than drycleaning 

in some circumstances.28

Second, several comments explained 

that the number of cleaners providing 

professional wetcleaning has increased 

and that consumers increasingly use or 

prefer it. Two trade associations 

reported that professional wetcleaning 

is now widespread in the industry.29

Another stated that wetcleaning has 

been steadily growing in the United 

States for over a decade.30 Yet another 

explained that professional wetcleaning 

has come a long way in the last few 

years, and that many traditionally 

drycleaned garments can be wetcleaned 

with good results.31

Several comments provided data on 

the number of cleaners providing 

wetcleaning and the number of 

garments they clean. For example, one 

comment stated that over 200 perc 

drycleaners in California have switched 

to wetcleaning and successfully cleaned 

the full range of garments they 

previously drycleaned.32 Two 

comments noted the success of well 

over 120 professional wetcleaners in 

California who clean over 75 million 

garment pieces annually.33 Another 

explained that there are hundreds of 

professional wetcleaners in the United 

States who use only water and soap to 

clean all garments presented to them.34

This comment also indicated that there 

are 80 Miele professional wetcleaners in 

California, and that they process four 

million articles of clothing a year.35

Other comments cited the experience 

of individual cleaners that increasingly 

replace drycleaning with wetcleaning. 

For example, one comment from a 

cleaning business stated that 

wetcleaning is becoming common, and 

that it wetcleans approximately 65%– 

80% of the clothes it washes.36 Another 

commenter stated that it wetcleans 

100% of garments and that the 

instruction ‘‘dryclean only’’ has lost its 

meaning.37

Several comments noted the 

development of industry standard care 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58341 

38UCLA Sustainable Technology & Policy 

Program (84); Toxic Use Reduction Institute (86); 

and Riggs (53). See ASTM D5489–07, ‘‘Standard 

Guide for Care Symbols for Care Instructions on 

Textile Products,’’ and ISO 3758:2005(E), 

‘‘Textiles—Care labelling code using symbols.’’ 

39UCLA Sustainable Technology & Policy 

Program (84); Toxic Use Reduction Institute (86); 

and Riggs (53). ISO 3175–4:2003, ‘‘Textiles— 

Professional care, drycleaning and wetcleaning of 

fabrics and garments—Part 4: Procedure for testing 

performance when cleaning and finishing using 

simulated wetcleaning.’’ 

40E.g., Miele (108) and San Francisco Department 

of the Environment (89). Another comment argued 

that labeling garments ‘‘Dry Clean’’ or ‘‘Dry Clean 

Only’’ even though they can be successfully 

wetcleaned is unfair to professional wetcleaners. If 

a consumer prefers to dryclean such garments, the 

wetcleaner faces the prospect of losing the business 

or deceiving the consumer by wetcleaning instead 

of drycleaning such garments. The dilemma of 

either lying to the customer or potentially losing 

business makes professional wetcleaning 

unappealing to many drycleaners. PWA (102). 

41E.g., Anonymous (106); Bromagen (91); Draper 

(100); Eldridge (46); Evans (67); Fox (107); Hagearty 

(61); NCA and DLI (124); Overmoe (66); Preece (54); 

Raggi (30); San Francisco Department of the 

Environment (89); Tebbs (47); Toxic Use Reduction 

Institute (86); UCLA Sustainable Technology & 

Policy Program (84). 

42E.g., NCA and DLI (124) and San Francisco 

Department of the Environment (89). 

43UCLA Sustainable Technology & Policy 

Program (84). 

44 Id. 

45 Id. 

46 Id. 

47NCA and DLI (124). 

48Riggs (53). 

49Huie (71). 

50Textile Industry Affairs (112). 

51E.g., Air Resources Board (18); Bosshard (13); 

Chang (88); Santana (12); and Schoeplein (27). 

52The Clorox Company (122). 

53 Id. 

54Two commenters stated that they do not like 

the use of symbols. Charles (3) and Vlasits (6). 

Other comments urged the Commission to require 

care symbols on all textile products. Fox (107) and 

Old Town Dry Cleaners (56). 

55Textile Industry Affairs (112). 

56 Id. 

57ASTM (111); Evans (67); and The Children’s 

Place (90). Another comment argued that the Rule 

should keep pace with developments in the ASTM 

system, and that the biggest challenge with symbols 

is educating the consumer. NCA and DLI (124). It 

advised that care symbols are not prevalent in the 

United States. Id. 

58ASTM (111). 

59 Id. 

60Preece (54) and Yazdani (78). 

61Professional Leather Cleaners Association 

(109). 

62AHAM (114); American Apparel & Footwear 

Association (113); Draper (100); GINETEX (83); 

Johnson (50); O’Connor (20); Textile Industry 

Affairs (112); and The Clorox Company (122). 

symbols for wetcleaning. Indeed, ASTM 

and ISO have adopted consistent care 

symbols for professional wetcleaning.38

ISO has also issued a standard on 

testing garments to determine whether 

they can be wetcleaned.39

Finally, several comments argued that 

the Rule’s failure to address wetcleaning 

places professional wetcleaners and 

equipment vendors at a competitive 

disadvantage and discourages greater 

use of wetcleaning.40

The comments urging the 

Commission to amend the Rule to 

address wetcleaning differ on whether 

the Commission should require a 

wetcleaning instruction or merely 

permit one. Moreover, many urge the 

Commission to address wetcleaning 

without specifying exactly how. Of 

those comments taking a position, the 

vast majority favored amending the Rule 

to require a professional wetcleaning 

instruction if the garment can be 

wetcleaned.41 Comments argued that 

requiring the instruction would provide 

consumers and cleaners with more and 

better options, and produce various 

benefits as more consumers choose 

wetcleaning.42 One comment expressed 

concern that failing to require an 

instruction might result in most 

manufacturers choosing not to disclose 

that wetcleaning is a viable option, 

thereby deceiving customers and 

treating wetcleaners unfairly.43

In addition, several commenters that 

do not appear to manufacture or market 

apparel argued that the benefits of 

requiring a wetcleaning instruction 

would exceed the added labeling and 

testing costs to manufacturers. One 

comment explained that the vast 

majority of manufacturers use 

experience and expertise to determine 

the care label.44 It added that, because 

experience and expertise are free or 

virtually free, the economic impact of 

requiring a wetclean label likely is de 

minimus.45 It further explained that 

most manufacturers test garments by 

sending them to established cleaners 

and use in-house staff to evaluate results 

and that this method requires no capital 

equipment cost and only a marginal 

cost.46 DLI and NCA advised that they 

currently provide care label guidance to 

garment manufacturers and that the 

average cost to provide appropriate and 

comprehensive washing, drycleaning 

and wetcleaning instructions would be 

under $1,400.47 Another comment 

noted that testing is not that expensive 

and would not lead to a large increase 

in the cost of an item and that any extra 

costs would fall as universal testing 

reduces testing costs per item.48

A smaller number of comments 

indicated that they favored amending 

the Rule to permit, but not require, a 

wetcleaning instruction. One comment 

argued that allowing the instruction on 

labeling will reconfirm to the public 

that this method is accepted and safe 

and encourage manufacturers to 

produce more garments that do not need 

to be cleaned in a solvent.49 Another 

supported permitting a wetcleaning 

instruction by amending the symbol sets 

to include wetcleaning because there 

appears to be expert consensus that 

clear testing protocols exist to verify its 

safety, and stated that the consumer and 

environmental benefits of wetcleaning 

are worthy of consideration.50

Many comments simply urged the 

Commission to address wetcleaning 

without specifying how.51 For example, 

one comment stated that the 

Commission seriously should consider 

adding wetcleaning because of its 

consumer and environmental benefits.52

It also explained that, with the 

development of ISO standards, there 

now appear to be consensus testing 

protocols to verify a safe care process.53

B. Use of Care Symbols 

With a few exceptions, the comments 

addressing the use of symbols to 

provide care instructions favored their 

continued use.54 One comment stated 

that the current FTC-approved symbols 

do a good job of covering most of the 

home and professional care needs in the 

United States.55 It therefore did not 

advocate modifying any of the symbols, 

as consumers are just now becoming 

familiar with them.56 Several 

comments, however, advocated 

modifying the Rule to refer to the most 

recent version of the ‘‘Standard Guide 

for Care Symbols for Care Instructions 

on Textile Products,’’ ASTM D5489, 

instead of the older version of the 

ASTM standard currently referenced.57

One comment urged the Commission to 

exclude the standard’s date; it explained 

that ASTM D5489–07 is the most recent 

standard and that, by not designating 

the year, the Commission can ensure 

that the most recent standard is used.58

It added that D 5489–07 is an 

international standard as defined by the 

WTO TBT Agreement, and that, as a 

signatory to this agreement, the United 

States is pledged to use international 

standards as the basis for technical 

regulations when possible.59 Others 

urged the Commission to address the 

development of ASTM symbols without 

indicating how it should do so.60

Another explained that it would be very 

helpful if the care instructions on 

foreign and domestic labels were in 

agreement or, at a minimum, contained 

ASTM symbols.61

A number of comments expressed 

support for harmonizing the ASTM 

symbols allowed under the Rule with 

those used internationally.62 One 

comment favoring harmonization 

concluded that the Rule prevents a 

global ISO Standard and that ISO 

symbols should supplant ASTM 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58342 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

63 GINETEX (83). 

64 Id. 

65Riggs (53). 

66 Id. 

67American Apparel & Footwear Association 

(113) and The Children’s Place (90). 

68American Apparel & Footwear Association 

(113). 

69 Id. 

70The Children’s Place (90). 

71Cote (58); Horrigan (17); Thorsteinson (45); and 

Yazdani (78). 

72UCLA Sustainable Technology & Policy 

Program (84); White (15); and GINETEX (83). As 

noted above, GINETEX argued that the ISO symbols 

should supplant the ASTM symbols. 

73Textile Industry Affairs (112). 

