This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

25417

Vol. 63, No. 89

Friday, May 8, 1998

1The comments were from: 41 consumers; one

consumer group; four academics; one clothing

retailer; one textile manufacturers association; one

apparel manufacturers association; one professional

cleaner; one professional cleaners association; one

wet cleaning equipment manufacturer; two

manufacturers of cleaning products; one cleaning

products manufacturers association; one

environmental protection group; one non-profit

Continued

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 423

Trade Regulation Rule on Care

Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel

and Certain Piece Goods

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) is

commencing a rulemaking to amend its

Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labeling

of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain

Piece Goods, 16 CFR Part 423 (‘‘the Care

Labeling Rule’’ or ‘‘the Rule’’). The

Commission proposes amending the

Rule: (1) To require that an item that can

be cleaned by home washing be labeled

with instructions for home washing; (2)

to allow that a garment that can be

professionally wet cleaned be labeled

with instructions for professional wet

cleaning; (3) to clarify what can

constitute a reasonable basis for care

instructions; and (4) to change the

definitions of cold, warm, and hot water

in the Rule. The Commission is

commencing this rulemaking because of

the comments filed in response to its

Advanced Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’), and other

information discussed in this notice.

The Commission invites interested

parties to submit written data, views,

and arguments. This notice includes a

description of the procedures to be

followed, an invitation to submit

written comments, a list of questions

and issues upon which the Commission

particularly desires comments, and a

description of a workshop conference

that will be held to discuss the issues.

The Commission will announce the

time and place of the public workshop

after the close of the comment period.

Any persons wishing to participate in

the public workshop must file a

comment in response to this notice and

must indicate therein their interest in

participating. The comments will be

available on the public record and on

the Commission’s web site on the

Internet (http://www.ftc.gov) so that

interested parties can review them.

After the conclusion of the workshop,

the record will remain open for 30 days

for additional or rebuttal comments. If

necessary, the Commission will also

hold hearings with cross-examination

and rebuttal submissions, as specified in

Section 18(c) of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(c).

Interested parties who wish to request

such hearings should file a comment in

response to this notice and indicate

therein why they believe such hearings

are necessary and how they would

participate in such hearings.

DATES: Written comments must be

submitted on or before July 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be identified as ‘‘16 CFR Part 423—Care

Labeling Rule—Comment,’’ and sent to

Secretary, Federal Trade Commission,

Sixth and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,

Washington D.C. 20580. To facilitate

prompt and efficient review and

dissemination of the comments to the

public, all written comments should

also be submitted, if possible, in

electronic form, on either a 51⁄4 or a 31⁄2

inch computer disk, with a label on the

disk stating the name of the commenter

and the name and version of the word

processing program used to create the

document. Programs based on DOS are

preferred. In order for files from other

operating systems to be accepted, they

should be submitted in ASCII text

format.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Constance M. Vecellio or James Mills,

Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission,

Division of Enforcement, Bureau of

Consumer Protection, Sixth St. and

Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., S–4302,

Washington, D.C. 20580, (202) 326–2966

or (202) 326–3035.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Part A—Introduction

This notice is being published

pursuant to Section 18 of the Federal

Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) Act, 15

U.S.C. 57a et seq., the provisions of Part

1, Subpart B of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice, 16 CFR 1.7, and 5 U.S.C. 551

et seq. This authority permits the

Commission to promulgate, modify, and

repeal trade regulation rules that define

with specificity acts or practices that are

unfair or deceptive in or affecting

commerce within the meaning of

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

45(a)(1).

The Care Labeling Rule was

promulgated by the Commission on

December 16, 1971, 36 FR 23883 (1971).

In 1983, the Commission amended the

Rule to clarify its requirements by

identifying in greater detail the washing

or dry cleaning information to be

included on care labels. 48 FR 22733

(1983). The Care Labeling Rule, as

amended, requires manufacturers and

importers of textile wearing apparel and

certain piece goods to attach care labels

to these items stating ‘‘what regular care

is needed for the ordinary use of the

product.’’ (16 CFR 423.6(a) and (b)). The

Rule also requires that the manufacturer

or importer possess, prior to sale, a

reasonable basis for the care

instructions. (16 CFR 423.6(c)).

As part of its continuing review of its

trade regulation rules to determine their

current effectiveness and impact, the

Commission published a Federal

Register notice (‘‘FRN’’) on June 15,

1994, 59 FR 30733. This FRN sought

comment on the costs and benefits of

the Rule, and related questions such as

what changes in the Rule would

increase the benefits of the Rule to

purchasers and how those changes

would affect the costs the Rule imposes

on firms subject to its requirements. The

comments in response to the 1994 FRN

generally expressed continuing support

for the Rule, stating that correct care

instructions benefit consumers by

extending the useful life of the garment,

by helping the consumer maximize the

appearance of the garment, and/or by

allowing the consumer to take the ease

and cost of care into consideration when

making a purchase.

Based on this review, the Commission

determined to retain the Rule, but to

seek additional comment on possible

amendments to the Rule. The

Commission published an ANPR on

December 28, 1995, 60 FR 67102, which

elicited 64 comments on the several

possible amendments of the Rule

described therein.1 Based on the
25418 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

clearinghouse for information on emissions control;

one home appliance manufacturers trade

association; one manufacturer of home appliances;

one home applicance repairman; one international

association for textile care labeling; one federal

agency; and the Economic Union of European

Countries. The comments are on the public record

and are available for public inspection in

accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5

U.S.C. 552, and the Commission’s Rules of Practice,

16 CFR 4.11, at the Public Reference Room, Room

130, Federal Trade Commission, 6th and

Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. The

comments are referred to in this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) by their name and the number

assigned to each submitted comment.

2Congress designated PCE as a hazardous air

pollutant in Section 112 of the Clean Air Act; many

state legislatures have followed suit under state air

toxics regulations.

3Aqua Clean Systems, Inc. (‘‘Aqua Clean’’) (34)

pp. 8–9; Center for Emissions Control (‘‘CEC’’) (44)

pp. 5–6; American Apparel Manufacturers

Association (‘‘AAMA’’) (57) p.2.

4Henry Gluckstern, Esq. (16) pp. 1–2; Bette Jo

Dedic, University of Kentucky College of

Agriculture Extension Service (‘‘Univ. of KY’’) (20)

p. 1; Vera Rines (28) p. 1; Thelma Carpenter (30)

p. 1; Katherine King (32) p. 1; Ida Carpenter (33)

p. 1; Margie Helton (38) pp. 1–2; Jewell Brabson

(40) p. 1; Susan DuBois (42) p. 1; UCLA Pollution

Prevention Education and Research Center (‘‘UCLA

PPERC’’) (45) p. 3; Aileen Mills (47) p. 1;

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

(‘‘AHAM’’) (51) p. 2.; Helen DuBois (52) p. 1; M.

Adkins (54) p. 1; Teresa Mills (58) p. 1; Sarah

O’Neal (59) p. 1; Frances McCarter (61) p. 1; Gladys

Bebber (62) p. 1. But see Aqua Clean (34) p. 8: ‘‘As

a general observation, garments which can be home

laundered or drycleaned are usually labeled with

both care instructions.’’

5Univ. of KY (20) p. 1; Vera Rines (28) p. 1;

Thelma Carpenter (30) p. 1; Katherine King (32) p.

1; Ida Carpenter (33) p. 1; Carolyn Powers (35) p.

1; Spencer and Diana Hart (36) p. 1; Margie Helton

(38) pp. 1–2; Jewell Brabson (40) p. 1; Susan DuBois

(42) p. 1; Aileen Mills (47) p. 1; Joyce Rash (48) p.

1; S.K. Taylor (49) p. 1; Helen DuBois (52) p. 1; M.

Adkins (54) p. 1; Teresa Mills (58) p. 1; Sarah

O’Neal (59) p. 1; Frances McCarter (61) p. 1; Gladys

Bebber (62) p. 1.

6 Dana Dodson (4) p. 1; Margaret Petty (37) p. 1.

7AHAM (51) p. 2.

8Linda Smith, Tenn. State Univ. Cooperative

Extension Program (3) p. 1; John & Elizabeth Gray

(15) p. 1; Univ. of KY (20) p. 2; Vera Rines (28) p.

1; Thelma Carpenter (30) p. 1; Katherine King (32)

p. 1; Ida Carpenter (33) p. 1; Margie Helton (38) pp.

1–2; Jewell Brabson (40) p. 1; Susan DuBois (42) p.

1; Consumers Union (46) p. 2; Aileen Mills (47) p.

1; S.K. Taylor (49) p. 1; Helen DuBois (52) p. 1; M.

Adkins (54) p. 1; Teresa Mills (58) p. 1; Sarah

O’Neal (59) p. 1; Frances McCarter (61) p. 1; Gladys

Bebber (62) p. 1.

9Consumers Union (46) p. 2.

10 International Fabricare Institute (‘‘IFI’’) (56) p.

2; Ginetex (the International Association for Textile

Care Labeling) (63) p. 4; European Union (64) p. 3.

11Univ. of KY (20) p. 2; Consumers Union (46)

p. 2. See also the discussion of ‘‘dual disclosures’’

in the ANPR:

The Commission has learned from several

commenters, primarily manufacturers, that

requiring both washing and dry clean labels (a

‘‘dual disclosure’’ amendment) would require a dry

cleaning instruction on virtually all washable items.

According to these commenters, this would

necessitate additional testing expenses for

manufacturers and a resulting increase in PCE use,

to the detriment of human health and the

environment. (60 FR 67105, n. 30).

comments and the evidence discussed

herein, the Commission proposes to

amend the Rule in the following ways.

Part B—Analysis of Proposed

Amendments

1. Labeling for Home washing

a. Background and Discussion of

Comments

The 1994 FRN noted that the

Environmental Protection Agency

(‘‘EPA’’) had been working with the dry

cleaning industry to reduce the public’s

exposure to perchloroethylene (‘‘PCE’’

or ‘‘perc’’), the most common dry

cleaning solvent,2 and asked whether

the Rule poses an impediment to this

goal. The Rule currently requires either

a washing instruction or a dry cleaning

instruction; it does not require both.

