1

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

9 CARE LABELING RULE ROUNDTABLE

10 MARCH 28, 2014

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 Federal Trade Commission

20 601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Conference Center

21 Washington, DC

22 

23 

24 Reported By: Stephanie Gilley

25 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
2

1 I N D E X

2 

3 Session Page

4 Welcoming Remarks 3

5 Professional Wetcleaning Issues

6 Peter Sinsheimer 6

7 Professional Wetcleaning Issues

8 Charles Riggs 22

9 Panel One - Professional Wetcleaning 42

10 Panel Two - Care Symbols 119

11 Panel Three - Reasonable Basis 178

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 
3

1 W E L C O M E

2 MR. FRISBY: Welcome to the Commission's Care

3 Labeling Rule Roundtable. My name is Robert Frisby, I

4 work in the FTCs Bureau of Consumer Protection,

5 Division of Enforcement.

6 I'd like to thank everyone for being here

7 today. As you know, we have two presentations on wet

8 cleaning issues and three discussion groups scheduled.

9 Wet cleaning is starting at 10:20, care symbols

10 starting at 1 o'clock, and reasonable basis and other

11 issues starting at 2:30.

12 I would like to make a few announcements

13 before we turn to our first presenter on wet cleaning

14 issues. Anyone that goes outside of the building

15 without an FTC badge will be required to go through

16 security prior to reentry into the conference area.

17 In the event of a fire or evacuation of the

18 building, please leave the building in an orderly

19 fashion. Once outside of the building, you need to

20 orient yourself to New Jersey Avenue. Across from the

21 FTC is the Georgetown Law Center, look to the right

22 front sidewalk, that is our rallying point. Everyone

23 will rally by floors and we need to have you check in

24 with the person accounting for everyone in the

25 conference area. In the event it is safer to remain
4

1 inside, you will be told where to go inside the

2 building.

3 If you spot suspicious activity, please alert

4 security.

5 This event will be webcast and transcribed

6 for the rule-making record and may be photographed,

7 videotaped or otherwise recorded. By participating in

8 this event, you are agreeing that your image and

9 anything that you say or submit may be posted

10 indefinitely at FTC.gov or one of the Commission's

11 publically available social media sites.

12 The restrooms are located near the elevators,

13 to the left of the guard desk.

14 Moving on the substance of today, for each of

15 our three discussion groups, we plan to allow at least

16 15 minutes for questions from the audience, including

17 people viewing webcasts of the roundtable. We will

18 provide a microphone to audience members who wish to

19 comment or pose questions. Please identify yourself

20 and your affiliation before posting a question or

21 making a comment.

22 We will do our best to accommodate everyone

23 who wishes to ask questions; however, it is possible

24 that we will not have enough time for everyone to ask

25 their questions.
5

1 We do intend to follow the schedule set forth

2 in the agenda and to start and end each presentation

3 and discussion group on time. I have to apologize, in

4 advance, if we need to cut you off so that we can

5 follow our schedule, provide others with a chance to

6 speak, and to cover the many important topics on our

7 agenda.

8 The comment period for this stage of the

9 rule-making closes on April 11, 2014. Thus, everyone

10 will have an opportunity to comment in writing on the

11 roundtable discussions and to provide evidence that

12 they believe the Commission should consider, even if

13 they do not have a chance to ask a question today.

14 When the Commission published its notice of

15 proposed rule-making, it advised that interested

16 parties could request an opportunity to present their

17 views orally. Only one commenter, Peter Sinsheimer,

18 requested such an opportunity. Accordingly, we now

19 turn the floor over to him for his presentation on wet

20 cleaning.

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 
6

1 MR. SINSHEIMER: Well, good morning. I

2 accept the responsibility of being the trouble-maker

3 for today.

4 So I'm happy that the Federal government is

5 back up and running and is able now to host this round

6 table. So this first session, this morning's session,

7 focuses on should the FTC allow or require the use of a

8 professional wet cleaning care label.

9 The FTC has developed clear criteria for

10 determining whether a care label should be required, so

11 my presentation is kind of designed to give background

12 context at the beginning and then go into kind of the

13 criterion and evidence associated with it. And I do

14 have a slide presentation that's maybe -- oh, okay.

15 Oh, this clicker, okay. Like this, perfect. Much

16 easier. Thank you, very good.

17 So in terms of context, it's always good to

18 start with the definitions. So these are the

19 definitions that the FTC has for dry cleaning and

20 professional wet cleaning. And if you look at the

21 definition for dry cleaning, it's a process for

22 cleaning apparel using any solvent, excluding water.

23 And professional wet cleaning is a commercial process

24 of cleaning apparel in water.

25 So clearly, this is a clear distinction of
7

1 different technologies here. And that professional wet

2 cleaning is not dry cleaning, which kind of justifies

3 why we are here today.

4 So in terms of environmental benefits, wet

5 cleaning can be considered to be environmentally

6 friendly, clearly professional wet cleaning is -- well,

7 was actually brought to the United States by the EPA in

8 order to -- because it was nontoxic, zero emission,

9 presents no fire hazards, and it has been shown to be

10 energy efficient. So this is just a chart kind of rank

11 ordering different apparel cleaning technologies by

12 environmental friendliness.

13 So now you may ask, well, what is

14 professional wet cleaning? This is a flowchart of

15 professional wet cleaning. Essentially, like many

16 modern innovations, it all starts with a computer and

17 adopting a computer to control an operation, in this

18 case industrial laundry, being able to control water

19 temperature, water level, mechanical action, in such a

20 way as to kind of mimic hand-washing, but at a

21 commercial scale.

22 So almost every industrial laundry

23 manufacturer has equipment that can be designated as a

24 wet clean washer. Over 50 percent of existing cleaners

25 have industrial washers that can be used for
8

1 professional wet cleaning.

2 Also, detergent dispensing is the second step

3 here. So there's automatic detergent dispensing that

4 happens in wet cleaning. You could also manually

5 dispense detergent in a professional wet cleaning

6 process.

7 The second innovation in wet cleaning is

8 really about chemistry and green chemistry, the

9 development of surfactants that are able to clean

10 delicate garments in water. And so there's a number of

11 types of cleaning agents that have been developed.

12 So once garments are cleaned, they need to be

13 dried. So in wet cleaning, there has been innovation

14 with respect to moisture sensors that have been put

15 into dryers to read the amount of moisture on the

16 garment itself. Many wet cleaners also just use a

17 simple time-dry and then take it out and air dry the

18 remaining level, something you cannot do in dry

19 cleaning, but it is certainly something you can do in a

20 water-based process.

21 So finally finishing -- standard finishing

22 used in professional wet cleaning. In addition,

23 there's tensioning presses that block structured

24 garments back into form. These are used if you are

25 going to be using this process as a dedicated process.
9

1 So in terms of kind of an overview of

2 commercial viability, in the year 2000, I was asked to

3 evaluate the first set of perchloroethylene cleaners to

4 convert to professional wet cleaning. The results of

5 this evaluation were that these dry cleaners who

6 switched to professional wet cleaning were able to

7 clean the full range of garments that they had

8 previously dry cleaned in wet cleaning. Over 99

9 percent of those garments they previously dry cleaned

10 were effectively wet cleaned. They were able to do it

11 at an operating cost that was actually lower than they

12 had when they were dry cleaning and it was extremely

13 energy efficient.

14 So these findings have been validated in

15 additional studies. They've been shown to be

16 consistent and generalizable with respect to different

17 kinds of equipment models and different detergents,

18 across geography, across time. So we've been doing a

19 lot of work since the FTC last considered this in 1999.

20 Along the way, we've actually -- what's been

21 developed is the profession of professional wet

22 cleaning. A set of skills that go along with being

23 able to clean these garments, quality control systems,

24 expertise, this knowledge is easily transferred. Today

25 we have a number of professional wet cleaners who have
10

1 been able to actually train other cleaners effectively

2 in a switch.

3 So this experience and expertise that has

4 been developed and can be used by apparel manufacturers

5 in developing the reasonable basis for a new

6 professional wet cleaning care label.

7 So with this kind of context, the question

8 is, should the FTC require or allow the use of a new

9 professional wet clean label. That is the topic of

10 this morning. The FTC has developed a legal standard

11 for this particular profession about whether to require

12 a care label. And they have three criteria that

13 they've listed here. And we're going to go over each

14 of these three criteria and see what kind of reliable

15 evidence there is to support each of these three.

16 So the first criterion is the failure to list

17 the method prevalent. So just by way of kind of --

18 important to note here is that over 99 percent of

19 garments that are effectively -- that are labeled dry

20 clean or dry clean only are effectively wet cleaned.

21 And also, it is important to note that, in the United

22 States professional wet cleaning is not legal. So then

23 we have to ask the question, what if the FTC allows --

24 doesn't require the use of a wet cleaning label?

25 So fortunately, we can answer that question
11

1 through a natural experiment, in that ISO developed a

2 wet cleaning care label in 2007, so six years ago. So

3 we can look into countries that have adopted this,

4 which is throughout most of Europe, and ask the

5 question, so how prevalent is the wet cleaning care

6 label on the kind of garments that we're talking about

7 here.

8 So we did an online survey of this and we

9 looked at companies that sell online. We looked at ten

10 companies in Great Britain and looked at all of the

11 garments that they listed there. As you can see, at

12 least -- there's a whole bunch that had a dry clean

13 label and nine of the ten companies showed no labeling

14 of a professional wet cleaning label. One did, but

15 that was only for apparel that said do not dry clean.

16 So they were being very selective in how they were

17 using that label.

18 So that's the -- the first criterion is how

19 prevalent is the lack of the label going to be. The

20 second criterion is, is failure to list the label

21 deceptive or unfair? Here, there is a series of

22 criteria that the FTC has developed for what

23 constitutes a deceptive practice and what constitutes

24 an unfair practice. And as you can see, both -- I

25 think I underlined the word consumer in both of those,
12

1 that this is really a question about deception or

2 unfairness to consumers. So we felt that the best way

3 to get the answer to that question was through a

4 survey.

5 So we commissioned Harris to provide -- to

6 conduct a survey of consumers in the United States,

7 2,000 respondents, a representative sample of U.S.

8 consumers using professional cleaning services. And so

9 the results of the survey -- this is the first

10 question. So we asked -- the first question was, "When

11 you see a garment that is labeled dry clean, what do

12 you think it means?" So we gave four options. The

13 least -- the option that was chosen least by people was

14 "Don't know." So half of a percentage of people said

15 they didn't know. So this gives a sense of, people

16 thought they really knew the answer to this question.

17 So what answer did they actually give? 44

18 percent said that it was the only method for cleaning

19 the garment, so that it was synonymous with "dry clean

20 only." Half said that they thought that the dry clean

21 label meant that it was the recommended method and 6

22 percent said that dry clean was one reliable method for

23 cleaning the garment, but that other methods may also

24 be appropriate.

25 The FTC defines a dry clean method as one
13

1 reliable method for cleaning the garment, but that

2 other methods might be appropriate. This means that 6

3 percent of consumers had the same understanding as the

4 FTC and 93 percent had a different understanding.

5 So put differently, a care label that says,

6 "dry clean" is clearly misleading to 93 percent of the

7 consumer respondents that we surveyed who use

8 professional cleaning services.

9 So this means that the first two criteria for

10 what constitutes a deceptive practice, so failure to

11 list a professional wet cleaning label on the garment

12 labeled dry clean, is very likely to mislead a

13 reasonable consumer, that kind of has at least been

14 demonstrated through the survey. You know, the

15 question therefore is, is this important? Is this

16 material -- that's the third criteria for deceptive

17 practices.

18 So the next question we asked is, have they

19 ever heard of professional wet cleaning. Four out of

20 five said they hadn't. Not surprising, in that there's

21 no professional wet cleaning care label and how else

22 would they get that information.

23 So anticipating that, we provided them with a

24 number of facts around professional wet cleaning. We

25 defined it, as we had defined it before, that the US
14

1 EPA considers, you know, wet cleaning to be a nontoxic

2 process and they encourage cleaners to switch to this,

3 that university research has shown that cleaners can

4 successfully clean the same range of garments at a

5 comparable cost, and that the FTC was considering

6 developing a care label, considering wet cleaning to be

7 environmentally friendly. So these were all facts that

8 we had already just discussed.

9 And the question then was, imagine you owned

10 a garment labeled dry clean or professionally wet clean

11 and the quality and the cost of the two cleaning

12 methods were the same, which of the two professional

13 cleaning methods would you prefer using for this

14 garment?

15 So the answer to this question was that 55

16 percent said professional wet cleaning, 18 percent said

17 dry cleaning, and the remainder weren't sure. So three

18 times greater preference for wet cleaning over dry

19 cleaning. That's material, that's important. That's

20 the consumer's interest in this technology and the

21 label and the meaning of the label.

22 So then the question is, okay, why? Which is

23 -- we have to establish the why here. So we asked the

24 question, how significant, if anything, if at all, is

25 avoiding environmental or human health impacts of dry
15

1 cleaning? Is there a preference for wet cleaning?

2 Here, 98 percent said that avoiding environmental and

3 human health impacts was somewhat to very significant.

4 So this shows actually that, you know, that the --

5 again the material importance of the deception -- the

6 deceptive practice.

7 We then asked, if your cleaner doesn't have a

8 service that does wet cleaning, would you be willing to

9 switch to a cleaner? And here, over half said that

10 they would be very willing and another 35 percent said

11 that they would be somewhat willing to switch to a

12 cleaner who can professionally wet clean a garment.

13 Again, showing us that people not only have a

14 preference, but are actually willing to act on that

15 preference.

16 Finally, we asked -- we wanted to know, were

17 the words important on the label. So which of the

18 following -- so we asked the question -- these are the

19 people that said that they would prefer the wet

20 cleaning, so which of the following garment care labels

21 were you more likely to want to professionally wet

22 clean a garment. And here, 70 percent of consumer

23 respondents expressing a preference for professional

24 wet cleaning, adding the words professional wet

25 cleaning to a dry clean care label, would make them
16

1 more likely to professional wet clean the garment. Or

2 put differently, 70 percent of consumers would be less

3 likely to professionally wet clean a garment if the

4 words professional wet clean were not on the care

5 label. And that is really what is at stake, in terms

6 with respect to the impact of deceptive practice.

7 So here is just a summary of kind of where

8 things stand, with respect to the reliable evidence

9 that the FTC uses for deceptive practices of likely to

10 mislead, that's pretty clear, with respect to that

11 first question. That to a reasonable consumer, this is

12 a representative sample of U.S. consumers, that is

13 material. So strong preference for wet cleaning, based

14 on values of avoiding environmental harm. And so

15 extreme strong evidence for it showing that it would be

16 a deceptive practice.

17 And then there's the unfair practice

18 criteria, which is -- they lay out three particular

19 criteria which is substantial injury to consumers, and

20 that can include their desire to avoid environmental or

21 human health harm, not outweighed by countervailing --

22 oh, sorry. So these are the criteria for unfair

23 practices.

24 So substantial injury to consumers, not

25 outweighed by countervailing benefits to the consumer,
17

1 or the customer, or competition here. There's no

2 trade-offs where dry cleaning is more beneficial. And

3 there's certainly not a benefit, in terms of increased

4 competition, to avoid a wet clean care label, and which

5 consumers themselves cannot reasonably avoid. That's

6 where that 80 percent, that they have no idea what wet

7 cleaning is, there are going to get their information

8 from the care label. And so they are not going to be

9 able to use other -- likely to use other information to

10 avoid.

11 So the third criterion that they set out for

12 requiring a label is that the requirement is

13 appropriate and cost effective. So is requiring the

14 label appropriate? Well, would it resolve the failure

15 to label? Well, clearly it would, if you require it.

16 Does it resolve deception or unfair practices? That's

17 what I've just shown that it is certainly going to be

18 -- it overcomes deception if, for garments that can be

19 wet cleaned, the label is on -- wet cleaning is on the

20 label.

21 So the third question has to do with cost

22 effectiveness. So is it cost effective to require a

23 label? So here, the best -- the highest quality of

24 data to determine a wet cleaning care label is going to

25 be from the expertise, experience and testing by
18

1 trained professional wet cleaners. These are people

2 that live and breathe wet cleaning. They are trained

3 in doing this and are extremely good at judging whether

4 a garment can be successfully wet cleaned. And so they

5 do this every day, as a daily practice. And they are

6 able to -- for around 99 percent of garments, able to

7 effectively use their expert judgment to determine.

8 I did a survey of wet cleaners to ask how

9 much they would charge to do that service, to provide

10 expert judgment, and I got a figure of 50 dollars per

11 garment, which is probably comparable to the current

12 cost of expert judgment that an apparel industry has to

13 make.

14 I also asked if they needed to test the

15 garment, how much they would charge, and that was

16 around 100 dollars per item and that was extremely

17 cost-effective and probably relatively similar to their

18 internal costs. Certainly, it's lower than other

19 estimates on external costs.

20 Now, cost can be easily -- this knowledge can

21 be easily transferred to the apparel industry, about

22 actually judging whether a garment can be wet cleaned.

23 And so those costs can be internalized quickly by the

24 apparel industry. And finally, cost savings are

25 likely.
19

1 So professional wet cleaning is less

2 expensive than dry cleaning, there is a reduced

3 enforcement cost relative to other dry cleaning

4 technologies, and reduced pollution remediation costs,

5 which are pretty substantial in dry cleaning where you

6 don't have that in wet cleaning.

7 So in all likelihood, over time, it is

8 actually going to be less expensive if you require a

9 wet cleaning care label.

10 So is it effective? Well, we just showed

11 that it would be extremely effective, with respect to

12 eliminating deceptive practice and unfair practices.

13 So is it cost effective? Clearly, it would be

14 extremely cost effective to require the use of a

15 professional wet cleaning care label.

16 So finally -- so in sum, I mean, this is the

17 reliable evidence that we've been able to collect, is

18 that, based on the criteria that the FTC has spelled

19 out for requiring a label, that the evidence is

20 extremely high for the likelihood that failure to use a

21 label will be prevalent, that failure to list the label

22 will be deceptive and unfair, and that the, in terms of

23 requiring the label is appropriate, absolutely. And

24 certainly it is cost effective.

25 So overall, the overall decision here, I
20

1 think, is pretty clear. Often times in policy, there's

2 tradeoffs and there are difficult decisions that have

3 to be made with respect to one versus another. This,

4 at least based on the reliable evidence here, this is

5 actually a pretty easy decision to make.

6 So finally, before we conducted this

7 research, this question about should the FTC allow or

8 require the use of the wet cleaning care label, I think

9 I was looking at that as the research question that I

10 was -- that we were asked to address. I think, after

11 conducting this research, I think that an appropriate

12 question really is, what factors should the FTC

13 consider making in making an efficient and effective

14 transition to a rule requiring the use of a

15 professional wet cleaning care label.

16 Thank you.

17 MR. FRISBY: Thank you, Peter. That was very

18 informative. You did finish early actually, so we'll

19 take a short break and Charles Riggs will be up to

20 present at 9:50. Thanks very much.

21 (Whereupon, there was a brief

22 recess.)

23 MR. FRISBY: We will now hear from our second

24 presenter, Charles Riggs, from Texas Woman's

25 University.
21

1 MR. RIGGS: Good morning. Peter didn't

2 mention that this is probably a continuation of the

3 October 1st meeting on the sidewalk. There were about

4 a dozen of us here. No one from FTC or the government,

5 of course, but we had some discussion.

6 FTC PERSONNEL: Sir, I apologize. Somebody

7 left a wedding ring when they went through security.

8 And if you did that, you should go out and grab it now.

9 My wife would kill me if I didn't interrupt.

10 So it's a ladies wedding ring and whoever --

11 if somebody -- they also put a bracelet through and

12 picked up the bracelet, but not the ring.

13 Okay, I'm sorry, sir.

14 MR. RIGGS: I would expect to see somebody

15 leaving in a panic. Well, don't go home without it,

16 right?

17 I've been involved in this industry, cleaning

18 industry, for -- well, I guess I am now starting year

19 41 with the University. My background is in chemistry

20 and that led to teaching in textiles and chemistry and

21 I still do both. I am two people on campus, Professor

22 of Textiles in one building and Professor of Chemistry

23 in another building.

24 So we've had a long history, working

25 initially with funding from the State of Texas, with
22

1 the look at how we help to promote the use of fibers

2 grown in the State of Texas, which was cotton, wool,

3 and mohair, primarily. Of course, in the cleaning

4 process, that means laundering and dry cleaning, so

5 we've been involved in both.

6 Still involved in both, for about 20 of those

7 years, we had a plant on campus in which we actually

8 did production work. Well, I didn't, but we had a

9 staff that did production work, taking cleaning for a

10 fee. And at the same time, under my direction, we

11 would do controlled research studies, looking at

12 different cleaning parameters for different kinds of

13 fibers, both dry cleaning and laundering.

14 At one time, we had the current, most recent

15 model of the wet cleaning machine and the newest model

16 of a hydrocarbon dry cleaning machine and the newest

17 model of a perchloroethylene dry cleaning machine. So

18 we had a chance to do some very good comparative

19 studies, backed up with laboratory test data, including

20 a project funded by EPA, through Design for

21 Environment, in partnership with North Carolina State

22 University.

23 So I, at TWU, and Manfred Wentz, through

24 NCSU, did a lot of data and we got involved in the wet

25 cleaning process, actually not too long after the
23

1 Europeans began doing it. Wetcleaning is not new to

2 the professional care industry. As far as I know, it

3 goes back to at least 1940 and probably before that.

4 Because you will look, and I'll show you to

5 demonstrate, it was an essential part of the

6 professional care industry, that is you could not just

7 use solvents, you also had to use water. Wetcleaning

8 was often practiced as a scrub board-type process as an

9 adjunct to dry cleaning, in particular for certain

10 kinds of soils and fabric combinations.

11 And that's what I want to address today, what

12 are our limitations when we start looking at fabrics

13 and soils and wet clean or dry clean.

14 So these are the care symbols that -- I think

15 this is the ASTM set. And during that part of that

16 time, I was also involved with -- this is ASTM D13, I

17 served on that committee. This was also worked on, a

18 little bit different symbols, in ISO 3758, and I was on

19 that committee also. And then through AATCC, we

20 activated RA43, which is the professional care test

21 methods for American Association of Textile Chemists

22 and Colorists. And Manfred Wentz and I, for a few

23 years, rotated. He would chair for a period, I was

24 secretary, and then we'd reverse roles.

25 So we would look heavily at the test methods.
24

1 At the 1999 roundtable, wet cleaning was discussed and,

2 at that time, it wasn't a viable option even to allow

3 the label because we didn't have a definition for it.

4 Furthermore, we didn't have a test method. And rightly

5 so, you needed both. So I was very much involved in

6 that process, I think in many meetings, I was the only

7 U.S. delegate there.

8 Through ISO 3175, part 4, was added, which is

9 professional wet cleaning, ISO 3175, parts 2 and 3,

10 I'll get the numbers reversed, one is for

11 perchloroethylene cleaning, one is for hydrocarbon

12 cleaning, and there may be other methods yet to be

13 added, as we look at new solvents coming into the

14 industry. But 3174 is where we work from a

15 standardized definition and a backing up test method,

16 so that method is there and that definition is there.

17 And in fact, if you were to test for labels, the way to

18 test the labels would not be to take it to the corner

19 wet cleaner. It would need a test it according to ISO

20 3175, part 4, standardized test method. We were

21 involved with Europe in doing the inter-laboratory

22 correlations and you get results that do indeed

23 correlate.

24 So I put these up here, I think it's probably

25 going to come up during panel discussion, one of the
25

1 differences between ASTM, FTC rules, and the ISO is the

2 use of this St. Andrew's cross. FTC requires a

3 reasonable basis, ISO does not.

4 Okay, let me get to the heart of the subject.

5 Here's a typical dry cleaning machine, front and back.

6 It's quite different than what was used in the old

7 days, which led to a lot of environmental pollution.

8 These machines have no connection to the water, they

9 are stand-alone machines. They have a steam

10 connection, electrical connection, and everything is

11 self-contained in the machine. All waste is removed

12 from the machine in special containers, solvent is

13 delivered and retained in the machine. The back of it

14 contains filtering processes for cleaning the solvent

15 and, in most cases, and certainly in the recommended

16 cases, a distillation unit for purifying the solvent.

17 The wet cleaning machine looks pretty

18 similar, except where you do have connections to water

19 and sewer. Because of course, the water is what's used

20 and the products removed in wet cleaning go to the

21 sewer. Transfer to a dryer, and the dryer requires

22 some special conditioning. The term wet cleaning has

23 become now to mean this particular wet cleaning machine

24 and drying process, as opposed to the dry cleaner using

25 the scrub board to handle certain kinds of soils.
26

1 So I want to look at expectations for the

2 cleaning process. If you're in the professional

3 cleaning business, your customers have two major

4 expectations. One is they want to get it clean. Is

5 that better over there to the side? Is it picking up

6 all right? All right. And at the same time, you want

7 to avoid damage to the item.

8 So I wanted to look at those two factors and

9 look at what happens in both water and solvents in

10 determining soil removal and protecting the garment.

11 For the dry cleaning process, well for any cleaning

12 process, we've got two choices. Peter had this, I

13 think, on a slide also. An aqueous solvent, using

14 water -- now, I want to talk about the chemical nature

15 of that. That's a molecule that is, we would describe

16 it as being polar in nature. That is, if you look at

17 the molecule from a chemical basis, there is a

18 separation of positive and negative charges on that

19 molecule, so it's polar.

20 The nonaqueous solvents are, for the most

21 part, nonpolar. The ones most widely used would be

22 petroleum or natural or synthetic petroleum solvents,

23 tetrachlorethylene, that would also include silicone

24 fluids, and I'm now seeing a number of new

25 alternatives. I was exposed to one just recently,
27

1 dibutoxymethane, which looks like a very interesting

2 solvent. But all of them have this characteristic of

3 not being a polar molecule.

4 Now, let's go back to the damage situation

5 for a minute. In solvent cleaning, one of the issues

6 is odor retention. It's been solved primarily by newer

7 techniques and newer machines for keeping the solvents

8 clean and pure. There are some kinds of trims,

9 especially polystyrene beads and sequins, that are

10 solvent-sensitive that you would have to be cautious

11 for and test for and perhaps label those to avoid

12 certain types of solvents, perchloroethylene being the

13 most aggressive.

14 In the case of water, the biggest issue we

15 have is shrinkage. Loss of color is more prevalent in

16 the water than it is in solvent and that loss of color

17 could promote bleeding. It seems that a very popular

18 fashion trend is to have contrasting dark and light

19 fabrics in the same garment and that's a real issue

20 when it comes to bleeding the dark color on to the

21 lighter color. Black and white is a very fashionable

22 look, it's also a very difficult look to clean.

23 And then we have some change in surface

24 character typically with water. I seem to be stuck on

25 the same slide. That wasn't the right button.
28

1 I want to look at this issue of shrinkage,

2 which we find more common in water. There are actually

3 two types of shrinkage we would deal with in textiles.

4 One is relaxation shrinkage, and this comes from fabric

5 that has been processed, usually wet, and in the

6 processing, the fabric is stretched. It may, in fact,

7 be in an elongated stretched state when you buy a new

8 garment. Water is a very relaxing bath and we tend to

9 find that that fiber that was elongated now relaxes and

10 comes back to what would have been it's normal length,

11 with the customer very happy about the change of one or

12 two sizes in their garment. The warmer the water, the

13 faster the relaxation.

14 Once you get this relaxation shrinkage

15 relaxed back to the original length, then it stops and

16 you would live with a stable fabric, that is unless you

17 stretch it out again. I know my students on campus

18 love their denim jeans to fit tight and they buy them

19 tight. And when they wash them, they relax and they

20 struggle to get them on. At the end of the day,

21 they're elongated again and so they're nice and

22 comfortable. But the next time it's washed, it relaxes

23 again. So this could be a repeating process for

24 tight-fitting garments. But if you buy something new

25 and it's been elongated at the mill, you would observe
29

1 shrinkage in a brand new garment, not to anyone's fault

2 except for the fact that the fabric was elongated.

3 The other type of shrinkage is progressive.

4 This is we have something that the fiber is sensitive

5 to and, once it is exposed to that, it causes the fiber

6 to actually shorten in length. And this continues, for

7 some fibers, on an indefinite basis. Wool being one of

8 those that, you could start with a sweater and

9 progressively shrink it to a tightly knotted ball. So

10 part of our issue in the cleaning process is

11 controlling these different types of shrinkage.

12 The other thing I want to look at are this

13 whole process of getting things clean. You won't be a

14 professional cleaner if you don't accomplish this goal

15 of removing soils. Some soils simply require

16 agitation. Think of sawdust, loose sand, you just

17 shake it out of the fabric and it's gone. There are

18 some soils which will dissolve in water and not much

19 else is involved. And in fact, it's the chemistry that

20 matches. You have a polar solvent and if the soil is

21 polar, it tends to dissolve in that solvent and it's

22 readily removed. So if we match them up, polar

23 solvents to water, easily removed. Salts, sugars,

24 blood, urine, most body fluids.

25 Nonpolar solvent -- or nonpolar soils, which
30

1 are things like oils, greases, fats, and waxes, are

2 hard to remove in a polar solvent. So if you have

3 water, you are going to have a very hard time getting

4 out the oils, greases, fats, and waxes. So you add

5 different kinds of detergents, which certainly help in

6 the process.

7 The particulate soils, not soluble and they

8 are going to come out, you know, with shaking. The

9 stains we would classify as something different. These

10 are chemically bound to the fabric and you must do some

11 kind of a chemical treatment to reduce the color of

12 this stain to make it either soluble or no longer

13 showing its color characteristics.

14 Some stains are professionally removed before

15 cleaning, some are removed after cleaning. Looks like

16 I have to go through it twice, once with the remote and

17 once with the -- so in terms of getting things clean,

18 and what professional cleaners have known since 1940

19 and before, you need to match the chemistry to the

20 soil.

21 So if you're a dry cleaner, you would have no

22 problem with nonpolar soils. You would have a problem

23 with the polar soils, that is, match the two up. If

24 the soil readily dissolves in water, it's a problem in

25 dry cleaning. If it readily dissolves in solvent, it's
31

1 a problem in washing.

2 So to give you a view ahead to the final

3 statement, in our studies we found that you actually

4 need access to both technologies. If you want to get a

5 wide range of soils out, you need some water chemistry

6 when you are doing dry cleaning with solvents. If you

7 are doing wet cleaning, you need some solvent chemistry

8 when you are wet cleaning with water.