74 Id. 

75 GreenEarth Cleaning (98) at 2. 76 Id. at 2–3. 77 Id. at 2. 78 Id. at 4. 79 Id. at 2–3. 

80 Id. at 2. 

81 Id. 

82 Id. 

83 Id. at 3. 

84Raggi (30). 

85Santana (12). 86NCA and DLI (124). 87Textile Industry Affairs (112) and The Clorox 

Company (122). They stated that disclosing an 

instruction based on ‘‘unreasonable’’ and 

‘‘possible’’ fabric impact is not an acceptable 

instruction or warning. 

88 Id. 

89The Clorox Company (122). 

90Behzadi (69). 

91NCA and DLI (124). 

92 Id. 

93 Id. 

94 Id. 

symbols.63 It explained that the ASTM 

and the ISO symbols are similar but not 

the same and that ISO symbols are used 

in every country except South Korea, 

Japan, and the United States (and that 

Japan is working on harmonizing ISO 

and the JIC standards that apply in 

Japan).64 Another favored one set of 

worldwide symbols and explained that 

the ISO recommends a complete set of 

care symbols, including washing, 

bleaching, ironing, drying, and 

professional care.65 It added that these 

symbols are consistent with those 

developed by ASTM.66 Some comments 

argued that harmonizing symbols would 

also address problems stemming from 

label disclosures in multiple 

languages.67 One of these comments 

favored harmonization but argued that, 

as an alternative, the Rule should allow 

manufacturers to use either ASTM or 

ISO symbols in the United States, to 

relieve some of the burden and increase 

the accessibility of global trade.68 It 

stated that differences among the 

symbol systems cause confusion and 

limit the opportunities for trade 

growth.69 Another comment proposed 

that the Rule provide for or recognize 

agreements between the United States 

and other countries to accept 

international and national care label 

symbol systems currently in use in the 

global marketplace.70

Still others favored acceptance of ISO 

or internationally-accepted symbols 

without addressing the ASTM 

symbols.71 Three comments urged the 

Commission to adopt or accept the ISO 

standard.72 One supported adding to the 

symbols in cases where there are clear 

testing protocols to verify the safety of 

a care process.73 It explained that, in the 

case of wetcleaning, there appears to be 

expert consensus that a new test does 

just that.74

GreenEarth Cleaning (‘‘GreenEarth’’) 

advocated a different approach to 

disclosing professional cleaning 

instructions. It argued that the ASTM 

and ISO professional cleaning symbols 

are inadequate because they are based 

on particular solvents rather than 

solvent characteristics.75 It explained 

that the increasing number of solvents 

and advances in technology call for an 

approach addressing solvent 

aggressiveness (cleaning method) and 

mechanical action (cycle); it proposed 

that a Kauri-Butanol Value (‘‘KBV’’) of 

35 or less be designated as ‘‘gentle’’ and 

that a ‘‘fragile’’ or ‘‘very fragile’’ 

instruction be provided for items 

needing minimized mechanical 

action.76 It stated that the KBV is widely 

recognized in the textile care industry as 

having the greatest influence on the 

processing of textiles.77 This comment 

further argued that there is a direct 

correlation between propensity for 

garment damage and a higher solvent 

KBV.78 GreenEarth proposed specific 

cleaning method and cycle symbols to 

replace the current ASTM and ISO 

symbols and urged the Commission to 

make every effort to implement simple, 

consistent international symbols that 

can be universally interpreted to ensure 

the best care for garments.79 No other 

comment favored this proposal. 

In addition to proposing new 

symbols, GreenEarth advocated parallel 

changes to the ‘‘overarching 

nomenclature and the guiding 

principle’’ behind the Rule, to improve 

the reliability and understandability of 

care labels.80 Specifically, it proposed 

replacing the instructions ‘‘dry clean,’’ 

‘‘do not dry clean,’’ ‘‘wetclean,’’ and ‘‘do 

not wetclean’’ with simplified categories 

of ‘‘cleaning method’’ and ‘‘cycle.’’ It 

also proposed that ‘‘cleaning method’’ 

would encompass all types of 

professional cleaning, including 

wetcleaning, and ‘‘cycle’’ would address 

the level of mechanical action.81 As 

with its proposed symbols, GreenEarth 

would classify cleaning methods based 

on solvent aggressiveness rather than 

solvent type.82 For the ‘‘cycle’’ category, 

GreenEarth would replace ‘‘mild’’ and 

‘‘very mild’’ with ‘‘fragile’’ and ‘‘very 

fragile.’’ 83

Two comments addressed the 

presentation of symbols. One argued 

that the current system works well, but 

that some uniformity regarding location, 

size, composition, and font size would 

greatly help the industry.84 Another 

comment proposed attaching the 

international care label symbols to the 

garments in a small, removable brochure 

or paper, or in an online link address for 

such information.85

C. The Rule’s Reasonable Basis 

Provisions 

Four comments argued that the 

Commission should clarify or 

strengthen the Rule’s provision 

requiring manufacturers to have a 

reasonable basis for care instructions. 

One urged the Commission to 

strengthen the reasonable basis 

requirements and hold manufacturers 

accountable to individual consumers for 

inappropriate care instructions.86 Two 

argued that the Commission should 

clarify the reasonable basis provisions 

because some non-compliant parties 

appear to be misinformed or to 

misunderstand the requirement.87 They 

suggested that the Commission request 

fresh data from manufacturers regarding 

their reasonable basis for their current 

care instructions.88 One of them argued 

that, given standardized testing (e.g., 

ASTM methodology) for colorfastness 

and garment integrity (e.g., tensile 

strength), the Commission should 

require actual data to support care 

instructions.89 Another comment 

favored requiring manufacturers to test 

products with all available processes, 

including wetcleaning.90

D. Rule Definitions and Appendix 

Several comments urged the 

Commission to update the Rule’s 

definition of ‘‘dryclean,’’ as well as the 

Appendix. One comment urged the 

Commission to adopt a broader 

definition of ‘‘dryclean.’’ 91 It explained 

that, 25 years ago, only two solvents 

were widely used—perc and 

petroleum.92 It added that now there are 

many solvents, including high flash 

hydrocarbons, silicones, glycol ethers, 

carbon dioxide, aldehydes, and 

wetcleaning.93 It also reported that: 

fluorocarbon solvent, one of the solvents 

listed in the definition, is no longer 

used; new hydrocarbon drying 

parameters are different from those of 

early petroleum solvents; and not all 

solvents are organically based.94


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58343 

95Bromagen (91); Hagearty (61); Preece (54); and 

Yazdani (78). 

96Bromagen (91). 

97Hagearty (61). 

98Preece (54). 

99 Id. 

100Brunette (115). 

101ASTM (111). 

102Professional Leather Cleaners Association 

(109). 

103E.g., Bromagen (91); Draper (100); Edwards 

(97); Evans (67); Hagearty (61); Kudler (72); Maisel 

(34); McKay (104); NCA and DLI (124); Overmoe 

(66); Preece (54); Tebbs (47); Widmar (48); and 

Yazdani (78). 

104NCA and DLI (124). 

105 Id. 

106Overmoe (66) and Preece (54). 

107Chambers (92); Hiebert (64); Professional 

Leather Cleaners Association (109); Santana (12); 

and Wilson (32). 

108Hiebert (64). 

109One comment advocated guidelines for 

designating specific solvent characteristics, such as 

KB value, polarity, and water solubility, on preexisting labels. Cote (58). 

110Chelsky (38). 

111 King (19). 

112Momin (51). 

113NCA and DLI (124). 

114 GINETEX (83). 

115 Id. 

116Zeidel (29). 

117Winn (40). 

118Levy (99). 

119 Id. 

120Fisher (24). 

121Brunette (115). 

122Enderlin (63). 

123O’Connor (20). 

124Shaw (33). 

125Horrigan (17). 

126Maknojia (87). 

Four comments from cleaners 

similarly argued that the current 

definition of drycleaning is very 

limiting.95 The first reported that it 

adopted a new solvent, but has concerns 

because labels do not provide the 

information needed.96 The second 

reported that it hesitated to adopt a new 

solvent because it is not recognized by 

the Rule.97 The third reported that it 

wanted to use a new solvent, which 

involves purchasing a costly new 

machine, but hesitated because the 

solvent or process is not recognized by 

the Rule.98 The comment argued that 

the Rule should not curtail 

technological advancement.99 The 

fourth urged the Commission to expand 

Rule to address other solvents, such as 

SolvonK4 by Kreussler.100

Two comments urged the Commission 

to revise Appendix A. One advised that 

Appendix A of the Rule diverges from 

ASTM D5489, although it did not 

identify how or explain why 

amendments are warranted.101 Another 

urged the Commission to suggest that all 

leather goods have a more specific care 

label, such as ‘‘Leather Clean and 

Refinish by Professional Leather Cleaner 

Only,’’ and to expand the definition in 

Appendix A.8 to read ‘‘Leather Clean 

and Refinish by Professional Leather 

Cleaner Only.’’ 102

E. Instruction on All Appropriate 

Methods of Care 

Several comments from the cleaning 

industry urged the Commission to 

amend the Rule to require 

manufacturers to include instructions 

on all appropriate methods of care.103

As one comment explained, this would 

empower consumers to decide whether 

they want to care for the garment at 

home or use a professional cleaner.104 It 

added that, by listing all methods of 

care, the label would eliminate 

guesswork regarding whether a care 

method is not listed because it will 

cause damage.105 Others explained that 

such a label would enable the cleaner to 

select the best cleaning method based 

on the type of soils on the garment or 

the customer’s requests.106

F. Additional Issues 

Some comments proposed amending 

the Rule to require additional 

disclosures, disallow certain care 

instructions currently allowed by the 

Rule, address the format or composition 

of labels, expand the scope of the Rule, 

or impose additional requirements. 

Additionally, several comments 

addressed the use of multiple languages 

on care labels. 