Thus, garments that can legally be

labeled with a ‘‘dry clean’’ instruction

alone also may in some cases be

washable, a fact not ascertainable from

such an instruction. The 1994 FRN

asked about the extent of care labeling

that fails to indicate both washing and

dry cleaning instructions. Finally, the

1994 FRN asked whether the use of dry

cleaning solvents would be lessened,

and whether consumers and cleaners

could make more informed choices as to

cleaning method, if the Rule were

amended to require both washing and

dry cleaning instructions for garments

cleanable by both methods. 59 FR

30733–34.

In the 1995 ANPR, the Commission

analyzed the comments submitted in

response to the 1994 FRN and proposed

amending the Rule to ensure that

consumers are provided with

information that would allow them the

choice of washing garments when

possible. The Commission concluded

that lack of such information can result

in substantial injury to consumers in the

form of unnecessary expense and/or the

inability to use what they regard as a

more environmentally friendly method

of care. 60 FR 67104–05.

The ANPR asked for comment on an

amendment of the Rule to require a

home washing instruction for all

covered products for which home

washing is appropriate; providing dry

cleaning instructions for such washable

items would be optional. Manufacturers

marketing items with a ‘‘Dry Clean’’

instruction alone would be required to

substantiate both that the items could be

safely dry cleaned and that home

washing would be inappropriate for

them (as the Rule currently requires

them to do when providing a ‘‘Dry

Clean Only’’ instruction). This proposal

would not result in the additional

substantiation testing (and increased

PCE use) that the comments suggested a

‘‘dual disclosure’’ requirement could

necessitate, because a dry cleaning

instruction would be optional, as would

the necessary substantiation to support

it. Id. at 67105. That is, manufacturers

labeling their goods for home washing

(and possessing the appropriate

substantiation for that instruction)

would not have to also provide a dry

clean instruction or have substantiation

that dry cleaning would harm the

garment.

Fifty-three comments addressed

whether the Commission should require

a home washing instruction for items

that could be safely washed at home,

and only three of those opposed the

proposal.3

Eighteen commenters, including

individual consumers, academics, and

an appliance manufacturers’ trade

association, contended that many

manufacturers currently label items that

can be both washed and dry cleaned

with a ‘‘dry clean’’ or ‘‘dry clean only’’

instruction.’’4 Many commenters

stressed that knowing that garments can

be washed at home would save them (or

consumers in general) garment care

dollars.5 Two consumers stated that

washing garments that are labeled ‘‘dry

clean’’ or ‘‘dry clean only’’ but that

appear washable (such as 100% cotton)

is risky because, if the garment is

ruined, the manufacturer will not stand

behind it.6 AHAM, a trade association

for appliance manufacturers, noted that:

the cost for testing a garment fabric sample

for proper care instructions is just a fraction

of the consumer expense experienced by

many thousands of individuals incurring

ongoing dry cleaning expenses for a garment

that could be washed at home.7

Many commenters also noted that

consumers believe there are

environmental benefits from home

washing rather than dry cleaning

washable items.8 Consumers Union

stated, ‘‘If only one method must appear

on the label, it has to be the least

expensive and the least hazardous to the

consumer and the environment.’’ 9

Three commenters recommended that

both washing and dry cleaning

instructions be included if both are

appropriate.10 Two comments

specifically opposed this type of ‘‘dual

labeling,’’ however, because of the

increased levels of dry cleaning

substantiation tests that would follow.11

Two commenters (one of which is an

association for apparel manufacturers)

argued that manufacturers (having made

the items) are best qualified to make the

decision as to how garments can best be

cleaned and urged the Commission to

leave apparel manufacturers the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25419

12Aqua Clean (34) pp. 8–9; AAMA (57) p. 2,

noting that ‘‘There are some garments with ‘dry

clean only’ labels that can be washed at home

* * * but if the cleaning is not done correctly, it

can lead to damage.

13CEC (44) p. 5.

14EPA’s comment (73) to the 1994 FRN stated, at

p. 1, that the Rule should be revised to require

manufacturers to state whether a garment ‘‘can be

cleaned by solvent-based methods, water-based

methods, or both. We believe this change is

necessary to advance the use of water-based

cleaning technology.’’ EPA’s comment to the 1995

FRN referred to the 1994 comment, and stressed the

need for recognition in the Rule of professional wet

cleaning. EPA (17) p. 1.

15A Perdue University survey found that 89.3%

of the 962 respondents indicated that they would

not wash a garment labeled ‘‘dry clean.’’ Staff

Report to the Federal Trade Commission and

Proposed Revised Trade Regulation Rule (16 CFR

Part 423) (May 1978), p. 141. Other surveys showed

similar results. Id. at 142–143.

16The Rule currently requires this level of

substantiation for a ‘‘dry clean only’’ instruction.

Under the proposed amendment, any garment for

which home washing is not recommended and dry

cleaning is recommended, would have to be labeled

‘‘dry clean only.’’ In other words, a ‘‘dry clean’’

instruction by itself would no longer be

permissible.

17See Aqua Clean (34) pp. 8–9.

18 In addition, manufacturers that wished to stress

that a particular garment could be refurbished at

home but might be difficult for some consumers to

refurbish adequately at home could add a phrase

such as ‘‘For best results, dry clean.’’

19 In the narrative discussing this issue in the

ANPR, the Commission sought information on the

feasibility of a ‘‘professionally wet clean’’

instruction on ‘‘all covered products bearing a dry

cleaning instruction.’’ 60 FR 67105. In the Request

for Comments Section of the Notice, however, the

Commission limited the applicability of the

question to ‘‘a garment that cannot be home

laundered but can be dry cleaned.’’ 60 FR 67107.

Most of the commenters responded in the latter

context.

flexibility to decide which care

instructions to use.12 A third commenter

in opposition to the proposal, a nonprofit clearinghouse for information on

emission control in chlorinated solvent

applications, including dry cleaning,

stated that there did not appear to be

many instances of washable items being

labeled ‘‘dry clean.’’ 13

b. Proposed Amendments and Reasons

Therefor

Based on the comments, the

Commission has reason to believe that

‘‘dry clean’’ labels on home-washable

items are prevalent and that consumers

have a preference for being told when

items that they are purchasing can be

safely washed at home. Moreover, the

information about washability may be

important to consumers for economic or

environmental reasons, or both. Some

consumers wish to avoid the use of PCE

and clean in water when possible

because they believe it is better for the

environment. The record also supports

the conclusion that this aspect of the

Rule is an impediment to EPA’s goal of

reducing the use of dry cleaning

solvents.14

When a garment that can be washed

at home is labeled ‘‘dry clean,’’ many

consumers may be misled into believing

that the garment cannot be washed at

home, and they may incur the

unnecessary expense of dry cleaning the

garment and/or potential damage to the

environment that they wish to avoid.15

Moreover, it can be extremely difficult

for consumers to obtain the information

about washability of an item for

themselves. Although fiber content can

be a guide to washability, other

factors—such as the type of dye or

finish used—can also determine

washability, and consumers have no

way of learning what dyes and finishes

were used and whether they will

survive washing.

Accordingly, the Commission

proposes amending the Rule to require

a home washing instruction for

garments for which home washing is

appropriate. This amendment would

permit optional dry cleaning

instructions for such washable items,

provided dry cleaning would be an

appropriate alternative cleaning

method. The amendment would,

however, require that manufacturers

selling items with a ‘‘dry clean’’

instruction alone be able to substantiate

both that the items could be safely dry

cleaned and that home washing would

be inappropriate for them.16

As noted in the comments, the

proposed amendment would enable

consumers to make a more informed

purchasing choice and provide them

with the option of saving money by

washing at home instead of incurring

the higher expenses of dry cleaning. In

addition, consumers who are concerned

about reducing the use of PCE will have

information about the ‘‘washability’’ of

all apparel items they are considering

purchasing.

The Commission agrees, as it did in

the ANPR, with the commenters

(primarily manufacturers) that

cautioned against a ‘‘dual labeling’’

instruction requiring both home

washing and dry cleaning instructions if

both methods are appropriate. Such an

instruction would result in some

manufacturers of traditionally washable

products performing dry cleaning tests

to substantiate that dry cleaning was an

appropriate care method, which would

be contrary to EPA’s goal of reducing

the use of dry cleaning solvents.

Moreover, the comments do not indicate

a consumer preference for such dual

labeling. The Commission has no reason

to believe at this time that it is either

unfair or deceptive for a manufacturer

or importer to fail to reveal that a

garment labeled for washing can also be

dry cleaned, and to require such dual

labeling might raise costs without

providing any real benefit to consumers.

The proposed amendments would

permit a home washing instruction only

for those covered products for which

home washing—and traditional home

finishing processes such as ironing—

would be an appropriate method of care.