9 And the professional cleaner would then rely

10 upon their knowledge of soil type to do the appropriate

11 thing for that particular type soil. Wetcleaning we

12 would find just the opposite, no problem with polar

13 soils. Our problem comes from the nonpolar soils. And

14 we would have to add special detergents, emulsifiers,

15 and so on, pre or post-spot to remove those oily soils,

16 which could become an environmental issue. If you are

17 pre-spotting in wet cleaning with a solvent and then

18 you put that pre-spotted item into the wet cleaning

19 machine, you have now added solvents to the water,

20 which is not allowed or should not be allowed.

21 So again, you need a knowledge of soil type

22 that is present to make a decision as to should you use

23 water on this or should you use a solvent.

24 Okay, so I know in some of the news reports

25 of this roundtable, they talk about wet cleaning as
32

1 being an environmentally-friendly process, which I'll

2 address later, but let's look at the environmental

3 issues with dry cleaning.

4 The process goes back to the 1800s. The

5 initial quality of the solvent was poor, but still

6 recycling was part of the standard practice. You would

7 capture and reuse the solvent. But there was no method

8 for disposing of dirty solvent or removed soils. So

9 typically this was done, you know, wherever you could

10 dump it. And at that time, it certainly was not

11 illegal, so we had a lot of contaminated sites that we

12 are now cleaning up where that was dumped on the ground

13 or, heaven forbid, got into the waterway. But you

14 know, some issues with now cleaning that up. Now, the

15 risk is certainly minimized with the modern machines

16 and the modern technology.

17 Problems water soluble soils removed by hand

18 wet cleaning, probably go back to -- I can't document,

19 but I'd say back into the 1800s probably. You would

20 realize very quickly that some things coming in simply

21 didn't come out in solvent. You need to treat them

22 with water either before or after the process, it had

23 to be done that way.

24 I wanted to show you this one. We found, in

25 our studies comparing the three machines, the wet
33

1 cleaning machine, the perc machine and the hydrocarbon

2 machine, and this was part of the international

3 inter-laboratory correlations, we used an IWS,

4 International Wool Secretariat, test fabric. And so

5 here's the situation. You can take a wool fiber, and

6 I'm talking about a fiber not a fabric, and you can

7 elongate it. It will stretch. It doesn't recover very

8 fast and it doesn't recover completely, so wool in

9 fabrics quite often is elongated.

10 If you increase the humidity, you would speed

11 up that recovery process. In addition, the fiber has

12 scales. I think you can see the cross-section down

13 there, that clearly shows the fiber, which are part of

14 our issue with wool. When we expose wool to a

15 combination of heat, moisture and agitation, which is

16 what you would need to get clean using water, these

17 fibers will migrate or withdraw towards the root end

18 and then those scales can overlap and interlock and you

19 can't re-extend them.

20 Also, the tip of the fiber becomes mobile and

21 would intertangle with adjacent fibers and adjacent

22 yarns in a process that we would call felting, which

23 could be desirable, if you want to make a felt fabric.

24 But if you have a sweater, you don't want to felt it in

25 the cleaning process.
34

1 Here are some examples of some different

2 animal hair fibers and some other fibers that would not

3 be issues. But you can see, the coarser the texture of

4 the scale, the more the problem you're going to have

5 with that fiber shortening and not being able to

6 recover.

7 Now what can happen with wet cleaning

8 tensioning equipment is we can get some felting, we can

9 stretch it out, but we've now replaced a fiber

10 shrinkage issue with a relaxation issue. So the second

11 time it comes back, it would relax and felt some more.

12 The third time, we may not be able to tension it back.

13 And that was our test criteria. ISO 3175 requires a

14 three-cycle process to test for compatibility of wet

15 cleaning.

16 So the history goes, traditional wool fabric,

17 you would dry clean it. You had to be concerned about

18 moisture levels and if it had soils that required a

19 water solvent removal process, you would wet clean it

20 by hand. In wet cleaning, you can do wool in a very

21 mild detergent, minimal mechanical action. In fact,

22 the wet cleaning cycle spends a tremendous amount of

23 time in a soaking cycle and not much time in rotation

24 and agitation, which means you get less mechanical

25 action to remove the soil because you want to minimize
35

1 that to avoid the damage to the wool fabric.

2 You get some relaxation still and you can get

3 some felting. You might recover that by elongation,

4 but that's going to be progressive. Every time you do

5 it, you're going to get more felting and less ability

6 to elongate. So after multiple cleanings, you may lose

7 the ability to wet clean it another time or it may

8 begin to change in size uncontrollably. I apologize

9 for these repeating. I'm not sure what's happening

10 there.

11 Okay. There are some washable wool fabrics,

12 which could be an industry trend, but it's been

13 proposed for years and success has been limited. And

14 the way you do that is actually change the character of

15 the fiber. You can chemically remove some of the scale

16 structure, but then you change the way it feels. And

17 you could coat the scales with a finish, which also

18 changes the way it feels and the way it would breathe.

19 So you know, to make wool more wet-cleanable,

20 we would have issues in terms of hand of the fabric,

21 degrading the durability of the fabric, and then the

22 alkali found in most laundry detergents would also

23 attack the wool protein.

24 So here's a summary. Again, back to dry

25 cleaning, the current technology, no connection to the
36

1 sewer. So all solvents, soils, and additives are

2 captured, filtered, distilled. The solvent is reused

3 in the same machine, going through filtering and

4 distillation steps. And if properly done, the reused

5 solvent is as pure and clear as the new solvent would

6 be. This is getting to be rather amazing. The current

7 dry cleaning technology, with this reused technology,

8 typically one gallon of solvent lost for every 1,000

9 pounds cleaned. That's a conservative number. I'm

10 hearing from the people promoting this new solvent I

11 mentioned, dibutoxymethane, that they are approaching

12 5,000 pounds per gallon. So where does this gallon go?

13 You know, it's lost, but we talk about where it likely

14 is.

15 In wet cleaning, we use water to remove those

16 soluble soils and then the discharged soils and the

17 detergents we need to handle the others are discharged

18 to the sewer. And the ISO test method is based upon

19 using water at a temperature of 85 to 104 degrees. And

20 the total consumption -- in fact, the fabric to liquor

21 ratio is specified 2.4 gallons of water per pound of

22 fabric wet cleaned. So if you were to compare the two,

23 you see that that 1,000 pounds of dry cleaning that

24 uses a gallon of solvent would take 2,400 gallons of

25 water. Back to it repeating.
37

1 So what's environmentally friendly? Washing,

2 wet cleaning using water, which in some areas is

3 becoming a precious commodity with droughts coming in.

4 In particular, the water is primarily that that comes

5 out of the drinking supply. They would discharge

6 soils, detergents, and, if there's pre-spotting,

7 solvents, perhaps, to the sewer. Dry-to-dry dry

8 cleaning machines, actually it cleans and dries in the

9 same machine, the soils and detergents are concentrated

10 and then they are disposed of by licensed hazardous

11 waste handlers. So you package the soils and

12 detergents that you've used and removed into a small

13 container and get rid of them.

14 I hope it -- it may not show it as gross as I

15 would like for it to. This is the back of a dry

16 cleaning machine. It's connected to a waste drum,

17 which would normally not be opened, but is opened for

18 taking the picture. And I think it's interesting to

19 take students on a tour and show them this and they're

20 all disgusted. This is coming out of the back of this

21 dry cleaning machine. And they are all disgusted and

22 think that's just a terrible thing to do. And then I

23 point out to them, well, if you wash it or wet clean

24 it, this is what goes in the sewer.

25 One particular plant I visited recently is
38

1 doing workwear from the oil fields, a combination of

2 polar soils and nonpolar soils. A lot of grease from

3 the drilling and a lot of perspiration and a lot of

4 dirt. You've got all kinds of soils there, particulate

5 and so on, so it's a problem for all technologies. If

6 you use water, you're struggling with the oils and

7 greases. If you use solvents, you're struggling with

8 the perspiration. So what do they do?

9 Well, you could use an industrial laundry.

10 And we work for that industry, too. In fact, we do

11 more with that industry than we do in dry cleaning.

12 Industrial laundries are actually prepared to handle

13 this using water. I wouldn't call this wet cleaning,

14 because this is extremely aggressive chemistry, high

15 temperatures, and these laundries also have on-premise

16 wastewater pretreatment facilities. So you know, it's

17 a different type of regulation issue. That's one

18 possibility.

19 That's a typical industrial laundry, workwear

20 being sorted. This is not part of our labeling, but

21 it's -- interestingly enough, ISO is wanting to put on

22 industrial workwear care symbols, a whole other set of

23 symbols that I think is unnecessary.

24 But here's an industrial washing machine.

25 The process is that, once it's running, about 110
39

1 pounds every two minutes, tunnel washer, reuses the

2 water.

3 Okay, here's another possibility that is

4 being done in this small facility in which they have no

5 access to industrial laundering. They are taking these

6 dirty workwear and they are dry cleaning it with

7 solvents the last run of the day. No additives added

8 to it. It removes the oil, the grease, and most of the

9 particulates and focuses it and concentrates it in that

10 waste drum, so it's handled and goes to hazardous

11 waste.

12 The next morning, they take the load that had

13 been dry cleaned -- oh, I forgot to tell you that the

14 solvent goes directly to distillation so the -- two

15 minutes? It's purified and reused, okay? The next

16 morning, they take these garments and wash them again,

17 using regular detergent. The water soluble soils, the

18 perspiration, and so on are removed that way. So it's

19 called dual-phase cleaning. It used to be popular.

20 The only issue with dual-phase cleaning is if you do

21 the solvent cleaning first, which is the right way to

22 do it, you need to be sure that you have removed the

23 residual solvent before you go to the wet cleaning

24 side, lest you run the risk of putting that in the

25 water again.
40

1 So this is our topic for discussion. The

2 circle W and the idea behind the ISO thought process,

3 and also ASTM and everyone, was the circle would be the

4 symbol to the consumer, professional care required.

5 Take it to the professional. And then we, on some

6 level, leave to the professional what they are trained

7 to make the decision of, I need to use water on this or

8 I need to use solvent on this, partly based upon the

9 label and partly based upon what they see, in terms of

10 the fabric structure and the soils on the garment.

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 
41

1 PANEL ONE

2 MR. FRISBY: Thank you, Charles. That was

3 also very informative. And now we are ready for our

4 first discussion group to assemble up here. If you all

5 could make your way to the tables, please?

6 Looks like everyone, except for Amanda. Let

7 me start by introducing our group here at the tables.

8 First, we have Marie D'Avignon from the

9 American Apparel and Footwear Association.

10 We have Ann Hargrove from the National

11 Cleaners Association.

12 Adam Mansell from overseas, the UK Fashion

13 and Textile Association.

14 Paul Matthai from the EPA.

15 Julie Mo from the Professional Wet Cleaners

16 Association.

17 Joy Onasch from the University of

18 Massachusetts, Toxics Use Reduction Institute.

19 Of course, our presenter, Charles Riggs,

20 Professor at Texas Woman's University.

21 Mary Scalco from the Dry Cleaning and Laundry

22 Institute.

23 And of course, our other presenter, Peter

24 Sinsheimer from UCLA.

25 I'd just like to start by saying that I
42

1 understand that Peter is going to be providing his

2 consumer study to the FTC so that we can look at it

3 more closely. We appreciate that.

4 Before we get into the issues of deception

5 and unfairness that Peter raised, I wanted to very

6 briefly give all of the members of the discussion group

7 just a minute or so, if they want to provide any

8 general impressions about the presentations. If you to

9 prefer to wait and comment when we get into the issues,

10 that's fine today.

11 But why don't we start with the seven who did

12 not present? We'll start and go alphabetically.

13 MS. D'AVIGNON: Sure. Hi, everyone. Thank

14 you for having me today. I won't pretend that I'm a

15 complete expert on the wet cleaning process. I

16 represent the interests of the apparel companies who

17 deal with the compliance of actually putting on a label

18 on their products. So they need to know how to wash

19 them or how to care for them, so they can share that

20 information with the consumers. But again, I'm not a

21 chemist so it goes a little bit above my head.

22 From the research I've done though, I do

23 understand that wet cleaning can be an effective

24 process and can have environmental benefits, so I think

25 it would be great to consider it as an option for
43

1 cleaning, but I would like to underline the fact that I

2 think that it should be only an option. Having it be

3 required, that companies would have to test for it and

4 have to consider it for their labels, I think is

5 unnecessary at this point.

6 MR. FRISBY: Thank you. Ann, do you want to

7 say anything?

8 MS. HARGROVE: Sure. I come at this from a

9 different angle. I was a dry cleaner, a perc dry

10 cleaner, and then I became a wet cleaner. And I ran

11 the first 100 percent wet cleaning store in the country

12 and I think it should be an adjunct. I really believe

13 that, after working with the clothes -- and I

14 understand where Peter is coming from, where he uses

15 that figure of 99 percent, I do not agree at all. Not

16 at all.

17 MR. FRISBY: Thank you. Adam.

18 MR. MANSELL: Just a couple of comments on

19 Peter's presentation, particularly on the bit about the

20 manufacturers and retailers not using the optional W

21 symbol in the UK and Europe.

22 There are a number of reasons for that. One,

23 very limited wet cleaning facilities, certainly in the

24 UK. And secondly, although some of those people listed

25 that slide are my members, I can pretty much guarantee
44

1 you that 99 percent of them weren't tested for

2 anything. They put the dry cleaning symbol on there

3 without testing for it. They wouldn't have put a

4 bleaching symbol on there when bleaching can damage the

5 garments.

6 My view is that the optional way is certainly

7 the best way to go forward. I think requiring

8 manufacturers and retailers to test absolutely

9 everything will make it very difficult for those

10 manufacturers and suppliers to -- there's a lot of

11 additional cost in that.

12 MR. FRISBY: Thank you. Paul.

13 MR. MATTHAI: Yes, I'm Paul Matthai and I'm

14 at the EPA. I work in the Pollution Prevention program

15 and we look at mostly the toxicity and the risk for

16 human health and environmental issues. I work across

17 the Agency on regulations and I look at alternative

18 options to put into regulations. For the Office of

19 Air, which is a lot of the solvents, they try to

20 regulate in terms of the emissions. I look at it in

21 terms of, are there other ways to do that and reduce

22 your emissions and also achieve environmental and human

23 health reductions and exposures to toxic chemicals.

24 And I'm look at both the -- at all the solvents and

25 also the wet process.
45

1 MR. FRISBY: Great. Julie.

2 MS. MO: Please excuse my voice, I have

3 laryngitis. We have been a dedicated professional wet

4 cleaner since July of 2008 and we believe that a

5 cleaning care label should be a mandatory requirement.

6 MR. FRISBY: All right. Joy.

7 MS. ONASCH: Joy Onasch with the Toxics Use

8 Reduction Institute at U Mass Lowell. We have been

9 working with dry cleaners across the state of

10 Massachusetts to help convert them to dedicated wet

11 cleaning. We have collected significant data and

12 testimonials from those cleaners that I believe counter

13 what Mr. Riggs presented and does show the

14 environmental benefits of wet cleaning and, in fact, a

15 significant reduction in the use of water at the

16 facilities where we've collected data on their water

17 use between perc usage and professional wet cleaning.

18 And also, not necessarily data collected, but

19 significant testimonials to the health effects that

20 have dramatically changed from perc usage to

21 professional wet cleaning services. The testimonials

22 with regards to headaches, ill feelings using the perc,

23 compared.

24 So the fact that everything is collected from

25 a perc machine just doesn't seem to hold up to those
46

1 testimonials.

2 MR. FRISBY: All right. Mary.

3 MS. SCALCO: Yes. I thank you again for

4 having me. I certainly agree that wet cleaning on the

5 care label should be an option. I don't think that

6 particular requirement -- that that particular

7 instruction should be required any more than any of the

8 other possible care methods should be required. It's

9 not required to put dry cleaning on the label, it's not

10 required to put machine wash on the label. That is the

11 purview of the -- the FTC care label rule doesn't

12 require the manufacturer to do anything, but certainly

13 wet cleaning now, at this point in time, back when we

14 looked at this in the late eighties and early nineties,

15 wet cleaning was not a viable option. It certainly is

16 a viable option.

17 And I think those in the room that represent

18 dry cleaning interests would tell you that most of the

19 facilities have the capability of doing both and they

20 use their professional judgment when it comes to it.

21 If it's a garment, as Dr. Riggs said, imagine if you

22 have a garment that you have a soil on it where you

23 spilled something on it that doesn't come out in dry

24 cleaning, you have to wet clean it. Otherwise, you

25 cannot give it back to the consumer so that they can
47

1 wear it again.

2 The same way if you have something that says

3 wash on it or wet clean on it, if it has a soil on

4 there that does not come out in wet cleaning, the

5 appropriate care method is dry cleaning. So having

6 that option.

7 MR. FRISBY: All right. Peter, do you want

8 to comment on Charles' presentation?

9 MR. SINSHEIMER: I had one on Charles' that I

10 would like to pose to a professional wet cleaner.

11 Julie has laryngitis, but there's other wet cleaners in

12 the audience, so it depends -- so Julie could answer or

13 other wet cleaners in the audience.

14 He mentioned this issue about repeated

15 cleaning of wool garments and use of tensioning

16 equipment that would cause damage. Based on your

17 experience or expertise, what's your experience and

18 expertise with respect to repeatedly cleaning wool

19 garments using the full range of finishing and

20 tensioning equipment?

21 MS. MO: With proper equipment and training,

22 you shouldn't have an issue with those items. For us,

23 when we feel, from our professional judgment, that an

24 item should be measured beforehand, then we measure it

25 and we double-check to make sure that there has not
48

1 been any shrinkage issues.

2 MS. SCALCO: I have -- I think what -- can I

3 interrupt?

4 MR. FRISBY: Certainly, sure.

5 MS. SCALCO: Or can I ask a question? I

6 think what Dr. Riggs was saying, and maybe you can

7 attest to this, where you've cleaned that same garment

8 three or four times, and after the fourth or fifth

9 time, are you able to get it back to its shape. I

10 understand that, the first time -- because I am also a

11 textile chemist, so you know, we all get that fiber

12 history and we understand how the fibers work.

13 I think that the question he pointed out was

14 after repeated cleaning, over and over again, is that

15 -- not only is it going to go back to the same shape,

16 but is it going to have the same hand and feel and look

17 to the garment.

18 MS. MO: Well, with any garment, over time

19 you are going to have wear and tear as well. So with

20 our system, we have had clients with us for years and

21 they normally bring in the same garments repeatedly.

22 We've had wool and cashmere and different types of

23 garments that we've cleaned and, aside from the normal

24 wear and tear that we see, we haven't had any major

25 issues. Customers have not complained.
49

1 MR. FRISBY: All right. Thank you. Charles,

2 do you want to comment on Peter's presentation briefly?

3 MR. RIGGS: No. I'll just comment on the

4 ongoing discussion line. What we've found is, in wool

5 garments, quite often there is -- in fact, the most

6 common wool fabric out there is a 45 percent wool, 55

7 percent synthetic fiber blend. And that blend, the

8 blending of the other fibers, disrupts that felting

9 action so you could, in fact, do those blends

10 repeatedly.

11 The IWS standard wool test fabric, which is

12 what we use for evaluating the cleaning methods, we

13 could not -- you know, it would show a change in

14 surface character and it would show shrinkage that we

15 could recover the first time, we could not the third

16 time. And that's a recognized international test

17 standard fabric.

18 MR. FRISBY: All right. Now, I'd like to go

19 on to Peter's argument that the Commission should amend

20 the rule to require a wet cleaning instruction to

21 prevent deception and unfairness.

22 I'd like to start with the deception

23 argument. And let's assume, for the sake of argument,

24 that the dry clean instruction that the rule envisions

25 is deceptive in some ways. If that's the case, why not
50

1 just amend the rule to correct the dry cleaning

2 instruction? Anyone have any thoughts about that

3 issue?

4 MR. RIGGS: I --

5 MS. SCALCO: I guess I don't understand your

6 --

7 MR. FRISBY: Well, let me unpack it a little

8 bit. If the problem with the dry cleaning instruction

9 is that it implies falsely that the garment cannot be

10 wet cleaned or home washed, is there a way to correct

11 the dry clean instruction so it doesn't make any false

12 implication about other types of cleaning methods? Is

13 there a way to do that?

14 MR. RIGGS: Well, I think in general we have

15 poor education about just exactly how the care label

16 rule is constructed for the consumers. And I base this

17 on 40 years of classroom experience with students who

18 are majoring in the textiles area which, from a

19 consumer standpoint, probably have a keener interest in

20 the label than the average consumer. And they don't

21 know until I have them in class that the requirement

22 for the label is not all care procedures are required,

23 not the best care procedure is required, a care

24 procedure is required. That's all the requirement is.

25 So there's a difference between -- and they
51

1 don't realize this until I explain it to them, a label

2 that says dry clean only when the only is a cautionary

3 word that means you can't do anything else, versus a

4 label that says dry cleaning, that says the

5 manufacturer says you can dry clean this garment. It

6 does not indicate that you might be able to wash it at

7 home, you might be able to wet clean it.

8 It's my explanation to the students that it

9 is basically only tested for dry cleaning or the

10 reasonable basis may be because of a long history of

11 success dry cleaning that particular fabric for years

12 and years, that satisfies the reasonable basis

13 requirement.

14 But you could argue that the whole care

15 labeling procedure is deceptive, because we require a

16 method. Not all methods, not the best method. You

17 know, in a perfect world, I would like to see all

18 labels required and then you have a full range of

19 consumer knowledge, but that's unreasonable from a cost

20 of testing garments basis.

21 So I think you either to require all or you

22 keep it like it is, where the manufacturer chooses

23 which one they want to list. They can't use the word

24 only, unless they have a reasonable basis for excluding

25 all others.
52

1 MR. FRISBY: Well, let me just throw out some

2 hypothetical approaches. Let's say you have a label

3 that says, "Can be dry cleaned, other methods not

4 tested." I'm just throwing that out as an example, if

5 anyone has a better suggestion of how the rule might be

6 amended to address the deception that Peter --

7 MS. SCALCO: I guess where I'm confused is

8 that deception also exists for home laundering. If it

9 says machine wash on it, that doesn't mean you can't

10 dry clean it. So you're deceptive in that regard just

11 as easily.

12 I think I'm saying what Dr. Riggs said, the

13 rule is structured to only give one method of care.

14 That may not be the best, it may not be the most

15 appropriate, it may not be the most

16 environmentally-friendly, if you want to say

17 environmentally-friendly. It only gives one method of

18 care.

19 MR. FRISBY: Granted. But what I'm trying to

20 get at is, is there a way to improve the rule so that

21 the dry clean instruction does not deceive people in

22 the way that the study suggested it did? And anyone

23 have any ideas about how the rule might be amended to

24 address that? I threw out one example.

25 MS. SCALCO: Well, you would require all
53

1 appropriate methods of care, whatever that is, to be on

2 the label.

3 MR. FRISBY: But is that the only method of

4 addressing the deception, is my question.

5 MR. RIGGS: I think the bigger deception that

6 I see is the label hand-wash in cold water, which

7 rarely gets anything clean. And in most cases, you can

8 use machine wash in warm water, which doesn't -- so you

9 know, the deception is not just with this dry clean,

10 wet clean issue, it's across the entire subject of --

11 whatever the label is, it's not excluding the others,

12 but it may be perceived that way from the consumer.

13 MR. FRISBY: Right, yeah. What I'm getting

14 at is, is there a way to prevent that misconception

15 from being in debate?

16 MS. D'AVIGNON: I would actually argue that

17 it doesn't necessarily need to be addressed. Because

18 the brand is -- or the brand, manufacturer, whoever, is

19 offering up a recommendation of how they want this

20 garment to be cared for doesn't necessarily mean that

21 they are deceiving the customer, but perhaps that's --

22 you know, it's their prerogative, as a brand, to say

23 that I want to sell my product as hand-wash only

24 because I'm marketing it to people who are more likely

25 to have lower income and want to wash things at home
54

1 and want to have an easier time about it. And as long

2 as it's true, it can be washed at home, in a way that

3 doesn't hurt the garment, it's the prerogative of that

4 company to be able to make that decision.

5 At the same time, if it's maybe a higher-end

6 company that wants to give off the brand image of

7 being, well, we're very high-class and you should dry

8 clean everything and give off that image, or if we want

9 to say we're environmental-friendly and we want it wet

10 cleaned and give off that image, it's the prerogative

11 of the brand. As long as we are giving truthful

12 information that's not going to harm the product, I

13 don't see the point in addressing it.

14 MR. FRISBY: I want to move on to the

15 unfairness issue in a moment, but before we do that, I

16 want to get at this question another way.

17 The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits

18 deceptive practices regarding environmental claims,

19 deceptive claims of environmental benefit, but it

20 doesn't ordinarily require companies to tout the

21 environmental benefits of their products. And I guess

22 one question here is, why is wet cleaning different?

23 And I'd like to just throw that question out to

24 everyone on the panel, if they want to address it.

25 MS. SCALCO: Well, it's not any different. I
55

1 could sit here and argue that there are environmental

2 benefits to dry cleaning in the current dry cleaning

3 that there is today. There are new methods that are

4 coming on that are environmentally-friendly, that's in

5 a -- as Dr. Riggs' presentation showed, it's in a

6 dry-to-dry, it's all done in the same machine. It's

7 not environmentally hazard as it was to the old dry

8 cleaning. In the old method, it was much like wet

9 cleaning is today, where you transferred and you had a

10 solvent going into the ground and there was that

11 hazard.

12 So I could argue that it is

13 environmentally-friendly and that wet cleaning is not

14 any more environmentally-friendly than the current dry

15 cleaning. I don't think you can paint all dry cleaning

16 methods with the same brush. You can't say everything

17 is the same.

18 And the industry -- and there are certainly

19 manufacturers in here of new alternative solvents,

20 that's why we're addressing that issue, that's why they

21 came on the market. And I could not make that blanket

22 statement, because I could easily say that wet

23 cleaning, in certain facilities, could be just as

24 environmentally damaging.

25 MR. FRISBY: Joy, did you want to jump in?
56

1 MS. ONASCH: Yeah, I think that that claim

2 would work, as long as you looked at one certain aspect

3 of environmentally-friendly. I'd like to remind you of

4 the slide that Peter showed that had the color-coded

5 comparison of different alternatives. And I believe

6 that was adopted from San Francisco --

7 MR. SINSHEIMER: That's right.

8 MS. ONASCH: -- that does a range of

9 comparisons. And my organization, TURI, has recently

10 done and published a study, a full alternatives

11 assessment on all of the different, including the new

12 solvents on the market, and looked at it from many

13 different perspectives, with human health,

14 environmental, resource use, cost effectiveness,

15 technical feasibility, and we came up with the same

16 color-coding spread, if you will, that San Francisco

17 did with regards to perc and NPB being the least

18 environmentally-friendly across all of those measures,

19 not just looking at one at a time. And NCO2 and

20 professional wet cleaning being at the most green of

21 those, with the other solvents falling somewhere in

22 between. And I have a copy of our study, similar to

23 San Francisco's, if anyone would like a copy.

24 MR. FRISBY: I think we are already segue --

25 oh, I'm sorry Peter, go ahead.
57

1 MR. SINSHEIMER: I just wanted to respond to

2 your hypothetical.

3 MR. FRISBY: Yeah.

4 Mr. SINSHEIMER: So your hypothetical said, I

5 think, that dry cleaning can be used, but other methods

6 are not tested or something like this, right?

7 So you still have the word dry cleaning in

8 that symbol, there's a lot of words in that for a care

9 label, and that's where the whole problem lies, is that

10 consumers aren't aware of professional wet cleaning, so

11 you're not solving their problem by adding those

12 additional words. Because it's the words professional

13 -- in the survey that we did, it was adding the words

14 professional wet cleaning was what -- if cleaners were

15 interested in having that garment wet cleaned, it was

16 those words that made them more likely to clean.

17 So your hypothetical doesn't really solve

18 that particular problem and therefore the deception

19 issue is still -- is there.

20 MR. FRISBY: Anyone want to respond to that

21 before we move on to the unfairness argument, which

22 we've already covered to some extent.

23 Seeing not, let's move on to the unfairness

24 issue. And let's start with the benefits of requiring

25 a wet cleaning instruction, which is one of the topics
58

1 that Peter addressed in detail and I think some of you

2 already touched on that.

3 And why don't we start with the environmental

4 benefits? One question I want to pose is, are there

5 circumstances where dry cleaning is as good as wet

6 cleaning? It sounds like some of you think that there

7 are and I'd like to get views on that. Anyone over on

8 this side want to --

9 MS. HARGROVE: You know, in Massachusetts,

10 the DEP, basically what they did is they forbid -- they

11 went around testing some of the wet cleaners. And when

12 they tested the water, they found they were not

13 spotting properly. They were using dry side chemicals

14 and they were finding it in the water. So if you were

15 on septic, you couldn't be a wet cleaner.

16 And I think that we have good wet cleaners

17 out there and we have bad wet cleaners out there, but

18 not every -- they're not the same and there's a whole

19 educational process here. And I think -- I keep saying

20 it, I think wet cleaning is wonderful and I think

21 there's a place for it, but I think the place is as an

22 adjunct.

23 MR. FRISBY: Anyone else want to weigh in on

24 this point?

25 MS. ONASCH: Can you repose the question?
59

1 MR. FRISBY: Just whether there are

2 situations or circumstances where dry cleaning is not

3 environmentally inferior to wet cleaning.

4 MS. SCALCO: Well, I think that -- and you're

5 going to get different perspectives depending on who

6 you represent. I think that's why we have the

7 technology that we have. The industry has moved

8 forward in different technologies so it's all

9 self-contained, we have different solvents, we have

10 different methods. All of that takes place -- and

11 again, I don't think you can just paint the brush that

12 dry cleaning is all the same. As you said, there are

13 different levels, depending upon different solvents, of

14 what is environmentally friendly.

15 And so I don't -- I don't think I could sit

16 here and say that there are cases where it is not and

17 cases where there are.