Five comments urged the Commission 

to require disclosure of fiber, fabric, or 

component content.107 One of them also 

advocated requiring disclosure of the 

content of all fabrics, linings, and trims, 

including applied water repellant 

coatings or sizing that may be removed 

during processing.108

Other comments urged the 

Commission to require more detailed 

care instructions or disclosure of 

additional information related to 

care.109 For example, one comment 

urged the Commission to address the 

instruction ‘‘exclusive of trim’’ where 

the trim is not removable.110 Another 

urged the Commission to require 

disclosure of the type of dye method 

used to lessen the likelihood of 

damaged garments.111 Another stated 

that the Rule should require more 

details, including how and which 

drycleaning fluid can, or cannot, be 

used for the garment.112 Yet another 

argued that any care that the 

manufacturer knows could harm the 

garment should be specifically stated as 

a ‘‘Do Not’’ warning.113

One comment proposed that the Rule 

provide that the care instruction 

indicate the maximum treatment that 

can be applied to the item.114 The 

comment explained that the Rule allows 

a manufacturer to provide an 

instruction, such as ‘‘dry flat’’ even if a 

more severe method, such as ‘‘tumble 

dry,’’ will not harm the garment. Under 

the ISO standard the care instruction 

provided is the most severe method that 

can be used without damaging the 

article.115 Another comment argued that 

the Rule should require that jobbers 

who add trimming, ornaments or 

feathers, etc., to an item must change or 

add additional labels and add the 

jobbers’ names and contact info.116

Another comment argued, among other 

things, that labels should disclose a 

serial number and an address for a Web 

site providing several additional 

categories of information and countries 

of manufacture.117

Moreover, one comment argued that 

care tags could be replaced or made 

much smaller and simpler with the use 

of a unique identifier for every garment, 

such as a barcode, QR code, or an RFID 

chip.118 It explained that the code 

would include a manufacturer ID, 

product ID, and serial number, and that 

the manufacturer would input this 

information into a centralized database 

that could be accessed by consumers, 

retailers, drycleaners, etc.119

Another comment addressed 

disclosure of an item’s point of origin. 

It urged the Commission to require 

disclosure of the state for items allowed 

a ‘‘made in the United States’’ label.120

Other comments argued that the 

Commission should disallow certain 

care instructions that they view as 

providing little, if any, benefit to 

consumers, or to otherwise limit care 

instructions. One comment argued that 

all garments should be serviceable, and 

opposed ‘‘Do not wash. Do not 

dryclean’’ labels.121 One stated that care 

methods should be dryclean only, clean 

by any method, and cannot be 

cleaned.122 Another stated that too 

many labels state ‘‘remove trim before 

cleaning’’ where removing the trim 

results in taking apart the garment.123

One stated that labels that specify ‘‘Spot 

Clean’’ should be disallowed.124

Two comments addressed the format 

or composition of the labels required by 

the Rule. One argued that labels should 

be a standard size, printed on white 

material only, using stable black ink, 

non-soluble in water and drycleaning 

solvents.125 The other argued that care 

labels need to be securely attached to 

the garment, and not by a few stitches, 

to avoid causing holes in the garments 

after a few cleanings.126

Two comments addressed the scope 

of the Rule. One argued that the Rule 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58344 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

127American Apparel & Footwear Association 

(113). 128 Kudler (72). 129Bosshard (13). 

130NCA and DLI (124). 

131Sabo (23). 

132White (15). 

133 Id. 

134One commenter, a consumer who does not 

indicate any affiliation with an organization, stated 

that she does not like having so many language 

translations. Charles (3). 

135Branfuhr (42) and Childers (49). 

136Maknojia (87). 

137 Vlasits (6). 

138Hurley (60). 

139Thorsteinson (45). 

140American Apparel & Footwear Association 

(113) and Hurley (60). 

141See footnote 20 for more details about these 

comments. 

142The Commission can issue a NPRM under the 

FTC Act if it has ‘‘reason to believe that the unfair 

or deceptive acts or practices which are the subject 

of the proposed rulemaking are prevalent.’’ 15 

U.S.C. 57a(b)(3). The Commission can find ‘‘unfair 

or deceptive acts or practices are prevalent’’ where: 

‘‘(A) it has issued cease and desist orders regarding 

such acts or practices, or (B) any other information 

available to the Commission indicates a widespread 

pattern of unfair or deceptive acts or practices.’’ Id. 

at 57a(b)(3)(A)–(B). The Commission has ‘‘wide 

latitude’’ in fashioning a remedy and need only 

show a ‘‘reasonable relationship’’ between the 

unfair or deceptive act or practice and the remedy. 

American Fin. Servs. Ass’n v. FTC, 767 F.2d 957, 

988 (DC Cir. 1985) (quoting Jacob Siegel Co. v. FTC, 

327 U.S. 608, 612–13 (1946)). 

143The Commission also proposes to delete the 

words ‘‘As Amended’’ from the Rule’s title. These 

words do not serve any purpose, and none of the 

other titles of Commission rules that have been 

amended include these words. 

144 Federal Trade Commission: Trade Regulation 

Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel 

and Certain Piece Goods, Final Amended Rule, 65 

FR 47261, 47273 (Aug. 2, 2000). 

145UCLA Sustainable Technology & Policy 

Program (84); Toxic Use Reduction Institute (86); 

and Riggs (53). 

should continue to exempt rental 

garments, such as corporate uniforms, 

because many of them require 

professional care for health reasons.127

The other proposed requiring care labels 

for household items such as comforters, 

drapes, etc.128

Four comments favored imposing 

additional obligations under the Rule 

other than labeling. One urged the 

establishment of an electronic database 

for reporting insufficient or incorrect 

labeling so consumers can research 

problems.129 Another urged the 

Commission to add provisions holding 

manufacturers accountable to individual 

consumers for inappropriate care 

instructions.130 A third advocated 

providing that a consumer can return a 

failed garment to the place of purchase 

for a refund, that the place of purchase 

must keep a record of the garment, and 

that the point of sale vendor will be able 

to get refunds from its vendor.131 A 

fourth urged the creation of guidelines 

for specific solvent characteristics, such 

as KB value, polarity, and water 

solubility, to allow for easy testing on 

the manufacturing side and to 

encourage eco-friendly alternatives on 

the care side.132 It added that solvent 

developers could provide MSDS sheets 

(material safety data sheets) and 

publicly-available materials for ease of 

use by manufacturers, dry-cleaners and 

consumers.133

Finally, several comments argued that 

the Rule should not require multiple 

language disclosures.134 One stated that 

labels should be only in English, and 

another stated that English is the only 

language needed on labels.135 One 

added that English is a must but other 

languages can be an option.136 Another 

argued that labels for clothes to be 

purchased in the United States should 

be in English, and for clothes available 

for purchase in multiple countries, the 

label should be in multiple 

languages.137 Yet another stated that 

labels should be in English and that 

symbols should eliminate the need for 

additional languages.138 Another argued 

that the label should be in English with 

internationally-accepted symbols and 

that those cleaners who do not speak or 

read English well should contact their 

own association for a translation of the 

international symbols.139 None of the 

comments proposed amending the Rule 

to address the format for presenting care 

instructions in more than one language, 

other than to note that using symbols 

would address problems stemming from 

disclosures in multiple languages.140

III. The Commission Retains the Rule 

The record shows wide support for 

the Rule from all the major industries 

affected by its provisions as well as from 

consumers. Among other things, 

comments supporting the Rule 

explained that it benefits consumers, 

manufacturers, and businesses in 

general and provides valuable guidance 

on care to consumers and the fabricare 

industry. 

Two comments opposing the Rule, 

one filed by GINETEX and the other by 

a retailer, failed to provide any tangible 

evidence to support their assertions.141

There is no evidence in the record 

showing that a voluntary scheme would 

work better than the Rule, that the 

ASTM care symbols permitted by the 

Rule create an unnecessary obstacle to 

international trade, or that the time and 

effort spent on the labels required by the 

Rule do not serve the goal of educating 

consumers about how to care for their 

garments. 

In light of the many stakeholder 

comments expressing support for the 

Rule, the Commission concludes that a 

continuing need exists for the Rule and 

that the Rule imposes reasonable costs 

on the industry. The Commission 

therefore concludes that the weight of 

the record evidence clearly supports 

retention of the Rule. 

IV. Proposed Amendments 

Many of the comments supporting the 

Rule also advocated various 

amendments. Accordingly, based on the 

comments and the evidence discussed 

herein, the Commission proposes to 

amend the Rule in the following four 

ways.142 First, the Commission proposes 

to permit manufacturers and importers 

to provide a care instruction for 

professional wetcleaning on labels if the 

garment can be professionally 

wetcleaned. Second, the Commission 

proposes to permit manufacturers and 

importers to use the symbol system set 

forth in either ASTM Standard D5489– 

07, ‘‘Standard Guide for Care Symbols 

for Care Instructions on Textile 

Products,’’ or ISO 3758:2005(E), 

‘‘Textiles C Care labelling code using 

symbols.’’ Third, the Commission 

proposes to clarify what constitutes a 

reasonable basis for care instructions. 

Finally, the Commission proposes to 

update the definition of ‘‘dryclean’’ to 

reflect current practices and 

technology.143

A. Professional Wetcleaning 

As noted above, in 2000, the 

Commission declined to amend the Rule 

to permit a ‘‘Professionally Wetclean’’ 

instruction on labels. The Commission 

stated that it would consider permitting 

such an instruction if a more specific 

definition and/or test procedure were 

developed that provided manufacturers 

with a reasonable basis for a 

wetcleaning instruction.144 The 

Commission explained at the time that 

it was premature to permit such an 

instruction due to the absence of a 

suitable definition and appropriate test 

method. 

The record now shows that these 

conditions have been met. ISO has 

developed ISO 3175–4:2003, ‘‘Textiles— 

Professional care, drycleaning and 

wetcleaning of fabrics and garments— 

Part 4: Procedure for testing 

performance when cleaning and 

finishing using simulated wetcleaning.’’ 