Many commenters cautioned that, for

some items that could be washed in

water, there would be many additional

finishing steps required for the garment

that the average consumer could not

perform at home. In the case of some

garments, such as suits made from wool

or silk (fibers that generally can be

safely washed in water), post-home

washing finishing processes like

steampressing and pleat and crease

setting are necessary for proper

refurbishing. These processes are

beyond the capabilities of most

consumers and the equipment available

to them.17 Under the proposed

amendments, a home washing

instruction would not be appropriate or

required for an item that could be safely

washed in water with the proper

cleaning agents but could not be

finished properly at home by the

average consumer. Moreover, the

Commission recognizes that

manufacturers have experience with the

consumers who buy their garments, and

the Commission would expect to defer

to manufacturers’ decisions in the case

of garments that would be difficult to

refurbish for some but not all

consumers.18

2. The ‘‘Professionally Wet Clean’’

Instruction

a. Background and Discussion of

Comments

The ANPR asked whether the Rule

should be amended to recognize the

new technology referred to as

‘‘professional wet cleaning’’ by

requiring a professional wet cleaning

instruction for products that cannot be

washed at home but could be cleaned by

means of this new technology.19

(Professional wet cleaning uses

computer-controlled washers and dryers

to achieve precise control of mechanical

action, fluid levels, temperatures, and

other important factors.) The ANPR

asked for information on the cost of wet

cleaning, the availability of wet cleaning

facilities, whether the process currently

could serve as a practical alternative to

dry cleaning, and whether fiber
25420 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

20 Joyce McCarter (14) p.1; John & Elizabeth Gray

(15) p.1; Henry Gluckstern, Esq. (16) pp.1, 3; EPA

(17) p.1; Linda Arant (18) p.1; Vera Rines (28) p.1;

Thelma Carpenter (30) p.1; Ida Carpenter (33) p.1;

Aqua Clean (34) pp. 6–7; Margie Helton (38) p.1;

Jewell Brabson (40) p.1; American Textile

Manufacturers Institute (‘‘ATMI’’) (41) p.3; Susan

DuBois (42) p.1; The Soap and Detergent

Association (‘‘SDA’’) (43) pp.1; 3; CEC (44) pp.1–

2, 5; UCLA PPERC (45) pp.2–3; Consumers Union

(46) pp.1–2; Center for Neighborhood Technology

(‘‘CNT’’) (55) pp.2, 4; IFI (56) p.2.; AAMA (57) p.2;

Teresa Mills (58) p.1; Sarah O’Neal (59) p.1; P&G

(60) pp.2; 4; Frances McCarter (61) p.1; Gladys

Bebber (62) p.1; Ginetex (63) p.3.

21SDA (43 pp.1, 3; Procter & Gamble (‘‘P&G’’) (60)

pp.2, 4.

22CEC (44) p.5.

23SDA (43) pp.1, 3; CEC (44) pp.1–1, 5; P&G (60)

pp.2, 4.

24CEC (4) p.5.

25AAMA (57) p.2.

26The ANPR noted that EPA had published a

summary of an alternative cleaning process referred

to as ‘‘Multiprocess Wet Cleaning.’’ 60 FR 67103

(Dec. 28, 1995). According to several commenters,

‘‘multiprocess wet cleaning’’ is a cleaning process

that involves knowledgeable individuals handcleaning individual garments, often employing a

‘‘spot cleaning’’ technique rather than full

immersion, and using water, heat, steam and

natural soaps instead of perchloroethylene or

petroleum solvents. Aqua Clean (34) pp.1–2, noting

that ‘‘Professional wet cleaning has already

supplanted multiprocess wet cleaning. Indeed,

those cleaners (Ecofranchising, NY; Cleaner Image,

CT) which initially used multiprocess wet cleaning

have converted to professional wet cleaning

because of the economic advantages.’’ See also CEC

(44) p.4. Consequently, Multiprocess Wet Cleaning

is not addressed in the remainder of this Notice.

27Aqua Clean (34) pp.1–2; CEC (44) p.4; UCLA

PPERC (45) p.3; CNT (55) p.2; IFI (56) p.2; Ginetex

(63) p.3.

28Aqua Clean (34) pp.1–2; UCLA PPERC (45) p.3.

29Aqua Clean (34) pp.2–3; UCLA PPERC (45) p.3;

CNT (55) p.2.

30UCLA PPERC (45) p.3; CNT (55) p.2.

31Aqua Clean (34) pp.2–3.

32ATMI (41) p.3; AAMA (57) p.2.

33ATMI (41) p.3.

34 Ginetex (63) p.3.

35 IFI (56) p.2.

36Aqua Clean (34) p.4. Aqua Clean said that it has

corresponded with the International Wool

Secretariat (IWS), the research and marketing arm

of the wool industry, and anticipates cooperating

with the IWS’s announced intention to develop

wool processing technologies at the mill level that

will make wool garments better suited to

professional wet cleaning, so they can be dried

faster at higher temperatures. Id. at 5.

identification should be on a permanent

label. 60 FR 67105, 67107.

Twenty-nine commenters addressed

the ‘‘professionally wet clean’’

instruction.20 Only four opposed the

proposal to amend the Rule to require

a ‘‘professionally wet clean’’ instruction

for wet cleanable garments that cannot

be washed at home. The Soap and

Detergent Association and Procter &

Gamble contended that the term

‘‘professionally wet clean’’ may be

confused with a home washing

instruction by consumers.21 The Center

for Emissions Control contended that

wet cleaning is a new technology that is

neither well understood nor widely

available, and that a required wet

cleaning instruction now would

therefore be unreasonable and

counterproductive.22 SDA, P&G, and

CEC all recommended requiring some

version of a ‘‘professionally clean’’

instruction that would encompass both

dry cleaning and professionally wet

cleaning.23 CEC also suggested that

eventually the Rule could provide for a

‘‘professionally wet clean’’ instruction

that would be permitted, but not

required, when the manufacturer

thought professional wet cleaning

would be appropriate.24 AAMA opposed

any provision in the Rule for

professional wet cleaning on the ground

that it is too new and that there are too

few cleaners who can provide the

service.25

(1) Defining Professional Wet

Cleaning.26 Six organizations provided

information describing the wet cleaning

process.27 They defined ‘‘machine wet

cleaning’’ or ‘‘professional wet

cleaning’’ as an automatic, water-based

cleaning process that relies on the use

of sophisticated, computer-controlled

washers and dryers in which the

washing and drying cycles, including

heat, moisture, and agitation, can be

precisely controlled according to the

requirements of the various fiber, fabric,

and garment types.28

Three organizations provided

information about the equipment used

in professional wet cleaning.29 UCLA

PPERC and CNT said that five

companies provide the equipment

systems necessary for professional wet

cleaning.30 Aqua Clean provided a

detailed description of the equipment

needed to provide professional wet

cleaning services:

All professional wet cleaning systems consist

of a computer-controlled washer and dryer,

wet cleaning software, and biodegradable

chemicals specifically formulated to safely

wet clean wool, silk, rayon, and other natural

and man-made fibers. The washer always

uses a frequency-controlled motor, which

allows the computer to precisely control the

degree of mechanical action imposed on the

garments by the wet cleaning process. The

computer also controls time, fluid levels,

temperatures, extraction, chemical injection,

drum rotation and extraction parameters, etc.

The dryer always incorporates a residual

moisture (or humidity) control to prevent

overdrying of delicate garments. The wet

cleaning chemicals are formulated from

constituent chemicals which are on the

EPA’s public inventory of approved

chemicals pursuant to the Toxic Substances

Control Act (TSCA).31

(2) As an Alternative to Dry Cleaning.

The ANPR asked two related questions

about the feasibility of wet cleaning as

a practical alternative to dry cleaning,

and the extent to which items that have

historically been dry cleaned could

successfully be professionally wet

cleaned. Five commenters responded

directly to the first question. ATMI and

AAMA pointed out that, while the fibers

and dyes now in use will stand up to

the chemical solvents used in the dry

cleaning process, the textile industry

does not know if they will stand up to

professional wet cleaning.32 ATMI

predicted that:

If consumers just assume that they can use

the new cleaning method on their existing

wardrobe and current clothing purchases, we

would expect to see an increase in apparel

damage claims. This is because the fabrics

used in these clothing items have finishes

and formulations designed for dry cleaning.

We told EPA that the industry would need

a long phase-in time (2—3 years) to adjust

our dyes and finishes to work compatibly

with ‘‘wet clean’’ processes.33

Ginetex, which is responsible for the

care labeling system used in European

countries, indicated its interest in the

wet cleaning technique, but said it is

waiting for a standardized test method

so manufacturers can test garments to

determine whether wet cleaning would

be a safe care method.34 IFI cautioned

that wet cleaning technology is new and

stated its determination to undertake

research into the process:

The use of machine wet cleaning is still in

the investigative or infant stage. The

technology originated in Europe and the most

extensive analysis of these systems has been

completed by two European research

groups—Hohenstein and FCRA. The

conclusion of these studies is that machine

wet cleaning is an adjunct to dry cleaning,

not a complete replacement. The

Environmental Protection Agency, as a result

of its evaluation of wet cleaning under its

Design for the Environment Program,

concludes that machine wet cleaning is not

a complete replacement for drycleaning.

There is still much investigative work to be

done in this area. To that end, IFI has formed

a partnership with Greenpeace, other

industry groups, and other environmental

and labor groups to explore the possibilities

of wet cleaning—The Professional Wet

Cleaning Partnership.35

Aqua Clean estimated that 90% of

garments can be safely and satisfactorily

cleaned by professional wet cleaning.

Aqua Clean stated that it has found no

significant wetcleanability versus

drycleanability differences applicable to

wool, silk, rayon, acetate, linen, etc.

with the exception of heavier wool

suits, which are made with linings and

shoulder pads that dry at a rate different

from the wool, and thus require extra

time.36 CEC stated that estimates of the

percentage of garments labeled ‘‘dry

clean only’’ that can be successfully wet
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25421

37CEC (44) p.4.

38 IFI (56) p.2.

39CNT (55) p.2.

40Aqua Clean (34) p.3.

41UCLA PPERC (45) p.3; CNT (55) p.3; AAMA

(57) p.2.

42CEC (44) p.5.

43ATMI (41) p.3.

44UCLA PPERC (45) p.4; CNT (55) p.4.

45CNT (55) p.4.

46Aqua Clean (34) p.5. Aqua Clean also raised an

issue that was not addressed in the ANPR—

consumer access to cleaning services:

Many developers and owners of strip centers and

shopping centers, which is where most consumers

access cleaning services, are refusing to rent space

to or renew leases for drycleaners. These landlords

simply do not want to bear the legal exposure or

insurance expense associated with drycleaning

machines and their toxic waste stream. Aqua Clean

Systems is currently negotiating with a major

national shopping center owner to become their

exclusive tenant for 100% perc-free cleaning

facilities. At present, they refuse to allow a

drycleaner in any of their 1,800 shopping centers.

Similar discussions are taking place with a major

chain in the Southeast. This trend will continue. If

the Rule is not amended to accommodate

professional wet cleaning, access to cleaning

services will decline as regulatory and landlord

pressures cause a decline in the number of

drycleaners, which will eventually reduce

competition and cause an increase in consumer

prices. Id., pp. 9–10.

47Aqua Clean (34) p.3; CNT (55) p.3.