18 MR. MATTHAI: I can expand on that a little

19 bit. I'm not somebody that --

20 MR. FRISBY: Yes, please do.

21 MR. MATTHAI: I don't want to monopolize. So

22 I think Mary's point is an interesting one, in that

23 there are a range of dry cleaning solvents, some of

24 which have other attributes that are favorable relative

25 to other dry cleaning solvents.
60

1 So for example, perchloroethylene is not a

2 combustible solvent, so if you are switching between

3 perchloroethylene and hydrocarbon, which is a

4 combustible solvent, that you could see there would be

5 a trade-off between something that is clearly toxic and

6 has been shown to be toxic, in perchloroethylene, and

7 something that is a fire hazard. So within dry

8 cleaning, there are various trade-offs.

9 Between dry cleaning and wet cleaning, I

10 don't see those trade-offs at all. In fact, you know,

11 there are intrinsic things about wet cleaning that just

12 make it inherently environmentally preferable.

13 Certainly the EPA brought over wet cleaning from Europe

14 in the early 1990s because of this issue and has

15 supported this, both with funding that we have

16 received, that Joy has received, in order to promote

17 the diffusion of the technology.

18 MS. SCALCO: But I think as Ann pointed out,

19 there is chemistry that is involved with wet cleaning

20 that you need that there could be an issue, that's why

21 it's not allowed to go to certain septic systems.

22 I mean, depending on the -- this is an

23 industry that is changing rapidly, and probably for the

24 better, that allows all of these technologies to come

25 on. But there is chemistry involved in all of this.
61

1 It's not just the use of water. If it was just the use

2 of water, you could hand-wash it the way we used to do

3 it.

4 But you're trying to take a wool garment --

5 so you put different chemicals in there. You put

6 different spotting agents in there. So there is a

7 whole level of training that needs to be done of the

8 industry itself, not only of consumers. And consumers

9 have no idea what wet cleaning is and I'm not sure that

10 that matters whether it's on the label. If I got -- if

11 I got consumers all together and said what is dry

12 cleaning, I bet you they couldn't tell me what that was

13 either. They just know they pay for that service, but

14 they don't know what dry cleaning is either.

15 MR. FRISBY: All right. Paul, I think you

16 wanted to --

17 MR. MATTHAI: Well, yeah. I was going to say

18 to me -- to EPA there is two areas of interest. One of

19 them is the environmental interest, and that breaks

20 down into two areas. One of them is for wet processing

21 that releases down the drain, whether it goes to the

22 septic system or to a POTW. And the other one would be

23 the releases into the environment through venting. And

24 that wouldn't be mostly for the wet process, but that

25 would be for the hydrocarbon compounds, okay.
62

1 Then there's the other side, which is the

2 human health effects and then the environmental

3 effects. So human health effects, probably the people

4 that are the highest risk of any kind of impact to

5 toxic exposures and risks to certain types of problems,

6 are the workers in the dry industry. And then, to a

7 secondary effect, people that are taking their cleaned

8 clothes home, that are in plastic bags, and there is

9 some off-gassing of some of the cleaners that are used,

10 if there are solvents used.

11 So when you look at the big picture, the

12 biggest risk is to the workers that are in the dry

13 cleaners. And even in the wet cleaners, there is

14 spotting, which can also have hydrocarbons in there

15 which are something that we're looking at as well.

16 There's an interesting thing here though.

17 Across the country, with California being first, that

18 has already banned perc, there are other state

19 governments that are looking at the opportunity to see

20 if they can phase out certain types of processes to

21 reduce environmental releases and also human health

22 exposures. And I'm in the process of trying to figure

23 out which states and where they are on that process.

24 I think the state of Illinois is looking at

25 that or has already enacted legislation, I know they
63

1 are looking at the alternatives to perc. EPA, by the

2 way, and I want to go on the record, is not going to

3 ban perc in this industry. I've already been told that

4 by the Office of Air. However, there is a TEC risk

5 assessment out there and that does identify human

6 health effects and it goes through the risk analysis on

7 who is the highest exposures.

8 There is also stuff, in certain areas on

9 off-gassing, depending on the facility. The facilities

10 for this particular industry, if you realize, they are

11 all over the place. There are some wealthy ones, there

12 are ones that are just struggling along. They have

13 brand new machines, they have old machines. So they

14 are all -- they have a whole array of where they are

15 out there.

16 So some of them are really clean, some of

17 them are not, and a lot of them are in between and

18 they're in the transition period of maybe upgrading

19 their process. And maybe they're out there looking at

20 it in terms of, we have to wait for legislation to go

21 through to find out where we go. Or it could be, I'm

22 just struggling and it doesn't matter to me where

23 they're going, I'm just trying to make a living.

24 I also want to point out that I'm on a work

25 committee, a work group, on alternatives to perc. One
64

1 of them is n-Propyl bromide or 1-Bromopropane, it's the

2 same compound. And within the next six months to a

3 year, the Agency will be releasing, for public comment,

4 a risk assessment on NPB, 1-Bromopropane. Based on

5 that, if it goes through -- and there are some major

6 issues in there, of the three different sectors that

7 we're looking at, dry cleaning is the second highest

8 exposure. The biggest one is for foam blowing and then

9 the last one would be for degreasing, mostly in the

10 aerospace industry. But because it's such a large

11 industry and they have opportunities for mechanical and

12 equipment changes, that really reduces the exposure.

13 But we are really focusing on the dry cleaners.

14 So with that, we have some ideas in mind. It

15 may be that we ask the Office of Air to add 1-BP on to

16 the HAP list, so that they might look at that as a

17 regulations.

18 Anyway, it goes on and on and on. I don't

19 want to take the entire panel up, but if there's

20 anybody who has question to me, please ask me.

21 MR. FRISBY: Great. Let's go to Adam and

22 then Ann on this point.

23 MR. MANSELL: Just a general point. I know

24 it's a caution on thinking about environmental issues.

25 What we are actually talking about here is how to best
65

1 clean a garment and care for a garment. If you want to

2 start looking at the environmental performance of that,

3 then you probably have to put do not tumble dry on all

4 of your garments because the energy used for tumble dry

5 is significant.

6 You also would then start to look at the

7 washing performance at home. In Europe at the moment,

8 we've got a massive problem with nonylphenol

9 ethoxylates, a nasty chemical, coming off in domestic

10 washing on imported textiles.

11 So you just need to be just -- I think you

12 probably need to bring your focus little bit back to,

13 it's about cleansing and caring for the garment. We

14 all want to do the right thing for the environment, of

15 course we do, but we need to make sure that we are also

16 talking about what the consumers know and can do, and

17 it's about cleansing and looking after the garment in

18 this particular case.

19 MR. FRISBY: Thank you. Ann, you wanted to

20 chime in?

21 MS. HARGROVE: Yeah. Again, it's a general

22 comment. I've been involved with wet cleaning since

23 the beginning here in the U.S. If it was without

24 problems, if it was without problems for the garments,

25 we would have thousands and thousands of wet cleaners.
66

1 We don't. I can give you the names of hundreds who are

2 no longer in business.

3 I think there are issues with wet cleaning.

4 There are people who are doing it successfully and they

5 are doing it fine, but if you go back around and you

6 look at their conveyors, go back into their stores a

7 year later, you don't see a lot of suits unless they

8 are the suits with the mixed blends that come out okay.

9 But you don't see them.

10 When I do a wet cleaning class, I'm going to

11 tell you what garment manufacturers, their clothes are

12 going to get ruined in wet cleaning. And so it is --

13 you know, there are issues here with the labeling.

14 MR. FRISBY: Thank you. I think now we need

15 to move on to our next issue. I wanted to spend a

16 little bit of time to the financial cost to consumers

17 for wet cleaning versus dry cleaning.

18 Peter alleged, or asserted in his

19 presentation, that the costs were comparable to

20 consumers. And we have a report that was submitted

21 actually by Joy's organization which seems to have some

22 differing figures on the cleaning costs the consumers

23 would pay. The average cost per pound for wet cleaning

24 was 1.10 dollars, but it was 1.02 dollars for perc and

25 88 cents for high-flash hydrocarbons.
67

1 And so I'm wondering if someone can reconcile

2 these figures or if anyone has views on the costs that

3 consumers would incur were they to do wet cleaning

4 instead of dry cleaning?

5 MS. ONASCH: I can just address perhaps the

6 reason for the differences may have been that different

7 factors may have been included to come up with those

8 costs per pound.

9 I recently collected data from a user in

10 Massachusetts of each of the different alternatives and

11 I can't remember -- again, I have the report with me,

12 exactly the number per pound, but wet cleaning came out

13 to be the lowest cost.

14 And also, I guess somewhat anecdotally, each

15 of the eight wet cleaners that we have helped convert

16 to dedicated wet cleaning in Massachusetts have not

17 raised their prices to the consumers, but are in fact

18 saving money on their monthly bills because of the

19 reduce use of resources, water and electricity, and

20 reduced payroll, reduced health costs. So the costs

21 have come out of that. That may have been old

22 information and slightly different parameters than what

23 was considered in --

24 MR. FRISBY: Yeah. The figures I mentioned

25 were from a report from June of 2012, so it is a couple
68

1 of years old. So you're saying more recent data is

2 different?

3 MS. ONASCH: Yeah. I've collected even more

4 recent data from the users of each of the different

5 alternatives. And it actually can be found in the

6 Massachusetts DEP guidance document for the dry

7 cleaners of Massachusetts who are completing the

8 Massachusetts environmental results program

9 certification each year. We provide this guidance for

10 them to look at the different alternatives and the data

11 that has been collected from real live users of the

12 alternatives.

13 MR. FRISBY: Does anyone else have data on

14 prices consumers pay for the various services?

15 MR. RIGGS: I don't have data, I was going to

16 make an observation that I would hate to design that

17 study. My observation is that the prices charged vary

18 not only by what technology they use to clean, but

19 what's the price range of the garments they're

20 cleaning.

21 In the high-end neighborhoods in Dallas, for

22 example, cleaning costs more but the cleaners, in fact,

23 are running a bigger liability risks when they clean

24 those high-end garments. They may have a garment in

25 there that is a 10,000 dollar garment. They're not
69

1 going to clean it for 80 cents a pound because there is

2 a liability just for taking it in and agreeing to clean

3 it.

4 So I can't imagine how you could do that kind

5 of a comparison. You know, if you had some test

6 garments, and we did, in fact, have some test garments

7 in the laboratory correlations. I think we purchased,

8 or Manfred Wentz purchased, 15,000 dollars worth of

9 garments from Europe and we did all the same garments,

10 but I don't recall any cost analysis done with that

11 study. And of course, the cleaning was done with, you

12 know, laboratory personnel rather than with labor

13 wages.

14 MR. FRISBY: Julie, next.

15 MS. MO: Before we installed our professional

16 wet cleaning system, we were using hydrocarbon and, at

17 that time, we had our machines turned on for about four

18 or five hours a day, three times a week, and our PG&E

19 bill was about $800 a month.

20 When we installed our system, we have been

21 using our system every day for about eight hours at

22 least and on Saturdays we also have to turn on our

23 system for about five to six hours, our PG&E bill is

24 still under $800.

25 And our water bill, compared to then and now,
70

1 there is a 10 dollar difference. And our sales have

2 increased six-fold and we have not changed our prices

3 for our consumers. They are still paying the same

4 prices that they have been paying us since July of

5 2008.

6 MR. FRISBY: Joy, did you want to --

7 MS. ONASCH: Yeah, I was just going to

8 comment that, yes, of course, creating a study to

9 account for all of the different variability and

10 factors would be difficult. And that's why I think the

11 testimonial of cleaners, like Julie and the cleaners

12 that we worked with in Massachusetts, that compare what

13 they did with perc and what they do now with wet

14 cleaning and have not had to raise their prices and

15 have excellent quality in their cleaning, is a study.

16 MR. FRISBY: Paul, did you want to --

17 MR. MATTHAI: Yes, I do. I actually want to

18 ask a question. There are other costs associated with

19 either process. And I'm wondering if, by going to the

20 wet process, do you lower your occupational insurance

21 costs because you are no longer being -- having your

22 workers exposed to the high levels of the hydrocarbons

23 that have human health issues, as opposed to the wet

24 process? Or have you even thought about going back and

25 renegotiating with your insurance company on that?
71

1 MS. MO: When we had asked our insurance

2 company if they had a special rate because of that,

3 they said that there is no special professional wet

4 cleaning division for their insurance yet.

5 So the only other option would be to label us

6 as a laundering facility, like a coin-operated laundry,

7 but that's not what we are, so we have to pay the same

8 price.

9 MS. SCALCO: And I would recommend anybody

10 not doing that because your insurance costs will go up.

11 MR. FRISBY: I'd like to switch focus a bit

12 and look at the potential costs to -- I'm sorry,

13 Charles.

14 MR. RIGGS: Before you --

15 MR. FRISBY: I'm sorry.

16 MR. RIGGS: -- do, can I make a comment?

17 Because I've seen a lot of these comparison studies

18 done with an individual plant. And in every case, it's

19 a matter of taking old, out-of-date equipment and

20 replacing it with new.

21 So I've seen cost savings switching from one

22 type of dry cleaning to another, cost savings switching

23 from dry cleaning to wet cleaning, and quite often it

24 is a matter of switching more than just the solvent, it

25 is the whole technology involved in it.
72

1 An old dry cleaning machine, for example,

2 probably used a water cooled condenser, which would

3 consume a lot of water and the new one with the

4 refrigerant wouldn't consume any.

5 So you know, the comparison of old to new is

6 probably not a good way to do the cost comparison.

7 MR. FRISBY: All right. I think we need to

8 move on to our next issue. If we have time later,

9 we'll come back to this.

10 But I would like to talk about the potential

11 cost to requiring a wet cleaning instruction. During

12 Peter's presentation, he indicated that it might be

13 possible to determine whether wet cleaning was possible

14 for 50 dollars an item, unless testing is needed, in

15 which case it was 100.

16 And I'm wondering if the rest of you have any

17 data on this point or views about what costs requiring

18 this instruction would entail for industry?

19 MS. SCALCO: Well, I'm assuming that if you

20 are going to require testing, it would be the same sort

21 of standardized testing that is required if you put a

22 dry clean label on there or if you put a home washing

23 label on there. It would be, as Dr. Riggs said, there

24 are test methods designed that you test a garment per

25 this method and you have to test it three times to make
73

1 -- whatever label you put on.

2 So I would assume you couldn't just take it

3 to your -- you don't want to just take it to -- for dry

4 cleaning, you don't take it to your dry cleaner to

5 figure out if you can dry clean it. You have a

6 standardized test method. For professional wet

7 cleaning, if you want to put that on the label, I would

8 think you would use that same sort of standard test

9 method and you would have to go to a testing house, the

10 same way you do with dry cleaning, and have it run that

11 way or do it internally.

12 MR. RIGGS: ISO 3175.

13 MR. FRISBY: Right. Peter, yes?

14 MR. SINSHEIMER: Yeah, I just wanted to

15 clarify because I had a half-hour and I was below my

16 half-hour, which is kind of --

17 MR. FRISBY: You definitely were.

18 MR. SINSHEIMER: But I cut out a lot of

19 detail so -- so I did a survey of the number of the

20 professional wet cleaners about that question about

21 could they -- about expert judgment.

22 So if they use their expert judgment, which

23 can be used as a reasonable basis, experience and

24 expertise, what would they charge. And included in

25 that 50 dollar charge, we were very specific. I wanted
74

1 to share this with the FTC, in terms of the survey

2 instrument that we used.

3 We said, well, you'd be given a checklist

4 that includes ISOs essentially that specifies the kind

5 of damage that you would anticipate happening with that

6 garment. And then what they would do is the garment

7 would be sent to them, they would observe the garment,

8 and based on their experience and expertise, make the

9 judgment.

10 They make that judgment every day. Julie

11 will testify, other cleaners here will testify, every

12 day there are new garments that come in and they make a

13 judgment. And they are extremely good at making an

14 expert judgment in whether the garment can be

15 successfully wet cleaned.

16 So the idea is, use that experience and

17 expertise that has been generated and the average cost

18 we got was 50 dollars to just observe it. So

19 reasonable basis, experience and expertise.

20 They could also test it, which is the three

21 time -- so the idea here is we would use the same ISO

22 methodology for testing three times through and then

23 the same kind of checklist would be used.

24 So clearly, we want to be able to make sure

25 that the standards are comparable to ISO with respect
75

1 to determining a reasonable basis. What makes the most

2 sense to me would be to use the expertise and

3 experience of 100 percent dedicated cleaners who have

4 years of experience and expertise to make that

5 judgment.

6 MS. SCALCO: If I could just add to that

7 point?

8 MR. FRISBY: Yeah.

9 MS. SCALCO: Garment manufacturers also hire

10 Dry Cleaning and Laundry Institute to make that

11 reasonable basis and judgment, but as an association, I

12 carry an awful lot of professional liability insurance.

13 Because if I'm wrong in my professional judgment, that

14 I refer to a garment manufacturer and something happens

15 to that, that liability is on me. It's not on the

16 garment manufacturer. So that's why I carry that

17 insurance.

18 MR. FRISBY: Does anybody -- oh, over here,

19 yeah. Adam.

20 MR. MANSELL: For no second am I questioning

21 the ability of professional wet cleaners to

22 professionally wet clean, but the same approach that

23 you are suggesting, in terms of using a street wet

24 cleaner to test a garment against 3175 or any other

25 standard is a bit like asking me to take my shirts home
76

1 and stick them in my own washing machine to tell Hugo

2 Boss whether they should have a 40 or 50 washing

3 program on their shirts.

4 The test protocols and the test procedures

5 are more than just making sure that you can wet clean

6 it. You need to be able to make sure that if you're

7 running the test in Nebraska, you have exactly the same

8 conditions as if you were running it in North Carolina.

9 The balance has got to be the same, the inlet water

10 temperature has got to be the same. There's an awful

11 lot of things in a test method procedure above and

12 beyond what is done in a professional wet cleaners.

13 MR. FRISBY: Ann, did you want to add

14 something here?

15 MS. HARGROVE: No.

16 MR. FRISBY: Oh, Marie. Yes.

17 MS. D'AVIGNON: Yeah. And I actually think

18 Adam is making a great point. I would just add, in

19 regards to the cost to the manufacturers who are making

20 the decision as to what to put on their garment,

21 currently in the FTC rules for reasonable basis, which

22 I know we are going to discuss later, but there is an

23 option for you can make your reasonable basis based on

24 the industry expertise and experience you already have.

25 So in that case, if you want to say that
77

1 you've always said dry clean this garment, there's no

2 cost at the moment versus if you want to say, well now

3 you have to mandatory require a test for wet cleaning,

4 it's going to go from zero to whatever that cost is,

5 automatically, because there's a new requirement.

6 And eventually some companies, I'm sure, will

7 decide that they want to move wet cleaning and they'll

8 look at it. But in the short-run, we'd be putting a

9 mandatory cost on companies that might not have any

10 costs at the moment.

11 MR. FRISBY: Peter, yeah.

12 MR. SINSHEIMER: So I have a question. So to

13 develop a reasonable basis, there's a list of ways one

14 can do that. But in apparel, in theory, in the United

15 States, you should be using one of those methods to

16 make a judgment. That's got to -- there has to be some

17 cost associated with that.

18 So somebody has to look at a new garment and

19 say what care label should go on this garment. So I

20 think it's a little -- now, in fact, it may be that

21 they don't. And in Europe they don't, they don't have

22 to, right? But they do in the United States.

23 So I think when you look at these costs, you

24 know, there are internal costs the apparel industry has

25 to pay, they can externalize that cost, is what I'm
78

1 recommending. And I also said that, you know, the

2 Professional Wetcleaning Association that exists and

3 has the ability to transfer that knowledge very rapidly

4 to this industry, internalizing the costs, so that the

5 apparel industry can make the same judgment that they

6 should be making with every garment, in theory, to

7 establish a reasonable basis.

8 MR. FRISBY: It sounds like some of you are

9 questioning the 50 to 100 dollar cost estimate. I'm

10 wondering if anyone has an estimate they'd like to

11 offer of what this would actually cost in the real

12 world?

13 Just let me start off by saying that Ann's

14 group and Mary's group gave us some information in the

15 rulemaking. They told us, in one of their earlier

16 comments, that the average cost to provide appropriate

17 and comprehensive washing, dry cleaning, and wet

18 cleaning instructions would be under 1400 dollars. And

19 I'm wondering -- that was a couple of years ago. I'm

20 wondering if that is still a valid figure and what that

21 actually pays for. Maybe Mary or Ann, one of you could

22 address that?

23 MS. SCALCO: I will. I'd be happy to answer.

24 What that would do, we would test the garment to all of

25 those to standardized test procedures. We would --
79

1 MR. FRISBY: Is that the cost for each

2 garment? That's the cost for each individual garment?

3 MS. SCALCO: That's the cost for -- well,

4 it's not per individual garment. I mean, it's per

5 whatever style they would send to us. So that

6 translates into hundreds of thousands of garments, but

7 it would be per each individual style, yes.

8 MR. FRISBY: Type of garment. So if the

9 fabric changed or the other components changed, it

10 might require another battery of testing.

11 MS. SCALCO: Now, if you use that same fabric

12 and components across the board in five different

13 styles, the same test method would apply.

14 MR. FRISBY: Well, how much of the 1400

15 dollars is wet cleaning? What percentage?

16 MS. SCALCO: It would be split evenly across

17 the --

18 MR. FRISBY: About a third of that.

19 MS. SCALCO: Yeah.

20 MR. FRISBY: So that's a higher figure than

21 what Peter was suggesting.

22 MS. SCALCO: As I said, I have liability

23 insurance.

24 MR. RIGGS: Well, you also have test methods

25 for actually standardized controlled conditions for
80

1 measuring shrinkage and strength changes and things

2 that are not just a visual opinion.

3 MR. RIGGS: It's laboratory test method.

4 MS. SCALCO: Right.

5 MR. RIGGS: Part of the issue, I think, to a

6 manufacturer would be what can change in product line

7 and not have to retest it? You know, if you change

8 colors, do you need to retest it? If you change trims,

9 do you need to retest it? In some cases, the answer is

10 yes.

11 You know, it may be specific to a particular

12 construction color combination and if you make a change

13 in that, you may need to retest it again.

14 MR. FRISBY: This is probably a tough

15 question to answer, but if the Commission were to

16 require a wet cleaning instruction, any sense of what

17 that would entail for the cost of clothing that

18 consumers would pay? Anyone have any thoughts about

19 what the consequence would be?

20 AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have one. The one cost

21 that hasn't been talked about --

22 MR. FRISBY: Can you hold on for one second

23 for the microphone?

24 AUDIENCE MEMBER: The one cost that I could

25 think of would be traveling to a dry cleaner that
81

1 hopefully has a wet clean only. I'm not sure how many

2 in my home state are professional wet cleaners, but say

3 there is six. The cost of gas, wear and tear on the

4 vehicle to get to that cleaner, would be one cost.

5 MR. FRISBY: Any further thoughts about the

6 cost side of the equation, what costs would result if

7 the Commission required a wet cleaning instruction and

8 implications or should we move on? Yeah, Charles.

9 MR. RIGGS: As I understand it, the way I

10 would interpret it is we would not have to test for wet

11 cleaning of anything that has a laundry instruction,

12 because I think that's self-evident. If you can

13 launder it, you can wet clean it.

14 So everything that currently is bearing a dry

15 clean or dry clean only label would have to be tested

16 for wet cleaning, if you required it. So things that

17 currently are not having to be tested because they have

18 a historical basis suddenly are going to have a testing

19 cost.

20 And the label is going to become a dual

21 label. It's going to have perhaps dry clean and wet

22 clean or it may have wet clean with an X across it on

23 every single one. So I think the cost is significant.

24 MR. FRISBY: Peter? Oh, I'm sorry. Paul and

25 then --
82

1 MR. MATTHAI: I'd like to go back and ask one

2 simple question, because this has opened up a whole new

3 area that I have never been exposed to. Julie, when

4 you go and do a professional judgment call on how to

5 wash that, is that based on the label that says, this

6 particular article of clothing has a blend of this,

7 this, this, and this? Or is it based on that plus the

8 color plus some other experiences that you've had? How

9 do you make that judgment call?

10 MS. MO: Well, the production aspect of it,

11 my husband and the other teams in the back know better,

12 but from my experience, we do have to make a judgment

13 call based on several factors. So it is, like you

14 said, what the labeling entails. And sometimes the

15 labeling is wrong because it says to do one thing, but

16 you don't necessarily have to follow the label.

17 And a lot of consumers also tend to also

18 clean their clothes at home these days, too, which goes

19 against the dry clean only label. I have a lot of

20 consumers that come in and they're so upset because

21 they accidentally cleaned it at home or they tried to

22 clean it at home and it shrank two inches. And they

23 come in and ask us if we can recover it and we do, with

24 our cleaning system and with our tensioning system.

25 MR. MATTHAI: Thank you. I just wanted to
83

1 get some concept because everybody here, except for me

2 maybe, has an idea of what's going on. Again, I'm

3 looking at toxicity issues as opposed to the process.

4 MS. SCALCO: Well generally, what you would

5 do, if you had a garment and you don't know what to do

6 -- say there was no care label on the garment and you

7 had to decide what to do, you would definitely need a

8 fiber content label because you need to know whether it

9 is cotton, wool, silk, what that is.

10 And then, from years of experience, you'd

11 know certain dyes do certain things. You know blacks

12 do certain things. If it's a black and white together,

13 you want to just say please take this somewhere else.

14 But you would look at the construction of the

15 garment. You would see if there was interfacing in it.

16 You would look at the buttons and see what the buttons

17 look like or what the trims look like on any garment.

18 Mens clothing is generally a little bit easier than

19 female apparel, but that has its own set of challenges.

20 So fiber content you definitely need. Don't

21 get rid of that label.

22 MR. MATTHAI: And that is part of the

23 requirement for FTC, right? The fiber content on every

24 article? Or is that --

25 MR. FRISBY: Actually, that's not a
84

1 requirement under the rule. It is under the textile

2 rules, however. So often times, labels will have that

3 information pursuant to the textile wools or the wool

4 rules.

5 MR. MATTHAI: Thank you very much.

6 MR. FRISBY: Okay, I'd like -- yeah, Charles.

7 MR. RIGGS: Some of the students we train go

8 out and they're buyers for retail chains and they leave

9 with an arsenal of some tests they can do in the field.

10 You know, the wet handkerchief or wet crocking and so

11 on, but the underlying rule that they are taught is

12 that these are preliminary screening tests. You send a

13 sample to the lab for detailed testing under a

14 standardized test method.

15 MR. FRISBY: Some of you -- I'm sorry. Joy,

16 go on.

17 MS. ONASCH: No, I'm sorry.

18 MR. CHANG: Hello, my name is Augustine

19 Chang. I think we are just looking at the cost of

20 putting the label, but if you look at the other side,

21 which is how much additional sales they will get,

22 people who are staying away from dry clean only

23 garments. How many of those are you going to collect

24 if there is wet cleaning? Every thought about that?

25 That's quite a lot of money you are leaving on the
85

1 table.

2 MR. FRISBY: I'd like to kind of close out of

3 this topic by just making sure that everyone has had a

4 chance to express their view on whether the Commission

5 should, in fact, require a wet cleaning instruction.

6 And some of you have already answered this question,

7 either for or against, whether the cost -- whether the

8 benefits exceed the cost or vice-versa. Anyone want to

9 say anything more about, sort of, the bottom line,

10 before we go on? That hasn't already had a chance?

11 MS. ONASCH: I guess sort of the cost to the

12 people who are using wet cleaning, both from a

13 marketing perspective and from a technical perspective,

14 having that care label required on that garment allows

15 them to have the confidence that the consumer is not

16 going to be coming back at them if there's an issue, if

17 they're doing professional wet cleaning. And it opens

18 -- it allows them to market themselves as a

19 professional wet cleaner, that the consumers are then

20 going to be able to bring their garments to and have

21 that differentiation between the other dry cleaners out

22 there who are marketing themselves as green and using

23 the other alternatives to perc.

24 MR. FRISBY: I'd like to move on now to the

25 issue of the availability of wet cleaning to consumers.
86

1 I think that's been touched on already, but the label

2 has little value to people if there are no wet cleaning

3 services near them.

4 So I'd like to ask everyone if they have

5 information about to what extent consumers actually

6 have access to wet cleaning currently. Anne.

7 MS. HARGROVE: You know, years ago it was

8 hard. And now, we have a lot of dry cleaners who have

9 wonderful wet cleaning departments. And in there, they

10 have -- you know, and they offer professional wet

11 cleaning if need be, but they also have other machines,

12 a hydrocarbon machine there, so they can choose which

13 is the best one.

14 But I tried to get a number, how many wet

15 cleaners there are there. So I started calling from a

16 book that the EPA gave us in 1997, none of them were

17 there. But when you go through the -- talk to

18 equipment manufacturers, and you say, how many wet

19 cleaners are there in Illinois, how many wet cleaners

20 are there in Utah? The numbers are small, they're very

21 small.

22 And again, if it was without any problem, we

23 would have -- everybody would go for it, because it

24 does -- the clothes get clean.

25 MR. FRISBY: Yeah --
87

1 MR. MATTHAI: I have a question on that.

2 This is such a small business, compared to -- I mean,

3 there are some that are fairly large, but most of them

4 are very small and the cost of the machines are fairly

5 expensive. My reading is that they run from anywhere

6 from 45,000 to 85,000 dollars a piece. So are we

7 looking at an emerging industry or one that is

8 transitioning from primarily a hydrocarbon-based

9 solvent based cleaner to one that has mixed or even

10 going to the wet side, and we're starting to see the

11 curve coming up now?

12 And maybe these companies are waiting for the

13 machines to basically wear out before they have to

14 replace them. And then we'll start to see an increase

15 in the wet process.

16 MS. HARGROVE: Are you asking me that

17 question?

18 MR. MATTHAI: I'm asking anybody that.

19 Because whenever there is a transition from one

20 technology to another, it starts out slow and then it

21 goes over -- you know, it increases as one moves to the

22 other. This may not be moving from one technology to

23 the other, but there is certainly going to be a shared

24 technology out there.

25 And are we starting to see the emergence of
88

1 companies like yours saying, a small dry cleaner, as

2 soon as my machine wears out, I'm going to buy one that

3 is a wet process as opposed to the solvent-based.

4 MS. HARGROVE: What I've seen is that, when

5 their dry cleaning machine runs out, they buy a smaller

6 hydrocarbon, or some other machine, and they have the

7 wet cleaning piece of equipment in there. They have

8 both and so they can do everything and not have a

9 problem.