This standard includes a definition of 

wetcleaning and test procedures for 

determining whether apparel can be 

wetcleaned professionally. Several 

comments favoring a wetcleaning 

instruction cited this standard 

approvingly.145 None of the comments 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58345 

146The standard ISO 3758:2005(E), ‘‘Textiles— 

Care labelling code using symbols’’ also defines 

wetcleaning. 

147Also, the comments stating that the benefits of 

requiring a wetcleaning instruction would exceed 

the added testing and labeling costs were not 

submitted by entities that would purportedly incur 

the added costs that would result if the Commission 

amends the Rule to require a wetcleaning 

instruction. See UCLA Sustainable Technology & 

Policy Program (84); NCA and DLI (124); and Riggs 

(53). 

argued that the ISO standard is 

inadequate.146

As described in Section II.A, the 

record shows widespread support for 

amending the Rule to include 

professional wetcleaning. Many 

comments explained the economic, 

environmental, and health benefits of 

wetcleaning. They also noted the 

increasing industry acceptance and use 

of wetcleaning, the inclusion of 

wetcleaning symbols in both the ASTM 

and ISO care symbol systems, and the 

risk that failing to allow an instruction 

could place wetcleaners at a 

disadvantage, thereby discouraging its 

use despite its advantages. The 

increasing industry acceptance and use 

of wetcleaning and the inclusion of 

wetcleaning symbols in both the ASTM 

and ISO systems establish the 

prevalence of wetcleaning. Only three 

comments expressed reservations, and 

none of them provided evidence that 

amending the Rule would harm 

consumers or that the cost of doing so 

would exceed the benefits. 

While the record supports permitting 

a professional wetcleaning instruction, 

it does not warrant requiring such an 

instruction. None of the comments 

provided evidence that the absence of a 

wetcleaning instruction for products 

that can be wetcleaned would result in 

deception or unfairness under the FTC 

Act. Nor did they provide evidence that 

the benefits of requiring a wetcleaning 

instruction would exceed the costs such 

a requirement would impose on 

manufacturers and importers.147 Thus, 

the Commission declines to propose 

amending the Rule to require a 

wetcleaning instruction. If consumers 

prefer wetcleaning to drycleaning and 

make their purchase decisions 

accordingly, manufacturers and 

importers will have an incentive to 

provide a wetcleaning instruction either 

in addition to, or in lieu of, a 

drycleaning instruction. Furthermore, 

by treating drycleaning and wetcleaning 

in a similar fashion—as care procedures 

that manufacturers and importers can 

disclose to comply with the Rule—the 

Rule as proposed would help level the 

playing field for the drycleaning and 

wetcleaning industries. 

Based on this record, the Commission 

concludes that permitting a professional 

wetcleaning instruction would provide 

consumers with useful information 

regarding the care of the apparel they 

purchase. Therefore, the Commission 

proposes adding a definition of 

‘‘wetclean’’ based on the definition of 

‘‘professional wet cleaning’’ set forth in 

ISO 3758:2005(E). Specifically, 

proposed section 423.1(h) would state 

that ‘‘wetclean’’ means a commercial 

process for cleaning products or 

specimens in water carried out by 

professionals using special technology 

(cleaning, rinsing, and spinning), 

detergents, and additives to minimize 

adverse effects, followed by appropriate 

drying and restorative finishing 

procedures. 

This definition closely tracks the 

definition in a widely-used 

international standard cited approvingly 

in comments. Thus, the Commission 

concludes that the definition would 

provide manufacturers and importers 

with sufficient guidance to distinguish 

wetcleaning from other cleaning 

processes, thereby helping them to 

determine whether they have enough 

evidence to provide a wetcleaning 

instruction or a warning not to 

wetclean, if they choose to do so. The 

Commission also proposes to amend 

Appendix A by including this definition 

as set forth in the proposed amendment 

in the last section of this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. 

In addition to defining ‘‘wetclean,’’ 

the Commission proposes amending 

section 423.6(b) to add a wetcleaning 

subsection, as set forth in the proposed 

amendment in the last section of this 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. To 

harmonize with international standards, 

the proposed subsection states that any 

wetcleaning instruction must indicate 

whether to use a normal, mild or very 

mild process and disclose fiber content 

if needed to select the appropriate 

wetcleaning process. These 

amendments bring the Rule in line with 

both the ASTM and ISO symbol 

systems, and ISO 3758:2005(E)’s fiber 

disclosure. 

This proposed amendment would not 

impose any new obligations on 

manufacturers or importers. They could 

choose to provide a wetcleaning 

instruction if they have a reasonable 

basis for it and wish to do so. They also 

could provide a different instruction, 

such as a drycleaning or washing 

instruction. 

The proposal, however, would require 

manufacturers and importers currently 

labeling items with a ‘‘dryclean only’’ 

instruction either to substantiate that 

wetcleaning is an inappropriate method 

of care or to revise their labels. Revised 

labels stating ‘‘dryclean’’ would comply 

with the Rule. Manufacturers and 

importers who wished to convey to 

consumers that home laundering would 

damage the garment could, if they 

wished, label the garment as ‘‘dryclean/ 

do not home wash,’’ but would comply 

with the Rule if they disclosed just the 

cleaning method (in this example, 

drycleaning) known to produce safe 

results. Manufacturers and importers 

could continue to use the ‘‘dryclean 

only’’ label only if they could 

substantiate that both home laundering 

and professional wetcleaning were 

inappropriate methods for cleaning the 

garment. 

B. Use of Care Symbols 

The Rule permits manufacturers and 

importers to use care symbols set forth 

in ASTM Standard 5489–96c, ‘‘Guide to 

Care Symbols for Care Instructions on 

Consumer Textile Products.’’ Since the 

Commission last amended the Rule in 

2000, ASTM has updated this standard 

to ASTM D5489–07, ‘‘Standard Guide 

for Care Symbols for Care Instructions 

on Textile Products.’’ The Rule 

currently does not permit the use of this 

updated, or any other non-ASTM 

symbol system in lieu of terms. 

Nearly all of the comments addressing 

the issue favored allowing the use of 

symbols in lieu of terms. Some favored 

amending the Rule to reference ASTM 

D5489–07, the most recent version of 

the ASTM standard, or ASTM D5489 

without designating the year so that the 

Rule would automatically reference the 

latest version of the standard. Still 

others favored allowing the use of the 

symbol system developed by ISO. 

Several urged the Commission to amend 

the Rule to harmonize the ASTM 

symbols permitted by the Rule with 

those set forth in the ISO standard or to 

allow manufacturers and importers to 

use either symbol system. None of the 

comments expressed a preference for 

the ASTM symbol system currently 

referenced in the Rule. Nor did any of 

the comments oppose the 

harmonization of the ASTM and ISO 

symbols. 

The record supports: (1) Continuing to 

allow the use of ASTM care symbols in 

lieu of terms, (2) updating the Rule to 

reference the 2007 version of the ASTM 

standard, and (3) permitting the use of 

the ASTM and ISO symbols. The 

Commission concludes that permitting 

the use of the symbol system in either 

the updated ASTM standard, ASTM 

D5489–07, or ISO 3758:2005(E) would 

ensure that manufacturers and 

importers that choose to use symbols in 

lieu of terms will use them consistent 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58346 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

148Manufacturers would need to purchase and 

follow only one of the two standards to disclose 

care instructions using symbols, thereby reducing 

compliance costs. E.g., manufacturers already using 

ISO symbols in lieu of written terms would not 

need to incur the expense of adding ASTM symbols 

or written terms to their labels so that they can 

market their garments in the United States. 

149Both the ASTM and ISO standards are subject 

to copyrights and can be purchased from the 

organizations that issued them. In addition, the ISO 

symbols are protected by trademarks and their use 

is dependent on a contract with GINETEX. See 

www.ginetex.net. Consumers can find the symbols 

and explanations of their meaning on the Internet, 

including the ISO symbols on the GINETEX Web 

site and the currently approved ASTM symbols on 

the FTC Web site at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/1996/ 

12/label.pdf. Consumers can find the professional 

care symbols in the 2007 version of the ASTM 

standard on page three of the GreenEarth comment 

(mistakenly described as the ‘‘current FTC Symbol 

Chart’’) located at http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/ 

carelabelinganpr/00098-80529.pdf. 

150E.g., the ISO system has fewer symbols for 

drying. ISO has normal and low temperature 

symbols while ASTM has symbols for any heat, 

high, medium, low, and no heat/air. 

151E.g., both the ASTM and ISO systems list 

written instructions, including ‘‘wash separately’’ 

and ‘‘remove promptly.’’ 

152E.g., if a manufacturer or importer determines 

that it needs to use one of the ASTM drying 

symbols not available in the ISO system to convey 

drying instructions properly, it can opt to use the 

ASTM symbol system. If both systems have a drying 

symbol that suffices, it can opt to use either system. 

153As noted in footnote 149, consumers can find 

the symbols and explanations of their meaning on 

the Internet. 

154 GreenEarth’s arguments and proposal are 

summarized in Section II.C. 

155 GreenEarth argued that its proposal would 

encourage the substitution of less aggressive 

solvents for more aggressive ones in the cleaning 

process, thereby measurably reducing claims for 

damaged garments. However, it did not address 

whether its proposal would increase the cost of 

providing care instructions or submit any evidence 

showing that its proposal would actually reduce the 

use of more aggressive solvents. 