48CEC (44) p.3.

49UCLA PPERC (45) p.4.

50Univ. of KY (20) p. 1; Aqua Clean (34) p. 7;

ATMI (41) p. 4; CEC (44) p. 2; UCLA PPERC (45)

p. 3; Consumers Union (46) p. 2; AHAM (51) p. 2;

P&G (60) p. 4.

51CEC (44) p. 2; UCLA PPERC 945) p. 3;

Consumers Union (46) p. 2; AHAM (51) p. 2; P&G

(60) p. 4.

52Univ. of KY (20) p. 1; Aqua Clean (34) p. 7.

53Aqua Clean (34) p. 7.

cleaned vary from 30% to 70%, with

industry experts narrowing that spread

to 30% to 50%.37 IFI contended that it

is too early to estimate the percentage

with any certainty, but stated that early

indications are that the percentage of

‘‘dry clean’’ labeled garments that could

be effectively machine wet cleaned

could be anywhere from 25% to 75%.38

CNT estimated, based on its own

research and research conducted by

Environment Canada, that from 30% to

70% of clothes generally cleaned in PCE

could be safely cleaned using standard

commercial or domestic laundering

equipment.39

(3) Businesses that Provide Wet

Cleaning. When it filed its comment in

early 1996, Aqua Clean estimated that,

by the end of 1996, approximately 350

businesses would have professional wet

cleaning systems.40 Three other

commenters estimated that professional

wet cleaning is currently being offered

by 100 businesses.41 CEC also estimated

that it will be several years, even at best,

before a substantial number of the

nation’s 30,000 cleaners have purchased

professional wet cleaning technology.42

(4) Costs to Consumers. ATMI said

that the additional costs incurred by

textile and apparel manufacturers to

substantiate a wet cleaning instruction

would be passed on to consumers.43

Both UCLA PPERC and CNT stated that

the costs to consumers for wet cleaning

services are comparable to the costs of

dry cleaning.44 CNT estimated that the

range for wet cleaning a two-piece wool

suit was from $4.50 to $9.00, and added

that interviews with cleaners indicated

that those who provided both types of

cleaning were providing them for

approximately the same cost, and that in

no case were charges for wet cleaning

higher than for dry cleaning.45

Aqua Clean said that it was not aware

of any cleaner charging more for wet

cleaning services than for dry cleaning

services, and that in some cases the cost

of wet cleaning is less, because many

dry cleaners impose a surcharge

(typically 50 cents) to cover the rising

cost of disposing of hazardous dry

cleaning waste.46

(5) The Environmental Impact of the

Process. Aqua Clean and CNT stated

that none of the substances used in the

process are prohibited by EPA; further,

Aqua Clean said that the only materials

released into the environment in

connection with the process are

chemicals that appear on EPA’s public

inventory of approved chemicals under

the Toxic Substances Control Act.47 CEC

suggested, however, that the primary

environmental issue associated with the

wet cleaning process is water

consumption, because the process uses

2.5 gallons of water to clean a pound of

clothes. CEC pointed out that, although

this compares favorably to the 6 gallons

per pound used by home clothes

washers, the wet cleaning process uses

more water than the dry cleaning

process, which uses water primarily for

cooling purposes, and typically recycles

it.48 UCLA PPERC stated that research

suggests that wet cleaning is a safe

alternative to dry cleaning.49

The Commission notes that it has not

made an independent assessment of the

environmental desirability of the

various methods of cleaning textile

wearing apparel. Rather, it has noted

EPA’s goal of reducing the use of dry

cleaning solvents and the preference of

numerous consumers for information

about whether garments can be cleaned

in water. The Commission has prepared

a proposed Environmental Assessment

in which it analyzed whether the

amendments to the Rule were required

to be accompanied by an Environmental

Impact Statement. Because the main

effect of the proposed amendments is to

provide consumers with additional

information rather than directly to affect

the environment, the Commission

concluded in the proposed

Environmental Assessment that an

Environmental Impact Statement is not

necessary. The Commission requests

comment on this issue. The

Environmental Assessment is on the

public record and is available for public

inspection at the Public Reference

Room, Room 130, Federal Trade

Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania

Avenue, Washington, D.C. It can also be

obtained at the FTC’s web site at http:/

/www.ftc.gov on the Internet.

(6) The Requirement for Fiber

Identification on a Permanent Label.

Eight comments addressed the

desirability of a requirement for fiber

identification on a permanent label, and

all favored the idea.50 Five

recommended that the fiber

identification be on the same label as

the care instructions.51 Several

commenters said that fiber information

need not necessarily be on the care label

but should be on a permanent label.52

Most of the commenters said that

cleaners need fiber identification

information in order to provide the best

cleaning services for their customers.

Aqua Clean explained as follows:

[F]abric identification [should] be on a

permanent label because it is essential

information for all cleaners regardless of the

technology employed; requiring this by

regulation will merely codify a nearly

uniform practice at no measurable cost to

manufacturers. A secondary consideration is

that individuals with allergies to certain

fibers (e.g., wool) should be provided with

this information. It is clear that requiring

fiber identification on a permanent label

should be acceptable to manufacturers and

consumers because it has already become an

accepted part of business at all levels of

manufacture, distribution, sales, and garment

care.53

b. Proposed Amendment and Reasons

Therefor. The comments show that

professional wet cleaning is a process

that is of interest to consumers,

especially those who believe it has the

potential for less negative impact on the

environment than dry cleaning. Thus,

the Commission is proposing

amendments that will incorporate

professional wet cleaning into the Rule’s

system of instructions for care.

Nevertheless, professional wet

cleaning is a very new technology, and

it does not appear to be widely

available. Moreover, there is not a

standardized test by which

manufacturers can establish a

reasonable basis for a professional wet
25422 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

54Testing is one of several types of evidence that

can serve as a reasonable basis for a care

instruction.

55The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act

(‘‘Textile Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 70 et seq., requires

marketers of covered textile products to mark each

product with the generic names and percentages by

weight of the constituent fibers present in the

product. The Commission has issued Rules and

Regulations under the Textile Act (‘‘Textile Rules’’).

Rule 15 of the Textile Rules, 15 CFR 303.15, allows

any type of label to be used as long as the label is

securely affixed and durable enough to remain

attached to the product until the consumer receives

it; Rule 15 does not require a permanent label.

56Rule 16 of the Textile Rules, 16 CFR 303.16,

requires, with some exceptions, that all information

required by the Textile Act shall be set out on one

label, and on the same side of the label. The

Commission recently sought comment on

modifications of the Textile Rules. 61 FR 5344 (Feb.

12, 1996).

57Univ. of KY (20) p.2; Clorox (31) pp. 4–5; ATMI

(41) pp. 5–7; SDA (43) pp. 1,3; Consumers Union

(46) pp. 2–3; AHAM (51) p.2; IFI (56) p. 3; AAMA

(57) p. 2; P&G (60) p. 5; Ginetex (63) p.4.

58Univ. of KY (20) p. 2; Clorox (31) pp. 4–5; SDA

(43) pp. 1,3; Consumers Union (46) pp. 2–3; AHAM

(51) p. 2; IFI (56) p. 3; P&G (60) p. 5.

59AAMA (57) p. 2; ATMI (41) pp. 5–7. Ginetex,

the European care labeling organization, stated that

it gives technical advice ‘‘to give indications how

to test in the case of uncertainty to choose the

correct care label.’’ Ginetex (63) p. 4.

60 IFI (56) p.3.

61Clorox (31) p.2.

62ATMI (41) p.5. See also AAMA (57) p.3 (‘‘There

are a few problems with leather patches and some

other materials attached to garments.’’) The

Commission has litigated one case involving

inaccurate care instructions that resulted in damage

to garments. FTC v. Bonnie & Company Fashions,

Inc. and Bonnie Boerer, Civ. Action No. 90–4454)

(D.N.J.). In addition, since that litigation, the

Commission has obtained five settlements that

alleged violation of the Rule due to inaccurate care

instructions; in three of those five settlements, the

Commission alleged that the trim on the garments

was damaged when cleaned.

cleaning instruction.54 For these

reasons, the Commission is not at this

time proposing an amendment to the

Rule that would require a wet cleaning

instruction. Instead, the Commission is

proposing amendments that would add

a definition to the Rule for ‘‘professional

wet cleaning’’ and would permit

manufacturers to include a

‘‘professionally wet clean’’ instruction

on labels for those items for which they

have a reasonable basis for a

professional wet cleaning instruction.

The proposed amendments do not

require manufacturers who label items

with a ‘‘dry clean only’’ instruction to

be able to substantiate that professional

wet cleaning would be an inappropriate

method of care.

The Commission also concludes that

fiber identification on a permanent label

is important to professional wet

cleaners.55 The record contains

numerous references to the need for

precise fiber content information due to

the complexity of the computercontrolled equipment used in the wet

cleaning process. Therefore, the

proposed amendment requires that, if a

care instruction recommends

professional wet cleaning, the fiber

content must be provided on the

permanent care label along with the care

instructions. The Commission seeks

comment as to whether any

accompanying change should be made

to the Textile Rules.56

Finally, it should be noted that at this

time, the Commission proposes

allowing a ‘‘professional wet clean’’

instruction along with a conventional

care instruction because many

consumers do not currently have access

to professional wet cleaners.

Nevertheless, because professional wet

cleaning appears to be growing rapidly,

the Commission seeks comment on this

point.

3. The Reasonable Basis Requirement of

the Rule

a. Background and Discussion of

Comments

The Rule requires that manufacturers

and importers of textile wearing apparel

possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis

for the care instructions they provide.

Under the Rule, a reasonable basis must

consist of reliable evidence supporting

the instructions on the label. 16 CFR

423.6(c). Specifically, a reasonable basis

can consist of (1) reliable evidence that

the product was not harmed when

cleaned reasonably often according to

the instructions; (2) reliable evidence

that the product or a fair sample of the

product was harmed when cleaned by

methods warned against on the label; (3)

reliable evidence, like that described in

(1) or (2), for each component part; (4)

reliable evidence that the product or a

fair sample of the product was

successfully tested; (5) reliable evidence

of current technical literature, past

experience, or the industry expertise

supporting the care information on the

label; or (6) other reliable evidence. Id.