10 The most important thing here, and we can

11 talk about care labels and we can talk about it all,

12 but when that customer brings me a suit, he wants to

13 pick up that suit or she wants to pick up that suit and

14 she wants it to be perfect. She wants it to feel the

15 same, she wants to look like a million bucks in it.

16 And there are garments out there that, when you wet

17 clean them, they don't feel the same.

18 And you know, there's all kinds of chemistry

19 and there's all kinds of conditioners and you know what

20 -- and I keep saying it, I love wet cleaning. But

21 there are some limits, there are definitely limits.

22 And you have to understand that and the consumer

23 realize that.

24 So if you have a small hydrocarbon machine

25 and you have a small -- and a nice, big wet cleaning
89

1 machine, that wet cleaning machine is going to work all

2 day. And that solvent, whatever it is, you're going to

3 do a certain amount of loads.

4 MR. MATTHAI: I do have a follow-up with

5 that. Are there regional regulations, maybe it's in

6 the city in an apartment building, where you have a

7 first floor that is a dry cleaner and then you have an

8 occupation above that, it's not --

9 MS. HARGROVE: That's --

10 MR. MATTHAI: And there are some regulations

11 that say you can't use certain types of solvents in

12 there. Is that an area that wet process is actually

13 taking over?

14 MS. HARGROVE: Oh, absolutely.

15 MR. MATTHAI: So it could be regional or it

16 could be, like, state-wide in California. And we also

17 have to look at the trend from the state legislatures

18 to find out if they are moving towards this wet

19 process.

20 MS. SCALCO: But I think even in California,

21 where they have essentially phased out the use of perc

22 in the future, what is going in is not 100 percent wet

23 cleaning, but it's alternative solvents.

24 I think what Ann was saying, and I think this

25 is what we're seeing in the industry today, when we
90

1 first looked at wet cleaning, I forget when you said

2 EPA brought it over here --

3 MR. MATTHAI: It wasn't me, so I don't know.

4 I --

5 MS. SCALCO: There was no 100 percent wet

6 cleaners -- there's not a lot of 100 percent wet

7 cleaners today. There are a lot of dry cleaning

8 establishments that offer solvent cleaning and

9 professional wet cleaning and I think that's what we're

10 seeing.

11 So when people, like in California where

12 people have to -- they are forced to replace their perc

13 solvent equipment, they are moving to other solvent

14 equipment. They also have an adjunct of professional

15 wet cleaning. And I think that is a perfect -- that is

16 the new model of what dry cleaning will be.

17 Because as Ann said, the consumer brings the

18 garment in, they don't care what you do to it, they

19 just want it cleaned, pressed, and ready to wear the

20 next time they pull it out of their closet.

21 MR. SINSHEIMER: Question and a comment. So

22 Mary, around what percentage would you say of existing

23 professional cleaners out there are able to do wet

24 cleaning?

25 MS. SCALCO: Professional wet cleaning?
91

1 MR. SINSHEIMER: Yeah.

2 MS. SCALCO: I don't have the data on that.

3 MR. SINSHEIMER: Okay.

4 MS. SCALCO: But I would say a majority. I

5 would not say it's 10 percent.

6 MR. SINSHEIMER: So that whole comment is --

7 so my comment was, on the issue about availability,

8 clearly there is a chicken-and-the-egg argument here.

9 If the wet cleaning care label is not on the garment,

10 you know, that is an enormous barrier to the diffusion,

11 as Joy was saying.

12 In California, we host workshops for dry

13 cleaners interested in professional wet cleaning and

14 that is an enormous barrier, when they are looking at

15 the technology and then, well, did the garment say dry

16 clean on it? So you know, that label itself is an

17 enormous barrier to diffusion.

18 So it's a little bit unfair when you say,

19 well, what's the availability of 100 percent wet

20 cleaning as a whole, because you yourself are creating

21 the barrier to the question that you're asking.

22 MR. FRISBY: Charles.

23 MR. RIGGS: Yeah. I can only think of a few

24 100 percent wet cleaners that are no longer in

25 business. That seems to be a trend.
92

1 But what I do see a lot of, and Paul I might

2 pick on you --

3 MR. MATTHAI: Of course, the best one to pick

4 on.

5 MR. RIGGS: I would guess from what you're

6 wearing -- well, it may be a good example because I

7 would assume, the way you are dressed, that your suit

8 and your shirt were both done professionally.

9 MR. MATTHAI: Actually, it's brand new. So I

10 usually don't dress this nicely.

11 MR. RIGGS: Well, that's another thing.

12 That's another option, just replace things with new

13 items and you don't have to clean them regardless.

14 But my point would be that, you know, a

15 businessman dressed like you are, with a pressed shirt

16 and a nice suit, would take that out professionally,

17 probably to one business, and it probably has the label

18 dry cleaning on the door. And you don't know what they

19 do to the shirt versus the suit. They are going to

20 clean the suit, probably in solvent, and they are going

21 to clean the shirt in water.

22 And the machine that they use to clean the

23 shirt in water, my recommendation would be eventually

24 you replace that machine with a wet cleaning machine,

25 which gives you, with the program change, you can do
93

1 shirts or you can do some items wet cleaned.

2 So I think the trend is, and our

3 recommendation is, you need both technologies. And to

4 control both technologies, you need two machines. If

5 you try to do wet cleaning 100 percent, and you're

6 spotting with solvents, you are causing an

7 environmental issue. If you try to do 100 percent dry

8 cleaning and you don't have any availability to do

9 anything in water at all, you're not getting all the

10 things clean.

11 MR. MATTHAI: Well, here's the issue. I do

12 take it to what is termed the green dry cleaner or a

13 green cleaner. There's a lot of shades of green.

14 There's a whole array. I mean, I think they have more

15 shades of green in the environmental part than they

16 actually have in Ireland.

17 So the big issue is that how green is green?

18 And there really isn't a definition on that, and that's

19 one of the unfortunate things. So no one knows what it

20 is, but it's a marketing technique that people use to

21 pull in their customers.

22 So at one point or another, it would be nice

23 if we could figure out how to label this in such a way

24 that it would be -- that both could use it because

25 there will be a transition across the country. The
94

1 State of California has already there, they've banned

2 perc. There may be additional compounds coming down

3 the road that they make take up in later years.

4 There are other states that might be also

5 entertaining the idea of changing from perc, at least

6 limiting perc, and maybe some of the other

7 hydrocarbons, and N-propyl bromide being one of them.

8 And I know that the State of California has done that

9 in a way. They didn't say you could eliminate it, but

10 they set the level so low that you literally can't use

11 it in your process.

12 MR. FRISBY: We need to move on, but there

13 may be time to come back to this later.

14 I next wanted to turn briefly to the question

15 of consumer awareness. And Peter did address this

16 during his talk and had some data from the study on

17 this, but I'm wondering if anyone else has data on to

18 what extent consumers are aware of wet cleaning and

19 what the implications of that are for us. Anyone?

20 Yeah, Adam.

21 MR. MANSELL: If I could just share a story,

22 I guess. Irrespective of whether you make it optional

23 or mandatory for the W, bear in mind that the consumer

24 comprehension of virtually all care symbols is

25 appalling. And frankly, we do a lot better use of all
95

1 of our time if we spent all of our time talking to

2 consumers about what the care labels meant.

3 We recently did a survey in the UK of about

4 10,000 consumers, asking them what the symbols meant.

5 The only two that they knew anything about was the

6 washtub and the iron. When we showed them the P in a

7 circle, 60 percent of the respondents said, doesn't

8 that mean parking?

9 MR. FRISBY: Well, that will be a great issue

10 for our next panel. Definitely.

11 Anyone else have thoughts on this topic,

12 awareness? No.

13 All right. I'd like to turn next to the

14 Commission's proposal to permit a wet cleaning

15 instruction in the content of that instruction. A

16 number of the commenters took issue with the

17 instruction the Commission put out. I'd like to get

18 people's comments about, in particular, the need for

19 the word professional to appear before the word wet

20 clean. Anyone want to take that one on?

21 MS. SCALCO: Well, I think you were trying to

22 mirror dry clean and that, dry cleaning, we all know

23 because of historic, that that's professional, but I

24 think you would want to put professionally wet clean so

25 that people realize it's the same thing, you have to
96

1 take it to a professional to do. It's not something

2 you can do at home.

3 MR. FRISBY: Yes, Charles.

4 MR. RIGGS: The trend is wanting to move

5 towards the symbols and the symbol from the very

6 beginning was the circle for professional care and then

7 W was the circle, W for wet cleaning, and a circle P or

8 F, whatever, for dry cleaning.

9 If you convert that to words, I think you've

10 got to relay the meaning that the circle is there and

11 use the word professional.

12 MR. FRISBY: Joy, did you want to comment?

13 MS. ONASCH: Yeah, just that I concur. I

14 think it's important to have the word professional

15 there, even amongst dry cleaners understanding.

16 Nevermind what consumers understand about the

17 difference, there's a large gap between what people

18 understand with what professional wet cleaning is and

19 regular wet cleaning or laundry.

20 MR. FRISBY: Adam, did you want to say

21 anything?

22 MR. MANSELL: I would echo what everyone else

23 has said so far. The circle means professional

24 cleaning.

25 Mr. MATTHAI: Could you use both,
97

1 professional and the symbol right next to it? So

2 people get the idea that one is related to the other.

3 MR. FRISBY: Yeah, that's always an option.

4 Yeah. And on many labels, we will have a symbol and a

5 written instruction.

6 What about abbreviating the word

7 professional? Is that something that would work, do

8 you think, or not?

9 MR. RIGGS: Why?

10 MR. FRISBY: To make it a smaller label, I'm

11 just throwing it out there.

12 MS. SCALCO: I don't think that's going to

13 work --

14 MR. FRISBY: Not going to work?

15 MS. SCALCO: You could try.

16 MR. FRISBY: Is that the only thing that we

17 would need to do to address problem? Is there any

18 other information that the label should provide, beyond

19 professional --

20 MR. RIGGS: I think clearly we are talking

21 about a care method that is not a do-at-home method.

22 And we want to discourage anyone from trying to do it

23 at home because they're going to fail.

24 MR. FRISBY: Do you think the word

25 professional accomplishes that objective?
98

1 MR. RIGGS: Well, if they do it at home, they

2 do it at their own risk. They can't go back to the

3 manufacturer and say I did this at home and it shrunk.

4 The manufacturer is going to say, that's not what I

5 told you to do.

6 MR. FRISBY: Anyone else have any thoughts on

7 this? Over on this side?

8 All right. Well, I think at this point we'd

9 like to open up the floor to questions from the

10 audience. And we have a roving microphone, so if you'd

11 wait for the microphone. We'd appreciate it if you

12 would identify yourself and your affiliation, if you

13 could.

14 MR. QUDDUS: My name is Mir Quddus, I am

15 representing this question, from my professional

16 background. I am a textile chemist and a polymer

17 scientist, so I would address this question from that

18 standpoint.

19 I heard a lot of discussions about how this

20 care label is addressed. I heard the discussion about

21 fiber type, fiber content, finish I didn't hear at all,

22 I heard about -- I didn't hear about -- I heard the

23 soil, a little bit of type, which could be removed by

24 water or it could be removed by a solvent. I heard

25 about environment testing ability and the cost. I
99

1 heard the cost about cleaning these garments. Care

2 issues came out also, shrinkage, dye bleeding, you

3 know, all those things were discussed.

4 But I am almost, you know, in Paul's shoes,

5 starting to think about what is the real intent of this

6 care label? Is it to satisfy in making sure that the

7 garment goes to the right professional hands? Or is it

8 that the customers get an education, which we know

9 customers don't give a damn in terms of understanding,

10 so is that the intent?

11 I do know, from the backend of the spectrum,

12 that if we talk about fiber content, the FTC allows 5

13 percent of anything can be used not to be declared,

14 that could be 5 percent of Spandex, which could throw

15 this whole thing off. And then the fabrics can have

16 finishes. That actually is the game-changer for

17 everything that is going on and you cannot see it by

18 your naked eyes, when you are trying to be the judge

19 and say that it is a cotton versus polyester versus

20 this-and-that. You will not know and that can throw

21 you off to all of those things.

22 So my question is this, you know, what is the

23 true intent of this care label?

24 MR. FRISBY: I'll take that one. The

25 Commission, when they promulgated the rule, the
100

1 objective was to prevent deception and unfairness. And

2 the Commission concluded that it was unfair or

3 deceptive not to let the consumer know a method to

4 clean the garment safely and effectively. And the rule

5 was designed to address that deception and unfairness.

6 That's what the Commission did back in the seventies.

7 As far as fiber content goes, let me just add

8 one more thing. The Commission's proposal to permit a

9 wet cleaning instruction also provides that the label

10 should disclose the fiber content, if the fiber content

11 is needed to wet clean effectively and safely. So

12 that's part of the proposal that the Commission put

13 forward.

14 Does anyone else at the table want to comment

15 on his question?

16 MR. RIGGS: You sent me -- and there was a

17 recent change or proposed change in the fiber content

18 rulings? Rules?

19 MR. FRISBY: The Commission recently voted to

20 amend the Textile Rule on this.

21 MR. RIGGS: That's right. So that indirectly

22 impacts on the label. But what you point out is very

23 valid point, the finishes you can't see and they

24 certainly make a difference. I've seen 100 percent

25 cotton suits say dry clean only for a good reason,
101

1 because of the finish, so yeah. But that's covered no

2 where in either rules.

3 MR. FRISBY: Any more questions from the

4 audience?

5 MR. TRUMBULL: I'm David Trumbull, I'm a

6 consultant to the textile industry. Actually, it's not

7 a question, it's an observation as a consumer. And I'm

8 not the average consumer, I'm more familiar with these

9 rules than they would be.

10 If I saw wet cleaning, I would assume that

11 meant I could put it in the laundry machine at home.

12 And to the point of professional being abbreviated, I'm

13 thinking, on a small label, a lowercase o and a

14 lowercase e look alike. I would see preferably wet

15 clean and that would be that I could preferably throw

16 it in the washing machine.

17 MR. FRISBY: Do you think the word

18 professional would work?

19 MR. TRUMBULL: But professional, fully

20 spelled out, would.

21 MR. FRISBY: Any other questions? Over

22 there, yes, in the front row.

23 MS. NORBURY: Hi, I'm Jenn Norbury from

24 Bureau Veritas, an independent testing lab. Actually,

25 I have two questions. One is, when you're talking
102

1 about testing costs, the reality of the testing

2 industry right now is the testing is done in the

3 country where the goods are manufactured and the

4 majority of goods are manufactured in Asia. So what is

5 the availability of wet cleaning equipment, facilities,

6 in Asia at this time?

7 MR. FRISBY: Anyone want to take that one?

8 MR. RIGGS: Well, if it's a testing lab using

9 the standard front-load FOM washing machine, that can

10 be programmed to do wet cleaning. So they probably

11 have a machine that, with the right program, and then

12 they'd have to get the right chemicals, as shown in

13 3175. They probably have the right machine. They may

14 not have been doing those tests, so it's probably a

15 matter of that lab becoming familiar with how to

16 program their FOM machine to do 3175 testing.

17 MS. NORBURY: Well, that's going to vary from

18 lab-to-lab.

19 MR. RIGGS: Yes.

20 MS. NORBURY: You know, from one testing

21 company to another, and also from different countries,

22 from one to another. You know, in small labs versus

23 larger labs.

24 So I would envision that, initially, a lot of

25 labs would want to outsource the wet cleaning and do
103

1 training with the wet cleaner to follow the test

2 methods, you know, whatever methods are developed at

3 the AATCC. So that's just something to keep in mind

4 when you're talking about testing cost. It really

5 depends on where that testing can be done.

6 MR. RIGGS: I don't think AATCC is looking at

7 this. You know, we deactivated RA-483, which would be

8 the professional care test methods branch and it's not

9 been active for some time. And that would be the AATCC

10 subcommittee that would do that. I think they've just

11 adopted the, you know, follow the ISO 3175.

12 MS. NORBURY: I know we do have some

13 representatives here from AATCC who can, you know, talk

14 about that.

15 But my other -- let me just ask my other

16 question and then I'll pass the mic. My other question

17 is, Ann, you had mentioned that there are problems with

18 wet cleaning and you eluded to the change in hand.

19 What are the other issues? I mean, because what I'm

20 thinking, you know, down the line, if this does become,

21 you know, allowable in the U.S., the labs -- we do base

22 -- if a client just comes to us and says, okay, develop

23 a care label, we base it on, what's the fiber content,

24 what's the construction, the colors, et cetera. Labs

25 will need to know what things do work and don't work in
104

1 wet cleaning.

2 MS. HARGROVE: You know, some of the

3 structured garments can be a problem with the

4 interfacing, trim, buttons, shrinkage. Color loss is

5 huge right now. We keep talking about those black and

6 whites and those black and whites.

7 And you know, I have used just about every

8 detergent, every conditioner, every sizing, every wet

9 cleaning machine out there and certain -- it doesn't

10 matter which one you use, if it's a bleeder, it's a

11 bleeder. And there's -- you've got to figure out how

12 you are going to unfix it. And so it's part of the

13 problem, you know.

14 And as far as wet cleaners out there,

15 somebody had mentioned earlier, we're training them.

16 NCA, DLI, we train them. We train a lot of wet

17 cleaners who are dry cleaners. So there are people out

18 there.

19 But that's, you know -- you've just go to --

20 when you -- like when you get a garment, you've got to

21 look at, is the lining -- what fabric is the lining?

22 What is the structure of the garment? And you know,

23 there are times when you're taking that ruler out and

24 you're doing a lot of measuring. Because most -- these

25 are small business people and they want to keep their
105

1 customers. You don't want to lose your customers, you

2 know? And so you want to give them back something that

3 works for them.

4 MR. FRISBY: Joy, did you want to --

5 MS. ONASCH: Yeah, I just want to comment,

6 just providing testimony from the cleaners that we

7 worked with in Massachusetts that they don't have any

8 of these issues with the inseams or the buttons or --

9 in fact, sequins and embellishments come out much

10 better with wet cleaning.

11 Cleaners -- we've now worked to help convert

12 eight dedicated wet cleaners in Massachusetts and

13 they've all said that the whites come out whiter and

14 the brights come out brighter because there is not the

15 reused solvent in the process to help the clothes come

16 out clean. And once they become very skilled with the

17 process, they don't have these issues.

18 And this is with modern 2014 technology and

19 perhaps not older technology that has been noted in the

20 past.

21 MS. HARGROVE: I'm doing the training class

22 next week. I do them all the time. But what we -- NCA

23 and DLI and I have -- we have analysis departments.

24 And what I see coming through the analysis department

25 are the shrinkage, the bleeding. Not just things that
106

1 I'm doing, from a whole array of people.

2 And maybe it's the type of garments they

3 have. You know, we do a lot of high-end stuff, the

4 Prada. Pradas aren't meant to be wet cleaned.

5 Anything Prada is not meant to be wet cleaned. And

6 it's hard enough to get Prada, I hope they're not in

7 here, it's hard enough to get Prada to back-up what

8 they -- the dry cleaned stuff. But the wet cleaning

9 stuff, they won't even look at you.

10 MR. FRISBY: Okay. I think we need to move

11 on to the next question.

12 MR. RIGGS: It is being recorded, Ann.

13 MS. HARGROVE: I'm sorry.

14 MR. RIGGS: I think you said the same thing I

15 said earlier is, you know, whether or not you are

16 successful in wet cleaning depends a lot on what market

17 you're operating in.

18 MS. HARGROVE: Yeah.

19 MR. RIGGS: You know, if you're in a high-end

20 market, that's a dangerous venture, both in terms of

21 liability and technology.

22 MR. FRISBY: All right. I think we have a

23 question from the Twitter feed. I have one here

24 actually, but is there one back there? Microphone to

25 the back, please.
107

1 MR. GORMAN: Hi, Frank Gorman. I'm also with

2 the FTC. Peter's consumer perception survey raises an

3 interesting issue for us. The purpose of the label is

4 to prevent deception and unfair practices. If the

5 label itself is deceptive, because people understand

6 dry clean to mean essentially dry clean only, we need

7 to address that. And we'll obviously look at the data

8 provided by Dr. Sinsheimer.

9 And there are two ways I can think of to

10 address it. One is to require the label to list all

11 possible methods, and there are some significant costs

12 involved with that. The other way is to come up with

13 some sort of disclaimer language that would make it

14 clear that dry clean means that dry cleaning is one

15 possible method of cleaning that has been tested and

16 that will work, but that it does not necessarily mean

17 that there aren't other methods that could work.

18 That's too many words.

19 So my question for the panel and the audience

20 is, because this is something that we're going to need

21 to address and we need a record to address it, what

22 should we do? Is there -- and this is something that

23 you can submit later in comments as well, is there

24 language that you think, disclaimer language, that you

25 think would be useful, if we are not going to go with
108

1 just every possible method approach?

2 MR. FRISBY: Mary, did you want to start?

3 MS. SCALCO: I think you already addressed

4 that in the care labeling rule. Because the care

5 labeling rule itself only requires one method of

6 appropriate care. If dry clean is just on the label,

7 that could maybe be hand-wash, that could maybe be wet

8 cleaned.

9 MR. GORMAN: Well --

10 MS. SCALCO: If laundering is on the care

11 label, that maybe could be dry cleaned or may be wet

12 cleaned. So that label is just as deceptive as the dry

13 clean label.

14 MR. GORMAN: Possibly, we don't have the

15 testing on that.

16 MS. SCALCO: Right. I can guarantee it.

17 MR. GORMAN: The problem is, consumers don't

18 read the rule, they read the label.

19 MS. SCALCO: I understand that, so you --

20 MR. GORMAN: So the label has to accurately

21 convey and non-deceptively convey information to them.

22 And if there is testing that shows that the rule, as

23 currently written, requires a label that deceives

24 consumers, that's a problem we need to address.

25 MS. SCALCO: Well, I'm sure he asked his
109

1 consumers that same question.

2 MR. FRISBY: Peter, do you want to --

3 MR. SINSHEIMER: I can try to address part of

4 that question or at least the scope of what I was being

5 asked of us to consider for the roundtable, as well as

6 for this rule, had to do with whether it would be

7 deceptive not to put the wet cleaning label on. So

8 you've limited the scope and now you're increasing the

9 scope.

10 But that said, if you go back to your own

11 logic in the 2000 rule, there was a logic that I

12 disagreed with, but it was your logic, so. About --

13 the question at that time was, should you require a

14 home laundry label, right? And so most -- the survey

15 that I did was very similar to Procter and Gamble and

16 Clorox's, with respect to the issue of what a dry clean

17 label meant.

18 The logic, at least to the FTC, said that

19 most people, I think that same survey showed that over

20 half of people home laundered a garment that was

21 labeled dry clean. And so because of that, because

22 there is a historical understanding about dry cleaning

23 and about home laundering, and everybody knows what

24 home laundering is, 100 percent of people know what

25 home laundering is, so you don't have any kind of
110

1 problem with information. People know what home

2 laundry is. And if half of the people who were

3 surveyed at one time have home laundered under a label

4 that was dry clean, then your logic was therefore, you

5 know, you don't have this problem with deception

6 because people have an understanding that has been

7 passed down historically about what you can and can't

8 do in home laundry, even if it says dry clean, even if

9 most people misperceive what the dry clean label meant.

10 So that's your logic. Now, that's one way to

11 get out of your conundrum. At least for home laundry,

12 people kind of know what that is. People don't know

13 what wet cleaning is, so at least the survey that I had

14 done, the results therein would say that if you require

15 the wet clean label, you're overcoming the deception

16 just because it is going to be on every garment that

17 can be wet cleaned.

18 MS. SCALCO: But I don't think that was your

19 question. Your question was, if there is just one care

20 method on the label, is that deceptive to the consumer

21 because other care methods could be appropriate for

22 that garment? Yes.

23 MR. FRISBY: I do have one question from the

24 Twitter feed earlier which I'll get to now. The

25 question is, what does the FTC think dry clean only
111

1 means?

2 And let me answer that by saying that, under

3 the rule, to provide a label that says dry clean only,

4 the manufacturer must have a reasonable basis to

5 believe that dry cleaning is a safe and effective

6 method of cleaning the garment and that other methods

7 are not. That's what that means under the rule and

8 hopefully that's what it means to consumers.

9 Any other questions from the audience? I see

10 a couple of hands.

11 MS. SOPCICH: I have a question about what

12 you were just talking about. So I understood, the way

13 your are promulgating the new rule, to mean that you

14 were going to do away with the need for the term only,

15 dry clean only, because once professional wet cleaning

16 is accepted as a method of care, then you have two

17 professional methods of care, which changes the

18 consumer understanding of that term. If you remove it

19 for the sake of the law, because there's another

20 professional method, it doesn't protect the consumer.

21 So my question is, you know, given that we

22 all understand that consumers do not understand

23 professional cleaning labels in general, like they do

24 home laundry, you know, how can we protect the consumer

25 in the event of a professional care method if you
112

1 remove dry clean only, because there's another method

2 of care allowed? Isn't there a commensurate

3 requirement to say do not wash or protect the consumer

4 from misunderstanding?

5 MR. FRISBY: That's a great question. The

6 Commission's proposal contemplated the use of dry clean

7 only in the future, but only if wet cleaning is not a

8 safe and effective method. So it would require

9 information about that, to provide that warning, going

10 forward.

11 MR. RIGGS: So I think you're saying if wet

12 cleaning were required, the dry clean only would be

13 replaced by a label that had a dry cleaning instruction

14 and a do not wet clean instruction?

15 MR. FRISBY: Well, the rule would not require

16 that.

17 MR. RIGGS: Well, that would be the

18 equivalent. If you required a wet clean instruction

19 and it couldn't be wet cleaned, then you'd have dry

20 clean --

21 MR. FRISBY: The Commission hasn't proposed

22 doing that.

23 MR. RIGGS: Okay.

24 MR. FRISBY: The Commission has proposed

25 permitting one.
113

1 MR. RIGGS: Yeah.

2 MR. FRISBY: And so the warning that she's

3 talking about could still be made, if there was a

4 reasonable basis to believe the wet cleaning was not

5 safe and effective.

6 MR. RIGGS: So you'd use dry clean only.

7 MR. FRISBY: You could say that, if that were

8 the case.

9 MR. RIGGS: Yes.

10 MS. SOPCICH: But you can only say that if

11 you paid to do the testing.

12 MR. FRISBY: You'd have to have a reasonable

13 basis, which may or may not require testing, depending

14 on the circumstance. Yeah.

15 MS. O'BYRNE: Hi, Kim O'Byrne from The Jones

16 Group. I'd like to address Frank's question.

17 This afternoon, we are supposed to talk about

18 adopting the ISO symbols. I think if we adopt the ISO

19 symbols, that will solve a lot of the problems because,

20 under ISO, you're required to have five symbols. One

21 is a home laundering symbol and the other is a

22 professional cleaning symbol.

23 And under those symbols, you can say

24 hand-wash, whatever, and you can put a dry clean symbol

25 or a wet clean symbol, so you've got two. When you see
114

1 two symbols, you know you can launder your garment by

2 either method. If you can't launder it in the machine

3 wash, you but an X through it and it just has the dry

4 clean. There's no dry clean or dry clean only.

5 MR. FRISBY: The Commission has not proposed

6 requiring the use of the symbols, only permitting them

7 in lieu of written instructions. So that might work if

8 people opted for that.

9 MS. O'BYRNE: It might solve the problem.

10 MR. FRISBY: Yeah, if people opted. Charles.

11 MR. RIGGS: I think that's a topic that will

12 come up later and I thought so, too. But having gone

13 to the ISO meetings, what I learned is that, in ISO,

14 you do not have to have a reasonable basis to use the

15 St. Andrew's cross to cross it out, you just cross out

16 what you don't want to use.

17 And in the FTC rules, you've got to have a

18 reasonable basis to warn against something. So there's

19 a big difference between the U.S. rule and the ISO five

20 symbol set with the crossing out.

21 MR. FRISBY: Yeah. Why don't we hold this

22 discussion for the next group, in case -- we only have

23 three minutes left, so if are there any more questions

24 about the issues that we focused on in this group, we'd

25 like to hear those. Anyone else? Peter, yeah.
115

1 MR. SINSHEIMER: I have a question for you.

2 MR. FRISBY: Okay.

3 MR. SINSHEIMER: In your proposed rule to

4 allow versus require. The rationale for allow would be

5 somehow that the consumer demand would drive the

6 adoption of the wet cleaning label to some label that

7 would kind of satisfy the consumers' demand for that or

8 something to that effect. I'm not exactly --

9 MR. FRISBY: That's actually not the case.

10 MR. SINSHEIMER: Okay.

11 MR. FRISBY: The objective of the rule, or

12 for those amendments is to address potential deception

13 or unfairness.

14 MR. SINSHEIMER: Yes, but the logic that you

15 spelled out for allowing was that somehow the

16 percentage of the garments that would be -- have the

17 professional wet cleaning label on it would somehow be

18 driven by consumer demand. But I don't want to --

19 that's my -- that's at least what --

20 MR. FRISBY: That's not central to the

21 proposal. The proposal is to prevent deception. And

22 since wet cleaning is now a viable option, I think

23 everybody agrees with that, for cleaning, there should

24 be a way of disclosing that with an instruction.

25 We have time for one more question, if anyone
116

1 wants to --

2 MS. NORBURY: Yeah, one question as far as

3 the environmental issues. A lot was discussed about

4 wet cleaning versus dry cleaning, but home laundering,

5 the water and the detergents and the soils are going

6 down the sewer. Has there been any studies, wet

7 cleaning versus home laundering? Is there any

8 difference on impact to the environment?

9 MR. MATTHAI: Is that a question for me?

10 MS. NORBURY: I don't know.

11 MR. MATTHAI: I hope not. I don't know the

12 answer.

13 MS. NORBURY: Whoever can answer.

14 MR. FRISBY: Microphone? That would be the

15 last question.

16 MR. POACH: Dart Poach from the Professional

17 Leather Cleaners Association. I don't have the name of

18 the study right off the bat, but I could probably get

19 it for you. I know there's been a few studies that

20 have shown that the carbon footprint, in general, over

21 the whole population would be tremendously reduced if

22 people took their clothes, all of their clothes, to a

23 professional cleaners than doing it at home.

24 MR. FRISBY: Interesting. I think that

25 concludes our first discussion group. I'd like to
117

1 thank all of you for participating and people who

2 questioned.

3 We will be reconvening at one o'clock for the

4 next group. Thank you.

5 (Whereupon, there was a recess

6 for lunch.)