156 GreenEarth may wish to submit its proposal to 

ASTM and ISO for their consideration if it has not 

already done so. 

with the latest industry standards.148 It 

also would provide them with the 

flexibility to use either symbol system, 

resulting in less cluttered labels if 

manufacturers opt to use one set of 

symbols.149

Because the ASTM and ISO symbol 

systems are not identical, consumers 

may need to know which system 

appears on the label so that they can 

ascertain or confirm the meaning of a 

particular symbol. Furthermore, 

permitting the use of two symbol 

systems could increase the risk of 

consumer confusion. Therefore, the 

Commission proposes requiring that 

manufacturers or importers opting to 

disclose care instructions using the ISO 

symbols disclose that they are using ISO 

symbols. The Commission does not 

propose requiring a similar disclosure 

on labels using the ASTM symbols 

because the Rule already permits the 

use of ASTM symbols without requiring 

any such disclosure. For example, 

consumers might have a greater 

familiarity with the ASTM symbols than 

with the ISO symbols because the Rule 

started permitting them in 1997. On the 

other hand, that may not be the case. 

The Commission seeks comment on this 

issue, including on the extent to which 

care labels currently include ASTM and 

ISO symbols. 

Permitting the use of either symbol 

system should not confuse or deceive 

consumers because the symbol systems 

are nearly identical. Although the 

ASTM system includes more symbols 

than the ISO system,150 the two systems 

use virtually identical symbols for 

washing, bleaching, and professional 

care such as drycleaning and 

wetcleaning. Manufacturers and 

importers that prefer to use the ISO 

system can supplement the ISO symbols 

with written instructions as appropriate. 

Both symbol systems lack symbols for 

certain instructions and acknowledge 

the need to supplement their symbols 

with written instructions as 

appropriate.151

Although the two systems differ 

slightly with respect to drying and 

ironing symbols, the differences do not 

appear substantial. ASTM has more 

symbols for drying, and the ASTM 

symbol for medium temperature drying 

means normal temperature drying in the 

ISO system. The ASTM system includes 

a ‘‘no steam’’ symbol for ironing while 

the ISO symbol for low heat, unlike the 

ASTM symbol for low heat, indicates 

that steam ironing may cause 

irreversible damage. If a manufacturer or 

importer concludes that one of the 

systems has symbols that more 

effectively convey the proper care 

instructions, it can choose to use that 

system.152

The Commission notes that the 

meaning of one ASTM drycleaning 

symbol changed significantly in the 

revised ASTM standard. The old 

symbol, a circle with the letter ‘‘P’’ 

inside, means dryclean with any solvent 

except perc. Under the revised standard, 

the symbol means dryclean with perc or 

petroleum. Although potentially 

confusing, this change does not seem 

likely to harm consumers who 

understand the meaning of the symbol 

at the time they purchase the 

product.153

However, even if consumers 

understand the symbol at the time of 

purchase, confusion could result with 

respect to: (1) Products labeled before, 

but sold after, the symbol system 

change; and (2) situations where the 

consumer does not remember whether 

he or she purchased the product before 

or after the symbol change. The change 

in the symbol’s meaning could also 

cause confusion if drycleaners do not 

know whether the garment was labeled 

before the change. Of course, 

notwithstanding the change in symbol 

meaning, consumers and drycleaners 

can avoid any risk of using an 

inappropriate solvent by using 

petroleum rather than perc to dryclean 

the product (under both the old and 

new meaning, the symbol indicates that 

petroleum can be used). The 

Commission seeks comment on these 

issues. 

As explained above, a comment from 

GreenEarth urged the Commission to 

replace the ASTM and ISO symbols 

with new symbols based on a solvent’s 

aggressiveness rather than type.154

GreenEarth did not submit any evidence 

on consumer perception of its proposed 

symbols or establish that any resulting 

benefits would exceed the cost to 

business.155 Moreover, none of the other 

comments proposed anything similar to 

GreenEarth’s proposal. The record, 

therefore, does not indicate that 

GreenEarth’s approach to care 

instructions would be superior to the 

current one. Moreover, it would 

represent a significant departure from 

the symbol system currently permitted 

by the Rule as well as from the updated 

ASTM and ISO symbol systems widely 

used by apparel manufacturers and 

importers and favored by nearly all of 

the other comments that addressed the 

use of symbols. Therefore, the 

Commission declines to adopt 

GreenEarth’s proposal.156

Finally, Section 423.8(g) states that, 

for the 18-month period beginning on 

July 1, 1997, symbols may be used in 

lieu of terms only if an explanation of 

the symbols is attached to, or provided 

with, the product. This provision has 

expired; therefore, the Commission 

proposes to remove it from the Rule. 

To implement the revisions described 

above, the Commission proposes 

amending Section 423.8(g) as set forth 

in the proposed amendment in the last 

section of this Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

One of the comments urged the 

Commission to update the Rule by 

referring to the ASTM standard without 

identifying the year or version of the 

standard. The comment argued that, if 

the Commission amended the Rule in 

this way, the Rule would always 

incorporate the most recent ASTM 

standard. The Commission declines to 

follow this approach because it would, 

in effect, grant ASTM the power to 

revise a Commission Rule. If ASTM 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58347 

157See 16 CFR 1.9. 

158 16 CFR 423.6(c). 

159 Id. 

160The Commission also proposes to correct an 

error in Section 423.6(c) by replacing the word 

‘‘processing’’ with ‘‘possessing.’’ 

revises the standard, the Commission 

can consider whether to revise the Rule 

to incorporate the revised standard. Any 

interested party can petition the 

Commission to amend the Rule at any 

time, particularly if the failure to 

incorporate the revised standard would 

have an adverse effect on consumers or 

commerce.157

C. Clarification of Reasonable Basis 

Requirements 

As noted above, the Rule requires that 

manufacturers and importers possess a 

reasonable basis for the care instructions 

they provide prior to sale. Under the 

Rule, a reasonable basis must consist of 

reliable evidence supporting the 

instructions on the label.158

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 of the 

product in conjunction with reliable 

evidence for the garment as a whole; (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 industry expertise 

supporting the care information on the 

label; or (6) other reliable evidence.159

Several comments summarized in 

Section II.C above urged the 

Commission to impose more rigorous 

testing requirements or to clarify the 

Rule’s reasonable basis requirements. 

These comments explained that some 

manufacturers and importers appear not 

to understand the Rule’s reasonable 

basis requirements. No comment 

provided specific suggestions. 

The record is devoid of evidence 

showing that any manufacturers or 

importers improperly relied on evidence 

other than testing, that particular testing 

was inadequate or flawed, or that the 

benefits of requiring additional or more 

rigorous testing to ensure better care 

instructions would exceed the costs to 

manufacturers and importers. The mere 

assertion that some manufacturers or 

importers violate the Rule does not 

prove that the Commission needs to 

amend the Rule. Therefore, the 

Commission declines to propose more 

rigorous testing requirements. 

However, the comments suggest a 

need to clarify the Rule’s reasonable 

basis requirements to aid compliance 

without increasing or decreasing the 

burden imposed on industry. 

Specifically, providing examples of 

situations where testing an entire 

garment may be needed to determine 

care instructions, as well as examples 

where such testing is not needed, may 

help clarify the Rule’s requirements. 

Accordingly, the Commission proposes 

to incorporate advice from its business 

education materials and include 

examples in Section 423.6(c)(3) and (5) 

as set forth in the proposed amendment 

in the last section of this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. 

Because the Commission does not 

intend to impose new requirements on 

manufacturers or importers, it views 

these proposed revisions as nonsubstantive.160 Nonetheless, the 

Commission seeks comment regarding 

whether these proposed additions 

would be helpful and whether the 

Commission should provide any 

additional clarification. 

D. Revised Definition of Dryclean 

Several comments urged the 

Commission to update and expand the 

Rule’s definition of ‘‘dryclean’’ to 

include new solvents in the list of 

examples and to cover solvents that are 

not organically-based. One comment 

noted the introduction of new solvents 

over the last 25 years, such as high flash 

hydrocarbons, silicones, glycol ethers, 

carbon dioxide, and aldehydes. It also 

explained that one solvent listed in the 

definition, fluorocarbon, is no longer 

used, and that not all solvents are 

organically-based. Additionally, several 

comments argued that the definition 

discourages the use of solvents not 

recognized by the Rule and, therefore, 

risks curtailing technological 

advancement. 

The record shows that the 

Commission needs to modernize the 

Rule’s definition of ‘‘dryclean.’’ 

Although the definition technically 

includes all common organic solvents, it 

only lists three examples, one of which 

is no longer used. To address the 

concerns raised by comments, the 

Commission proposes to broaden the 

definition to cover any solvent 

excluding water. In addition, the 

Commission proposes to drop the 

reference to fluorocarbon and add new 

solvents identified in the record to the 

list of examples. The Commission does 

not propose to delete perchloroethylene 

from the list because drycleaners 

continue to use it and may do so at least 

until California’s ban takes effect in 

2023. Accordingly, the Commission 

proposes amending Section 423.1(c) as 

set forth in the proposed amendment in 

the last section of this Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. 

The Commission also proposes to 

amend Appendix A.7.a in the same way 

and to amend Appendix 7.c to include 

the solvent examples from the revised 

definition. 

V. Other Amendments the Commission 

Declines To Propose 

A number of comments proposed 

amendments to the Rule other than 

those discussed above. Some suggested 

that the Commission require 

manufacturers and importers to disclose 

all appropriate care procedures. Others 

proposed requiring additional 

disclosures, disallowing certain care 

instructions, addressing the format or 

composition of labels, expanding the 

scope of the Rule, or imposing 

additional requirements such as making 

manufacturers or importers accountable 

to consumers if they provide inaccurate 

care instructions. One commenter 

proposed changing the ‘‘overarching 

nomenclature and the guiding 

principle’’ behind the Rule to improve 

the reliability and understandability of 

care labels. The Commission declines to 

propose any of these amendments for 

the reasons explained below. 

Additionally, the comments did not 

suggest amending the Rule to address 

the presentation of instructions in 

multiple languages, and the 

Commission declines to propose any 

amendments addressing this issue. 

Several comments from the cleaning 

industry urged the Commission to 

require manufacturers and importers to 

disclose all appropriate methods of care. 