The 1994 FRN solicited comment on

whether the Commission should amend

the Rule to conform with the

interpretation of ‘‘reasonable basis’’

described in the FTC Policy Statement

Regarding Advertising Substantiation,

(‘‘Advertising Policy Statement’’) 104

F.T.C. 839 (1984), or to change the

definition of ‘‘reasonable basis’’ in some

other manner. The comments in

response to the 1994 FRN suggested that

a significant number of care labels lack

a reasonable basis. Based on these

comments, the ANPR proposed

amending the reasonable basis

requirement to reduce the incidence of

inaccurate and incomplete labels. The

ANPR sought comment on that

incidence, the extent to which it might

be reduced by clarifying the reasonable

basis standard, and the costs and

benefits of such a clarification.

The Commission further solicited

comment on whether to amend the Rule

to clarify that the reasonable basis

requirement applies to a garment in its

entirety rather than to each of its

individual components. In addition, the

Commission asked for comment on

whether the Rule should specify

standards for determining acceptable

and unacceptable changes in garments

following cleaning as directed, and

whether the Rule should identify

properties, such as colorfastness and

dimensional stability, to which such

standards would apply.

The ANPR sought comment on the

option of indicating in the Rule that

whether one or more of the types of

evidence described in Section 423.6(c)

constitutes a reasonable basis for care

labeling instructions depends on the

factors set forth in the Advertising

Policy Statement and whether the Rule

should be amended to make testing of

garments the only evidence that could

serve as a reasonable basis under certain

circumstances. Finally, the ANPR

sought comment on whether the Rule

should specify particular testing

methodologies to be used. Ten

commenters responding to the ANPR

discussed the reasonable basis

provision.57 Seven supported the

modification of the Rule, arguing that

the provision should be clarified and

strengthened to reduce mislabeling.58

Two maintained that the reasonable

basis provision should not be amended,

because the proposed changes would

likely increase the cost to consumers

and apparel firms without materially

increasing the benefits to consumers.59

Only two commenters provided data

on the incidence of mislabeling. Both

concluded that there is a high incidence

of inaccurate and/or incomplete

labeling. IFI cited statistics from its

Garment Analysis database (which, in

1995, consisted of 25,160 damaged

garments) indicating that inaccurate

care labels were responsible for 40% of

the damaged garments. 60 Clorox

concluded from its own study that 70%

of all home washing instructions

provide inaccurate bleach

information.61

ATMI, however, stated that most

home washing labels are accurate, and

that the vast majority of dry clean

instruction labels are accurate, despite

limited problems associated with care

instructions for special items such as

beaded apparel, sequins, and leather

appliques.62 ATMI and AAMA both
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25423

63ATMI (41) p.7; AAMA (57) p.4. But see Univ.

of KY (20) p.2 (consumers may not complain to

stores because they are intimidated or do not think

their problems will be resolved).

64ATMI (41) p.7 (noting that if only one

consumer complains about an item ‘‘of which

thousands were produced, it is likely that the

damage was caused by a commercial cleaner or by

the consumer’’); AAMA (57) p.4.

65 IFI (56) p. 3; Clorox (31) pp. 4–5.

66Clorox (31) p. 4.

67 Id.

68ATMI (41) p. 5; AAMA (57) p. 3.

69ATMI (41) p. 7.

70AAMA (57) p. 3.

71Consumers Union (46) p. 2.

72AAMA (57) p. 3.

73Univ. of KY (20) p. 2; Consumers Union (16)

p. 3.; IFI (56) p. 3.

74 IFI (56) p. 3.

75Consumers Union (46) p. 3.

76AAMA (57) p. 4; ATMI (41) pp. 5–6.

77AAMA (57) p. 4.

78 Id.

79ATMI (41) p. 6.

80Consumers Union (46) p. 2 (suggesting that the

FTC implement a rule that requires manufacturers,

retailers, and importers to issue refunds for

products damaged in cleaning despite adherence to

the label).

81AAMA (57) p. 2.

82SDA (43) p. 3; P&G (60) p. 5 (also suggesting

that the Commission consider methods of

certification and other tools such as U.S. Customs

requirements to reduce the number of mislabeled

imported goods, especially those labeled ‘‘Dry

Clean Only.’’)

83The Commission notes that an instruction to

clean ‘‘exclusive of trim’’ is only a valid care

instruction if the trim can be easily removed and

easily reattached.

84For example, red trim that is to be placed on

white fabric should be evaluated to determine if it

Continued

stated that the costs to consumers of

complaining to manufacturers or

retailers about garments damaged in

cleaning is minimal, usually consisting

of returning that item to the store, a

telephone call, or postage for mailing a

letter.63 Moreover, according to both

commenters, garment or piece goods

manufacturers generally offer refunds

for products damaged in cleaning

despite adherence to care label

directions if numerous consumers

complain about an item.64

Several commenters specifically

addressed whether the Rule should

require testing as a reasonable basis in

certain situations. Two commenters

argued that testing should be the only

permissible reasonable basis.65 Clorox

stated that tests performed on a

representative sample of each garment

are ‘‘the most reliable evidence of care

instruction accuracy,’’ and that

textbooks and manuals should not be

allowed as evidence of a reasonable

basis.66 Clorox maintained that such a

requirement would place little

additional expense on manufacturers

because ‘‘published tests on specific

fabric and dye combinations are already

shared among the trade.’’67

Two commenters, ATMI and AAMA,

however, opposed such an amendment

to the Rule.68 ATMI expressed its

concern that a testing requirement

would substantially increase the prices

for apparel and home furnishing

items.69 AAMA noted that its members

already test new styles and fabrics for

use in garments; thus, it is unaware of

any garments which ‘‘would need a

legal requirement to be tested.’’70

A number of commenters discussed

whether the rule should specify testing

methodologies to be used. Consumers

Union asserted that the Rule should

specify test methods that relate to

consumer expectations, assessing

‘‘product performance after repeated

cleaning, shrinkage, colorfastness,

appearance retention, and at least one

fabric strength test.’’71 In contrast,

AAMA contended that requiring

specific test methods may impede the

introduction of new fibers and fabrics.72

Several commenters responded to the

Commission’s questions relating to

whether the Rule should require a

reasonable basis for a whole garment

versus each component. Three

commenters maintained that the Rule

should require a reasonable basis for a

garment in its entirety.73 IFI noted that

its database shows that ‘‘a large portion

of the garments damaged are the result

of the trim or component part of the

garment failing in a specified care

procedure.’’74 Consumers Union also

argued that ‘‘to state an instruction that

excludes its applicability to garment

trim is not often practical as some trim

are hard to remove and reposition after

cleaning.’’75

Two commenters stated that the Rule

should not require testing on a complete

garment.76 AAMA asserted that many

garments are made of just one major

fabric. Accordingly, there may not be a

need to test an entire garment, as

opposed to the materials used, if the

other materials used in the garment are

of the same fiber and basic

construction.77 Moreover, AAMA

argued that it is sufficient for

manufacturers to specify in care

instructions that a specific trim is

excluded, because consumers are

thereby warned that care must be taken

when refurbishing the garment.78 ATMI

stated that testing of completed

garments would significantly raise the

cost of manufacturing apparel, but noted

that trim should be covered by the Rule,

and that manufacturers should be

responsible for selecting and combining

component materials that can be

refurbished together.79

Many commenters responded to the

Commission’s request for comments on

whether the Rule should refer to

performance standards, concluding that

it may not be feasible for the Rule to do

so. Consumers Union, for example,

noted that because fabrics and apparel

items are continually offered and

discontinued, it may not be possible for

the Commission to set performance

standards in a timely fashion to cover

all properties and types of garments.80

AAMA asserted that although there is

‘‘reason to look at minimum

performance standards, including

colorfastness, abrasion resistance, etc.,’’

the Commission should not modify the

reasonable basis requirement until the

United States, Mexico and Canada have

harmonized their labeling standards.81

Finally, two commenters stated that

the Commission would improve the

effectiveness of the Rule by

incorporating the criteria from the

Advertising Policy Statement.82

b. Proposed Amendments and Reasons

Therefor

Section 423.6(c)(3) of the Rule

currently states that a manufacturer or

importer establishes a reasonable basis

for care information by ‘‘possessing

prior to sale: [r]eliable evidence * * *

for each component part of the

product.’’ Based on its review of the

comments, the Commission proposes to

amend the reasonable basis standard to

make clear that the reasonable basis

requirement applies to the garment in

its entirety rather than to each of its

individual components. The

Commission believes that the record

establishes that in some cases care

instructions may not be accurate for the

entire garment. A garment component

that may be cleaned satisfactorily by

itself might, for example, bleed onto the

body of a garment of which it is a part.

Thus, in the proposed Rule, Section

423.6(c)(3) has been amended to clarify

that a manufacturer must possess a

reasonable basis for the garment as a

whole, including any trim.83 Proposed

Section 423.6(c)(3) provides that

‘‘Reliable evidence * * * for each

component part of the product, in

conjunction with reliable evidence for

the garment as a whole’’ can constitute

a reasonable basis for care instructions.

The proposed Rule does not require

testing of the entire garment if there is

an adequate reasonable basis for the

garment as a whole without such

testing; the proposed change would

clarify, however, that testing of separate

components is not necessarily sufficient

if problems are likely to occur when the

components are combined.84
25424 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

is likely to bleed onto the surrounding fabric. A

company may possess reliable evidence—for

example, past experience with particular dyes and

fabrics—that a particular red trim does not bleed

onto surrounding fabric. In such a case testing of

the entire garment might not be necessary.

85Comment 34 to 1994 FRN, p. 1.

86Bruce Fifield (22); ATMI (41); SDA (43);

Consumers Union (46); AHAM (51); Maytag

Appliances (‘‘Maytag’’) (53); IFI (56); AAMA (57);

P&G (60); Ginetex (63); European Commission (64).

87ATMI (41) p.1.