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 
118

1 PANEL TWO

2 MS. KOSTNER: Good afternoon and welcome back

3 from lunch. I'm Amanda Kostner with the Federal Trade

4 Commission. Robert Frisby will also be assisting with

5 this panel and this is the discussion on care symbols.

6 We have six issues on the agenda today. We

7 plan to roughly allocate about ten minutes per issue

8 and we'll have a Q&A time at the end.

9 I'd like to introduce our roundtable

10 participants. We have Marie D'Avignon with American

11 Apparel & Footwear.

12 Richard Fitzpatrick with Kreussler Inc.

13 Adam Mansell with the UK Fashion and Textile

14 Association.

15 Charles Riggs from Texas Woman's University.

16 Mary Scalco with the Dry Cleaning and Laundry

17 Institute.

18 Peter Sinsheimer from UCLA Sustainable

19 Technology and Policy Program.

20 Stacy Sopcich from GreenEarth Cleaning.

21 And Alan Spielvogel from the National

22 Cleaners Association. Thank you all for participating.

23 Our first topic of discussion today regards

24 the differences between the ASTM and ISO symbols. As

25 you know, the prior rule allowed only use of ASTM. The
119

1 Commission now proposes to use both ASTM and ISO care

2 symbols. The Commission seeks input on whether

3 consumers will be deceived or confused by some of the

4 differences between these two care symbol systems. And

5 we've identified a number of differences.

6 The first is the maximum treatment. Under

7 ISO, a care symbol designates the maximum treatment

8 that can be applied to a textile. This is in contrast

9 to the ASTM system, where a care symbol does not

10 necessarily indicate the maximum treatment. And I'd

11 like to hear any input on what impact this has on

12 consumers and/or impact on manufacturers.

13 MR. SPIELVOGEL: My opinion on this is

14 there's really no standard on care labeling because

15 each country has it's -- there's European, there's ISO,

16 there's the ASTM, there's also Asian care symbols. And

17 what happens is, there's a lot of confusion on how to

18 process the garment and what the consumer can expect

19 out of the garment, how to process it.

20 And I think if there's one set of care

21 symbols and it's a standard, I think it would be a good

22 idea. It would make it easier for the consumer and the

23 dry cleaner. What we've been seeing is that you'll see

24 a lot of care symbols in different languages, different

25 symbols, and you end up having a garment that contains
120

1 five or six care symbols, it's like a little book. And

2 what the consumer does is, they end up taking it out of

3 the garment because they can't wear it.

4 So I think if, you know, we went to symbols,

5 I think it would be easier for the consumer and it

6 would set a standard, you know, throughout the world.

7 It would make things easier for everybody involved.

8 MS. KOSTNER: Does anyone else on the panel

9 -- Adam.

10 MR. MANSELL: I think the particular issue,

11 the maximum optimum treatment, that's an issue for the

12 manufacturer, retailer, the person who is putting the

13 garment on the market. It will have no impact

14 whatsoever on the consumer. The consumer will just

15 follow whatever information is on that garment.

16 So if it's being tested to 6330 or whatever

17 the US equivalent is, then it will be safe to launder

18 at home or dry clean or whatever else it might be. So

19 I don't think that particular issue would have any

20 significant impact.

21 MS. KOSTNER: Charles.

22 MR. RIGGS: I was on both the ISO committees

23 and the ASTM committees and the difference on the

24 maximum was not in the symbols, it was in complying

25 with the FTC rule. Because the FTC rule did not
121

1 require the maximum.

2 And that would be a whole in approach and

3 would address another issue of low labeling, which has

4 been a common issue, according to the FTC rules,

5 because we have manufacturers who will not put the

6 harshest conditions, they would put something less than

7 the harshest condition because indeed the garment

8 performs better. But in terms of getting it clean, the

9 maximum condition would be preferred.

10 You can do the maximum, regardless of whether

11 you are using the ISO symbols or the ASTM symbols. I

12 don't think that's -- that's not a difference built

13 into the symbols. You know, the symbols, I think, are

14 the same except for the natural drying.

15 MR. MANSELL: Depending on which version of

16 --

17 MR. RIGGS: Yeah, depending on which version.

18 The last version I saw was the committee draft. I

19 would have to buy a new version and I didn't do that.

20 If you work on the committee, you can get drafts, but

21 you don't get the final copy.

22 MS. KOSTNER: Well, natural drying is my next

23 question for the panel, but is there anyone else who

24 had a comment on maximum treatment?

25 MS. SCALCO: Well, I guess it's not really on
122

1 the maximum treatment, but you asked if the -- having

2 the two symbol systems, the differences would be --

3 MS. KOSTNER: Yes.

4 MS. SCALCO: -- would it have an impact on

5 consumers? Consumers don't understand either of the

6 systems, so depending on what education FTC was going

7 to do to educate consumers on the symbol system, now

8 you'll have to educate them to two symbol systems, not

9 one symbol system because I would venture to say that

10 most consumers don't know care symbols period. So if

11 you want them to recognize a difference, you would have

12 to educate them to both systems.

13 MR. MANSELL: If I could, one more comment.

14 Although the ISO absolutely does talk about maximum

15 treatment, it has in no way removed the same issue that

16 Charles was talking about about under-labeling. You

17 get under-labeling throughout Europe, and the rest of

18 the world where the ISO applies, just because it's got

19 that statement doesn't mean that everybody actually

20 follows it.

21 MS. KOSTNER: Richard.

22 MR. FITZPATRICK: In terms of the care

23 providers, I mean, the world is getting smaller and

24 smaller and more and more of our clients are coming in

25 with textiles that they've purchased overseas that
123

1 simply have ISO labels already in them. They still

2 need to be serviced. The cleaner needs to be able to

3 process them in their best possible way, you know, with

4 some reasonable guideline.

5 I think Alan mentioned, there's no standards

6 in the industry, in terms of what's maximum and what's

7 minimum, and it can vary from facility-to-facility. I

8 think that having both sets, or allowing both sets,

9 would allow garment manufacturers in Europe to be able

10 to sell in the United States without having to manage

11 two different types of care labels. It will allow the

12 cleaning providers some reliability, in terms of how

13 they can process the work.

14 In terms of the under-labeling or maximum or

15 things like that, I don't think that's going to come

16 into so much play with the care of the garment, because

17 the dry cleaner is going to process it with whatever

18 standard formula it is they have in their machines.

19 MR. RIGGS: I don't think it's as much an

20 issue with the professional cleaners as it will be the

21 consumer. You know, the consumer gets something that

22 says hand-wash, cold water. The professional might

23 recognize that as a label, but the consumer thinks

24 that's what they have to do with it.

25 MR. FITZPATRICK: The consumers are always
124

1 going to be confused over these labels.

2 MR. RIGGS: Exactly.

3 MR. FITZPATRICK: And I don't think we can

4 correct that.

5 MR. RIGGS: I think our intent here, I mean,

6 this whole labeling requirement is for consumer

7 benefit, right?

8 MS. KOSTNER: Yes.

9 MR. RIGGS: So I think we have to look more

10 in terms of how the consumer views what they're seeing

11 over the professional. The professional is going to be

12 up another level of knowledge.

13 And I can tell about consumers, and I'm

14 talking about freshman, sophomore college students who

15 are fashion design, fashion merchandising, textiles

16 majors who should no more, they don't understand them

17 either.

18 MS. KOSTNER: Well, I'd like to move on to

19 the issue of the difference between the natural drying

20 symbols with ISO and ASTM and would the Commission

21 propose changes to the care labeling rule. ISO 2005 is

22 in effect, so we are addressing ISO 2005 with this,

23 with these differences.

24 Some of the differences are there is a do not

25 wring symbol in ASTM and ISO doesn't have this. There
125

1 is a different number of symbols. ASTM has more

2 symbols than ISO. And in ASTM, the symbol for medium

3 temperature drying means normal temperature drying in

4 the ISO system.

5 So again, what are the impacts on consumers

6 and what are the impacts on manufacturers with these

7 differences?

8 MS. SCALCO: Well, in terms of the

9 manufacturers, if it was me and I was a clothing

10 manufacturer, the first problem I would have is that

11 you're referring to a standard that's not the current

12 standard. So I would be using the current standard, I

13 would not be going back to 2005. I would be doing

14 whatever the 2012 is, right? So that would be the

15 first problem for the manufacturer.

16 Consumers, again, they don't understand what

17 they mean anyway, so -- I mean, wringing, you can

18 pretty much figure it out, it looks like wringing. But

19 the box with the lines on it, I'm not sure that anybody

20 is going to understand what that means anyway.

21 MR. RIGGS: And Mary, I think the new ISO

22 natural dry symbols are quite different than the 2005

23 ones. The 2005 is more in line with the ASTM.

24 This has always been an issue, if you adopt

25 ASTM or ISO or both, because FTC wants to keep control
126

1 of changes in the symbols. And so if you adopt an

2 organization's symbols and they make a change in them,

3 then the FTC loses control over a change in --

4 controlling the process. So that's part of the issue.

5 MS. D'AVIGNON: I would agree with Mary that,

6 very much so, the fact that we are looking at the 2005

7 and not the most recent standard is a big problem.

8 But for manufacturers in today's supply

9 chain, they are not making products for just one

10 market. Very, very rarely does that happen. So being

11 able to use both sets of standards, or some kind of

12 combination of the standards, whatever we decide, might

13 be best and would benefit manufacturers immensely.

14 MR. MANSELL: I totally support that comment.

15 Just coming back to the consumer

16 comprehension of the symbols, I said it earlier, if we

17 are talking about consumers, there are really only

18 three, possibly four, of the symbols that make any

19 difference to them at all. One is the washtub, and

20 absolutely everybody knows what the washtub means,

21 certainly within Europe and I'm sure it is within the

22 states.

23 The iron symbol is the only one that actually

24 looks like anything that you're going to do, so

25 everyone understands what the iron symbol is. The dry
127

1 clean, professional cleaning, we talked about this

2 morning, and then the tumble dry one. The bleaching

3 one, frankly I don't think anybody understands what the

4 bleaching symbol is and they're never going to because

5 it's not a very intuitive process.

6 So I don't think there would be a particular

7 issue with consumer comprehension, in terms of the

8 washing, the ironing and the professional care symbols.

9 That's my personal view.

10 But coming back to a more general point, I

11 think if we can have a system where the two major

12 markets in the world have the same general approach to

13 labeling, I think it would be a huge difference to

14 manufacturers and retailers.

15 MS. KOSTNER: And I wanted to identify one

16 other difference between the two systems, and

17 Professional Riggs touched on this earlier, in ISO they

18 use the St. Andrew's cross, and that does not require a

19 reasonable basis, as opposed to ASTM, if you use the do

20 not language, you do have to have a reasonable basis.

21 Again, input on what impact this has on consumers, what

22 impact this has on manufacturers, and does the FTC need

23 to do something to make people understand this

24 difference?

25 MS. SOPCICH: Are you suggesting that the FTC
128

1 would no longer require a reasonable basis with the ISO

2 standard? Is that what you're asking?

3 MS. KOSTNER: No, I'm just asking, the FTC

4 has proposed the use of the ISO standard, so how can we

5 harmonize, if you're using the ISO system and you want

6 to use the, you know, the do not instruction, but the

7 ISO doesn't require a reasonable basis.

8 MR. MANSELL: I think you've gone two steps

9 ahead of where you need to be. If the FTC rule is that

10 you need to prove reasonable basis, then that's the FTC

11 rule. So it's up to the supplier to make sure, if they

12 have the St. Andrew's cross on it, they have complied

13 with the FTC rule.

14 Just because -- bear in mind that the ISO

15 3758 standard is just about the graphical symbols,

16 that's all it's about. So if there is a requirement

17 within the US that says you have to provide reasonable

18 evidence, then you have to provide reasonable evidence.

19 It makes no difference what it says in 3758. I don't

20 see the two being contradictory in this instance,

21 that's all.

22 MS. KOSTNER: Yes.

23 MR. FITZPATRICK: Well, if the rule is

24 changed to allow both ISO and ASTM standards, then

25 doesn't that automatically include the fact that, if it
129

1 is an ISO labeled ISO, that they don't need to have

2 reasonable --

3 MR. MANSELL: No, because you're selling it

4 to the US and the US requirement is you have to have

5 reasonable proof. That doesn't change.

6 MS. D'AVIGNON: I agree actually with that.

7 I would think that the underlying symbol would be the

8 thing that would be allowed or recognized in both

9 places, but the rules as to whether or not the symbols

10 can be crossed out is completely separate from what the

11 symbol looks like.

12 MR. RIGGS: That's the same logic with the

13 maximum criteria, too. We're using the same symbol.

14 But I think the bigger issue is, as these

15 symbols begin to change, either ASTM doing the changing

16 or ISO doing the changing, then we are basing this on

17 an older version that is no longer current. How do we

18 update it to the current versions? Because the FTC

19 loses control of the process if you just blindly say

20 the most recent standard from ASTM or most recent

21 standard from ISO.

22 MS. KOSTNER: Well, the FTC would have to go

23 through another proposed NPRN to incorporate the new

24 ISO standard. That's the process that the FTC has to

25 follow to keep up with the every-changing standards.
130

1 MS. SCALCO: Well, I don't mean to criticize

2 the FTC, but I think you just added a level of

3 deception to the whole process. Because now you've got

4 the consumer working off of whatever the most current

5 standard is, the manufacturer working off of the most

6 current standard, but the FTC is on a standard that's

7 five years ago.

8 And I don't know how -- as a consumer, what

9 do I do?

10 MS. KOSTNER: This is an important topic.

11 Unfortunately, it is not for this panel. We will be

12 able to discuss this and ways the FTC can keep up with

13 the different rules in the third panel, but I'm going

14 to -- if need be, but I'm going to move on to the next

15 topic at this point.

16 That is, whether to require that labels

17 identify the ISO system, if used. So right now, the

18 FTC -- the Commission's proposal is that if you use the

19 ASTM symbols, you do not have to say that you are using

20 the ASTM symbols. If you use ISO, the proposal is is

21 that you would have to say that this is the ISO system.

22 So to what extent -- my first question to the

23 panel is, to what extent do care labels currently use

24 ASTM or ISO symbols? Does anyone --

25 MS. SCALCO: I would have to ask some of the
131

1 manufacturers in the audience if they have a --

2 MS. KOSTNER: Does anyone know the percentage

3 of labels that do use symbols?

4 MR. FITZPATRICK: Is your question just how

5 many garments come with symbols as opposed to written

6 instructions?

7 MS. KOSTNER: Yes.

8 MR. FITZPATRICK: And whether they are ASTM

9 or ISO?

10 MS. KOSTNER: Yes.

11 MR. FITZPATRICK: I would say the majority of

12 textiles come with symbols of some sort as part of the

13 care label.

14 MS. D'AVIGNON: I would just amend that to

15 say that I believe that -- I wouldn't say that the

16 majority use symbols instead of, but the majority use

17 symbols either instead of or addition to.

18 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yeah.

19 MS. D'AVIGNON: Most companies use the words

20 and the symbols.

21 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yes.

22 MS. SCALCO: Are they ISO or ASTM?

23 MS. D'AVIGNON: It depends on --

24 MR. MANSELL: It depends on the market.

25 MS. D'AVIGNON: The ones I see in the US are
132

1 usually ASTM because it's the US, but --

2 MR. RIGGS: I've never seen the symbols

3 identified on the label whether they are ASTM or ISO.

4 MS. KOSTNER: Well, so that was my next

5 question. When symbols are being used, does anyone

6 have evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, of do they see

7 that it says ASTM on it? Does it say ISO?

8 MR. FITZPATRICK: I definitely think that if

9 you purchase garments in Europe that the care label

10 will state ISO on them.

11 MR. MANSELL: No, no.

12 MR. FITZPATRICK: They don't?

13 MR. MANSELL: No, no.

14 MR. FITZPATRICK: Well, then I've seen ISO on

15 garments sold in the US from European manufacturers

16 with that.

17 MS. SOPCICH: If you get back to consumer

18 protection, I think the key issue is whether or not the

19 symbol has a different meaning under the two standards.

20 And if it has a different meaning, then it makes

21 logical sense that you need to identify it.

22 But for the most part, most of the symbols

23 mean exactly the same thing. It's just very few.

24 MS. D'AVIGNON: I agree. I mean, there are

25 slight differences, but it's never a case where a
133

1 square here means one thing and something different in

2 another country, it's still going to be a square. And

3 it might have two dots or a 68, but it still means the

4 same thing and consumers are going to understand that

5 that square means the same thing, wherever that is.

6 MR. RIGGS: I don't think normal versus

7 medium is an issue.

8 MS. KOSTNER: Okay.

9 MR. RIGGS: There is an issue that, I'm not

10 sure it's ever been openly discussed, so maybe I'll --

11 I don't want to put Adam on the spot. That is, some of

12 these symbols are copyrighted and I'm not sure what is

13 involved with the manufacturers and cost for use, going

14 to ASTM versus ISO, which has some GINETEX symbols in

15 it. I know Adam has a history with GINETEX and might

16 address it.

17 In other discussions, we would talk about

18 fees to use and the meaning of the copyright and so on,

19 but in the panels it was never discussed. I think it

20 needs to be. You know, are there underlying costs

21 associated if a manufacturer chooses to use ISO symbol

22 sets? I believe with the ASTM there is not, but you've

23 got to buy the standard. With ISO, I think depending

24 on where you market it, I'll let Adam bring that up

25 with the response, there may be additional feels
134

1 involved per label. Please, Adam.

2 MS. KOSTNER: That was my next question. And

3 just remember, the use of symbols is always optional.

4 So this is -- you're not required to use symbols under

5 the FTC rule, but should a manufacturer decide to use

6 the ISO system, does the manufacturer incur additional

7 costs?

8 MR. MANSELL: It depends where they're

9 selling. If they're using them in the ISO, then

10 absolutely not. The only time that anybody is required

11 to pay a license fee is if they are selling a garment

12 into a country where the symbols are trademarked. And

13 the symbols are not trademarked in the US, so you can

14 use them free of charge. They are not trademarked in

15 the UK either, you can use them free of charge in the

16 UK.

17 They are trademarked in most of mainland

18 Europe. I think the trademark covers about 40-odd

19 countries in total, but that trademark is only properly

20 policed in mainland Europe. The fees that you pay in

21 mainland Europe depend upon the particular market

22 you're selling into and this would have -- irrespective

23 of whether the FTC decides to adopt the ISO symbols or

24 not, this situation that I'm explaining would still

25 occur.
135

1 So if you're selling into most of mainland

2 Europe, you have to pay a license fee. That license

3 fee depends on which country you're selling into. It

4 can either be per garment or it can be an overarching

5 fee. And if anybody wants to talk to me about how the

6 UKFT could help them, I'd be more than happy to do so,

7 but it's probably inappropriate for this particular

8 panel.

9 MR. RIGGS: This is being recorded, Adam.

10 MS. KOSTNER: So my next question is, under

11 the Commissions proposal, using ISO you would have to

12 disclose it as the manufacturer. So my question is,

13 should this recommendation go forward, that if you

14 decide to use ISO, you must somewhere disclose that you

15 are using the ISO system?

16 MR. MANSELL: What benefit would that give

17 the consumer? Because the consumer isn't going to know

18 ISO 375 or ASTM or anything else.

19 MR. FRISBY: In the Commission's Notice of

20 Proposed Rulemaking, it indicated that there might be a

21 difference because consumers might be more used to

22 ASTM, it having been permissible for over ten years,

23 and that was the reason for proposing it. But we want

24 to hear if it is a bad idea, we'd like to hear from you

25 all.
136

1 MR. MANSELL: My personal -- again, my

2 personal view is that it's unnecessary. A washtub in

3 the ASTM and a washtub in the ISO are so similar that I

4 don't think that it would be an issue.

5 MS. KOSTNER: Anyone else?

6 MS. SOPCICH: I agree, I think it's common

7 sense. But if you're protecting the consumer, you

8 would only need to identify them if there is a

9 completely different meaning to the symbol. Otherwise,

10 I don't see the value to the consumer of that.

11 MS. D'AVIGNON: Agreed as well.

12 MS. KOSTNER: And if the Commission decided

13 that the ten years of experience with ASTM warranted

14 that ISO be disclosed, does the panel have any

15 suggestions for what language the Commission could use

16 to disclose the use of ISO?

17 MR. FITZPATRICK: I think just simply stating

18 that these are ISO care instructions is really all

19 that's required. I don't think you have to go into a

20 lot of detail on a care label of what that means.

21 MS. KOSTNER: Okay. Anyone else?

22 MR. RIGGS: The big difference probably is

23 the use of the St. Andrew's cross. And probably most

24 consumers are going to read that as, don't do that.

25 Whether there's a reasonable basis or not, they won't
137

1 know. They just know don't do that.

2 MR. FITZPATRICK: But again, does that hurt

3 the consumer?

4 MR. RIGGS: No, that's --

5 MR. FITZPATRICK: If they don't do that?

6 MR. RIGGS: -- what I mean. They don't know

7 whether it's a reasonable basis or not, they just won't

8 do it, which is probably the right action anyway.

9 MR. FITZPATRICK: Sure.

10 MR. RIGGS: For example, I know in the ISO

11 system, you would routinely X-out "Do not dry clean"

12 for underwear, you know, without testing it. You know,

13 who would dry clean their underwear anyway?

14 MS. KOSTNER: On that note, I will be moving

15 on to the third set of issues. This is some of the

16 differences between the 2005 and the 2012 ISO symbols.

17 So there are differences in the natural

18 drying symbols, bleaching and some of the

19 professional-type of care. Do not professional wet

20 clean was added in 2012, that was not there in the

21 2005.

22 So as I mentioned, write now the rule is

23 written to ISO 2005. Mary mentioned that consumers and

24 manufacturers and dry cleaners, possibly, are looking

25 to the 2012 rule. The changes between the 2005 and the
138

1 2012 rule, are these significant enough that they would

2 have impact on consumers, manufacturers, cleaners?

3 MS. SCALCO: Maybe I'm -- you just said 2005

4 does not have a wet cleaning symbol, right?

5 MR. MANSELL: A do not wet clean.

6 MS. SCALCO: A do not wet clean.

7 MR. MANSELL: It has a permissible wet clean,

8 but not a do not wet clean.

9 MS. SCALCO: So you can't put the cross over

10 the --

11 MR. MANSELL: If you use the 2005, but you

12 can if you use the 2012.

13 MR. RIGGS: In the 2005, I'm not sure if it's

14 in the '12 or not, but I remember very clearly that the

15 European ISO was a very basic five symbol set. And the

16 professional care was mandated to be a dry cleaning

17 instruction and the wet clean was optional. So it

18 became a six symbol or second line.

19 So originally, it wasn't necessary. Now if

20 we require a wet clean label, which I hope we don't, we

21 would have to have the ability to cross it out.

22 MS. KOSTNER: Would words -- would the use of

23 words remedy that issue?

24 MR. RIGGS: Well, words defeat the purpose of

25 using the symbols, right? It concerns me, and I don't
139

1 know what happened, except that the US delegation

2 wasn't there, the 2005 ISO and the ASTM were the most

3 -- were the two that were harmonized the best, that is

4 most of the symbols were identical, if not easy to

5 interpret one to the other.

6 In the 2012, suddenly the natural dry symbols

7 I think switched from being in harmony with ASTM to, I

8 think, being in harmony with the Japanese system.

9 MR. MANSELL: No, being in harmony with

10 absolutely nothing at all.

11 MR. RIGGS: And it's worried me why they

12 switched because, you know, we were in harmony at one

13 point -- and then for some reason intentionally went

14 out of harmony. I wasn't there and, as far as I know,

15 the US delegation in general, they had trouble finding

16 someone and wasn't there.

17 MR. MANSELL: The US delegation was there

18 when we voted on the new version and on natural drying.

19 There were only two countries that voted against the

20 changes against natural drying and that was the US and

21 the UK.

22 I will put this on the record, because it's a

23 flippant point but it's quite an important point. What

24 happened within the ISO discussions was that, and

25 excuse me for those of you that are technical in the
140

1 room, the technicians in the room took over the debate,

2 so common sense was left behind.

3 I think it's something to be aware of when

4 you have these discussions is that you need to make

5 sure that common sense prevails.

6 MS. KOSTNER: So is there any reason not to

7 adopt the ISO 2012 rule at some point? I see

8 headshakes, for my court reporter. Does anyone want to

9 speak up why they think it should eventually be

10 adopted, ISO 2012?

11 MS. SOPCICH: No, there's no why it

12 shouldn't.

13 MR. RIGGS: Isn't the '12 the one that as the

14 different natural dry symbols than the ASTM?

15 MS. KOSTNER: Yes.

16 MR. RIGGS: Yeah, we could go from being in

17 harmony with ASTM, symbols that can be recognized by

18 the consumer, to suddenly something new and different

19 for 2012 that doesn't harmonize. So yeah, I think --

20 MR. MANSELL: If I could just add to that,

21 although the natural drying symbols have been in the

22 ISO since 2012, I have yet to see a single garment in

23 Europe that uses them. Because natural drying, unless

24 you live in a very, very, very hot country, and the sun

25 might bleach your garments, natural drying, with one or
141

1 two exceptions, won't damage your garment. So there's

2 just not used.

3 MS. KOSTNER: Any other comments on this

4 issue? All right. I would next like to get input on

5 some of the changes to the ASTM system, specifically

6 the change in the meaning of circle P.

7 So the old circle P, which is just a circle

8 with a P in it, meant that you could dry clean with any

9 solvent except perc.

10 MR. RIGGS: No.

11 MS. KOSTNER: Is that --

12 MR. RIGGS: That's not what it meant.

13 MR. SPIELVOGEL: Any solvent but trichlor.

14 MS. KOSTNER: Okay, any solvent except

15 trichlorethylene.

16 MR. RIGGS: Which basically no longer exists

17 as a solvent anyway.

18 MS. KOSTNER: Okay. And under the revised

19 standard, the symbol means to dry clean with, I

20 believe, perc or petroleum, is that correct?

21 MR. RIGGS: I believe, according to the test

22 method, and I think that's where we ought to go back

23 to, ISO 3175 views perc as being the most aggressive

24 solvent. So to pass the test for perc, any of the less

25 aggressive solvents could also be used, which would
142

1 include, as far as I know, anything out there including

2 the ones we currently don't recognize like GreenEarth,

3 dibutoxymethane, K4, on and on and on and on. I

4 believe all of those would be compatible under that

5 system with P.

6 When you go to the other symbol, the F, that

7 would exclude perchloroethylene because that's a milder

8 test method and perc will not pass the symbol test

9 where you use the F. So you're basically saying with

10 the F, don't use perc. Use anything else. With the P,

11 you saying use anything that we know of right now.

12 Alan, is that your understanding?

13 MR. SPIELVOGEL: Yeah. There is also, with

14 this P, as far as getting solvents that are less

15 aggressive than perc, making perc the standard, a lot

16 of the solvents out now, alternates to perc, are

17 heating the solvents, which make them aggressive and

18 sometimes as aggressive as perc. Between the heating

19 of the solvent and also the drying temperatures,

20 there's also aggressiveness as the garments heat up.

21 So I think that's something that has to be looked at.

22 And most of the dry cleaning machines now, the non-perc

23 dry cleaning machines are being sold with solvent

24 heaters.

25 So it doesn't necessarily make perc the
143

1 benchmark of what's the most aggressive solvent.

2 MR. RIGGS: I think what you're saying, Alan,

3 is that the ISO 3175 test methods don't cover the

4 operating procedures. So that's where the issue is,

5 the test method doesn't cover the operating procedure.

6 

7 MR. FITZPATRICK: I think it's going to be a

8 little difficult to modify the test methods for any

9 kind of trim that happens to be happening in the

10 industry at that given time.

11 So yes, there are machines out there that are

12 heating solvent up. I don't think it's the majority of

13 machines being sold, but they are out there. And I

14 think it's not proven how aggressive it actually makes

15 the solvent when you heat it up. There seems to be

16 some measurable difference, but as far as I know, there

17 has been no independent studies showing that heating

18 hydrocarbon up raises it's KB value from 25 to 75 or to

19 a 93.

20 So yes, I agree with you, Alan, the drying

21 temperatures and the heating of the solvent all play an

22 influence. I'm not exactly certain how we would write

23 a standard to take into account -- like, I believe that

24 the ISO standard for solvents requires the temperature

25 of the solvent to be within a certain range.
144

1 MR. RIGGS: It does.

2 MR. FITZPATRICK: And so I guess we could

3 mandate the same kind of standard, if that doesn't

4 currently exist for ASTM.

5 MR. SPIELVOGEL: I'd like to see something

6 where it says like a shortened cycle or a reduced cycle

7 or a mild cycle to also include something as far as

8 heating goes, whether you can or can't.

9 MR. FITZPATRICK: I would agree with that.

10 MR. SPIELVOGEL: The industry, as far as what

11 I'm seeing, we have a lot of multicolored garments and

12 the majority of the problems have to do with solvent

13 temperature and drying temperature. And it's just what

14 I've been seeing. Mary, do you see that with DLI?

15 MS. SCALCO: Mm-hmm.

16 MR. SPIELVOGEL: Yeah.

17 MS. SCALCO: But again, I think we need to

18 address that at the ASTM AATCC level and get the test

19 method change. I don't know that the change you're

20 proposing -- I guess here's what my point is. What

21 Alan brings up and what we were just discussing, we go

22 and have changed at the ASTM and ISO level and they

23 change that standard and they do that in 2013, so it

24 reflects what happens in the industry, your care

25 labeling symbol requirement is now null and void. It's
145

1 behind the times. Do you see what I mean?

2 Unless you can react quicker than the

3 industry can react -- I'm really having a problem with

4 referring back to 2005 or 2002 or even today, with the

5 2012 standard. Why not refer to the most current

6 standard of both of these? Because there are people

7 around the room that sit on those committees that

8 develop those standards based upon their level of

9 expertise and what's happening in the industry. So

10 then your Federal Trade Commission rule is current with

11 what's going on.

12 MR. RIGGS: The answer to the question is

13 that would remove the control out of the hands of the

14 FTC, if you just simply say FTC is going to take the

15 most current standard. Then the FTC no longer controls

16 the process.