None of the comments from other 

affected industries supported this 

proposal. The Commission issued the 

Rule to protect consumers from unfair 

and deceptive trade practices. In issuing 

the Rule, the Commission determined, 

based on the record in the proceeding, 

that it was unfair or deceptive for 

manufacturers and importers to fail to 

disclose a regular care procedure 

necessary for the ordinary use and 

enjoyment of the product (or to warn the 

consumer that the product cannot be 

cleaned without being harmed). It did 

not conclude that manufacturers and 

importers must disclose multiple care 

procedures. None of the comments 

included evidence demonstrating that 

the failure to disclose all appropriate 

care methods would result in deception 

or unfairness under the FTC Act. Nor 

did they submit evidence that the 

benefits of requiring such a disclosure 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58348 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

161 16 CFR part 303. 

162See discussion of GreenEarth’s comment in 

Section II.B. 

163 GreenEarth argued that its proposal would 

encourage the substitution of less aggressive 

solvents for more aggressive ones in the cleaning 

process, thereby measurably reducing claims for 

damaged garments. However, it did not address 

whether its proposal would increase the cost of 

providing care instructions, or submit any evidence 

showing that its proposal would actually reduce the 

use of more aggressive solvents. 

164The Commission rejects GreenEarth’s proposal 

regarding care symbols for similar reasons. See 

discussion in Section IV.B. 

165 In particular, the written request for 

confidential treatment that accompanies the 

comment must include the factual and legal basis 

for the request, and must identify the specific 

portions of the comment to be withheld from the 

public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). 

would exceed the costs such a 

requirement would impose on 

manufacturers and retailers. The 

Commission, therefore, has no reason to 

believe that it is either unfair or 

deceptive for a manufacturer or 

importer to fail to disclose all 

appropriate methods of care. 

Similarly, the other comments 

proposing that the Commission impose 

additional disclosure or other 

obligations on manufacturers and 

importers, summarized in Section II.F 

above, failed to show that imposing 

these obligations is necessary to prevent 

deception or unfairness. Nor did they 

show that the benefits of the proposals 

would exceed their costs. Thus, the 

Commission declines to propose any of 

these amendments. 

Some comments urged the 

Commission to require manufacturers 

and importers to disclose fiber content 

on care labels even though the 

Commission’s Rules and Regulations 

Under the Textile Fiber Products 

Identification Act (‘‘Textile Rules’’) 

already require disclosure of fiber 

content.161 The comments did not 

provide evidence addressing the need 

for this amendment or the costs it would 

impose. While it is true that the Textile 

Rules do not require this disclosure in 

a form that can be referred to by the 

consumer throughout the useful life of 

the product, the Commission has 

anecdotal evidence that some 

manufacturers and importers often 

include the fiber content disclosure 

required by the Textile Rules on the 

same ‘‘permanent’’ label that provides 

care instructions. In addition, as 

explained above, the Commission 

proposes to require that any wetcleaning 

instruction disclose fiber content if 

needed to select the appropriate 

wetcleaning process. The Commission 

seeks comment on the extent to which 

care labels already disclose fiber content 

and the need for fiber content 

information on ‘‘permanent’’ labels but, 

at this time, declines to propose 

amending the Rule to address this issue. 

GreenEarth proposed changing the 

‘‘overarching nomenclature and the 

guiding principle’’ behind the Rule to 

improve the reliability and 

understandability of care labels (e.g., by 

replacing instructions such as 

‘‘dryclean’’ and ‘‘do not dryclean’’ with 

simplified categories of ‘‘cleaning 

method’’ and ‘‘cycle’’).162 GreenEarth, 

however, did not submit any evidence 

on consumer perception of its proposed 

nomenclature for care instructions or 

whether the benefits of replacing the 

Rule’s existing nomenclature and 

guiding principles would exceed the 

cost to business.163 None of the other 

comments made similar proposals or 

addressed GreenEarth’s proposal. The 

record does not establish that 

GreenEarth’s approach would be 

superior to the current one. In addition, 

it would represent a significant 

departure from the Rule’s longstanding 

approach to and industry practice for 

providing care instructions. The 

Commission, therefore, declines to 

propose amending the Rule as proposed 

by GreenEarth.164

Finally, the ANPR sought comments 

on whether the Commission should 

amend the Rule to address care 

instructions in multiple languages. 

None of the comments proposed 

amending the Rule to address the format 

for presenting instructions in more than 

one language, although two comments 

noted that using or harmonizing 

symbols would address problems 

stemming from disclosures in multiple 

languages. Because none of the 

comments proposed any amendments 

directly addressing the presentation of 

multiple languages on care labels, the 

Commission declines to propose any 

amendments on this issue. The 

Commission, however, seeks additional 

comment on whether any of the 

proposed amendments to the Rule affect 

the need to address this issue. 

VI. Request for Comments 

You can file a comment online or on 

paper. For the Commission to consider 

your comment, we must receive it on or 

before November 16, 2012. Write ‘‘Care 

Labeling Rule, 16 CFR part 423, Project 

No. R511915’’ on your comment. Your 

comment—including your name and 

your state—will be placed on the public 

record of this proceeding, including, to 

the extent practicable, on the public 

Commission Web site, at http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. 

As a matter of discretion, the 

Commission tries to remove individuals’ 

home contact information from 

comments before placing them on the 

Commission Web site. 

Because your comment will be made 

public, you are solely responsible for 

making sure that your comment doesn’t 

include any sensitive personal 

information, such as anyone’s Social 

Security number, date of birth, driver’s 

license number or other state 

identification number or foreign country 

equivalent, passport number, financial 

account number, or credit or debit card 

number. You are also solely responsible 

for making sure that your comment 

doesn’t include any sensitive health 

information, such as medical records or 

other individually identifiable health 

information. In addition, don’t include 

any ‘[t]rade secret or any commercial or 

financial information which is obtained 

from any person and which is privileged 

or confidential,’’ as provided in Section 

6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 

FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). 

In particular, don’t include 

competitively sensitive information 

such as costs, sales statistics, 

inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, 

manufacturing processes, or customer 

names. 

If you want the Commission to give 

your comment confidential treatment, 

you must file it in paper form, with a 

request for confidential treatment, and 

you have to follow the procedure 

explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 

4.9(c).165 Your comment will be kept 

confidential only if the FTC General 

Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, 

grants your request in accordance with 

the law and the public interest. 

Postal mail addressed to the 

Commission is subject to delay due to 

heightened security screening. As a 

result, we encourage you to submit your 

comments online. To make sure that the 

Commission considers your online 

comment, you must file it at https:// 

ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/ 

CareLabelingNPRM, by following the 

instruction on the web-based form. If 

this Notice appears at http:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also 

may file a comment through that Web 

site. 

If you file your comment on paper, 

write ‘‘Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR Part 

423, Project No. R511915’’ on your 

comment and on the envelope, and mail 

or deliver it to the following address: 

Federal Trade Commission, Office of the 

Secretary, Room H–113 (Annex B), 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20580. If possible, submit your 

paper comment to the Commission by 

courier or overnight service. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58349 

Visit the Commission Web site at 

http://www.ftc.gov to read this NPRM 

and the news release describing it. The 

FTC Act and other laws that the 

Commission administers permit the 

collection of public comments to 

consider and use in this proceeding as 

appropriate. The Commission will 

consider all timely and responsive 

public comments that it receives on or 

before November 16, 2012. You can find 

more information, including routine 

uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in 

the Commission’s privacy policy, at 

http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm. 

The Commission invites members of 

the public to comment on any issues or 

concerns they believe are relevant or 

appropriate to the Commission’s 

consideration of proposed amendments 

to the Care Labeling Rule. The 

Commission requests that comments 

provide factual data upon which they 

are based. In addition to the issues 

raised above, the Commission solicits 

public comment on the costs and 

benefits to industry members and 

consumers of each of the proposals as 

well as the specific questions identified 

below. These questions are designed to 

assist the public and should not be 

construed as a limitation on the issues 

on which public comment may be 

submitted. 

Questions 

1. Is there empirical evidence 

regarding whether consumers interpret a 

‘‘dryclean’’ instruction to mean that a 

garment cannot be washed? If so, please 

submit such evidence. 

2. How many domestic businesses 

provide professional wetcleaning to the 

public on a regular basis? To what 

extent do domestic businesses provide 

both drycleaning and wetcleaning? 

What evidence supports your answers? 

3. To what extent do consumers have 

access to and use professional 

wetcleaning services? To what extent 

are wetcleaning services widely 

available geographically? What evidence 

supports your answers? 

4. To what extent are consumers 

aware of the attributes and availability 

of professional wetcleaning services? 

What evidence supports your answer? 

5. Assuming the Commission amends 

the Rule to permit a wetcleaning 

instruction, should the Commission also 

amend Section 423.8(d) of the Rule, 

which exempts products that can be 

cleaned safely under the harshest 

procedures from the requirement of a 

permanent care label? If so, how? What 

evidence supports your answer? For 

example, should the Commission 

amend this section to add professional 

wetcleaning to the list of procedures 

that safely can be used for a product to 

fall under this exemption? 

6. To what extent do drycleaners use 

solvents other than petroleum and perc? 

To what extent do they use each of these 

drycleaning solvents? How do these 

other solvents compare to perc with 

respect to performance and 

environmental effects? To what extent 

do they use multiple solvents? What 

evidence supports your answers? 

7. To what extent do manufactures 

and importers disclose fiber content 

information on labels providing care 

instructions? What evidence supports 

your answer? 

8. To what extent do manufacturers 

and importers use care symbols to 

provide care instructions for garments 

and piece goods sold in the United 

States? To what extent do they use 

symbols alone? To what extent do they 

use symbols in conjunction with written 

instructions? To what extent do they use 

ASTM symbols without using ISO 

symbols, ISO symbols without using 

ASTM symbols, or both ASTM and ISO 

symbols? What evidence supports your 

answer? 