88Fifield (22) p.1; Consumers Union (46) p.1.;

AHAM (51) p.1; AAMA (57) p.1; European

Commission (64) p.2; Ginetex (63) p.2. In a meeting

with staff on August 7, 1996, AHAM indicated that

it no longer favors this.

89Consumers Union (46) p.1.

90SDA (43) p.2. P&G (60) stated, at p.3, that ‘‘all

detergency and cleaning performance decreases

substantially in cold water below 70 degrees F.’’

91Maytag (53) p.2.

92P&G (60) p.3.

93ATMI (41) p.2.

94SDA (43) p.2; P&G (60) p.2.

95ATMI (41) p.1; AHAM (51) p.2; Maytag (53)

p.1; AAMA (57) p.1.

96Maytag (53) p. 2; see also SDA (43) p. 2, P&G

(60) p. 2.

97P&G (60) p. 3.

98SDA (43) p. 2.

The Commission, however, believes

that the comments do not provide

sufficient reason to propose modifying

other aspects of the reasonable basis

provision at this time. As noted by the

AAMA, the United States, Mexico, and

Canada are in the process of

harmonizing their labeling

requirements. Until this harmonization

is complete, the Commission believes

that further modification of the

reasonable basis provision may be

premature.

4. Definitions of Water Temperatures

a. Background and Discussion of

Comments

The Rule currently requires that a care

label that recommends washing must

also state a water temperature that may

be used unless ‘‘the regular use of hot

water will not harm the product.’’ 16

CFR 423.6(b)(1)(i). The Rule also

provides that if the term ‘‘machine

wash’’ is used with no temperature

indication, ‘‘hot water up to 150 degrees

F (66 degrees C) can regularly be used.’’

16 CFR 423.1(d). This definition is

repeated in Appendix 1.a. ‘‘Warm’’ is

defined in Appendix 1.b. as ranging

from 90 to 110 degrees F (32 to 43

degrees C), and ‘‘cold,’’ in Appendix

1.c., as cold tap water up to 85 degrees

F (29 degrees C).

Some comments to the 1994 FRN

recommended that the Commission

revise the definition of cold water.

Commenters noted that tap water

temperatures vary across the United

States, and that such differences can

cause problems because, in the winter

in colder parts of the country, detergents

may not fully activate during a cold

wash cycle. Other comments suggested

that the Rule’s definition of hot water

should be changed. The American

Association of Textile Chemists and

Colorists (‘‘AATCC’’) commented that

the temperatures stated in the Appendix

should be changed to match the AATCC

definitions, which the AATCC believes

‘‘more accurately reflect current

washing machine settings and consumer

practice.’’ 85 The AATCC defines ‘‘hot’’

as 120 degrees F plus or minus 5

degrees (49 degrees C plus or minus 3

degrees).

The ANPR sought comment on

whether the Commission should amend

the Rule to change the definitions of

‘‘warm’’ and ‘‘hot’’ water, or to include

a new term such as ‘‘cool’’ or

‘‘lukewarm’’ in the Appendix. The

Commission further sought comment on

whether the Rule should be amended to

state that care labels recommending

‘‘cold’’ wash must define the highest

acceptable temperature for ‘‘cold’’ on

the label, and on the benefits and costs

to consumers and manufacturers of such

an amendment.

All eleven comments received in

response to the ANPR that discussed the

definitions of cold, warm, and hot water

favored some change.86 ATMI stated

that it is very important that the Rule’s

water temperature definitions be

consistent with those used in standard

test methods developed by AATCC

because those test methods are used by

the textile and apparel industries.87 Six

of the commenters also supported the

idea of including a numerical

temperature on the care label.88

Consumers Union, for example, stated

that consumers need to know the actual

range of water temperature in which

they can safely wash their clothes.

Words such as lukewarm, cold, warm or

hot serve their purposes only if the

consumers are aware of safe water

temperature ranges. Testing laboratories have

assigned temperature ranges onto each of

these words. They use these ‘‘safe

temperature ranges’’ to test products for

durability to repeated cleaning. Consumers

should know what these safe water

temperature ranges are.89

(1) Definition of cold water. As noted,

six commenters favored the inclusion of

a numerical temperature on the care

label. Two others favored a numerical

temperature when the label

recommends a ‘‘cold’’ wash. SDA noted

that in northern locations in winter,

cold water washes can be as cold as 40

degrees F and that ‘‘the performance of

all laundry products is seriously

diminished if they are used in water

temperatures below 60 degrees F.’’ 90

SDA suggested the following care

instruction, in lieu of ‘‘cold’’:

Wash in the warmest available water, not

to exceed (approximate temperature) degrees

F.

Maytag suggested that a range of 65 to

80 degrees F should be stated on the

care label because

consumers are not aware that water can be

too cold to activate detergents, thus they

experience poor cleaning and other laundry

problems. By incorporating a temperature

range consumers would know exactly what

temperatures will provide good results. 91

P&G said that a national consumer

study it had conducted showed that

78% of ‘‘cold’’ loads washed in January

and February were in temperatures

below 65 degrees F (with some as low

as 34 degrees F), and that, year round,

50% of ‘‘cold’’ loads were washed in

temperatures below 65 degrees F.92

ATMI suggested that ‘‘cold’’ be

defined consistently with the definition

specified in AATCC test methods [27

degrees C plus or minus 3 degrees, or 82

degrees F plus or minus 5 degrees] and

with standards developed by the

American Society for Testing and

Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) [30 degrees C, or 86

degrees F].93

(2) Definition of warm water. Section

1.b of the Appendix to the Rule defines

warm water as 90 to 110 degrees F (32

to 42 degrees C). Several commenters

recommended maintaining this

definition, but adding the term

‘‘lukewarm,’’ defined as 70 to 89 F (21

to 31 C).94 Other commenters opposed

‘‘lukewarm,’’ stating that it would be

confusing to consumers because

washing machine dials only offer the

choices of cold, warm, and hot.95 ATMI

suggested a definition of 40 degrees C

plus or minus 5 degrees (104 degrees F

plus or minus 9 degrees), which it

described as consistent with the

definition established by AATCC for use

in garment testing [41 degrees C plus or

minus 3 degrees, or 106 degrees F plus

or minus 5 degrees] and by ASTM in its

standards [40 degrees C or 104 F].

(3) Definition of hot water.

Maytag stated that ‘‘the current

definition of hot water as up to 150

degrees is unrealistic due to scald laws

in some states’’ and because new water

heaters are preset at 120 degrees F.96

P&G also noted that hot water heaters

are now usually preset at 120 F, ‘‘much

less than the 140 degrees F of older

models.’’ 97 SDA estimated that ‘‘20% of

today’s homes have hot water heaters

set at 120–125 F.’’ 98 Maytag favored
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25425

99ATMI (41) p. 1.

100ATMI (41) p. 1.

101P&G (60) p. 3.

102P&G (60) p. 3.

103Although new water heaters are being set at

lower temperatures, the comments indicate that

many homes still have older heaters that produce

water at 140 degrees F or even hotter. A garment

that has been tested in water heated to 125 degrees

F may withstand washing in that temperature

without damage but nevertheless be damaged by

water at 140 degrees F.

104Some companies have already begun to

educate consumers about these issues. A consumer

chart prepared by Maytag, with numerical

definitions for hot, warm, and cold water, states,

‘‘The clothes washer will not ensure these

temperatures because the actual water temperatures

entering the washer are dependent on water heater

settings and regional water supply temperatures.

For example, cold water entering the home in the

northern states during winter may be 40 degrees F

which is too cold for effective cleaning. The water

temperature in this situation will need to be

adjusted by selecting a warm setting or adding some

hot water to the fill.’’

defining hot as 120 to 140 degrees F,

and SDA and P&G favored defining hot

as 111 to 140 F. ATMI recommended 50

degrees C plus or minus 5 degrees C,

which it described as consistent with

definitions used by AATCC [49 degrees

C plus or minus 3 degrees C, or 120 F

plus or minus 5 degrees F] and ASTM

[50 C or 122 F].99

Several commenters argued for the

addition of ‘‘very hot.’’ 100 P&G noted

that some American consumers will be

able to achieve the higher temperatures

‘‘as new washing machines from Europe

with onboard heaters enter the U.S.’’ 101

IFI noted that professional laundries can

achieve the higher temperatures, and

that the higher temperatures are

necessary to clean certain types of

clothes, such as men’s dress shirts.102

b. Proposed Amendments and Reasons

Therefor

The Commission believes that the

definition of cold, warm, and hot water

should be changed because of changes

in settings on hot water heaters and in

consumer washing practices in the years

since the definitions were established.

The AATCC has changed its definitions,

which are used in textile testing, to take

account of these factors, and AATCC

test methods are used by much of the

apparel industry. Consequently, the

Commission believes that the

definitions in the Rule should be

changed to be consistent with the

definitions used by AATCC. The

Commission proposes changing the

upper range of temperature definitions

in the Rule to the upper range of what

is allowed in tests published by AATCC.

Thus, the upper range for ‘‘cold’’ would

be 30 degrees C (86 degrees F); for

‘‘warm,’’ 44 degrees C (111 degrees F);

and for hot, 52 degrees C (125 degrees

F).

Finally, the Commission proposes

adding the term ‘‘very hot’’ to the rule,

defined consistently with the AATCC

definition, i.e., with an upper range of

63 degrees C (145 degrees F). The

comments indicate that some garments

do need to be cleaned at temperatures

higher than 125 degrees F, and that

some consumers have access to water

hotter than 125 degrees F, either at

home or through laundering by

professional cleaners. The addition of

the term ‘‘very hot,’’ together with

appropriate consumer education, should

give notice to those consumers whose

hottest water is 120 degrees F that they

may have to have garments that should

be cleaned in very hot water

professionally laundered. The

Commission is aware, however, that the

term ‘‘very hot’’ may be confusing to

some consumers because most washing

machine dials only offer the choices of

‘‘cold,’’ ‘‘warm,’’ and ‘‘hot.’’ The

Commission requests comment on this

issue, and, in particular, on suggestions

for methods of consumer education to

alleviate this problem.