17 MS. SCALCO: But if dry cleaning in itself

18 changes --

19 MR. RIGGS: I agree with what you're saying.

20 MS. SCALCO: -- and it refers back to a

21 standard that is no longer typical of what's happening

22 in the industry, or if it's a wet cleaning symbol and

23 it is no longer reflective of what the wet cleaning is

24 that's happening in the industry, I don't see how that

25 is beneficial to the consumer.
146

1 MS. KOSTNER: Moving back to what brought us

2 to this discussion, the change in the circle P symbol

3 and ASTM. Kind of give me the bottom line, what is the

4 impact on this change? What is the impact of this

5 change on consumers, if any? Is there any reason why

6 the FTC needs to address this specific change with any

7 additional language in our proposed rule?

8 MS. SOPCICH: I think it would be a stretch

9 to say that consumers know what P means. I think the P

10 is what does the professional cleaner think it means.

11 And even there, honestly, our affiliates don't know

12 what P means. Some think it means professional clean,

13 P. Some think it means perc, some think it means no

14 perc. They have no idea.

15 Frequently, they do rely on the fiber label

16 or, you know, the words to clarify their understanding.

17 But in terms of the question, whether it is changed

18 from its meaning, on the positive side it is now

19 harmonized with the ISO and that's really critical. So

20 I think the benefits outweigh the negatives, very much

21 so.

22 MR. RIGGS: The logic discussed always that

23 ISO and ASTM was the circle symbol should alert the

24 consumer, don't do this at home. Take it to the

25 professional and then the professional uses the right
147

1 procedure based upon their training and knowledge and

2 whatever else they see there.

3 You know, there is a modification in the test

4 method for a mild cycle, I can't cite off-hand what

5 that means. I think it's a shorter cycle, but the

6 professional would know or should have access to the

7 training to know. Now, whether they avail themselves

8 to the training or not, that's another issue.

9 But I think the circle, to the consumer,

10 should only mean don't do it at home. And then

11 anything else we add is information for the

12 professional.

13 MS. KOSTNER: All right. The next topic

14 regards solvents and the absence of ASTM and ISO

15 symbols for solvents other than perc and petroleum.

16 The Commission would be curious to know how

17 this came about in the two different care labeling

18 systems, if anyone has insight into that. Why are

19 there only symbols for perc and petroleum?

20 MR. MANSELL: From the ISO point of view,

21 there symbols for those solvents that were prevalent on

22 the market at the time. Whether it's of any interest

23 or not, ISO 3175, which Charles has referenced several

24 times, the test method is being amended as we speak and

25 will almost certainly be broadened to include the new
148

1 solvents that are available now.

2 MS. SOPCICH: And also relevant is that the

3 ASTM is now voting on a change to the definition of P

4 and F in a -- not the symbols, but to change the

5 definition to encompass alternate solvents as well.

6 So I think the standards are right where they

7 need to be.

8 MS. SCALCO: The garment manufacturers, they

9 have to have a basis to determine what they are going

10 to put on the label. If they're going to test, they

11 need a test method. So the test methods all refer to a

12 specific solvent, they don't just say dry clean. They

13 say dry cleaning in this solvent, you do this. Dry

14 cleaning in this solvent, you do this. If you don't

15 have a test method, there's nothing for them to test

16 to. So many times, you're developing the test method

17 before you develop the symbol, so if they put that

18 symbol, they have a basis for it. So that's why.

19 MS. SOPCICH: And we're also -- I mean, the

20 AATCC is also going to be undertaking that necessary

21 step to support the standard, if that passes, in order

22 to have the science behind the standard.

23 MR. RIGGS: It was explained to me, I think

24 the issue was the P actually stood for

25 perchloroethylene or tetrachlorethylene, and that means
149

1 that's the solvent to use. Which, as it turns out in

2 the test method, is the most aggressive and, I think,

3 still the most aggressive. And if it withstands the

4 most aggressive solvent, then it is safe for all

5 others.

6 The F, as I understood, signified flammable

7 because these other solvents are, you know, there is

8 some degree of flammability. And I think that's true

9 even of the newer substitutes, that they are still

10 flammable solvents.

11 The question would be, could you use, I think

12 it's Part 3 of 3175, to test the GreenEarth solvent or

13 what do you have to modify? So I would think we

14 probably can do with the two solvents, flammable and

15 nonflammable, and if it's got a P, you can you use

16 anything. If it's got an F, you can't use P. So that

17 simplifies the process.

18 And the task for other solvents would be, how

19 do you modify 3175 for a test method for all of these

20 different alternative solvents. And that's what's

21 being worked on currently. And it would still probably

22 carry the F symbol.

23 MR. FRISBY: Can I just jump in for a minute?

24 I hear you all saying that the Commission should

25 incorporate the most recent standard for both ASTM and
150

1 ISO, not withstanding the fact that there is a

2 difference on the drawn symbols, is that what I'm

3 hearing?

4 MR. RIGGS: That's not what I was suggesting.

5 MR. FRISBY: Okay.

6 MR. RIGGS: I would suggest to use the ones

7 -- use the two that are harmonized.

8 MR. FRISBY: So you're saying we should use

9 the 2005 ISO and the current ASTM? And what about the

10 rest of you?

11 MR. MANSELL: I'd use the most current, I'd

12 use the 2012, because that's what the industry uses.

13 MS. D'AVIGNON: I think if we're not using

14 the most current, there's not much point in even

15 considering it. Because the whole point is to be able

16 to use the current so you can sell a product in

17 multiple countries with the same label. And if you

18 can't sell a product because you're using the 2005

19 standards, there's no point in using them in the US at

20 all.

21 MR. RIGGS: Well, then you would say, don't

22 use ASTM symbols because they would not be current with

23 the current version of ISO, so all the manufacturers

24 have to switch to ISO and drop ASTM.

25 MS. D'AVIGNON: Not necessarily, because they
151

1 both have different benefits and different challenges.

2 So if a company wants to use ASTM, you know, they can

3 only -- they are allowed to have just the one symbol.

4 If they want to do that, they can stay in the US

5 market. If they want to use ISO, you know, they can

6 use five symbols, but they have to use all five, which

7 is a problem sometimes for US companies. They might

8 have to pay the GINETEX fee for the licensing, so they

9 may see more benefit in using the ASTM. I think it

10 will depend on the company's preferences.

11 MR. FRISBY: If there is a discrepancy in the

12 symbols, does anyone have a suggestion as to how the

13 Commission should address that in the rule, if it all?

14 If it allows the two most recent standards.

15 MR. MANSELL: It may be complicating the rule

16 overly, but if you allow the use of ISO 3758 2012,

17 excluding the natural drying symbols, then you wouldn't

18 have a problem.

19 MS. KOSTNER: I wanted to turn back to some

20 of the questions on solvents. We were talking about,

21 right now there are symbols for two different solvents.

22 And I would like to know if the panelists have any

23 evidence on what percentage of solvents dry cleaners

24 are currently using? And do dry cleaners have multiple

25 solvents in the same shop? Does anyone have any
152

1 understanding on that? Any data on that?

2 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yeah, so -- and I think DLI

3 and NCA probably have numbers to support this, but

4 still about 80 percent of the industry is using perc as

5 a solvent. The remaining is primarily synthetic

6 hydrocarbon, with about 5 percent of the market being

7 split up between the alternatives, GreenEarth, our

8 solvent, propylene glycol, and then wet cleaning. So

9 the dominant solvent is still perc in the industry.

10 MS. SCALCO: I would bring that perc number

11 down a little bit. I think it has dropped a little bit

12 lower than that.

13 MS. KOSTNER: And actually I think your

14 comment used 60 percent.

15 MS. SCALCO: Right. I think it's a little

16 bit lower than that, but I do think that almost every

17 shop has wet cleaning in it, professional wet cleaning

18 in it. And I think nowadays, you might see more -- I

19 don't know if it's a huge percentage that has both, has

20 multiple solvents in it, but some of the larger ones

21 will have multiple solvents in there as well.

22 MR. RIGGS: Probably not more than two.

23 MS. SCALCO: Yeah.

24 MR. FITZPATRICK: Two plus water.

25 MR. RIGGS: Two plus water.
153

1 MS. SCALCO: Two plus water, yeah.

2 MS. KOSTNER: Stacy, did you want to add

3 something?

4 MS. SOPCICH: I was going to say, our

5 knowledge would say that it's gone down closer to 60,

6 in terms of use of perc. Even from a few years ago,

7 it's dramatically declined. I think California has had

8 a lot to do with that.

9 The larger cleaners are the anomaly in the

10 industry. They are the ones that will have multiple

11 processes. For the most part, you've got one dry

12 cleaning process and one wet cleaning process, whether

13 that's laundry or professional wet cleaning. You know,

14 that's the reality of the industry.

15 MS. KOSTNER: So we've heard testimony that

16 both ISO and ASTM are looking at adding symbols for

17 other solvents, I think that's what I heard, is that

18 correct?

19 MR. MANSELL: Not symbols, just test methods.

20 MS. SOPCICH: Not symbols.

21 MS. KOSTNER: Test methods.

22 MR. RIGGS: I don't see the symbols going

23 beyond two, P and F.

24 MR. MANSELL: No.

25 MS. SOPCICH: What the ASTM is looking at
154

1 doing, and Jenn can also speak to this, is just keeping

2 the symbols, but changing the definition. So with P,

3 it will go back to what it was when there were three

4 symbols and there was an A for any. When the solvents

5 more aggressive than perc left the market, they kind of

6 relaxed the symbol system down to two. And so P then

7 served the role of A, it still does, but they named

8 perc and petroleum, because they were really, at the

9 time, the only two viable commercial options. There

10 are more now, so the definition of P would be any,

11 which would get back to, I think, a more useful

12 definition.

13 MS. KOSTNER: So does the Commission need to

14 do anything in addition to what ISO and ASTM are doing

15 with alternative solvents? Is there any language or

16 wording that the Commission would need to consider in

17 adding to the rule?

18 MS. SOPCICH: I see two things. One is, I

19 think it is worth discussing, you know, whether or not

20 the Commission intentionally used the notion of in use

21 versus commercially available when it was naming it

22 solvent examples. Because for example, CO2 was named.

23 I don't know, Rich, Mary, how many CO2 cleaners are

24 there left?

25 MR. FITZPATRICK: There's about six.
155

1 MS. SOPCICH: Yeah, so --

2 MS. SCALCO: He's more generous than me. I

3 would have said two.

4 MR. FITZPATRICK: Well, if you include

5 Sudbury, there's about six.

6 MS. SOPCICH: Yeah, well Sudbury, there only

7 about 13 machines ever made, so there might be --

8 MR. FITZPATRICK: There's --

9 MS. SOPCICH: No, but my point is when you

10 say alternative solvents, I think there is a

11 distinction that's worthy of discussion about whether

12 or not they are commercially available versus in use.

13 Glycol ether is another case-in-point.

14 MR. FRISBY: You're referring to the

15 definition of dry cleaning, right?

16 MS. SOPCICH: Yes.

17 MR. FRISBY: Yeah.

18 MS. SOPCICH: Going back to that. And then

19 the -- what was my other point?

20 MR. FRISBY: Are you saying we should be

21 subtracting some of the ones as opposed to adding or --

22 MS. SOPCICH: Well, I think there might have

23 been an unintentional consequence of naming some of the

24 solvents that were available but are already off the

25 market. You know, solvents -- it takes time to
156

1 withstand the test of time and prove operational

2 viability, managing the cost and the labor. You know,

3 there's just a lot of factors besides the solvent

4 itself. And so some of these come and they go and

5 that's the nature of the marketplace. At the moment, I

6 mean --

7 MR. FITZPATRICK: I think the FTC has to be

8 careful though not to use language that would prohibit

9 innovation in the industry and currently it kind of

10 does. So the --

11 MR. RIGGS: I think the language choice is

12 pretty clear. If you go from the FTC language and you

13 replace all of those solvent examples and just say

14 nonaqueous solvent, that would cover everything. So

15 you're down to aqueous and nonaqueous.

16 MR. FRISBY: It's a non-exhaustive list, it

17 just --

18 MR. RIGGS: And then you don't restrict new

19 innovations because they are clearly going to be

20 nonaqueous.

21 MR. FITZPATRICK: Yeah.

22 MR. RIGGS: So I think that one word,

23 substituted every where you have those listed, just say

24 nonaqueous --

25 MS. SOPCICH: And they are just examples, so
157

1 I think that's an issue, but the broader point that I

2 was going to make is, we just heard that both the

3 standards bodies, ASTM and ISO, are looking to

4 recognize alternative solvents in their system of

5 definitions and test methods. So it would be -- it

6 seems prudent for the FTC to keep the rulemaking open

7 long enough to allow some of these processes to work

8 their way.

9 If you're going to point to a year-dated

10 standard and you promulgate the new rule and recognize

11 nonorganic solvents, for example, it won't do any good

12 if the standards aren't also doing that. So they need,

13 I think, a little bit of time to allow that to catch

14 up, it would be useful.

15 MS. KOSTNER: Anyone else on this issue? All

16 right. I think we've heard a lot of evidence on my

17 last topic, consumer understanding of care labeling

18 symbols. Is there anything that anyone would like to

19 add new? I think we've heard a lot of evidence that

20 consumers do not understand care symbols, but do we

21 have anything else to add to this?

22 MR. RIGGS: In 1999, at the last roundtable,

23 this was a topic and we discussed various education

24 methods. Clearly, none of them worked. The one that I

25 thought had the most promise, someone suggested that if
158

1 you could make this part of the kindergarten and first

2 grade curriculum and send it home, then the kids could

3 teach their parents and it would grow by that. But

4 that would take some FTC funding, I guess, to do that.

5 But clearly, you know, even my textile

6 students, who clearly are the most interested consumers

7 in textiles and apparel, are uninformed at the college

8 level, so we've failed.

9 MS. KOSTNER: All right. We will now open

10 the floor up to Q&A. We've got a question in the front

11 here, Rebecca. Paul would like to address the panel.

12 MR. MATTHAI: This is Paul Matthai, EPA. It

13 is so much more fun to be on this side, I just wanted

14 to point that out.

15 I just want to throw something out that's

16 really out there, just as a consideration in the

17 figure. Because every time something changes, you're

18 going to have to go back and change a rule, change a

19 rule, and it becomes catch-up and it's hard to do.

20 Suppose you were to put a bar code on a

21 label? And each dry cleaner, each cleaner, would have

22 a bar code reader and you could update it at any time.

23 They put it in there, it tells you how to wash the

24 thing. And eventually, that would get into the

25 consumer area as well, just put a bar code on there
159

1 that says put this in this kind of wash and just put it

2 in piles.

3 And you could always update, without changing

4 the regulations, if you base it on standards. You just

5 say whatever the current standards are. Just a

6 thought.

7 I'm sitting here looking at all these things,

8 all these symbols and stuff, and a bar code would just

9 tell you right off.

10 MR. RIGGS: You not out there, Paul. It's

11 been done. Not in this market, but in the industrial

12 market, industrial uniforms, bar codes are common. Of

13 course, the bar codes don't always withstand the

14 cleaning process. RF chips seem to be the better

15 option.

16 And I know at least one cleaner in Dallas

17 that actually sews in an RF chip in every customer's

18 item, so when they bring it back they know when they

19 cleaned it, how they cleaned it, and what problems they

20 encountered. So it's there.

21 MR. MATTHAI: And it just comes up and you

22 don't have to think and that would help America.

23 MR. FITZPATRICK: The use of heat-sealed bar

24 codes for tracking garments in prevalent in the

25 industry. A lot of cleaners use that technology and
160

1 they've gotten pretty good at developing bar codes that

2 will hold up fairly well.

3 Your idea about actually using the bar code

4 or a QR code or some kind of digital imprint to give

5 the cleaner or the consumer, they just take a picture

6 of it and all of the sudden, it pops up on their

7 smartphone, how do I process this textile. I guess

8 that would require the manufacturers to have a database

9 and that would be tied back to that garment in some

10 way.

11 MR. MATTHAI: But there's the one that are

12 putting on there what to do anyway, so it's up to them.

13 MS. KOSTNER: I think we're going to move on

14 to our next question from the audience. Rebecca, you

15 have someone back there.

16 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, I'm Carl. I'm a

17 garment care professional. As I understand the

18 discussion about the symbols, if the P represents all

19 solvents and the W represents nonaqueous solvents, then

20 wouldn't requiring the two symbols on there cover your

21 entire basis of professional cleaning, thus there would

22 not be any discrepancy in the process and deception to

23 the consumer?

24 MS. KOSTNER: Panelists?

25 MS. SOPCICH: It seems like we're going back
161

1 to writing the law. I mean, the law currently says one

2 method, so.

3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: Well, the P would represent

4 one method, but if you had both, you wouldn't have any

5 -- you would cover all of your bases if you had the two

6 symbols because you would cover both chemical solvents

7 and water, if you had both symbols on there.

8 MR. CHANG: In other words, still go with P

9 with W, two letters.

10 MR. FRISBY: Well, the discrepancy we talked

11 about earlier had to do with the home washing issue,

12 not the professional care issue. I think that's right?

13 Natural drying and drying. It's not a professional

14 care issue.

15 MR. RIGGS: If you were to require all five

16 symbols, then you could do what you've described and I

17 think it would be fair to all markets. But what was

18 suggested earlier, which I object to, was requiring

19 only one. I think you either require all five or you

20 leave it like it is, you require them to put in a

21 method.

22 MS. KOSTNER: Next question from the back,

23 please.

24 MR. MITRA: But they could --

25 MS. KOSTNER: Could you speak up, please?
162

1 MR. MITRA: To catch up with the changing

2 safety requirements, what consumer product safety does

3 and CPSC does or with poison or some other products,

4 what they have in the rule is, they have a set standard

5 that they've agreed upon. And then what they've done

6 is they say, any time the USDA publishes a new

7 standard, they evaluate it in 90 days and then, if the

8 Commission disagrees with the changes, they keep the

9 old standard. If they agree with the changes, they

10 revert to the new standard and it becomes 90 or

11 whatever days they decide upon. So something like that

12 might be helpful -- to evaluate the changes.

13 MS. KOSTNER: And that is something -- I'm

14 not sure what our ability is, we would have to look

15 into that. Front row here, please.

16 MR. QUDDUS: Yes, the question -- I mean, if

17 we go back to what we had -- the recommendation is that

18 consumers can be educated from the kindergarten level.

19 It's not going to happen. And all that I'm hearing is

20 that you're trying to now educate the other side of the

21 game, which is now the professionals.

22 So we will educate the professionals by

23 telling them what symbols mean what now. And the

24 biggest distinction that I'm seeing is that we are all

25 saying that ASTM is no good, go with the ISO. And if
163

1 ISO is the one thing that we need to learn, and if

2 we're trying to get the ISO to educate the

3 professionals, we might as well just educate the

4 professionals, but through their own guidelines, and

5 then leave the ASTM as is.

6 Or the other way is that, if the ASTM is all

7 that not good and outdated, just take the ISO and get

8 rid of the ASTM. Because if the ASTM doesn't -- let's

9 just go with the ISO. Why have this dilemma of

10 educating one side or the other side? Because

11 consumers are definitely not the one to be educated.

12 You cannot. So in this case, you are educating only

13 the professionals, still with the professionals, just

14 go with the one symbol. Don't make this complicated

15 for both sides and putting ISO and, you know, ASTM.

16 All those things are not needed. And who will be the

17 one to keep track of these changes going on, because

18 it's going to go on and on and on.

19 MS. D'AVIGNON: I want to say, I hope that I

20 didn't come across saying that ASTM is no good, because

21 I don't believe that. I do think that ASTM symbols

22 have their own merit. There are certainly reasons why

23 companies are interested in using the ISO symbols,

24 because the ASTM is not allowed in Europe, but in other

25 places. But it doesn't necessarily inherently mean
164

1 that ASTM isn't a good thing already, it just is

2 different. And we need to figure out a way to make it

3 easier for companies to be able to use both or to be

4 able to just make some kind of common ruling for it.

5 MR. MANSELL: I also wouldn't defend ISO in

6 terms of its education, because the lack of education

7 that there maybe for ASTM from the consumers and

8 professionals, is exactly the same for the ISO symbols.

9 MS. KOSTNER: We've got a question in the

10 back corner here.

11 MR. PROTONENTIS: I'm Luke Protonentis with

12 the AATCC. We've gone over this ASTM versus ISO

13 symbols and changing them, adding five of them versus

14 two and crossing them out, but when we just came back

15 to a central point a little while ago about the final

16 point of this -- and both of ya'll from the FTC have

17 been good about pointing us back and focusing us on the

18 final aspect of this, protection of the consumer.

19 But we just talked about education and kind

20 of just threw it out the window. How can we do any of

21 this, whatever decision that comes out of this, the

22 final point should be the education of it. So whatever

23 law we change, whatever symbols we choose, I don't see

24 how we can eliminate some form of education, whether it

25 starts at kindergarten, whether it starts at college
165

1 students, there has to be some form of education.

2 Otherwise, everything we do, you know, we might as well

3 go to the definition of insanity.

4 MS. KOSTNER: And the Commission would be

5 interested in how to better educate consumers. When

6 the rule was revised the last time, education -- we did

7 attempt to educate consumers and now we're hearing from

8 various people that it hasn't worked.

9 So are there suggestions? But beyond

10 starting in kindergarten, what can we do?

11 MR. MANSELL: From my -- there's only one

12 part of this industry that has the reach and the

13 resources to do that and they're called retailers.

14 MR. PROTONENTIS: Well, we're talking and we

15 have the retailers now who have a greater vested

16 interest in it, we have a panel here who are working

17 now with the dry cleaners and the wet cleaners. We

18 have a larger group of people that are willing to help.

19 So when somebody goes into a store, they have a captive

20 audience, as far as being able to educate. So every

21 time they go in, they learn something. And then the

22 next time they come in, they make a better educated --

23 they make a more educated decision for that purchase

24 and then they make a better educated decision for their

25 other purchases. And then they start telling their
166

1 friends.

2 I mean, there are various aspects of it.

3 There are various -- we can go and educate, but I just

4 don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater

5 that, because we haven't done it before, that we can't

6 do it again. We can. There's other options, there's

7 other parameters, there's other people that can do it.

8 I just want us to keep focusing on that part of it.

9 MR. RIGGS: The things that have worked, and

10 retail packaging has certainly helped a lot, some of

11 the external packaging has a lot of information from

12 some manufacturers about the symbols and what they

13 mean.

14 And I think most machine manufacturers for

15 home laundry machines now have the symbols in the door

16 to tell you what to do with them. And they may have

17 dots on the dial that says a platform and code, so you

18 know that they're picking up parts of it.

19 But in general, it's very frustrating. If

20 you saw people on the street or, in my case, in the

21 classroom, how poorly informed they are.

22 MR. FITZPATRICK: I think companies like

23 Procter & Gamble, too, can play a big part in educating

24 consumers. Manufacturers of household cleaning

25 products that are used for the care of textiles
167

1 obviously have a big vested interest that the consumer

2 knows how to use their products.

3 I also -- although education is a great topic

4 to focus on, I don't see huge crowds of people walking

5 down the street with ruined garments. People seem to

6 be managing with their limited knowledge of the symbols

7 as they are right now. I think it's important to

8 provide as much education, but I think we're not

9 idiots. We seem to be able to wash most of our clothes

10 and get the rest dry cleaned adequately.

11 MR. RIGGS: They usually don't wear the

12 ruined ones.

13 MR. FITZPATRICK: Well, yeah.

14 MR. SPIELVOGEL: You might want to put some

15 type of tag on the garment with a link to the FTC site

16 that explains the whole thing, if anybody -- if the

17 consumer is interested.

18 MS. KOSTNER: I'll take another question from

19 the audience, please.

20 MS. O'BYRNE: I represent a manufacturer and

21 I'd like to address -- I have a question. It was

22 something that you had said. The proposal is that if

23 we use the ASTM symbols, we don't need to identify them

24 and if we use the ISO, we do need to identify them.

25 So my question to you is, what is the FTCs
168

1 objective to offering to use both sets of symbols on

2 the label? What started that off? And then I have a

3 suggestion.

4 MS. KOSTNER: I'm going to defer to Robert on

5 this one.

6 MR. FRISBY: In reviewing the rulemaking

7 record, the comments we received earlier in the

8 process, a number of the commenters urged the

9 Commission to try to have greater harmonization

10 internationally to facilitate trade in textiles. And

11 so a number of the commenters urged the Commission to

12 go with ISO and there were some that urged the

13 Commission to allow the use of both systems. And

14 that's what the Commission ultimately decided to

15 propose was the use of both systems.

16 But there was a concern about the fact that

17 consumers, at least in theory, had more experience with

18 ASTM symbols, given that they were permissible over 10

19 years ago. And I think that led the Commission to

20 propose this additional disclosure requirement for ISO.

21 But we want to know -- it sounds like there's not a lot

22 of support for that in the comments we received more

23 recently, so we want to get the views of people here

24 about whether that's worth doing or necessary or --

25 MS. O'BYRNE: So here's my suggestion. Like
169

1 I said, I work for a major manufacturer. I've worked

2 for them for 22 years and I think they're in existence

3 about 30 years. They've never used ASTM symbols ever

4 because the consumer doesn't understand them.

5 But under the FTC regulations, we are allowed

6 to either put it in the English language, in words, or

7 use the symbols. So we opt to put it in English for

8 the American consumer.

9 We recently went into Europe and I'm right in

10 with GINETEX and ISO and I know them inside-out at this

11 point. And we got tired of making labels for the same

12 style that is going to the US and then a different

13 label for the same style going to Europe, so we decided

14 to invent what we're calling our global label. And we

15 are currently putting ISO symbols on it with the

16 English language, to satisfy the US and to satisfy the

17 European.

18 So to answer the question about whether we

19 need to identify it, if we are allowed to use both sets

20 of symbols, do we need to identify them? No. We don't

21 need to identify them. As Americans, for the American

22 market, we have the option to use ASTM symbols or

23 English words. And I guarantee you, I've done a lot of

24 benchmarking and not many US manufacturers are using

25 ASTM symbols, so I don't think you need to identify
170

1 them.

2 MR. FRISBY: I'm sorry, I didn't hear your

3 last point.

4 MS. O'BYRNE: I don't think you need to

5 identify --

6 MR. FRISBY: Okay.

7 MS. O'BYRNE: -- which symbols you're using.

8 MR. FRISBY: I hear you, okay.

9 MS. KOSTNER: So I have seven more minutes.

10 How many questions are there in the room? All right, I

11 see two hands.

12 MS. MORGAN: Hi, I'm Jennifer Morgan and I

13 work for one of those big retailers, JCPenney. And you

14 know, we've tried various things over the years to try

15 to educate our customers about care. We don't sell

16 outside of the United States, so we are limited to what

17 we do here.

18 We did try one brand, specifically in our

19 intimates, to just use the symbols and our customers

20 complained so much about it, they had no idea.

21 So when you talk about education, I think one

22 of the things you need to look at is utilizing social

23 media. As a retailer, every penny is huge and putting

24 a hangtag, putting a bigger label, everything costs us,

25 our customers, and our manufacturers a lot of money.
171

1 But what we're finding now, and we did a lot

2 with the CPIC, is if we utilize our social media, you

3 know, our Facebook and that, we have a huge number of

4 our customers that see that. And I think that would be

5 a great way, going forward, to educate. You know, it's

6 the way of the future, is utilize the social media.

7 MS. KOSTNER: I saw another question over

8 here.

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Hi, I'm Peggy

10 Gorton-Armstrong from L.L. Bean and I'm in support of

11 the FTC allowing the ISO symbols to make it easier for

12 us to sell in the US and also have the symbols for

13 other countries that would accept those symbols.

14 But if you were to allow either ASTM or ISO,

15 then the FTC guidance on like the maximum number of

16 symbols allowed would be helpful, just as a guidance

17 document is what my suggestion would be.

18 MS. KOSTNER: Does anyone have any -- does

19 anyone who sells overseas have an issue with too many

20 symbols on their garments?

21 AUDIENCE MEMBER: What's too many?

22 MS. KOSTNER: I don't know. For a consumer.

23 AUDIENCE MEMBER: ISO, you have to have five.

24 You can have more than five, but you have to have five.

25 MS. SOPCICH: I guess the question I would
172

1 have is, my understanding was that the Commission was

2 looking at adopting the symbols, but not the system or

3 the standard. There's a big difference, in my mind,

4 between those two and I feel like we're talking on both

5 sides of it.

6 Are we talking about adapting the standard or

7 the symbol?

8 MR. FRISBY: It's the symbols, but they have

9 to be used in compliance with the rule.

10 MS. SOPCICH: Okay.

11 MR. FRISBY: So reasonable basis would still

12 be required for a do not -- so do not, whatever, or

13 maximum.

14 MS. SOPCICH: It's a very simple proposition,

15 really.

16 MR. MANSELL: You're adopting the graphics,

17 not the standard.

18 MR. FRISBY: That's right.

19 MS. KOSTNER: Any other questions?

20 MS. O'BYRNE: My company already uses ISO

21 symbols, so there's nothing to say I can't use them in

22 the US.

23 MR. FRISBY: No, the rule permits the use of

24 ASTM symbols in lieu of written instructions, but it

25 doesn't prohibit extra information.
173

1 MS. O'BYRNE: Okay, so I have instructions in

2 English and I have the ISO symbols.

3 MR. FRISBY: That would not violate the rule,

4 as long --

5 MS. O'BYRNE: All right, so that's why --

6 MR. FRISBY: -- as long as you have a

7 reasonable basis for all of the --

8 MS. O'BYRNE: -- I'm trying to figure out

9 where is the issue.

10 MR. MITRA: So this is a question for the

11 panel. I'm Seemanta Mitra from Intertek. I think the

12 question was whether to adopt the latest standards

13 versus to a specific standard, because the FTC wants to

14 have jurisdiction over the standards.

15 I think the latest standards, whatever is the

16 latest standards, because the technology is changing,

17 so the ASTM and the AATCC, which are the two organized

18 bodies here which make the standards, which the other

19 -- the industry in general, whether it is a testing lab

20 or a regional -- they keep on changing the standards

21 because the technology is changing.

22 So if we just stick ourselves to an old

23 standard, the problem is we are going back to the same

24 problem which we have right now, where we are still

25 using 96C symbols as opposed to the year 2014. So
174

1 that's one of the aspects of it.

2 The other aspect is, the care labeling

3 instructions just provide us about -- the care label

4 rule, just provide us about the rule. It doesn't say

5 whether we can accept or reject the product. For

6 accepting or rejecting the product, we still rely on

7 the standards set up by the governing bodies like the

8 AATCC or the ASTM. So if it's a grade 3, and I'm from

9 a testing lab, for example, I refer back to the AATCC

10 test method and grade 3 or grade 3.5, whichever I have

11 based on the industry practice, we would pass or reject

12 that product for care labeling requirement, based on

13 those standards. And if those standards change, we

14 automatically change our way of testing, too, in the

15 way they changed.

16 So if we keep ourselves confined to the 2005

17 standard for ISO or 96C for an ASTM, we are basically

18 reverting back to our outdated style of working in this

19 age.

20 And the third aspect is, we can also look at

21 the FTC Textile Labeling rules, which really doesn't

22 say refer to any ASTM or AATCC standards. It gives us

23 the regulations, it also tells to accept ISO generic

24 names for certain fibers. And it doesn't really tell

25 us that you should test to ASTM or ISO standards. By
175

1 default, we always test to ASTM or the AATCC standards.

2 And as they keep on changing, they keep on adding new

3 fibers in the industry, they keep on -- AATCC also

4 makes the changes, how to identify those fibers. We

5 used that test method. So by default, maybe FTC can

6 think of that this is the standard and this is the

7 rule. And in case of any dispute or questions, you

8 would refer back to our American standard body, ASTM or

9 AATCC.

10 Because the reasonable basis requirement is

11 only for FTC. Europe, care instructions is voluntary.

12 Canada, care instructions is voluntary. So the

13 reasonable basis requirement, it's a regulatory

14 requirement in the U.S. So we would have to think of

15 that, whether it makes more sense to adopt to the

16 latest standards and not just refer to a particular

17 year of that standard.

18 MS. KOSTNER: I think we have one minute.

19 Does anyone have anything to say?

20 MS. D'AVIGNON: I'll just add real quickly,

21 as you mentioned, the new changes to the fiber rules

22 say you can use the updated generic ISO -- ISO generic

23 names. If someone puts on their label elastane,

24 instead of Spandex, which is the ISO name, you don't

25 have to say, this is the ISO name, elastane. You just
176

1 say elastane and you expect that people in the United

2 States either will understand it or not really care

3 enough to have to really specify that it's the ISO name

4 and not the name by ASTM. So why would we necessarily

5 need to express it this way for care samples if we

6 don't care about the generic names?

7 MR. FRISBY: It sounds like no one is in

8 favor of that proposal.

9 MS. KOSTNER: All right. Well, thank you.

10 We have a 15 minute break. We will be starting at 2:30

11 for our final panel. Thank you.

12 (Whereupon, there was a brief

13 recess.)

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 
177

1 PANEL THREE

2 MR. GORMAN: All right. We're going to start

3 now with our third and final panel. We are going to

4 talk about the reasonable basis and some other sort of

5 issues. And if there's time left at the end -- this

6 panel runs until 3:40. If there's time at the end,

7 we'll open up the floor to questions on any issues,

8 including ones we've already covered.

9 I'd like to welcome our panelists. We have

10 Mr. Augstine Chang from Nature's Best Cleaners.

11 Marie D'Avignon from American Apparel and

12 Footwear Association.

13 Richard Fitzpatrick from Kreussler, Inc.

14 Adam Mansell from Wulff Consultancy.

15 Seemanta Mitra from Intertek.

16 Nora Nealis from the National Cleaners

17 Association.

18 Mr. Dart Poach from Don's Leather Cleaners.

19 Mir Quddus from Whirlpool.

20 Charles Riggs from Texas Woman's University.

21 Mary Scalco from Dry Cleaning and Laundry

22 Institute.

23 And Stacy Sopcich from GreenEarth Cleaning.

24 And I'm Frank Gorman with the FTC, up here

25 with Robert Frisby, who has been here all day.
178

1 The first thing I would like to talk about is

2 the proposed changes -- the changes that we proposed to

3 reasonable basis standards. And these are

4 non-substantiative changes, but rather clarifications

5 by providing examples of situations in which you have

6 to have -- to test the entire garment, where it's

7 reasonable to test the entire garment.

8 GreenEarth came back with some additional

9 proposed language, just sort of fleshing out the

10 examples a little further. And I guess I can start

11 with Mr. Chang, you know, do you think it's

12 appropriate, either the proposal that the FTC made, to

13 provide some examples, for example the color of one

14 part often bleeds into another, where you have to test

15 the entire garment or also situations where you don't

16 need to test the entire garment. Are these

17 illustrations helpful and would you expand them along

18 the lines that GreenEarth proposed?

19 MR. CHANG: Hello. My name is Augustine

20 Chang and I'm the owner and operator of Nature's Best

21 Cleaners. And for the past 25 years, I've worked as a

22 perchloroethylene operator and, for the past five

23 years, I've dedicated myself as a 100 percent wet

24 cleaner.

25 To answer the question, yes, it is necessary
179

1 to test the garment to make sure that it satisfies the

2 needs of the consumers so that what they really pay for

3 is the garment that they should get. So therefore,

4 testing is required, of course.

5 MS. D'AVIGNON: I think clarification is

6 always a good thing. Certainly, it couldn't hurt to

7 have a little clearer idea of what we're looking for,

8 but I think the current rules where it says, you know,

9 testing isn't necessarily always required, if you have

10 experience in this product or industry expertise, you

11 don't necessarily need to test.

12 So to that point, you know, I think that the

13 rules that we have now for reasonable basis are

14 reasonable, that's a good thing. But clarification can

15 never hurt.

16 MR. GORMAN: Right. And the clarification

17 are those situations where you really can't just rely

18 on your experience, you do need to test the garment. I

19 think that's -- just to characterize that. You think

20 that's appropriate?

21 MS. D'AVIGNON: So I'm not sure exactly what

22 you're --

23 MR. GORMAN: This is --

24 MS. D'AVIGNON: But if there are specific

25 cases where you would absolutely need to, I don't know
180

1 what exactly it says for the examples, but I usually

2 don't ever push for more testing than is necessary.

3 And if it is something that, you know, is a testing

4 requirement just to have a testing requirement, I don't

5 agree with that.

6 MR. FITZPATRICK: So I think it's fairly

7 obvious that we're getting a lot of garments coming

8 into the service providers that have not been tested

9 adequately. And the first time they're being tested is

10 when that dry cleaner processing organization gets the

11 garment.

12 So I think additional -- some additional

13 clarification and instructions on reasonable basis and

14 improving that testing is probably a good thing for the

15 industry. And certainly the examples that you gave,

16 garments that are mixed colors, applique that is added

17 after the fact by jobbers, those are examples of when a

18 garment should probably be reexamined and some

19 additional testing be done.

20 MR. MANSELL: I've got to agree with the two

21 previous speakers. I think giving examples is a very

22 useful thing to do.

23 MR. MITRA: I would definitely agree to that.

24 Basically, the purpose of all of these regulations is

25 how the consumer -- the consumer is the ultimate
181

1 receiver of the product and how the consumer is going

2 to view things, from the perspective of the product.

3 So when we test, we need to test the final

4 product that will ultimately go to the consumer at the

5 point of sale. So there should be more examples and

6 specifications to say that. And if there are parts in

7 the products that would cause bleeding, that definitely

8 needs to be verified, (a) either by historical evidence

9 or by testing, would be the other option.

10 I would agree with Marie that you don't have

11 to necessarily test to test, because there are things,

12 for example, protein fibers. They never pass a bleach

13 test, it's obviously. Historically, we have shown that

14 protein fibers, like wool and silk, do not pass the

15 bleach test. So if you keep on testing that, it's

16 redundant testing and it wouldn't add value to your

17 material.

18 So in a sense, I would agree with the

19 speakers here that there should be a reasonable basis

20 and the reasonable basis can be based on either

21 experience, research, records, or testing.

22 MR. GORMAN: I think everybody has addressed

23 the question so far has hit on this, but for the rest

24 of the panel, if there are any examples given in our

25 proposal or in the sort of additional proposals by
182

1 GreenEarth that you think are objectionable, please

2 flag those. Or if there are additional examples that

3 you think we should consider throwing in as well, but

4 --

5 MS. NEALIS: I think we need a reasonable

6 basis and I think examples are a good way, since people

7 don't necessarily comprehend the same message when they

8 read the same instruction. So an example is always a

9 fine way to highlight to them what they may not have

10 thought applied to the situation. It's a good way to

11 try to solve the problem for the consumer.

12 MR. GORMAN: And these are, of course, this

13 is a reasonable basis for the labeling.

14 MS. NEALIS: Mm-hmm.

15 MR. GORMAN: Mr. Poach.

16 MR. POACH: I represent the Professional

17 Leather Cleaners Association. The PLCA recommends that

18 the whole garment be taken into consideration for care

19 label instructions. We recommend that any item

20 containing suede, leather, fur be considered to have a

21 professional leather clean only label on it.

22 MR. QUDDUS: What I have heard about, I

23 haven't read it myself, but about examples that is

24 given for a full garment, I would think that's really

25 appropriate for us to have that to avoid confusion and
183

1 also avoid problems with the product.

2 MR. GORMAN: Okay, thank you.

3 MR. RIGGS: My interest on this topic was

4 mainly with regards to the reasonable basis for the do

5 not, St. Andrew's cross, provision. But I have

6 learned, in terms of dealing with students, is that

7 once you start listing examples, if you don't include

8 the one that comes to their mind, then that's not

9 covered.

10 MR. GORMAN: Are there -- well, I mean that

11 is the risk. The longer, the more exhaustive examples

12 you give, the more people think that that is the

13 exclusive list.

14 MR. RIGGS: Yes. Not that anything else is

15 allowed.

16 MR. GORMAN: And that is not the intent.

17 MS. SCALCO: Certainly, we support that for

18 the garments that are outlined in the FTC ruling and

19 GreenEarth's comments as well, those are all types of

20 apparel that have come in where we have had problems on

21 the professional level, so they should be highlighted

22 that they need to be tested in the entire garment,

23 rather than the components.

24 MR. GORMAN: And what I think I'm hearing is

25 that this would not impose any additional burden,
184

1 because this is how people understood the reasonable

2 basis anyway. That if you had a garment where one part

3 often bleeds into another, you would test the whole

4 garment. You wouldn't just rely on them separately,

5 the testing for each type of fabric separately. So

6 this is not really imposing any new burdens, it's just

7 clarifying, in case somebody doesn't understand it.

8 MS. SCALCO: Well, you're asking the wrong

9 person.

10 MR. GORMAN: Okay.

11 MS. SCALCO: I'm not a garment manufacturer.

12 MR. GORMAN: Okay.

13 MS. SCALCO: But I would ask a garment

14 manufacturer if that was their understanding. I'm not

15 sure it is.

16 MR. QUDDUS: I can support that because I

17 used to work for a testing company and we're -- the

18 manufacturer is asked for either testing on a specific

19 part of the garment, but they also ask you to look at

20 the overall garment, how the changes take place.

21 Because it's important, they are not the same all the

22 time.

23 MR. GORMAN: Stacy?

24 MS. SOPCICH: I think, referring to the

25 GreenEarth recommendations, it was really for the good
185

1 of the industry. I mean, all we were trying to do is

2 say that these are -- what the Commission is proposing

3 is excellent, we heartily endorse it.

4 And to the degree that examples provide

5 better clarification, we just think that the list could

6 be more inclusive of some of the known problem items.

7 And it really relates to the process being used and the

8 solubility of the material.

9 So there are solvent soluble dyes and water

10 soluble dyes. You know, there are -- any plasticizers

11 that are being used that help a garment stay soft,

12 cleaned in perc, there is going to be a serious

13 problem. So because we know this already and it's a

14 known issue, I think that it makes just useful sense

15 for everybody collectively to have a better reference

16 point in the law of things that might require a clear

17 reasonable basis for the recommendation.

18 I'm not sure that we, as a company,

19 understood that it was the whole garment always being

20 tested so much as problem items that require a

21 reasonable basis. The only thing that we are really

22 acutely aware of is the need for whole garment testing,

23 that seems to be irrefutable, is the current issue with

24 black and white Spandex. Polyspandex specifically is

25 really not an issue, except for polyspandex where it is
186

1 a really dark color adjacent to a light color.

2 The AATCC is already adding a note to all of

3 their laundering test methods to say that the test

4 methods can't predict dye bleed. And we looked at it

5 on the dry cleaning side, too.

6 And so these are known issues so it seems

7 reasonable that Spandex, in particular, well elastanes,

8 be tested as a whole garment. Because there is no

9 solution right now that would predict it with a test

10 method.

11 MR. GORMAN: Thank you. I guess if there are

12 any manufacturers in the audience, representative

13 manufacturers in the audience who think that this --

14 only if you think that this would create a problem or

15 pose additional burdens.

16 MS. O'BYRNE: I think it would.

17 MR. GORMAN: You would?

18 MS. O'BYRNE: To test the whole garment.

19 MR. GORMAN: Well, the proposal is that --

20 let me see. Reliable evidence for each component part

21 of the product, in conjunction with reliable evidence

22 for the garment as a whole, you can rely on that,

23 "provided that the test results showing that a whole

24 garment can be cleaned as recommended may be required

25 where, for example, the color of one part often bleeds
187

1 on to another when the finished garment is washed, a

2 dye that is known to bleed, or beads buttons or

3 sequins." And then GreenEarth's proposal added some

4 additional things to that.

5 "That are known to be damaged often in dry

6 cleaning are used or a garment contains several fibers,

7 fabrics, or components not previously used

8 together."And then GreenEarth added -- their proposal

9 added that, "a garment containing water soluble dyes,

10 wool, natural fiber or skins when wet cleaning is the

11 recommended cleaning method." So if you are proposing

12 wet cleaning for those things, then you need to test

13 the whole garment.

14 In that context, do you see that that imposes

15 -- I don't know if anybody actually had looked at this

16 for this panel, so I --

17 MS. O'BYRNE: No, I didn't get it. I'm just

18 hearing the wording now. So just basing my knowledge

19 of what my company does, we typically test fabrics, not

20 finished garments. Unless it's children's garments,

21 because we have to test it for CPFC.

22 So it would put an unnecessary burden for our

23 cost side, because to test a whole garment is going to

24 cost more money. And I know our testing people down

25 there could probably fill you in on that part, versus
188

1 testing the fabrics.

2 But when we do have a garment that is, like

3 you said, mixed colors, it is tested together. So the

4 exceptions that you're giving, we will make an

5 exception to our normal testing protocols for those

6 type of garments.

7 As for the trim, to test a whole garment with

8 the trim on it, no. We will find out from the trim

9 supplier how it reacts to certain chemicals and we'll

10 use that in our care labeling.

11 MR. GORMAN: I guess what I would suggest is,

12 that if people haven't focused on this particular

13 proposal, the record is open until --

14 MR. FRISBY: April 11th.

15 MR. GORMAN: -- April 11th, so if you want to

16 go back and talk to your testing people, anybody out

17 there, and put in some additional evidence, we would

18 appreciate that.

19 But I think right now we'll move on to the

20 next issue on our mop-up panel, water temperature in

21 home washing. We did not have a proposal in changing

22 our rule in any way regarding water temperature, but it

23 was brought to our attention that our temperature

24 ranges are different than the recent AATCC ranges

25 proposals. And there is also a big difference between
189

1 European washing machines, which have water heaters

2 built into them and you're able to control the

3 temperature, and the washing machine that I have at

4 home where, you know, the hot water barely comes in at

5 all and it just depends on what the temperature of what

6 your hot water is, what the relative flows of your hot

7 and cold feeds are. Just very little control.

8 And my broad question for the panel, to the

9 extent that, you know, you don't have to respond to

10 something that's not relevant to your particular

11 industry is, does this create real problems for

12 consumers, for industry or for cleaners, this

13 discrepancy between the ranges that we have in our rule

14 and the ranges that kind of exist out there? And

15 there's some overlap, right? Augustine.

16 MR. CHANG: Water temperature, I think it has

17 a lot to do with what you do with it. You can launder

18 dark colors in certain hotter temperatures and it

19 removes the dye.

20 And like you said earlier, it takes -- how

21 long does it take for the water to fill up and how cold

22 does it get? Does it really get, you know, warmed up

23 and what kind of soap does it also use? These things

24 makes a lot of differences when you are doing the

25 actual home laundering. Like I said, I've been doing
190

1 this for 25 years as a chemical and then five years as

2 a wet cleaner. When you do a wet cleaning of any kind

3 of garments, temperature is very sensitive. So we

4 should be +/- degrees. So if that threshold is not

5 there, that garment doesn't clean as well. So earlier,

6 I think the Professor said you have to research the

7 right temperature, otherwise it won't clean and I

8 believe that's true. So putting some sort of range of

9 temperature is important to get the maximum cleaning

10 that you need for your garments.

11 MR. GORMAN: Right. And what we're talking

12 about here is for home washing where, again, the home

13 washing machines, for hot, warm and cold instruction.

14 And people's home washing machines, in the United

15 States at least, have broad ranges. And our rule with

16 ranges is -- I guess the question is, is a fix needed

17 for that and what would that fix be?

18 MR. CHANG: You know, in home laundry

19 everything is different, so you can't really put a

20 temperature on it because you can't really measure the

21 temperature at home.

22 MR. GORMAN: Yeah.

23 MR. CHANG: Unless you have a thermometer and

24 it actually measures it.

25 MS. D'AVIGNON: I don't think I'm really
191

1 qualified to speak on that.

2 MR. GORMAN: Okay.

3 MR. FITZPATRICK: I wouldn't have anything to

4 add for that.

5 MR. MITRA: But basically what we would have

6 to look at is, if you take Europe, we have different

7 spinning conditions for the home washing machines,

8 agitation speeds, those are different. That can be

9 different from the North American or US test method or

10 process that we have.

11 In terms of the AATCC, and Mir can speak more

12 on that. He is actually the chair of the AATCC

13 Committee for that and AATCC is working on a monograph

14 on the wash temperatures.

15 So my suggestion would be to adopt something

16 that is nationally adopted by the governing bodies

17 here, like the AATCC, as the wash temperatures because

18 that would prevent inconsistency between what the FTC

19 proposes and what the AATCC proposes.

20 How significant would be that? We can only

21 see after we do the testing to find that out. But in

22 terms of very dark colors, maybe, or in terms of colors

23 that are considered color block items, like a dark trim

24 with a white body, it might be significant, the

25 difference in temperature.
192

1 So in general, what we have always done,

2 whether it is a CPSC regulation or an FTC regulation,

3 if there are no government test standards, we

4 automatically default to the ASTM or the AATCC

5 standards for testing.

6 MS. NEALIS: I'm a wash in cold girl.

7 MR. GORMAN: Okay.

8 MR. QUDDUS: Basically, this was kind of

9 highlighted by us because the AATCC has been working on

10 the test standard, you know, for testing the color

11 fastness and multiple other testings where we rely on a

12 monograph to define what the washing conditions, the

13 washing parameters, should be.

14 And we look at the washing machine, that can

15 be a consistent tool for looking at the performance.

16 And this is performance that will be ensured, not only

17 for just North America but also globally, because this

18 test standard that we formulate is used globally to

19 test the garments that are coming in or the garments

20 that will be produced, you know, for export to the US.

21 So AATCC came up with temperatures that are

22 in line with the temperatures, or within the range that

23 the FTC guideline provides, FTC 16 CFR provides, which

24 is that cold, we have a temperature for cold, we have a

25 temperature that falls within the range of the warm,
193

1 and we have a temperature that falls within the range

2 of hot. So thus the labs, without having to look for

3 which temperature in which to wash the garments, and I

4 kind of piggyback on the statement that Mr. Chang made,

5 is that you need to find the temperature within a given

6 small range.

7 So the AATCC range, you know, is just one

8 example would be that the cold AATCC defines as a range

9 of 54 degrees Fahrenheit, whereas AATCC has a 50

10 degrees Fahrenheit. Basically, you can now test

11 something with some consistency and reasonable basis

12 that we're talking about, that would repeat in

13 performance that can be compared globally and it can be

14 something that, you know, Seemanta was talking about,

15 that you can put a grade of 5 or 4 and we can be

16 reliable about it.

17 So what we are assisting now, the FTC, is

18 allowed implement this protocol where there is no rule

19 out right now. Because if you go to a consumer laundry

20 machine that is used in North America, then you cannot

21 find this temperature if you don't know how to find it.

22 The labs use the AATCC-recommended test machines, but

23 there is no way of putting this.

24 So what we came up with is a programmable

25 cycle that you can now find the temperature, which Mr.
194

1 Chang said he cannot find it in the washing machine.

2 And it's true that you cannot find it, unless it's

3 programmed. So this way, if we refer, like, a

4 sentence, in terms of -- I have looked at the website

5 and there is some statement or disclaimer about the

6 care symbols. There, we can add this -- the terms that

7 the items can be washed by the following washing

8 protocol recommended by the American Association of

9 Textile Chemists and Colorists, monograph M6, that

10 should give the, you know, the labs to go where to find

11 this washing protocol. And you know, you don't have to

12 do much of anything.

13 MR. GORMAN: Right. I mean, we can't

14 obviously change the shape of the washing machines that

15 are in the consumers' homes.

16 MR. QUDDUS: Yeah.

17 MR. GORMAN: And they need to get -- this is

18 really about the testing labs and what temperatures to

19 test at, so that when a consumer uses a typical washing

20 machine and they wash it on cold, it will --

21 MR. QUDDUS: Correct.

22 MR. GORMAN: Okay, that's very helpful.

23 MR. RIGGS: And I've been involved and if I

24 remember some of the history, for testing purposes, you

25 have to control the temperature. That's a given. But
195

1 then when you start comparing our testing temperatures

2 to home washing machine temperatures, there's always

3 been a big disconnect, especially when it comes to

4 cold.

5 The testing range that we have currently for

6 cold is 65 to 85 degrees Fahrenheit. And those numbers

7 came from, historically, the detergent manufacturers

8 gave us the lower range, below 65, there were activity

9 solubility problems with their detergents, and 85 is

10 the upper range, because there are many parts of the

11 country, and I live in one of them, where cold water in

12 the summer time is, in fact, 85 degrees.

13 But at the consumer level, you know, cold

14 water is what they get out of the cold water pipe,

15 depending on the season, and it changes greatly. The

16 hot water is limited by the hot water heater and where

17 it's at. And then for warm, you get a mix of the two.

18 It used to be the machines were manufactured to give

19 you a 50/50 mix. Now they've cut that to a 60/40 mix

20 to try to save some energy.

21 So unless the machine has temperature control

22 or a cold guard, you only get those mixing ratios based

23 upon what is the water supply temperature, hot and

24 cold. And it's all over the place.

25 MR. GORMAN: So do you see --
196

1 MR. RIGGS: But for testing, you've got to

2 narrow it down. And I think the cold one, below 65, is

3 probably not a good temperature to wash, regardless.

4 If your cold water is 65, you probably should set the

5 machine to warm.

6 MR. GORMAN: Do you see a need to change our

7 rule?

8 MR. RIGGS: Well, I think you should probably

9 have the temperature specified in the rule matching the

10 temperatures that are specified for testing, even

11 though these may not be the temperatures in any given

12 consumer's laundry.

13 MR. GORMAN: And you would agree with that?

14 MR. QUDDUS: No. What we have come up with

15 is that, what Charles mentioned, that the temperature

16 range is like for cold, FTC has 32 to 86, with a range

17 of 54. And AATCC has a cold that its range is 52.5 to

18 67.5, which falls within the range of the FTC. So you

19 don't have to go overhaul, because we fall within your

20 range.

21 Then it goes to the warm. The warm is 87 to

22 111 for the FTC, with a range of 24. And the AATCC has

23 a warm of 78.5 to 93.5, which is with a range of 15,

24 which falls within the range of warm as well.

25 And then we have a cycle that we call extra
197

1 hot, but the nomenclature is not a big deal. The FTC

2 hot is 112 to 145 and our hot is 122.5 to 137.5. Now,

3 this cannot be done just by going to the machine and

4 saying cold, hot and warm. There is no such thing.

5 MR. GORMAN: Right.

6 MR. QUDDUS: So this is programmed and the

7 cycle is consistent from machine-to-machine and

8 year-to-year. So basically the performance is not

9 consistent on the wash cycle, but the temperature is

10 changing. So that gives the consumer the touch and

11 feel and everything, but with the control of

12 temperature, so that's how we can provide that.

13 MR. RIGGS: There are temperatures specified

14 on both the ASTM care symbols and the ISO and I think

15 they're the same. And the ranges are a little

16 different, but I think you've got to match either the

17 symbols range, the test condition ranges. You know, I

18 don't think the FTC should try to redefine these things

19 that are so vague anyway and work from the testing

20 requirements. Because we can always have an

21 explanation back to the consumer that your water is too

22 cold to be cold wash, which is probably the case in

23 Minnesota in the winter time.

24 MR. GORMAN: Mary, do you have --

25 MS. SCALCO: I don't have a comment.
198

1 MR. GORMAN: Stacy?

2 MS. SOPCICH: It only makes sense to defer to

3 the technical experts who are providing this missing

4 link to the testing ability to be universal. I think

5 that makes sense to us.

6 MR. GORMAN: Well, the one thing that strikes

7 me as being problematic from a consumer viewpoint, when

8 we're talking about the language on the label, if

9 there's not an extra hot. People don't have an extra

10 hot setting on their machine, so an extra hot care

11 label wouldn't be particularly valuable, if we were to

12 match specifically, if we were to line up perfectly

13 with your --

14 MR. QUDDUS: No, actually the way -- I would

15 not worry about this part, this is extra hot, is a

16 terminology. Because we also have one, two, three and

17 four. Like one, two, three, four, those are the test

18 symbols that we also -- we have nomenclatures up to

19 four. So those are like roman numerals.

20 So it really doesn't matter how you call it,

21 the cycle per se. All it is is the temperature,

22 because when it is referred for the FTC, we definitely

23 would have -- each of the FTC temperatures will be

24 tested based on, cold would be this, hot would be this

25 temperature, and that would be referred to within our
199

1 AATCC website.

2 So all -- we would give you a reasonable

3 basis to test these things with what you're talking

4 about, examples that --

5 MR. GORMAN: But no one is proposing that we

6 have an extra hot wash instruction.

7 MR. QUDDUS: No, no.

8 MR. RIGGS: The extra hot that is on the

9 labels was a concession to the European market where

10 washing temperatures are typically quite a bit hotter

11 than they are in the US. If we had an extra hot, you

12 know, you could do this on a consumer level by cranking

13 up the hot water heater, but I don't think that's a

14 recommendation that we would want to pursue.

15 And probably it would be of little benefit to

16 the types of laundry that the average American consumer

17 does at home. The European situation is somewhat

18 different.

19 MR. GORMAN: Does anybody have anything

20 further on water temperature? No? Okay.

21 And also, and I think we'll start with you,

22 Dart, on leather care issues, as we stated earlier,

23 your organization favors labeling leather goods with an

24 instruction for leather cleaning and refinishing by a

25 professional leather cleaner only. And that would
200

1 include garments with trim, leather trim. I guess --

2 can you flesh that out, what you envision, and we'll

3 get comments from the panel.

4 MR. POACH: Sure. We would love to have the

5 proper care label on all leather garments, but in this

6 case it would be under Appendix Number 8. As stated,

7 right now it says have cleaned only by a professional

8 cleaner. We use a special leather or suede care

9 methods. And that's a -- I think most manufacturers

10 are putting the "professional clean by a leather

11 expert" already, so it may not be an issue.

12 But the big thing that is missing is the

13 refinishing part. It's one thing to clean it, but most

14 of these products need to go over to the refinishing

15 department, where dyes and oils and waxes and shines

16 and water repellancies and things of that nature needs

17 to be done so we can make that garment as new-looking

18 as when it was bought.

19 And that's the reason why we wanted to have

20 it changed to, very simply, "leather clean and refinish

21 by professional leather cleaner only." Whether that's

22 trimmed with leather, suede or fur or all leather or

23 suede.

24 MR. GORMAN: All right.

25 MR. MITRA: I do have a question. Because
201

1 under the federal regulations, textile labeling, care

2 labeling rule, leather is not considered a textile

3 material, so it really doesn't come under the scope of

4 the regulation.

5 So what -- are you proposing that leather

6 labeling be included as part of the care labeling rule

7 with --

8 MR. GORMAN: Be clear here. We haven't made

9 this proposal. This is a proposal that the --

10 MR. MITRA: No, no. I'm not asking that, I'm

11 --

12 MR. GORMAN: Oh, I'm sorry.

13 MR. MITRA: I'm asking --

14 MR. POACH: Yeah. We understand that the

15 non-textile isn't required, but under textiles that

16 have trim, there is a requirement.

17 MR. MITRA: Well, the clarification, at least

18 that we have got, is that if the majority part is

19 textiles, you don't have to worry about the non-textile

20 part of it, in terms of care labeling.

21 MR. POACH: What is the FTC stand on that?

22 You wrote Appendix A, number 8, that states "have

23 cleaned only by a professional cleaner that uses

24 special leather and suede chemicals."

25 MR. GORMAN: I'm going to defer to you.
202

1 MR. FRISBY: The rule provision itself

2 doesn't really address leather directly, you're

3 referring to the appendix. But for a textile garment

4 which could include some leather, the instruction

5 should cover the entire garment.

6 MR. POACH: Right. That's the basis we're

7 going on, what he just said.

8 MR. GORMAN: Comments?

9 MS. D'AVIGNON: I want to say, I've never

10 heard a manufacturer complain to me about this, nor a

11 consumer, and I get a lot of very strange consumer

12 complaints because we have an open dialogue on our

13 website.

14 So I don't necessarily see a need to change

15 the rule or -- and as it was mentioned, it doesn't

16 necessarily fall under textiles, so we don't normally

17 look at it in the care labeling sense.

18 So I would say I don't necessarily agree with

19 adding or changing the language.

20 MR. POACH: It seems to us at the PLC that

21 most manufacturers understand and show that

22 understanding by the care labeling that they put on

23 there now. Because I would guess that most of the

24 labels do state, "have cleaned by a professional

25 leather cleaner" if it is a textile and has the leather
203

1 or suede trim. We see a lot of them coming through the

2 dry cleaner, who I will pick up and deliver to or that

3 most of the members of the PLCA does.

4 So it may not be an issue, we had just --

5 when we got invited to make comments, we could see that

6 the way that it's read now, that the keyword is the

7 word refinish. Because that is definitely an art that

8 -- an additional layer of professionalism that the

9 typical well-meaning dry cleaner does not have at their

10 disposal, except through a wholesale professional

11 leather cleaner.