9. Is there empirical evidence 

regarding the extent to which 

consumers understand or rely on care 

symbols or find labels using multiple 

symbol systems, such as both the ASTM 

and ISO symbol systems, confusing? If 

so, please submit such evidence. 

10. The meaning of one drycleaning 

symbol in the ASTM symbol system 

currently permitted by the Rule, a circle 

with the letter ‘‘P’’ inside, changed 

significantly in the revised ASTM 

symbol system. The currently permitted 

symbol means dryclean with any 

solvent except perc. In contrast, the 

symbol under the revised system means 

dryclean with perc or petroleum. 

Should the Commission amend the Rule 

to address this issue? If so, how? What 

evidence supports your answer? 

11. Do the proposed amendments to 

the Rule’s reasonable basis provisions 

clarify them adequately? Is any 

additional clarification needed? If so, 

what? If not, why not? What evidence 

supports your answers? 

12. The record did not establish a 

need to amend the Rule to address care 

labels in multiple languages. Do any of 

the proposed amendments to the Rule 

affect the need to address this issue? If 

so, how? What evidence supports your 

answer? 

13. Would the following amendments 

impose costs or confer benefits on 

consumers? Would they impose costs or 

confer benefits on apparel and piece 

good manufacturers and importers, 

especially small businesses? Would they 

impose costs or confer benefits on 

businesses that clean apparel, especially 

small businesses? Would they impose 

costs or confer benefits on businesses 

that sell apparel or piece goods to 

consumers, especially small businesses? 

If so, how? If not, why not? What 

evidence supports your answers? 

(A) Amending the Rule to permit 

manufacturers and importers to provide 

a professional wetcleaning instruction 

for garments or piece goods that can be 

professionally wetcleaned; 

(B) Amending the Rule to update the 

provision allowing the use of certain 

care symbols in lieu of written terms by 

permitting manufacturers and importers 

to use the symbol system set forth in 

either ASTM Standard D5489–07, 

‘‘Standard Guide for Care Symbols for 

Care Instructions on Textile Products,’’ 

or ISO 3758:2005(E), ‘‘Textiles—Care 

labelling code using symbols’’; 

(C) Amending the Rule to clarify the 

Rule’s reasonable basis requirements; 

and 

(D) Amending the Rule’s definition of 

‘‘dryclean.’’ 

14. General Questions: To maximize 

the benefits and minimize the costs for 

buyers and sellers (including 

specifically small businesses), the 

Commission seeks views and data on 

the following general questions for all 

the proposed changes described in this 

document: 

(A) What benefits would the proposed 

changes confer, and on whom? 

(B) What costs or burdens would the 

proposed changes impose, and on 

whom? 

(C) What regulatory alternatives to the 

proposed changes are available that 

would reduce the burdens of the 

proposed changes while providing the 

same benefits? 

VII. Communications to Commissioners 

and Commissioner Advisors by Outside 

Parties 

Pursuant to Commission Rule 

1.18(c)(1), the Commission has 

determined that communications with 

respect to the merits of this proceeding 

from any outside party to any 

Commissioner or Commissioner advisor 

shall be subject to the following 

treatment. Written communications and 

summaries or transcripts of oral 

communications shall be placed on the 

rulemaking record if the communication 

is received before the end of the 

comment period on the staff report. 

They shall be placed on the public 

record if the communication is received 

later. Unless the outside party making 

an oral communication is a member of 

Congress, such communications are 

permitted only if advance notice is 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58350 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

166 See 15 U.S.C. 57a(i)(2)(A); 16 CFR 1.18(c). 

167American Fin. Servs. Ass’n v. FTC, 767 F.2d 

957, 988 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (quoting Jacob Siegel Co. 

v. FTC, 327 U.S. 608, 612–13 (1946)). 

168 Federal Trade Commission: Agency 

Information Collection Activities; Proposed 

Collection; Comment Request, 76 FR 77230 (Dec. 

12, 2011). 

published in the Weekly Calendar and 

Notice of ‘‘Sunshine’’ Meetings.166

VIII. Preliminary Regulatory Analysis 

and Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Requirements 

Under Section 22 of the FTC Act, 15 

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

a preliminary regulatory analysis for a 

proceeding to amend a rule only when 

it: (1) Estimates that the amendment 

will have an annual effect on the 

national economy of $100 million or 

more; (2) estimates that the amendment 

will cause a substantial change in the 

cost or price of certain categories of 

goods or services; or (3) otherwise 

determines that the amendment will 

have a significant effect upon covered 

entities or upon consumers. The 

Commission has preliminarily 

determined that the proposed 

amendments will not have such effects 

on the national economy; on the cost of 

labeling apparel and piece goods; or on 

covered parties or consumers. 

The proposed amendments provide 

manufacturers and importers with 

additional options for disclosing care 

instructions, clarify the Rule, and 

update the definition of ‘‘dryclean’’ to 

reflect current practices and technology, 

so the proposed amendments would not 

require manufacturers or importers to 

alter their behavior and would not 

impose additional costs on them. The 

Commission, however, requests 

comment on the economic effects of the 

proposed amendments. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires that 

the Commission conduct an analysis of 

the anticipated economic impact of the 

proposed amendments on small entities. 

The purpose of a regulatory flexibility 

analysis is to ensure that an agency 

considers the impacts 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 Commission believes that 

the proposed amendments would not 

have a significant economic impact 

upon small entities, although it may 

affect a substantial number of small 

businesses. Specifically, the 

Commission proposes a few limited 

amendments designed to provide 

manufacturers and importers with more 

options for disclosing care instructions, 

clarify the Rule, and update the 

definition of ‘‘dryclean.’’ In the 

Commission’s view, the proposed 

amendments should not have a 

significant or disproportionate impact 

on the costs of small entities that 

manufacture or import apparel or piece 

goods. Therefore, based on available 

information, the Commission certifies 

that amending the Rule as proposed will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

businesses. 

Although the Commission certifies 

under the RFA that the proposed 

amendments would not, if promulgated, 

have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

Commission has determined, 

nonetheless, that it is appropriate to 

publish an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis to inquire into the impact of 

the proposed amendments on small 

entities. Therefore, the Commission has 

prepared the following analysis: 

A. Description of the Reasons That 

Action by the Agency is Being Taken 

In response to public comments, the 

Commission proposes amending the 

Rule to respond to the development of 

new technologies, changed commercial 

practices, and updated industry 

standards. 

B. Statement of the Objectives of, and 

Legal Basis for, the Proposed 

Amendments 

The objective of the proposed 

amendments is to provide 

manufacturers and importers of apparel 

and certain piece goods with additional 

options for disclosing care instructions, 

clarify the Rule’s reasonable basis 

provisions, and update the definition of 

‘‘dryclean’’ to reflect current practices 

and technology. The Commission 

promulgated the Rule pursuant to 

Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 

57a. As noted earlier, the Commission 

has wide latitude in fashioning a 

remedy and need only show a 

‘‘reasonable relationship’’ between the 

unfair or deceptive act at issue and the 

remedy.167 The Rule as modified by the 

proposed amendments would 

reasonably relate to the practices that 

led the Commission to promulgate the 

Rule. It would provide covered entities 

with additional options for complying 

with the Rule’s disclosure requirements 

without imposing new burdens or 

additional costs. 

C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Amendments Will Apply 

Under the Small Business Size 

Standards issued by the Small Business 

Administration, textile apparel and 

some fabric manufacturers qualify as 

small businesses if they have 500 or 

fewer employees. Clothing and piece 

good wholesalers qualify as small 

businesses if they have 100 or fewer 

employees. The Commission’s staff has 

estimated that approximately 22,218 

manufacturers or importers of textile 

apparel are covered by the Rule’s 

disclosure requirements.168 A 

substantial number of these entities 

likely qualify as small businesses. The 

Commission estimates that the proposed 

amendments will not have a significant 

impact on small businesses because it 

does not impose any new obligations on 

them. The Commission seeks comment 

and information with regard to the 

estimated number or nature of small 

business entities for which the proposed 

amendments would have a significant 

impact. 

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, 

and Other Compliance Requirements, 

Including Classes of Covered Small 

Entities and Professional Skills Needed 

to Comply 

As explained earlier in this document, 

the proposed amendments will provide 

apparel manufacturers and importers 

with additional options for disclosing 

care instructions, clarify the Rule’s 

reasonable basis requirements, and 

update the definition of ‘‘dryclean’’ to 

reflect current practices and technology. 

The small entities potentially covered 

by these proposed amendments will 

include all such entities subject to the 

Rule. The professional skills necessary 

for compliance with the Rule as 

modified by the proposed amendments 

would include office and administrative 

support supervisors to determine label 

content and clerical personnel to draft 

and obtain labels. The Commission 

invites comment and information on 

these issues. 

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or 

Conflicting Federal Rules 

The Commission has not identified 

any other federal statutes, rules, or 

policies that would duplicate, overlap, 

or conflict with the proposed 

amendments. The Commission invites 

comment and information on this issue. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 58351 

169The Commission recently published its PRA 

burden estimates for the current information 

collection requirements under the Rule. See Federal 

Trade Commission: Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request, 

76 FR 77230 (Dec. 12, 2011) and Federal Trade 

Commission: Agency Information Collection 

Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment 

Request, 77 FR 10744 (Feb. 23, 2012). On March 26, 

2012, OMB granted clearance through March 31, 

2015, for these requirements and the associated 

PRA burden estimates. The OMB control number is 

3084–0103. 

F. Significant Alternatives to the 

Proposed Amendments 

The Commission has not proposed 

any specific small entity exemption or 

other significant alternatives, as the 

proposed amendments simply provide 

additional options for disclosing care 

instructions, clarify the Rule’s 

reasonable basis provisions, and update 

the definition of ‘‘dryclean’’ to reflect 

current practices and technology. Under 

these limited circumstances, the 

Commission does not believe a special 

exemption for small entities or 

significant compliance alternatives are 

necessary or appropriate to minimize 

the compliance burden, if any, on small 

entities while achieving the intended 

purposes of the proposed amendments. 