In addition, some comments indicate

that consumers need more precise

information in order to select the

appropriate temperature setting on their

washing machines. Consumers may be

using water that is too cold to activate

detergents. Similarly, the addition of a

precise temperature (52 degrees C, 125

degrees F) after the word ‘‘hot’’ on the

care label of a garment might give those

consumers some notice that their hot

water may be too hot for that garment.103

An upper range for ‘‘warm’’ might also

be helpful to consumers because on

many machines the dial setting for

warm simply produces a mixture of hot

and cold, and if the incoming tap water

is very cold, the water in the machine

may be too cold to produce optimal

cleaning of the clothes being washed.

The Commission does not believe,

however, that the solution to these

problems at this time is to require

numerical temperatures on care labels.

Such additional information may not be

cost-effective because most American

consumers do not know the temperature

of the tap water entering their homes or

the cold or warm water in their washing

machines. Indeed, some may also lack

precise information about the

temperature of the hot water heated by

their water heaters, and, even those who

know the upper limit of their hot water

may not know the temperature of the

hot water that enters their washing

machines given the heat loss that occurs

as water is piped to washing machines.

Therefore, at this time the

Commission is not proposing to modify

the Rule to require that precise

temperatures be listed on care labels.

The Commission is interested, however,

in non-regulatory solutions to this

problem. Accordingly, this notice asks

questions about the possibility of a

consumer education campaign on these

issues. The Commission solicits

comment on the feasibility of such a

consumer education campaign, the form

it should take, and industry members

and consumer groups that would be

interested in participating. Moreover,

should the comments provide

additional information about how

numerical temperatures on care labels

could be of use to American consumers,

the Commission is willing to reconsider

that issue.

The following changes are proposed

in the definitions Section of the Rule

and in the Appendix to the Rule.

Section 6.(b)(1)(I) of the Rule would

be modified to read as follows:

The label must state whether the product

should be washed by hand or machine. The

label must also state a water temperature—

in terms such as cold, warm, hot, or very

hot—that may be used. However, if the

regular use of very hot water will not harm

the product, the label need not mention any

water temperature. [For example, ‘‘Machine

wash’’ means very hot, hot, warm or cold

water can be used.]

The last sentence of Section 1(d) of

the Rule would be modified to read as

follows:

When no temperature is given, e.g.,

‘‘warm’’ or ‘‘cold,’’ very hot water up to 145

degrees F (63 C) can be regularly used.

‘‘Hot’’ water would be defined in

Appendix 1.a as ranging from 112 to 125

degrees F [45 to 52 degrees C], ‘‘warm’’

water would be defined in Appendix 1.b

as ranging from 87 to 111 degrees F [31

to 44 degrees C], and ‘‘cold’’ water

would be defined in Appendix 1.c as

ranging up to 86 degrees F [30 degrees

C]. In addition, ‘‘very hot’’ water would

be defined in Appendix 1.a as ranging

from 126 to 145 degrees F [53 to 63

degrees C].

The Commission seeks comment on

these proposed changes, their

importance to consumers, the necessity

for a consumer education campaign to

help consumers understand and use

information about water temperature,

and the form such a campaign might

take.104

Part C—Rulemaking Procedures

The Commission has determined,

pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20, to follow the

procedures set forth in this notice for

this proceeding. The Commission has
25426 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

decided to employ a modified version of

the rulemaking procedures specified in

Section 1.13 of the Commission’s Rules

of Practice. The proceeding will have a

single Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

and disputed issues will not be

designated.

The Commission will hold a public

workshop conference to discuss the

issues raised by this NPR. Moreover, if

comments in response to this NPR

request hearings with cross-examination

and rebuttal submissions, as specified in

Section 18(c) of the Federal Trade

Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(c), the

Commission will also hold such

hearings. After the public workshop, the

Commission will publish a notice in the

Federal Register stating whether

hearings will be held in this matter, and,

if so, the time and place of hearings and

instructions for those desiring to present

testimony or engage in crossexamination of witnesses.

Part D—Section-By-Section Description

of Proposed Amendments

1. Amendments Relating to Required or

Permissible Care Instructions

The Commission proposes to amend

section 423.1, ‘‘Definitions’’ to include

the following definition:

(h) Professional wet cleaning means a

system of cleaning by means of

equipment consisting of a computercontrolled washer and dryer, wet

cleaning software, and biodegradable

chemicals specifically formulated to

safely wet clean wool, silk, rayon, and

other natural and man-made fibers. The

washer uses a frequency-controlled

motor, which allows the computer to

control precisely the degree of

mechanical action imposed on the

garments by the wet cleaning process.

The computer also controls time, fluid

levels, temperatures, extraction,

chemical injection, drum rotation, and

extraction parameters. The dryer

incorporates a residual moisture (or

humidity) control to prevent overdrying

of delicate garments. The wet cleaning

chemicals are formulated from

constituent chemicals on the EPA’s

public inventory of approved chemicals

pursuant to the Toxic Substances

Control Act.

The Commission proposes to amend

section 423.6(b) of the Rule to read as

follows:

(b) Care labels must state what regular

care is needed for the ordinary use of

the product. In general, labels for textile

wearing apparel must have either a

washing instruction or a dry cleaning

instruction. If an item of textile wearing

apparel can be successfully washed and

finished by a consumer at home, the

label must provide an instruction for

washing. If a washing instruction is not

included, or if washing is warned

against, the manufacturer or importer

must establish a reasonable basis for

warning that the item cannot be washed

and adequately finished at home, by

possessing, prior to sale, evidence of the

type described in paragraph (c) of this

section. If a washing instruction is

included, it must comply with the

requirements set forth in paragraph

(b)(1) of this section. If a dry cleaning

instruction is included, it must comply

with the requirements set forth in

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. An

instruction for professional wet cleaning

may also be given. If an instruction for

professional wet cleaning is given, it

must comply with the requirements set

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

If the product cannot be cleaned by any

available cleaning method without

being harmed, the label must so state.

[For example, if a product would be

harmed both by washing and by dry

cleaning, the label might say, ‘‘Do not

wash—do not dry clean,’’ or ‘‘Cannot be

successfully cleaned.’’] The instructions

for washing, dry cleaning, and

professional wet cleaning are as follows:

It should be noted that, in addition to

the additions to section (b) noted in

bold, the following sentence has been

deleted: ‘‘If either washing or dry

cleaning can be used on the product, the

label need have only one of these

instructions.’’

The Commission also proposes to add

the following subsection to section (b).

(3) Professional wet cleaning.

If a professional wet cleaning

instruction is included on the label, it

must state at least one type of

professional wet cleaning equipment

that may be used to clean the garment.

However, if the product can be

successfully cleaned by all

commercially available types of

professional wet cleaning equipment,

the label need not mention any type of

wet cleaning equipment. A care label

that recommends professional wet

cleaning must list the fiber content of

the garment and must recommend one

other method of cleaning, such as

washing or drycleaning, or must warn

that the garment cannot be washed or

drycleaned if such is the case.

2. Amendment of Reasonable Basis

Section

The Commission proposes to amend

§ 423.6(c)(3) as follows:

(c) A manufacturer or importer must

establish a reasonable basis for care

information by possessing prior to sale:

(3) Reliable evidence, like that

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

this section, for each component part of

the product in conjunction with reliable

evidence for the garment as a whole;

3. Amendment of Definitions of Water

Temperatures

The Commission proposes to amend

the last sentence of § 423.1(d) of the

Rule to read as follows:

When no temperature is given, e.g.,

‘‘warm’’ or ‘‘cold,’’ very hot water up to

145 degrees F (63 C) can be regularly

used.

The Commission proposes to amend

section 423.6(b)(1)(I) of the Rule to read

as follows:

The label must state whether the

product should be washed by hand or

machine. The label must also state a

water temperature—in terms such as

cold, warm, hot, or very hot—that may

be used. However, if the regular use of

very hot water will not harm the

product, the label need not mention any

water temperature. [For example,

‘‘Machine wash’’ means very hot, hot,

warm or cold water can be used.]

The Commission proposes that

Appendix A.1.a–1.c be modified to read

as follows:

1. Washing. Machine Methods:

a. Machine wash—a process by which

soil may be removed from products or

specimens through the use of water,

detergent, or soap, agitation, and a

machine designed for this purpose.

When no temperature is given, e.g.,

‘‘warm’’ or ‘‘cold,’’ very hot water up to

145 degrees F (63 degrees C) can be

regularly used.

b. Hot—initial water temperature

ranging from 112 to 125 degrees F [45

to 52 degrees C].

c. Warm—initial water temperature

ranging from 87 to 111 degrees F [31 to

44 degrees C].

d. Cold—initial water temperature up

to 86 degrees F [30 degrees C].

Part E—Regulatory Analysis and

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Requirements

Under section 22 of the FTC Act, 15

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

a preliminary regulatory analysis for a

proceeding to amend a rule only when

it (1) estimates that the amendment will

have an annual effect on the national

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

estimates that the amendment will

cause a substantial change in the cost or

price of certain categories of goods or

services; or (3) otherwise determines

that the amendment will have a

significant effect upon covered entities

or upon consumers. The Commission

has preliminarily determined that the

proposed amendments to the Rule will

not have such effects on the national
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25427

105The RFA addresses the impact of rules on

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

‘‘small businesses,’’ ‘‘small governmental entities,’’

and ‘‘small [not-for-profit] organizations,’’ 5 U.S.C.

601. The Rule does not apply to the latter two types

of entities.

106SBA’s revised small business size standards

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

economy, on the cost of textile wearing

apparel or piece goods, or on covered

businesses or consumers. The

Commission, however, requests

comment on these effects.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act

(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–12, requires that

the agency conduct an analysis of the

anticipated economic impact of the

proposed amendments on small

businesses.105 The purpose of a

regulatory flexibility analysis is to

ensure that the agency considers impact

on small entities and examines

regulatory alternatives that could

achieve the regulatory purpose while

minimizing burdens on small entities.

Section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605,

provides that such an analysis is not

required if the agency head certifies that

the regulatory action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Because the Care Labeling Rule covers

manufacturers and importers of textile

wearing apparel and certain piece

goods, the Commission believes that any

amendments to the Rule may affect a

substantial number of small businesses.

For example, unpublished data

prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau

under contract to the Small Business

Administration (‘‘SBA’’) show there are

some 288 manufacturers of men’s and

boys’’ suits and coats (SIC Code 2311),

more than 75% of which qualify as

small businesses under applicable SBA

size standards.106 There are more than

1,000 establishments manufacturing

women’s and misses’ suits, skirts, and

coats (SIC Code 2337), most of which

are small businesses. Other small

businesses are likely covered by the

Rule.

Nevertheless, the proposed

amendments would not appear to have

a significant economic impact upon

such entities. The amendment to allow

for labeling for professional wet

cleaning simply provides an option that

can be taken advantage of by businesses

if they wish. The amendment to require

that garments that can be safely washed

at home be labeled for home washing

will also not add significantly to the

cost of compliance for most businesses

because businesses will still only be

required to provide instructions for one

method of cleaning. It is true that those

businesses that currently label garments

for dry cleaning without investigating

whether they can be washed at home

would have to make that determination.

Most businesses, however, obtain

information about the washability of the

components of their garments from the

sources of those components, and in

many cases this simple inquiry will

provide a reasonable basis for either a

dry clean instruction or a home washing

instruction. Although some businesses

may have to engage in additional efforts,

such as testing, to make this

determination, it does not seem likely

that this will be the case for most

businesses. The Rule specifies that a

reasonable basis can consist of various

types of reliable evidence other than

testing, and most businesses do not

routinely test each garment style they

manufacture or import. Nevertheless,

the Commission specifically seeks

comment regarding these amendments’

potential impact on small businesses.

In addition, the Commission is

proposing to amend one category of the

types of evidence that can constitute a

reasonable basis, i.e., evidence of testing

of components of the garment, to clarify

that the manufacturer or importer must

also have reliable evidence that the

garment as a whole can be cleaned as

directed without damage. The

Commission specifically has indicated

that testing of the garment as a whole is

not required in all instances, however;

what is required is an evaluation of

whether the garment as a whole can be

successfully cleaned without damage in

the manner recommended on the care

label. The Commission views the

amendment of this section of the Rule

as simply a clarification of the fact that

the manufacturer or importer must have

a reasonable basis for the garment as a

whole, not simply for the separate

components.

Based on available information, the

Commission certifies that amending the

Care Labeling Rule as proposed will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small

businesses. To ensure that no significant

economic impact is being overlooked,

however, the Commission requests

comments on this issue. The

Commission also seeks comments on

possible alternatives to the proposed

amendments to accomplish the stated

objectives. After reviewing any

comments received, the Commission

will determine whether a final

regulatory flexibility analysis is

appropriate.

Part F—Paperwork Reduction Act

The Rule contain various information

collection requirements for which the

Commission has obtained clearance

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Office of

Management and Budget Control

Number 3084–0103. As noted above, the

Rule requires manufacturers and

importers of textile wearing apparel to

attach a permanent care label to all

covered items and requires

manufacturers and importers of piece

goods used to make textile clothing to

provide the same care information on

the end of each bolt or roll of fabric.

These requirements relate to the

accurate disclosure of care instructions

for textile wearing apparel. Although

the Rule also requires manufacturers

and importers to base their care

instructions on reliable evidence, it does

not contain any explicit recordkeeping

requirements.

The Rule also provides a procedure

whereby a member of the industry may

petition the Commission for an

exemption for products that are claimed

to be harmed in appearance by the

requirement for a permanent label, but

only one petition, subsequently

withdrawn, has been filed in recent

years. A Notice soliciting public

comment on extending the clearance for

the Rule through December 31, 1999,

was published in the Federal Register

on August 26, 1996, 61 FR 43764. OMB

has extended the clearance until

December 31, 1999.

The proposed amendments would not

increase the paperwork burden

associated with these paperwork

requirements. The Commission’s

proposed amendment regarding

professional wet cleaning does not

increase the paperwork burden because

it is optional. Businesses that do not

believe it is beneficial to label for

professional wet cleaning are not

required to do so. The proposed

amendment of the Rule to require that

any garment or fabric that can be

washed at home be so labeled will not

increase the burden for businesses

because they will still need to label for

only one method of cleaning.

The proposed amendment to change

the numerical definition of the words

‘‘hot,’’ warm,’’ or ‘‘cold,’’ when they

appear on care labels, and to add the

term ‘‘very hot,’’ will not add to the

burden for businesses because they are

already required to indicate the

temperature in words and to have a

reasonable basis for whatever water

temperature they recommend.

Moreover, businesses are not burdened

with determining what temperature

should accompany the words ‘‘very

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

proposed amendment would provide

the numerical temperature that should

accompany each term. OMB regulations

provide, at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2), that ‘‘the
25428 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

public disclosure of information

originally supplied by the Federal

government to the recipient for the

purpose of disclosure to the public is

not included within [the definition of

collection of information.]’’

Thus, the Commission concludes that

the proposed amendments would not

increase the paperwork burden

associated with compliance with the

Rule. To ensure that no significant

paperwork burden is being overlooked,

however, the Commission requests

comments on this issue.

Part G—Request for Comments

Members of the public are invited to

comment on any issues or concerns they

believe are relevant or appropriate to the

Commission’s consideration of

proposed amendments to the Care

Labeling Rule. The Commission

requests that factual data upon which

the comments are based be submitted

with the comments. In addition to the

issues raised above, the Commission

solicits public comment on the costs

and benefits to industry members and

consumers of each of the proposals as

well as the specific questions identified

below. These questions are designed to

assist the public and should not be

construed as a limitation on the issues

on which public comment may be

submitted.

Questions

A. Requiring Instructions for Cleaning in

Water

(1) Is there empirical evidence

regarding whether consumers interpret a

‘‘dry clean’’ instruction to mean that a

garment cannot be washed?

(2) How many domestic businesses

provide professional wet cleaning, as

defined in Part D.1. above, to the public

on a regular basis?

(3) Should the Rule provide that, if an

instruction for professional wet cleaning

is provided, no other instruction need

be given, or should a professional wet

cleaning instruction only be allowed

along with another cleaning instruction?

B. The Reasonable Basis Requirement of

the Rule

(4) Would the amendment of Section

423.6(c)(3) of the Rule, which provides

that a reasonable basis can consist of

reliable evidence that each component

of the garment can be cleaned according

to the care instructions, to state,

additionally, that a manufacturer or

importer must possess a reasonable

basis for the garment as a whole, clarify

the reasonable basis requirements? Is

any additional clarification needed?

C. Definitions of Water Temperatures

(5) How can consumers best be made

aware of the approximate water

temperatures in which they can safely

and effectively wash their clothing?

How can consumers best be made aware

of how these temperatures correlate to

the descriptors ‘‘hot,’’ ‘‘warm,’’ and

‘‘cold’’? Do consumers need to

determine the actual or approximate

water temperature in their washing

machines when they select ‘‘hot,’’

‘‘warm,’’ and ‘‘cold’’ on their washing

machine dials, and, if so, how could

they easily and practically do this?

Could consumers use this information

to select the optimal temperature offered

by their washing machines for clothes

labeled for ‘‘hot,’’ ‘‘warm,’’ or ‘‘cold’’

washing?

(6) Would consumers understand an

instruction to use ‘‘very hot’’ water?

Could consumers use this information

either to select the optimal temperature

offered by their washing machines for

clothes labeled for ‘‘very hot’’ washing

or to determine that such clothes should

be washed by a professional cleaner?

Authority: Section 18(d)(2)(B) of the

Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C.

57a(d)(2)(B).

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423

Care labeling of textile wearing

apparel and certain piece goods; Trade

practices.

By direction of the Commission,

Commissioner Azcuenaga not participating.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–12233 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 934

[SPATS No. ND–037–FOR, Amendment No.

XXVI]

North Dakota Regulatory Program

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment

period and opportunity for public

hearing on proposed amendment.

SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is

announcing receipt of a proposed

amendment to the North Dakota

regulatory program (hereinafter, the

‘‘North Dakota program’’) under the

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The

proposed amendment consists of

proposed changes to North Dakota’s

revegetation policy document,

‘‘Standards for Evaluation of

Revegetation Success and

Recommended Procedures for Pre- and

Postmining Vegetation Assessments.’’

The changes pertain to (1) prime

farmland woodland productivity

standards, (2) woodland cover

standards, (3) wetland standards, (4)

woodland and shelterbelt standards for

recreational lands, and (5) methods for

sampling woodland cover. The

amendment is intended to revise the

North Dakota program to be consistent

with SMCRA and the Federal

regulations, and to improve operational

efficiency.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by 4:00 p.m., m.d.t., June 8,

1998. If requested, a public hearing on

the proposed amendment will be held

on June 2, 1998. Requests to present oral

testimony at the hearing must be

received by 4:00 p.m., m.d.t. on May 26,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed or hand delivered to Guy

Padgett at the address listed below.

Copies of the North Dakota program,

the proposed amendment, and all

written comments received in response

to this document will be available for

public review at the addresses listed

below during normal business hours,

Monday through Friday, excluding

holidays. Each requester may receive

one free copy of the proposed

amendment by contacting OSM’s Casper

Field Office.

Guy Padgett, Director, Casper Field

Office, Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement, 100

East ‘‘B’’ Street, Federal Building,

Room 2128, Casper, Wyoming 82601–

1918, Telephone: 307/261–6550

James R. Deutsch, Director, Reclamation

Division, Public Service Commission,

State Capitol—600 E. Boulevard,

Bismarck, North Dakota 58505–0480,

Telephone: 701/328–2400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Guy Padgett, Telephone: 307/261–6550;

Internet: GPadgettOSMRE.GOV

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on the North Dakota

Program

On December 15, 1980, the Secretary

of the Interior conditionally approved

the North Dakota program. General

background information on the North

Dakota program, including the

Secretary’s findings, the disposition of

comments, and conditions of approval

of the North Dakota program can be