12 MR. GORMAN: Maybe I should have asked the

13 question of the panel this way -- is there evidence

14 that, as things stand now, and you already spoke to

15 this Marie, that there is a problem? That, in fact,

16 leather-trimmed garments are not being referred to the

17 appropriate professionals and garments are being

18 damaged? Has anybody seen any evidence of that?

19 MR. CHANG: Can I make a comment on that?

20 MR. GORMAN: Please.

21 MR. CHANG: Sometimes leather trimmings come

22 in different colors. So in order for -- at least our

23 provider wants to sign off a release saying that, if it

24 gets ruined, then it's your fault because you've signed

25 off.
204

1 So this is where the consumer gets lost.

2 It's attractive to wear, nice to look at, but then it's

3 not serviceable. Pay $300 or whatever and you can't

4 service it, unless they sign a release saying, go ahead

5 and ruin my garments.

6 So those are the little issues that, you

7 know, most dry cleaners face on a regular basis. And

8 we are actually the frontline between the manufacturer

9 and the consumers. And in many cases, it doesn't

10 actually go through to the manufacturer, because one,

11 we are just too busy working, and number two, sometimes

12 it's not worth it because we can't find the

13 manufacturer to send these garments back to. See?

14 So usually the wet cleaners or the dry

15 cleaners issue what they call store credits or end up

16 giving refunds or reject the item. So the consumer

17 will go to another local cleaners for these garments to

18 be serviced. Same issue. Because they're serviced by

19 the same leather providers.

20 MR. GORMAN: Anyone else? Richard?

21 MR. FITZPATRICK: I was just --

22 MS. SOPCICH: I guess I would have a comment.

23 MR. GORMAN: Okay.

24 MS. SOPCICH: Unless you're going this way.

25 MR. GORMAN: I don't have to.
205

1 MS. SOPCICH: No, no. Please.

2 MR. FITZPATRICK: I was just going to say

3 that, in terms of regular dry cleaners, servicing these

4 types of pieces that have small amounts of leather or

5 fur trim, we see a lot of that. We don't see as much

6 damage as we had when perc was such a dominant solvent.

7 With the advent of more gentle solvents, like

8 GreenEarth, where these pieces seem to perform okay in

9 the cleaning process. Yes, these cleaners don't have

10 the ability to refinish a lot of this stuff, but a lot

11 of this stuff doesn't need to be refinished. That

12 doesn't mean that they shouldn't be using a

13 professional leather cleaner to do it. I'm not certain

14 it's an issue --

15 MR. GORMAN: Do you see evidence that an

16 instruction is needed, an additional instruction is

17 needed?

18 MR. FITZPATRICK: I don't see evidence that

19 you need additional instructions, although that's up to

20 you whether you want to put it.

21 MR. MITRA: It's very rare to see a leather

22 trim. It's mostly imitation leather trims that we

23 mostly see on those garments, that are not a

24 significant portion of the product. And those are, as

25 I mentioned, in the overall care instructions of the
206

1 product.

2 MS. NEALIS: We get a fair amount, and I can

3 defer to Alan on this, of leather-trimmed garments

4 coming into the lab for analysis. And some of it could

5 be the price-point that drives it. Some of it could be

6 that it was -- that they didn't catch the trim, because

7 often times the trim doesn't jump out at you. It might

8 be an epaulette, it might be a cuff.

9 Often times though, a cleaner doesn't have to

10 be a professional leather cleaner with refinishing

11 capabilities to handle those garments well, depending

12 on whatever else they may have at their disposal at the

13 plant, including maybe a good tailor that would take it

14 off and put it back on. And that's a professional

15 judgment call.

16 You know, it probably deserves some

17 exploration, but by and large, as was said earlier,

18 because so many of the solvents are less aggressive

19 now, because wet cleaning offers a lot of opportunities

20 on the leather side, the amount of reliance that

21 cleaners put on sending stuff off to a professional

22 leather cleaner has shifted in recent years.

23 MR. GORMAN: Any more comments down this way?

24 Stacy? Mary?

25 MS. SCALCO: Well, I think as we've said, and
207

1 I think what Don (sic) eluded to is that the people who

2 are making 100 percent leather garments, because they

3 are not covered under the care label, they have come up

4 with their own label that says take to professional

5 leather care. So those garments are covered by the

6 professional leather care.

7 It's the ones with the minimal -- if there's

8 trim, if it's 100 percent leather trim, which I would

9 agree, in the majority of instances that you see with a

10 cloth garment, it's not 100 percent, except in very

11 expensive items. Normally, it would be the imitations.

12 And as Rich said, with the newer solvents, they can be

13 handled. The imitations can be done at a regular dry

14 cleaners.

15 MR. GORMAN: Stacy?

16 MS. SOPCICH: All natural skins have a basis

17 of natural oil, so a degreasing solvent like perc is

18 going to strip that oil. That's understandable.

19 But as has been said, there are alternatives.

20 Hydrocarbon isn't a huge problem and silicon certain

21 isn't at all. The real issue, as Dart said, which is

22 when it's a grain leather that has been serviced, dyed

23 or painted, then you have a problem and it needs to be

24 addressed by a professional leather cleaner. But that

25 doesn't mean that anything with leather on it needs to
208

1 be addressed by a professional leather cleaner with a

2 dye booth and all the training needed to handle it.

3 MR. GORMAN: And Dart, I'll let you have the

4 last word on this.

5 MR. POACH: It's not only the change to the

6 cleaning, but you also have the consumer's

7 wear-and-tear too, so some of the finishes could come

8 off in a regular cleaning, whether it's a month old or

9 whether it is three years old. You know, the

10 wear-and-tear, professional leather cleaners can do.

11 And that simple change of refinish and clean by a

12 professional would take care of the -- protect the

13 consumer.

14 And that's also the analysis -- the ones that

15 have come in to NCA and DLI, where there's been a

16 professional dry clean or dry clean only with this trim

17 on it and it bled or it took all of the finish off.

18 And it's -- the report says it's a bad label, take it

19 back to the store. Because it says dry clean only and

20 it didn't come out, the leather.

21 So if we're talking consumer protection, that

22 would be a very easy fix to cover both of those. To

23 expect the consumer to pay for the remanufacturing of

24 that garment, by taking the leather trim off, they

25 might as well buy four more of those items for the cost
209

1 that would take, if you could find anybody that would

2 even do it.

3 MR. GORMAN: Thank you. We're going to move

4 on. So there's one more issue that I'm going to

5 through out for general comments and that is that we're

6 proposing to update the definition of dry cleaning to

7 remove the reference to organic solvents and to drop

8 the reference to fluorocarbons, which are no longer

9 used, and we are also adding additional examples of

10 solvents.

11 So I guess just one question about this, one

12 compound question about this, and this time we are

13 going to go this way, just to mix things up. Do you

14 support the change to the definition and why or why

15 not? And what would you do differently?

16 MS. SOPCICH: Well, certainly we do

17 definitely support the definition. GreenEarth silicone

18 has been available since 1999, so we heartily endorse

19 the change in the definition to nonorganic solvents.

20 We think it's terrific and certainly in the right

21 direction.

22 MR. GORMAN: Mary?

23 MS. SCALCO: Support.

24 MR. RIGGS: I would strongly endorse the idea

25 or the wording of nonaqueous for the solvents and then
210

1 the water processes, aqueous. So you have two

2 extremes, aqueous and nonaqueous. When you get into

3 organic, then that gets --

4 MS. SOPCICH: Yeah, that's too much science.

5 MR. RIGGS: -- confusing in terms of the --

6 MR. GORMAN: Let me go back to start over and

7 add an element to the question, which is do you support

8 Dr. Riggs' proposal of having aqueous and nonaqueous?

9 It's not the example, it's not the definition that we

10 proposed. It's a little bit different, so.

11 MS. SOPCICH: Well, so --

12 MR. GORMAN: So --

13 MS. SOPCICH: Is there a distinction in the

14 meaning between solvents other than a water and

15 nonaqueous?

16 MR. GORMAN: I mean -- does our definition

17 take care of it for you?

18 MR. RIGGS: I thought yours still had --

19 other word that -- what is the word that you have in

20 there?

21 MR. GORMAN: A commercial process by which

22 soil is removed from products or specimens in a machine

23 which uses any solvent, excluding water. And then we

24 have examples. The process may also involve --

25 MR. RIGGS: You could eliminate the examples
211

1 and just say nonaqueous solvents, because that excludes

2 water itself. And you don't need the examples. The

3 examples, which we are seeing, are changing. You know,

4 we don't have every -- the examples are --

5 MR. GORMAN: Do you see a benefit to the

6 examples?

7 MS. SOPCICH: I don't know. I guess it's a

8 matter of consistency. In the past, the FTC has always

9 based the examples on what was available in the market

10 at the time, and so it referenced perc and petroleum

11 specifically, because that was all that was available.

12 Silicone is now available. You know, Solvon

13 K4 is a new product that seems to be having some good

14 traction. So I think it makes sense to widen the

15 definition and go on record with the ones that you know

16 are commercially available.

17 MR. GORMAN: Right. The downside of that, I

18 think, is that -- it's not an exhaustive list, but some

19 people may read it that way. And if you put in the

20 examples that are in use today, by the time it is

21 published in the Federal Register, it will be

22 out-of-date.

23 MS. SOPCICH: That's just precedent the FTC

24 has always had, that's all.

25 MR. RIGGS: Our last roundtable was 1999. So
212

1 if that's our time interval, we will be out of date by

2 the next review.

3 MR. GORMAN: I was doing something different

4 at the FTC then.

5 MS. SCALCO: I would think, using your

6 example there, if this is for consumer education, if

7 the consumer would think that if it was not listed, it

8 would not be covered, that would not be a good thing.

9 MR. GORMAN: Well, I don't think consumers

10 read our the rule. They read the label.

11 MS. SOPCICH: You would hope we would get

12 there with some consumer education.

13 MR. GORMAN: Mir?

14 MR. QUDDUS: I would say nonaqueous would be

15 more general and examples probably would be more

16 specific. So not -- generalized is probably is a

17 better way to go.

18 MR. POACH: I agree on the -- I personally

19 agree.

20 MS. NEALIS: Nonaqueous works.

21 MR. GORMAN: You don't like the examples?

22 MS. NEALIS: The problem with the examples is

23 they can be limiting. And while they can also be

24 illustrative, you know, the discussion becomes is that

25 an exhaustive list or is that an inclusive list. And
213

1 it's -- I think for our purposes, since this part of it

2 is, as you said, really isn't consumer-driven as much

3 as it is label-writer driven and industry-driven,

4 nonaqueous is probably the smarter choice.

5 MR. MITRA: I agree with what Nora has said.

6 Also, the examples might be a little limiting to say

7 that they are specific to those types of nonaqueous

8 solutions.

9 MR. MANSELL: I don't have a comment.

10 MR. FITZPATRICK: I don't see the examples

11 harming the definition, but if they weren't included, I

12 also don't think there would be any damage.

13 MS. D'AVIGNON: I think updating the

14 definitions to today's standards is certainly

15 important, to keep up with the times and technology

16 that we have, but I'll leave the aqueous discussion to

17 the cleaners.

18 MR. CHANG: I think we are all of us really

19 familiar with water. What do we do with water? I use

20 water to clean my baby's bottom. I'm sure that you

21 guys with kids would have done that. And it's the

22 safest form of cleaning solvent. The reason I call it

23 a solvent is because it's a chemical composition, H2O.

24 A really simple chemical that we use to clean

25 everything.
214

1 And as far as the garment care process is

2 concerned, Chang's has been cleaning silk garments for

3 thousands of years without any issues or problems.

4 Leathers were cleaned using water. Wools were cleaned

5 -- look at Irish, with their kilt, right? So if you

6 look at really -- think about what water can do. We

7 have a representative from K4, from a silicone-based.

8 We don't have any representatives for water here,

9 because -- I'm almost done.

10 MR. GORMAN: I was going to say, we've had

11 professional cleaners.

12 MR. CHANG: I'm talking about in terms of the

13 chemical, water. So water is very cheap, inexpensive.

14 We don't require any annual commitment. There is no

15 fines to be paid, there is no EPA to be concerned

16 about, and there is no hazardous waste that we create.

17 And we don't have any hazardous materials that we

18 create to be dumped somewhere else.

19 As I heard everyone talking today, everyone

20 has some sort of a sense as to the point that water

21 cleans things very well. And there is another saying

22 that in order to get rid of a lot of the grease stains,

23 that we have to use solvent and talk as if we are

24 creating some sort of a hazardous situation in our

25 store. But if you really look at it carefully, there
215

1 are many different home remedies or some very simple

2 citric chemicals or fruits that you can use to get rid

3 of oil-based stains.

4 So if you -- instead of just looking at it as

5 to how bad wet cleaning is and therefore we are going

6 to put it aside, not as a dry cleaning or a

7 professional wet cleaning, think the other way. Look

8 how many people have cleaned their items using water.

9 Thank you very much.

10 MR. GORMAN: All right. Thank you. At this

11 point, we are going to open it up for questions. I

12 think basically everything is fair game right now.

13 Well, everything to do with the care labeling rules.

14 Wait for the mic, please. Thanks.

15 MR. MATTHAI: This is Paul Matthai again,

16 from the EPA. I just wondered, are you making the

17 distinction between suede and bonded leather or not --

18 leather that would --

19 MR. POACH: Top grade.

20 MR. MATTHAI: Top grade leather. Is there a

21 difference in the process? Because I don't think you

22 mentioned that. What about the processed leather that

23 is, I don't know, probably chewed up and then reglued

24 back together? Is that part of that or is --

25 MR. POACH: No. The PLC represents -- well,
216

1 you wouldn't say real leather, you would say genuine

2 leather and suede.

3 MR. MATTHAI: And suede.

4 MR. POACH: Right.

5 MR. GORMAN: Anyone else? All right. Any of

6 the panelists have any parting thoughts that they want

7 to share? It's been a long day and I really appreciate

8 that we've gotten some really good input and good

9 evidence. Everybody has been cordial and thoughtful of

10 each other's points of view. I think it's been an

11 excellent panel.

12 MR. FITZPATRICK: I'd just like to add -- and

13 maybe this was clarified and I missed it, but what is

14 the FTC going to do, or what are they thinking about

15 doing, in order to stay current with the standards as

16 they are published? Is that -- have you guys -- what

17 is your position on that? Are you going to allow an

18 automatic adoption of current standards with an ability

19 to veto it or are you going to require that every new

20 standard written has to be approved of, you know,

21 through some committee?

22 MR. GORMAN: I'm going to have Robert direct

23 me here. I might make a mistake.

24 My understanding, and first of all, I'm not

25 speaking for the Commission, neither of us can speak
217

1 for the Commission. We can make a -- we will

2 eventually make a recommendation to the Commission and

3 then they'll act. That's the standard disclaimer.

4 There is a problem, as I mentioned, and this

5 is based on my work in areas other than this rule,

6 there is a problem with us referencing future

7 standards. It's a delegation problem and our general

8 counsel's office has suggested to us that we can't

9 refer to -- we can't sort of peg it to something that

10 doesn't exist yet. We can't peg our regulations to

11 something that doesn't exist. Is that your

12 understanding as well?

13 So it makes a lot of sense, on a lot of

14 levels, to just say we will peg our rule to the

15 standards as they are updated, as the ASTM standard or

16 whatever standard, as it is updated over time. You

17 know, this is a nice, reliable body and we're sure

18 they'll get it right. And it's probably what we'll end

19 up doing anyways if we thought about, but we can't do

20 that. It's just not allowed. Yes?

21 MR. MITRA: It's a different question, not

22 related to what he has asked. Would the FTC consider,

23 in the new -- as you are revising the care labeling

24 rule, to provide more specifics on what is considered

25 as the useful life of the product for permanent care
218

1 instruction?

2 MR. GORMAN: Robert, do you want to answer

3 that?

4 MR. FRISBY: I don't recall much in the

5 record about that issue, but the record is open until

6 the 11th and if you think we need to address it, please

7 let us know.

8 MR. MITRA: Yeah. And these are general

9 questions that we, as a testing laboratory, face. And

10 some specifics on what types of products really need

11 ironing. Like we wouldn't put an ironing instruction

12 on underwear, as opposed to a dress shirt, for example.

13 These are more specific instructions, but

14 there are so many different garments. And I know you

15 referred to, in Europe -- and I know you are

16 representing the UK Fashion & Textile Association,

17 fashion is changing every season. So we get some areas

18 where we are really confused, should we put an ironing

19 instruction as needed or not? Because the FTC rule

20 says for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the product,

21 which can be interpreted in multiple ways, or at least

22 two different ways.

23 MR. GORMAN: I think this is another topic on

24 which we really haven't received comment. I can't

25 stress enough how important it is that, if you have
219

1 areas of concern, that you submit comments. And the

2 more evidence that you can submit that addresses the

3 costs and benefits, not just that identifies an issue,

4 but also that proposes a solution and addresses the

5 costs and benefits of the solution, and not an outdated

6 solution, if you will. We need a record to be able to

7 make any change.

8 MR. QUDDUS: What happens next? So like,

9 what we discussed, what happens next?

10 MR. GORMAN: Well, at this point, there's two

11 branches we can take in the road. We can issue a staff

12 report, where we make a -- the staff makes a final

13 recommendation, essentially to the Commission. It is

14 not published by the Commission, it is published by the

15 Bureau of Consumer Protection. And then there would be

16 another opportunity for a comment on that staff report.

17 And then it would go back -- another recommendation

18 would be made to the Commission on a final rule.

19 The other possibility is if there are things

20 that come out of this roundtable, in the last round of

21 comments, that would require us -- would lead us to

22 propose staff to propose something that wasn't

23 encompassed by our previous proposal, I believe we

24 would have to go out with another Notice of Proposed

25 Rulemaking, to allow comment on that.
220

1 And then somebody could ask for another

2 hearing, then a staff report. It's a long process.

3 This is -- we have two types of rulemaking at

4 the FTC. We have APA rulemaking, which is a little

5 more streamlined, where Congress specifically passes a

6 law, like they did with the Textile Act, that gives us

7 authority to promulgate -- Congress gives us the

8 authority to promulgate rules. And that doesn't have

9 some of these extra features like hearings and staff

10 reports.

11 And then we have what is called Magnuson

12 Moss, which is an old statute on rulemaking, which is

13 what we're acting on now. We are basically proposing

14 the rule, or revisiting the rule, based upon our

15 general deception and fairness authority under Section

16 5 of the FTC Act. Where we would have to show

17 prevalence and so on. The stuff that Professor

18 Sinsheimer did a nice job going over the standards.

19 Whereas with the APA rule, Congress tells us what the

20 standards are and we do that.

21 But you're not going to be seeing a final

22 ruling right from this roundtable. The next step with

23 either be a staff report or a new proposed rulemaking.

24 MR. QUDDUS: So the staff report goes where?

25 Like, it goes --
221

1 MR. GORMAN: It's published. It's published.

2 I don't quite understand the reason for this extra

3 step, but essentially it is not a statement of the

4 Commission, it is a statement of the staff, but it is

5 published in the Federal Register, or at least it is

6 put on our website and announced so that people can --

7 and comments are solicited to it. And then based on

8 those comments, we then would make a recommendation of

9 a final rule to the Commission.

10 MR. QUDDUS: So how long is this staff report

11 time and then the next one?

12 MR. GORMAN: It depends. I'm sorry. We're

13 leaving the -- you know, we should be much further

14 along than we are now, but for the government close

15 down, for the shutdown, for example. You know, we are

16 several months behind and a very serious concern came

17 up with the rescheduling of this meeting. I don't know

18 how many of you talked to Robert, sort of during the

19 planning of this, that we would schedule it on a day

20 which we would have snow, which was prescient. Because

21 I think several of the days we were batting around

22 ending up being government closedown snow days. So you

23 all would be meeting on the sidewalk by yourselves

24 again. We're not allowed to have -- we can come in and

25 work, but we're not allowed to have public events when
222

1 the government is closed. So that pushed us back a

2 little bit.

3 The record now is open until April 11th. You

4 know, it takes time and we are balancing a lot of other

5 work and other priorities, but we've take this very

6 seriously. But we have to go through all of the

7 comments and then the recommendation will have to be

8 made up through our chain of command. And people have

9 to be convinced and our Bureau of Economics weighs in.

10 So how long do you think? It takes several

11 months? It depends. I'm sorry.

12 MR. QUDDUS: It's okay.

13 MR. GORMAN: I'm trying to be as detailed and

14 honest as I can, but there are so many moving parts.

15 MR. QUDDUS: So will you need any more -- for

16 the case that we are making, would you be needing more

17 information, that would be a different communication

18 going forward or is it --

19 MR. GORMAN: Well, I mean, I think -- I don't

20 have the checklist in front of me, but there were a lot

21 of really interesting points made throughout the course

22 of the day and people have had different perspectives.

23 Going back to just this sort of, should wet cleaning be

24 a permitted instruction or a required instruction. You

25 know, there is some data on costs, there is some
223

1 consumer perception data, which is very helpful, which

2 was submitted. There may be some other consumer

3 perception testing that could be done on how to change

4 the dry clean instruction on the tag so that people

5 understand it to comport what the rule actually -- what

6 it is meant to mean as opposed to what they understand

7 it to mean. And there's all sorts of evidence that

8 identify, types of useful evidence, that we identified

9 in our previous notice. And then there are things that

10 have come up in the discussion today and in the new

11 evidence that was submitted earlier today that can be

12 fleshed out.

13 So you know, you need to decide, with your

14 organizations and the issues that are important to you

15 and your position on that issue, you know, how can I

16 make the best record to support this. We don't have a

17 lot of discretion. I mean, there has to be evidence

18 showing that, especially where we are -- if we are

19 imposing new burdens, there has to be evidence to show

20 that it's justified, that we're curing a deceptive or

21 unfair practice that is prevalent and that, you know,

22 the costs don't outweigh the benefits, essentially. I

23 mean, that's not a very nuanced description, but that's

24 the gist of it.

25 So if you have -- anecdotal evidence is nice,
224

1 but sort of saying that this is our position because it

2 would be good for our group is, you know, informative

3 but data is best.

4 MS. SOPCICH: I have a question,

5 piggy-backing on Richard's question. Because it's

6 understandable why the FTC would not want to change

7 policy, that's certainly a much bigger issue than the

8 purview of this panel, but in the specific case of the

9 care labeling rule, where it is now clear that both the

10 ISO and the ASTM are proposing to, you know, recognize

11 alternative solvents in the way that they write their

12 standards and their definitions and the test methods

13 that support them, where is that in the consideration

14 of the FTC?

15 I mean, I spoke earlier about the idea of

16 keeping the rulemaking record open long enough to allow

17 it to not point to a rule that can't de facto not

18 support the -- if the rule is being modernized to say

19 any solvent other than water, but the standards that it

20 points to only recognize perc and petroleum, the whole

21 effort that we've been through and the process to

22 modernize the rule seems to be moot.

23 MR. FRISBY: Does anyone know when those

24 revised standards are due to come out? Or is that

25 difficult to predict?
225

1 MS. SOPCICH: Well, I mean, it will depend on

2 vote. I mean, Jenn, you could speak to that.

3 MS. HARGRAVE: Stacy is correct. It will

4 depend on the results we get from the ballots. It

5 could be 30 days or it could be 60 days. 30 days or 60

6 days. Or if it takes longer than that, if they have to

7 re-ballot, but it's out to ballot right now.

8 MR. FRISBY: I mean, the Commission may well

9 decide that it's prudent to wait for those developments

10 and to look at those standards before the next step.

11 And the Commission might decide that this rule should

12 be reviewed more frequently than it has been. Those

13 are the decisions that we would -- that it would make.

14 MR. GORMAN: It's actually a -- Rob has

15 raised an interesting question. And maybe as a show of

16 hands, do people think that this rule should --

17 normally, our regulatory review program is -- and this

18 isn't required by law, this is something the Commission

19 is undertaking into their process rules, is we review

20 rules every ten years. Sort of like I take a bath

21 every Saturday, whether I need it or not.

22 Should it be done more frequently for this

23 rule? Show of hands?

24 MS. SOPCICH: Yes.

25 MR. MATTHAI: I have another proposal. How
226

1 about if any significant changes --

2 MR. GORMAN: Can you wait for the microphone,

3 please?

4 MR. MATTHAI: I personally think that time is

5 not the focus. It should be if any significant new

6 technology or new processes or new demands come up.

7 Because it could be a year-and-a-half or we may have to

8 wait five years or ten years and then you're playing

9 catch-up.

10 MR. GORMAN: Well, we do have discretion to

11 review more frequently. And certainly this happens a

12 lot in other rules. I work on the appliance labeling

13 rule, for example, where there is constant mini-reviews

14 under way and a lot of it's because the Department of

15 Energy changes the standard or a new technology comes

16 out and we get a petition. You know, industry members

17 can petition for specific changes, there's a provision

18 for that as well. Yes?

19 MR. RIGGS: It was very beneficial many years

20 ago when the FTC actually had an FTC employee involved

21 in attending ISO meetings, ASTM meetings, AATCC

22 meetings. That kind of an involvement from the FTC

23 would keep you abreast of what kinds of changes are

24 occurring in the industry.

25 I might also comment on Stacy's question.
227

1 When it comes down to looking at revising a test method

2 to incorporate another solvent, that's an expensive

3 process. To come up with a test method, you have to

4 have inter-laboratory correlations using some standard

5 fabrics, standard garments. We were fortunate, in

6 terms of ISO 3175, part 4, the wet cleaning, that there

7 was some funding in Europe for an aquacarb project. We

8 had some funding from EPA and Design for the

9 Environment project, that allowed us to get involved in

10 doing that, but it's a very expensive process to look

11 at a test method and determine, if we add this solvent

12 or what other material we might add, what are the

13 testing parameters to generate inter-laboratory

14 correlations that are reproducible. You know, we need

15 to have reproducible test results so we know what we're

16 talking about, in terms of how you test it.

17 You know, the anecdoctal test of having a wet

18 cleaner clean it is not really going to meet the test

19 of inter-laboratory correlations. You have to get the

20 same results in every wet cleaner throughout the

21 country, so you need a test according to a standard

22 test method, 3175, and those are expensive to finance.

23 I think it unfortunately has to come down to

24 the solvent vendor to do a lot of the financing to get

25 the test methods modified.
228

1 MR. GORMAN: Well, going to the first thing

2 you said, about an FTC staff person attending these

3 meetings, I think that if we were the -- care labeling

4 textiles, wool, leather, fur, is a small part of what

5 the care Commission does. What the Bureau of Consumer

6 Protection, which is only half of the mission of the

7 Commission, we also have antitrust half, does is we

8 have about 1,000 employees and we have general

9 jurisdiction over basically all commerce. We do a lot

10 of antifraud work, we do a lot of financial sector

11 work, we do advertising stuff, and we do these rules,

12 to be taken very seriously. Realistically, I think

13 we've broadened certain parts of our portfolio. We

14 didn't used to have a division of privacy information

15 protection, which is obviously a very important issue

16 right now, which wasn't an issue 20 years ago. But we

17 simply probably don't have the resources to dedicate

18 something to that.

19 MR. RIGGS: At the same token, if you are

20 going to promulgate a rule on care labels, you ought to

21 have staff involvement in the process for the AATCC,

22 ASTM, ISO to review those care label --

23 MR. GORMAN: We rely on the notice and

24 comment for that, and your wise counsel. Thank you.

25 Any other --
229

1 MR. CHANG: If I can make a comment on Dr.

2 Riggs' comment about the standard and testing. Like I

3 said earlier, the dry cleaners and professional wet

4 cleaners are actually on the frontline to clean these

5 garments on a regular basis. In a lab, everything is

6 perfect for the testing, but in the real world, things

7 are not the same.

8 For example, Arizona, summertime, 120

9 degrees, your machine really heats up, so does your

10 solvent. Of course, there is a refrigeration system to

11 cool it down, but the solvent is still too hot to

12 clean. So these are the little, simple examples.

13 So in a test lab, it's great. But in the

14 real world, it's not. So a lot of it has to do with

15 the operator, how well they are trained, do they really

16 understand their system? So with that in mind, thank

17 you.

18 MR. GORMAN: Yes.

19 MS. NEALIS: Just one other point, with

20 regard to how often it should be looked at. I think,

21 for many years, not looking at it was a nonissue

22 because the industry was relative static, the

23 technology was static.

24 But in recent years, there has been a lot of

25 change. And I would anticipate that, in the coming
230

1 years, there will continue to be a lot of change. So

2 -- and one of the happy things about change is that if

3 you don't react quickly enough to it, by the time you

4 get around to it, the problem has already either solved

5 itself or become unsolvable. So I think we need to --

6 or you guys need to keep a close eye on this because

7 it's -- once you declare it done, it's still not going

8 to be done, at least not as a reflection of the real

9 world.

10 MR. GORMAN: Thank you. And that is

11 something that we had noted amongst ourselves before,

12 which is there has been, after a long period of not a

13 lot of change, a lot of change.

14 MS. NEALIS: Mm-hmm.

15 MR. GORMAN: And thank you all for helping us

16 catch up.

17 I think I have time for one or two more

18 comments before closing remarks. I see we have a hand

19 up over here.

20 MS. HARGRAVE: In regard to the earlier

21 discussion about the reasonable testing, I know Kim

22 mentioned that her company does not test a full garment

23 and I really -- you know, we do testing for multiple

24 retailers and brands, both people who are just selling

25 in the US and also internationally, as do my other
231

1 colleagues here, and that really is the minority. We

2 find that the vast majority of our clients do test at

3 the fabric stage and at least one garment stage. We do

4 have some that do like a pre-production and also

5 production testing, but the most common test process

6 would be to do it at a fabric stage and a full garment

7 stage, looking at the components, the seams, the

8 fabric, all together.

9 MR. GORMAN: One more? No? Well, Robert.

10 Closing remarks?

11 MR. FRISBY: I think that concludes our

12 roundtable. We want to thank everyone for coming and

13 for sharing their expertise with us and their

14 viewpoints.

15 I want to remind everyone that the record --

16 I think we've mentioned this a few times, the record is

17 open until April 11th and we welcome additional

18 comments about the issues that were discussed at the

19 roundtable or other issues of concern to you all.

20 And we do plan to post the presentations from

21 Peter and Charles on our web page. I'm not sure when

22 that will happen, but it will happen soon, once we get

23 that electronically.

24 And I think that's it. Thank you all.

25 (Whereupon, the proceedings
232

1 concluded at 3:45 p.m.)

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25