Nonetheless, the Commission seeks 

comment and information on the need, 

if any, for alternative compliance 

methods that would reduce the 

economic impact of the Rule on small 

entities. If the comments filed in 

response to this NPRM identify small 

entities that would be affected by the 

proposed amendments, as well as 

alternative methods of compliance that 

would reduce the economic impact of 

the proposed amendments on such 

entities, the Commission will consider 

the feasibility of such alternatives and 

determine whether they should be 

incorporated into the final Rule. As 

explained above, the Commission 

considered a number of alternative 

amendments advocated by commenters 

and decided not to propose any of them. 

IX. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Rule contains various ‘‘collection 

of information’’ (e.g., disclosure) 

requirements for which the Commission 

has obtained OMB clearance under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’), 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.169 As discussed 

above, the Commission proposes 

amendments to: (a) Clarify the Rule; (b) 

update the definition of ‘‘dryclean’’ to 

reflect current technology and practices; 

and (c) provide manufacturers and 

importers with added options for 

disclosing care instructions. These 

proposed amendments do not impose 

any additional collection of information 

requirements. For example, businesses 

that prefer not to provide a wetcleaning 

instruction or use symbols need not do 

so. Depending on the disclosure option 

selected for disclosing care instructions, 

the associated PRA burden might even 

be reduced. 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423 

Clothing, Labeling, Textiles, Trade 

practices. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, the Commission proposes to 

amend 16 CFR part 423 as follows: 

PART 423—CARE LABELING OF 

TEXTILE WEARING APPAREL AND 

CERTAIN PIECE GOODS 

1. The authority citation for part 423 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 57a. 

2. Revise the heading of part 423 to 

read as set forth above. 

3. Amend § 423.1 by revising 

paragraph (c) and adding paragraph (h) 

to read as follows: 

§ 423.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Dryclean means a commercial 

process by which soil is removed from 

products or specimens in a machine 

which uses any solvent excluding water 

(e.g., petroleum, perchloroethylene, 

silicone, glycol ether, carbon dioxide, or 

aldehyde). The process also may involve 

adding moisture to the solvent, up to 

75% relative humidity, hot tumble 

drying up to 160 degrees F (71 degrees 

C) and restoration by steam press or 

steam-air finishing. 

* * * * * 

(h) Wetclean means a commercial 

process for cleaning products or 

specimens in water carried out by 

professionals using special technology 

(cleaning, rinsing, and spinning), 

detergents, and additives to minimize 

adverse effects, followed by appropriate 

drying and restorative finishing 

procedures. 

4. Amend § 423.6 by revising 

paragraph (b) introductory text, adding 

paragraph (b)(3), and revising 

paragraphs (c) introductory text, (c)(3), 

and (c)(5) to read as follows: 

§ 423.6 Textile wearing apparel. 

* * * * * 

(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, a drycleaning 

instruction, or a wetcleaning 

instruction. If a washing instruction is 

included, it must comply with the 

requirements set forth in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section. If a drycleaning 

instruction is included, it must comply 

with the requirements set forth in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. If a 

wetcleaning instruction is included, it 

must comply with the requirements set 

forth in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. 

If washing, drycleaning, or wetcleaning 

can be used, the label need have only 

one of these instructions. If the product 

cannot be cleaned by any available 

cleaning method without being harmed, 

the label must so state. [For example, if 

a product would be harmed by washing, 

drycleaning, and wetcleaning, the label 

might say, ‘‘Do not wash—do not 

dryclean or wetclean,’’ or ‘‘Cannot be 

successfully cleaned.’’] The instructions 

for washing, drycleaning, and 

wetcleaning are as follows: 

* * * * * 

(3) Wetcleaning—(i) General. If a 

wetcleaning instruction is included on 

the label, and a mild or very mild 

process should be used, the label must 

state the process that must be used. If a 

normal process will not harm the 

product, the label need not mention any 

type of process. If the product’s fiber 

content is needed to determine how to 

select the appropriate wetcleaning 

process, the label must state the fiber 

content. 

(ii) Warnings. (A) If there is any part 

of the wetcleaning procedure which 

consumers or wetcleaners reasonably 

can be expected to use that would harm 

the product or others being cleaned with 

it, the label must contain a warning to 

this effect. The warning must use the 

words ‘‘Do not,’’ ‘‘No,’’ ‘‘Only,’’ or some 

other clear wording. 

(B) Warnings are not necessary for any 

procedure which is an alternative to the 

procedure prescribed on the label. [For 

example, if an instruction states 

‘‘Professionally wetclean, very mild 

process,’’ it is not necessary to give the 

warning ‘‘Do not use normal process.’’] 

(c) A manufacturer or importer must 

establish a reasonable basis for care 

information by possessing prior to sale: 

* * * * * 

(3) Reliable evidence, like that 

described in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of 

this section, for each component part of 

the product in conjunction with reliable 

evidence for the garment as a whole; 

provided that test results showing that 

a whole garment can be cleaned as 

recommended may be required where, 

for example: 

(i) The color of one part often bleeds 

onto another when the finished garment 

is washed; 

(ii) A dye that is known to bleed, or 

beads, buttons, or sequins that are 

known to be damaged often in 

drycleaning are used; or 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
58352 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 183 / Thursday, September 20, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(iii) A garment contains several fibers, 

fabrics, or components not previously 

used together; or 

* * * * * 

(5) Reliable evidence of current 

technical literature, past experience, or 

industry expertise supporting the care 

information on the label [For example, 

if past experience with particular dyes 

and fabrics indicates that a particular 

red trim does not bleed onto 

surrounding fabric, testing the entire 

garment might not be necessary]; or 

* * * * * 

5. Amend § 423.8 by revising 

paragraph (g) as follows: 

§ 423.8 Exemptions. 

* * * * * 

(g) The symbol systems developed by 

ASTM International (ASTM) and 

designated as ASTM D5489–07, 

‘‘Standard Guide for Care Symbols for 

Care Instructions on Textile Products’’ 

and by the International Organization 

for Standardization (ISO) and 

designated as 3758:2005(E), ‘‘Textiles— 

Care labelling code using symbols,’’ may 

be used on care labels or care 

instructions in lieu of terms so long as 

the symbols fulfill the requirements of 

this part. If the ISO symbols are used, 

the label should disclose this fact. In 

addition, symbols from either one of the 

two symbol systems above may be 

combined with terms so long as the 

symbols and terms used fulfill the 

requirements of this part. This 

incorporation by reference was 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies of 

ASTM D5489–07, ‘‘Standard Guide for 

Care Symbols for Care Instructions on 

Textile Products,’’ may be obtained from 

ASTM, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West 

Conshohocken, PA 19428. Copies of ISO 

3758:2005(E), ‘‘Textiles—Care labelling 

code using symbols,’’ may be obtained 

from American National Standards 

Institute, 11 West 42nd Street, 13th 

Floor, New York, NY 10036. Both 

ASTM D5489–07 and ISO 3758:2005(E) 

may be inspected at the Federal Trade 

Commission, room 130, 600 

Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC or at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federal_regulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. 

* * * * * 

6. Amend Appendix A by revising 

paragraph 7.a and c, and by adding a 

new paragraph 9.a, to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 423—Glossary of 

Standard Terms 

* * * * * 

7. Drycleaning; All Procedures: 

a. ‘‘Dryclean’’—a commercial process by 

which soil is removed from products or 

specimens in a machine which uses any 

solvent excluding water (e.g., petroleum, 

perchloroethylene, silicone, glycol ether, 

carbon dioxide, or aldehyde). The process 

also may involve adding moisture to the 

solvent, up to 75% relative humidity, hot 

tumble drying up to 160 degrees F (71 

degrees C) and restoration by steam press or 

steam-air finishing. 

* * * * * 

c. ‘‘Petroleum,’’ ‘‘Perchloroethylene,’’ 

‘‘Silicone,’’ ‘‘Glycol Ether,’’ ‘‘Carbon 

Dioxide,’’ or ‘‘Aldehyde’’—employ solvent(s) 

specified to dryclean the item. 

* * * * * 

9. Professional Wetcleaning: 

a. ‘‘Wetclean’’—a commercial process for 

cleaning products or specimens in water 

carried out by professionals using special 

technology (cleaning, rinsing, and spinning), 

detergents, and additives to minimize 

adverse effects, followed by appropriate 

drying and restorative finishing procedures. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2012–22746 Filed 9–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0596; FRL 9731–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Missouri 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the state of 

Missouri on September 21, 2010. This 

revision proposes to amend the ambient 

air quality standards table to reflect 

revised National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS), update reference 

methods associated with the revised 

NAAQS, and update the breakpoint 

values for the Air Quality Index. These 

revisions would make Missouri’s rules 

consistent with Federal regulations and 

improve the clarity of the rules. 

DATES: Comments on this proposed 

action must be received in writing by 

October 22, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R07– 

OAR–2012–0596, by mail to Amy 

Bhesania, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas 

City, Kansas 66101. Comments may also 

be submitted electronically or through 

hand delivery/courier by following the 

detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES

section of the direct final rule located in 

the rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Bhesania at (913) 551–7147, or by 

email at bhesania.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of the Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the state’s 

SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

revision amendment and anticipates no 

relevant adverse comments to this 

action. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action, 

no further activity is contemplated in 

relation to this action. If EPA receives 

relevant adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed action. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this action should do so 

at this time. Please note that if EPA 

receives adverse comment on part of 

this rule and if that part can be severed 

from the remainder of the rule, EPA may 

adopt as final those parts of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: September 11, 2012. 

Karl Brooks, 

Regional Administrator, Region 7. 

[FR Doc. 2012–23133 Filed 9–19–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0550; FRL–9718–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Diego 

County, Antelope Valley and Monterey 

Bay Unified Air Pollution Agencies 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS