[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 89 (Friday, May 8, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25417-25428]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-12233]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

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.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed 
Rules

[[Page 25417]]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 423


Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel 
and Certain Piece Goods

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (the ``Commission'') is 
commencing a rulemaking to amend its Trade Regulation Rule on Care 
Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods, 16 CFR 
Part 423 (``the Care Labeling Rule'' or ``the Rule''). The Commission 
proposes amending the Rule: (1) To require that an item that can be 
cleaned by home washing be labeled with instructions for home washing; 
(2) to allow that a garment that can be professionally wet cleaned be 
labeled with instructions for professional wet cleaning; (3) to clarify 
what can constitute a reasonable basis for care instructions; and (4) 
to change the definitions of cold, warm, and hot water in the Rule. The 
Commission is commencing this rulemaking because of the comments filed 
in response to its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``ANPR''), 
and other information discussed in this notice. The Commission invites 
interested parties to submit written data, views, and arguments. This 
notice includes a description of the procedures to be followed, an 
invitation to submit written comments, a list of questions and issues 
upon which the Commission particularly desires comments, and a 
description of a workshop conference that will be held to discuss the 
issues. The Commission will announce the time and place of the public 
workshop after the close of the comment period. Any persons wishing to 
participate in the public workshop must file a comment in response to 
this notice and must indicate therein their interest in participating. 
The comments will be available on the public record and on the 
Commission's web site on the Internet (http://www.ftc.gov) so that 
interested parties can review them. After the conclusion of the 
workshop, the record will remain open for 30 days for additional or 
rebuttal comments. If necessary, the Commission will also hold hearings 
with cross-examination and rebuttal submissions, as specified in 
Section 18(c) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(c). 
Interested parties who wish to request such hearings should file a 
comment in response to this notice and indicate therein why they 
believe such hearings are necessary and how they would participate in 
such hearings.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before July 27, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be identified as ``16 CFR Part 423--
Care Labeling Rule--Comment,'' and sent to Secretary, Federal Trade 
Commission, Sixth and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington D.C. 20580. 
To facilitate prompt and efficient review and dissemination of the 
comments to the public, all written comments should also be submitted, 
if possible, in electronic form, on either a 5\1/4\ or a 3\1/2\ inch 
computer disk, with a label on the disk stating the name of the 
commenter and the name and version of the word processing program used 
to create the document. Programs based on DOS are preferred. In order 
for files from other operating systems to be accepted, they should be 
submitted in ASCII text format.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Vecellio or James Mills, 
Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of 
Consumer Protection, Sixth St. and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., S-4302, 
Washington, D.C. 20580, (202) 326-2966 or (202) 326-3035.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Part A--Introduction

    This notice is being published pursuant to Section 18 of the 
Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'') Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a et seq., the 
provisions of Part 1, Subpart B of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 
16 CFR 1.7, and 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. This authority permits the 
Commission to promulgate, modify, and repeal trade regulation rules 
that define with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or 
deceptive in or affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 
5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1).
    The Care Labeling Rule was promulgated by the Commission on 
December 16, 1971, 36 FR 23883 (1971). In 1983, the Commission amended 
the Rule to clarify its requirements by identifying in greater detail 
the washing or dry cleaning information to be included on care labels. 
48 FR 22733 (1983). The Care Labeling Rule, as amended, requires 
manufacturers and importers of textile wearing apparel and certain 
piece goods to attach care labels to these items stating ``what regular 
care is needed for the ordinary use of the product.'' (16 CFR 423.6(a) 
and (b)). The Rule also requires that the manufacturer or importer 
possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis for the care instructions. 
(16 CFR 423.6(c)).
    As part of its continuing review of its trade regulation rules to 
determine their current effectiveness and impact, the Commission 
published a Federal Register notice (``FRN'') on June 15, 1994, 59 FR 
30733. This FRN sought comment on the costs and benefits of the Rule, 
and related questions such as what changes in the Rule would increase 
the benefits of the Rule to purchasers and how those changes would 
affect the costs the Rule imposes on firms subject to its requirements. 
The comments in response to the 1994 FRN generally expressed continuing 
support for the Rule, stating that correct care instructions benefit 
consumers by extending the useful life of the garment, by helping the 
consumer maximize the appearance of the garment, and/or by allowing the 
consumer to take the ease and cost of care into consideration when 
making a purchase.
    Based on this review, the Commission determined to retain the Rule, 
but to seek additional comment on possible amendments to the Rule. The 
Commission published an ANPR on December 28, 1995, 60 FR 67102, which 
elicited 64 comments on the several possible amendments of the Rule 
described therein.<SUP>1</SUP> Based on the

[[Page 25418]]

comments and the evidence discussed herein, the Commission proposes to 
amend the Rule in the following ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The comments were from: 41 consumers; one consumer group; 
four academics; one clothing retailer; one textile manufacturers 
association; one apparel manufacturers association; one professional 
cleaner; one professional cleaners association; one wet cleaning 
equipment manufacturer; two manufacturers of cleaning products; one 
cleaning products manufacturers association; one environmental 
protection group; one non-profit clearinghouse for information on 
emissions control; one home appliance manufacturers trade 
association; one manufacturer of home appliances; one home 
applicance repairman; one international association for textile care 
labeling; one federal agency; and the Economic Union of European 
Countries. The comments are on the public record and are available 
for public inspection in accordance with the Freedom of Information 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 
4.11, at the Public Reference Room, Room 130, Federal Trade 
Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. The 
comments are referred to in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(``NPR'') by their name and the number assigned to each submitted 
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part B--Analysis of Proposed Amendments

1. Labeling for Home washing

a. Background and Discussion of Comments
    The 1994 FRN noted that the Environmental Protection Agency 
(``EPA'') had been working with the dry cleaning industry to reduce the 
public's exposure to perchloroethylene (``PCE'' or ``perc''), the most 
common dry cleaning solvent,<SUP>2</SUP> and asked whether the Rule 
poses an impediment to this goal. The Rule currently requires either a 
washing instruction or a dry cleaning instruction; it does not require 
both. Thus, garments that can legally be labeled with a ``dry clean'' 
instruction alone also may in some cases be washable, a fact not 
ascertainable from such an instruction. The 1994 FRN asked about the 
extent of care labeling that fails to indicate both washing and dry 
cleaning instructions. Finally, the 1994 FRN asked whether the use of 
dry cleaning solvents would be lessened, and whether consumers and 
cleaners could make more informed choices as to cleaning method, if the 
Rule were amended to require both washing and dry cleaning instructions 
for garments cleanable by both methods. 59 FR 30733-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Congress designated PCE as a hazardous air pollutant in 
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act; many state legislatures have 
followed suit under state air toxics regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 1995 ANPR, the Commission analyzed the comments submitted in 
response to the 1994 FRN and proposed amending the Rule to ensure that 
consumers are provided with information that would allow them the 
choice of washing garments when possible. The Commission concluded that 
lack of such information can result in substantial injury to consumers 
in the form of unnecessary expense and/or the inability to use what 
they regard as a more environmentally friendly method of care. 60 FR 
67104-05.
    The ANPR asked for comment on an amendment of the Rule to require a 
home washing instruction for all covered products for which home 
washing is appropriate; providing dry cleaning instructions for such 
washable items would be optional. Manufacturers marketing items with a 
``Dry Clean'' instruction alone would be required to substantiate both 
that the items could be safely dry cleaned and that home washing would 
be inappropriate for them (as the Rule currently requires them to do 
when providing a ``Dry Clean Only'' instruction). This proposal would 
not result in the additional substantiation testing (and increased PCE 
use) that the comments suggested a ``dual disclosure'' requirement 
could necessitate, because a dry cleaning instruction would be 
optional, as would the necessary substantiation to support it. Id. at 
67105. That is, manufacturers labeling their goods for home washing 
(and possessing the appropriate substantiation for that instruction) 
would not have to also provide a dry clean instruction or have 
substantiation that dry cleaning would harm the garment.
    Fifty-three comments addressed whether the Commission should 
require a home washing instruction for items that could be safely 
washed at home, and only three of those opposed the 
proposal.<SUP>3</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Aqua Clean Systems, Inc. (``Aqua Clean'') (34) pp. 8-9; 
Center for Emissions Control (``CEC'') (44) pp. 5-6; American 
Apparel Manufacturers Association (``AAMA'') (57) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eighteen commenters, including individual consumers, academics, and 
an appliance manufacturers' trade association, contended that many 
manufacturers currently label items that can be both washed and dry 
cleaned with a ``dry clean'' or ``dry clean only'' 
instruction.''<SUP>4</SUP> Many commenters stressed that knowing that 
garments can be washed at home would save them (or consumers in 
general) garment care dollars.<SUP>5</SUP> 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.<SUP>6</SUP> AHAM, a trade association for appliance manufacturers, 
noted that:

    \4\ Henry Gluckstern, Esq. (16) pp. 1-2; Bette Jo Dedic, 
University of Kentucky College of Agriculture Extension Service 
(``Univ. of KY'') (20) p. 1; Vera Rines (28) p. 1; Thelma Carpenter 
(30) p. 1; Katherine King (32) p. 1; Ida Carpenter (33) p. 1; Margie 
Helton (38) pp. 1-2; Jewell Brabson (40) p. 1; Susan DuBois (42) p. 
1; UCLA Pollution Prevention Education and Research Center (``UCLA 
PPERC'') (45) p. 3; Aileen Mills (47) p. 1; Association of Home 
Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') (51) p. 2.; Helen DuBois (52) p. 
1; M. Adkins (54) p. 1; Teresa Mills (58) p. 1; Sarah O'Neal (59) p. 
1; Frances McCarter (61) p. 1; Gladys Bebber (62) p. 1. But see Aqua 
Clean (34) p. 8: ``As a general observation, garments which can be 
home laundered or drycleaned are usually labeled with both care 
instructions.''
    \5\ Univ. of KY (20) p. 1; Vera Rines (28) p. 1; Thelma 
Carpenter (30) p. 1; Katherine King (32) p. 1; Ida Carpenter (33) p. 
1; Carolyn Powers (35) p. 1; Spencer and Diana Hart (36) p. 1; 
Margie Helton (38) pp. 1-2; Jewell Brabson (40) p. 1; Susan DuBois 
(42) p. 1; Aileen Mills (47) p. 1; Joyce Rash (48) p. 1; S.K. Taylor 
(49) p. 1; Helen DuBois (52) p. 1; M. Adkins (54) p. 1; Teresa Mills 
(58) p. 1; Sarah O'Neal (59) p. 1; Frances McCarter (61) p. 1; 
Gladys Bebber (62) p. 1.
    \6\ Dana Dodson (4) p. 1; Margaret Petty (37) p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

the cost for testing a garment fabric sample for proper care 
instructions is just a fraction of the consumer expense experienced 
by many thousands of individuals incurring ongoing dry cleaning 
expenses for a garment that could be washed at home.<SUP>7</SUP>

    \7\ AHAM (51) p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters also noted that consumers believe there are 
environmental benefits from home washing rather than dry cleaning 
washable items.<SUP>8</SUP> 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.'' <SUP>9</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Linda Smith, Tenn. State Univ. Cooperative Extension Program 
(3) p. 1; John & Elizabeth Gray (15) p. 1; Univ. of KY (20) p. 2; 
Vera Rines (28) p. 1; Thelma Carpenter (30) p. 1; Katherine King 
(32) p. 1; Ida Carpenter (33) p. 1; Margie Helton (38) pp. 1-2; 
Jewell Brabson (40) p. 1; Susan DuBois (42) p. 1; Consumers Union 
(46) p. 2; Aileen Mills (47) p. 1; S.K. Taylor (49) p. 1; Helen 
DuBois (52) p. 1; M. Adkins (54) p. 1; Teresa Mills (58) p. 1; Sarah 
O'Neal (59) p. 1; Frances McCarter (61) p. 1; Gladys Bebber (62) p. 
1.
    \9\ Consumers Union (46) p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three commenters recommended that both washing and dry cleaning 
instructions be included if both are appropriate.<SUP>10</SUP> Two 
comments specifically opposed this type of ``dual labeling,'' however, 
because of the increased levels of dry cleaning substantiation tests 
that would follow.<SUP>11</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ International Fabricare Institute (``IFI'') (56) p. 2; 
Ginetex (the International Association for Textile Care Labeling) 
(63) p. 4; European Union (64) p. 3.
    \11\ Univ. of KY (20) p. 2; Consumers Union (46) p. 2. See also 
the discussion of ``dual disclosures'' in the ANPR:

    The Commission has learned from several commenters, primarily 
manufacturers, that requiring both washing and dry clean labels (a 
``dual disclosure'' amendment) would require a dry cleaning 
instruction on virtually all washable items. According to these 
commenters, this would necessitate additional testing expenses for 
manufacturers and a resulting increase in PCE use, to the detriment 
of human health and the environment. (60 FR 67105, n. 30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters (one of which is an association for apparel 
manufacturers) argued that manufacturers (having made the items) are 
best qualified to make the decision as to how garments can best be 
cleaned and urged the Commission to leave apparel manufacturers the

[[Page 25419]]

flexibility to decide which care instructions to use.<SUP>12</SUP> A 
third commenter in opposition to the proposal, a non-profit 
clearinghouse for information on emission control in chlorinated 
solvent applications, including dry cleaning, stated that there did not 
appear to be many instances of washable items being labeled ``dry 
clean.'' <SUP>13</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Aqua Clean (34) pp. 8-9; AAMA (57) p. 2, noting that 
``There are some garments with `dry clean only' labels that can be 
washed at home * * * but if the cleaning is not done correctly, it 
can lead to damage.
    \13\ CEC (44) p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Proposed Amendments and Reasons Therefor
    Based on the comments, the Commission has reason to believe that 
``dry clean'' labels on home-washable items are prevalent and that 
consumers have a preference for being told when items that they are 
purchasing can be safely washed at home. Moreover, the information 
about washability may be important to consumers for economic or 
environmental reasons, or both. Some consumers wish to avoid the use of 
PCE and clean in water when possible because they believe it is better 
for the environment. The record also supports the conclusion that this 
aspect of the Rule is an impediment to EPA's goal of reducing the use 
of dry cleaning solvents.<SUP>14</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA's comment (73) to the 1994 FRN stated, at p. 1, that 
the Rule should be revised to require manufacturers to state whether 
a garment ``can be cleaned by solvent-based methods, water-based 
methods, or both. We believe this change is necessary to advance the 
use of water-based cleaning technology.'' EPA's comment to the 1995 
FRN referred to the 1994 comment, and stressed the need for 
recognition in the Rule of professional wet cleaning. EPA (17) p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a garment that can be washed at home is labeled ``dry clean,'' 
many consumers may be misled into believing that the garment cannot be 
washed at home, and they may incur the unnecessary expense of dry 
cleaning the garment and/or potential damage to the environment that 
they wish to avoid.\15\ Moreover, it can be extremely difficult for 
consumers to obtain the information about washability of an item for 
themselves. Although fiber content can be a guide to washability, other 
factors--such as the type of dye or finish used--can also determine 
washability, and consumers have no way of learning what dyes and 
finishes were used and whether they will survive washing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ A Perdue University survey found that 89.3% of the 962 
respondents indicated that they would not wash a garment labeled 
``dry clean.'' Staff Report to the Federal Trade Commission and 
Proposed Revised Trade Regulation Rule (16 CFR Part 423) (May 1978), 
p. 141. Other surveys showed similar results. Id. at 142-143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission proposes amending the Rule to require a 
home washing instruction for garments for which home washing is 
appropriate. This amendment would permit optional dry cleaning 
instructions for such washable items, provided dry cleaning would be an 
appropriate alternative cleaning method. The amendment would, however, 
require that manufacturers selling items with a ``dry clean'' 
instruction alone be able to substantiate both that the items could be 
safely dry cleaned and that home washing would be inappropriate for 
them.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Rule currently requires this level of substantiation 
for a ``dry clean only'' instruction. Under the proposed amendment, 
any garment for which home washing is not recommended and dry 
cleaning is recommended, would have to be labeled ``dry clean 
only.'' In other words, a ``dry clean'' instruction by itself would 
no longer be permissible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the comments, the proposed amendment would enable 
consumers to make a more informed purchasing choice and provide them 
with the option of saving money by washing at home instead of incurring 
the higher expenses of dry cleaning. In addition, consumers who are 
concerned about reducing the use of PCE will have information about the 
``washability'' of all apparel items they are considering purchasing.
    The Commission agrees, as it did in the ANPR, with the commenters 
(primarily manufacturers) that cautioned against a ``dual labeling'' 
instruction requiring both home washing and dry cleaning instructions 
if both methods are appropriate. Such an instruction would result in 
some manufacturers of traditionally washable products performing dry 
cleaning tests to substantiate that dry cleaning was an appropriate 
care method, which would be contrary to EPA's goal of reducing the use 
of dry cleaning solvents. Moreover, the comments do not indicate a 
consumer preference for such dual labeling. The Commission has no 
reason to believe at this time that it is either unfair or deceptive 
for a manufacturer or importer to fail to reveal that a garment labeled 
for washing can also be dry cleaned, and to require such dual labeling 
might raise costs without providing any real benefit to consumers.
    The proposed amendments would permit a home washing instruction 
only for those covered products for which home washing--and traditional 
home finishing processes such as ironing--would be an appropriate 
method of care. Many commenters cautioned that, for some items that 
could be washed in water, there would be many additional finishing 
steps required for the garment that the average consumer could not 
perform at home. In the case of some garments, such as suits made from 
wool or silk (fibers that generally can be safely washed in water), 
post-home washing finishing processes like steampressing and pleat and 
crease setting are necessary for proper refurbishing. These processes 
are beyond the capabilities of most consumers and the equipment 
available to them.\17\ Under the proposed amendments, a home washing 
instruction would not be appropriate or required for an item that could 
be safely washed in water with the proper cleaning agents but could not 
be finished properly at home by the average consumer. Moreover, the 
Commission recognizes that manufacturers have experience with the 
consumers who buy their garments, and the Commission would expect to 
defer to manufacturers' decisions in the case of garments that would be 
difficult to refurbish for some but not all consumers.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Aqua Clean (34) pp. 8-9.
    \18\ In addition, manufacturers that wished to stress that a 
particular garment could be refurbished at home but might be 
difficult for some consumers to refurbish adequately at home could 
add a phrase such as ``For best results, dry clean.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The ``Professionally Wet Clean'' Instruction

a. Background and Discussion of Comments
    The ANPR asked whether the Rule should be amended to recognize the 
new technology referred to as ``professional wet cleaning'' by 
requiring a professional wet cleaning instruction for products that 
cannot be washed at home but could be cleaned by means of this new 
technology.\19\ (Professional wet cleaning uses computer-controlled 
washers and dryers to achieve precise control of mechanical action, 
fluid levels, temperatures, and other important factors.) The ANPR 
asked for information on the cost of wet cleaning, the availability of 
wet cleaning facilities, whether the process currently could serve as a 
practical alternative to dry cleaning, and whether fiber

[[Page 25420]]

identification should be on a permanent label. 60 FR 67105, 67107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In the narrative discussing this issue in the ANPR, the 
Commission sought information on the feasibility of a 
``professionally wet clean'' instruction on ``all covered products 
bearing a dry cleaning instruction.'' 60 FR 67105. In the Request 
for Comments Section of the Notice, however, the Commission limited 
the applicability of the question to ``a garment that cannot be home 
laundered but can be dry cleaned.'' 60 FR 67107. Most of the 
commenters responded in the latter context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Twenty-nine commenters addressed the ``professionally wet clean'' 
instruction.<SUP>20</SUP> 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.<SUP>21</SUP> 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.<SUP>22</SUP> 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.<SUP>23</SUP> 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.<SUP>24</SUP> 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.<SUP>25</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Joyce McCarter (14) p.1; John & Elizabeth Gray (15) p.1; 
Henry Gluckstern, Esq. (16) pp.1, 3; EPA (17) p.1; Linda Arant (18) 
p.1; Vera Rines (28) p.1; Thelma Carpenter (30) p.1; Ida Carpenter 
(33) p.1; Aqua Clean (34) pp. 6-7; Margie Helton (38) p.1; Jewell 
Brabson (40) p.1; American Textile Manufacturers Institute 
(``ATMI'') (41) p.3; Susan DuBois (42) p.1; The Soap and Detergent 
Association (``SDA'') (43) pp.1; 3; CEC (44) pp.1-2, 5; UCLA PPERC 
(45) pp.2-3; Consumers Union (46) pp.1-2; Center for Neighborhood 
Technology (``CNT'') (55) pp.2, 4; IFI (56) p.2.; AAMA (57) p.2; 
Teresa Mills (58) p.1; Sarah O'Neal (59) p.1; P&G (60) pp.2; 4; 
Frances McCarter (61) p.1; Gladys Bebber (62) p.1; Ginetex (63) p.3.
    \21\ SDA (43 pp.1, 3; Procter & Gamble (``P&G'') (60) pp.2, 4.
    \22\ CEC (44) p.5.
    \23\ SDA (43) pp.1, 3; CEC (44) pp.1-1, 5; P&G (60) pp.2, 4.
    \24\ CEC (4) p.5.
    \25\ AAMA (57) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Defining Professional Wet Cleaning.\26\ Six organizations 
provided information describing the wet cleaning process.<SUP>27</SUP> 
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.<SUP>28</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The ANPR noted that EPA had published a summary of an 
alternative cleaning process referred to as ``Multiprocess Wet 
Cleaning.'' 60 FR 67103 (Dec. 28, 1995). According to several 
commenters, ``multiprocess wet cleaning'' is a cleaning process that 
involves knowledgeable individuals hand-cleaning individual 
garments, often employing a ``spot cleaning'' technique rather than 
full immersion, and using water, heat, steam and natural soaps 
instead of perchloroethylene or petroleum solvents. Aqua Clean (34) 
pp.1-2, noting that ``Professional wet cleaning has already 
supplanted multiprocess wet cleaning. Indeed, those cleaners 
(Ecofranchising, NY; Cleaner Image, CT) which initially used 
multiprocess wet cleaning have converted to professional wet 
cleaning because of the economic advantages.'' See also CEC (44) 
p.4. Consequently, Multiprocess Wet Cleaning is not addressed in the 
remainder of this Notice.
    \27\ Aqua Clean (34) pp.1-2; CEC (44) p.4; UCLA PPERC (45) p.3; 
CNT (55) p.2; IFI (56) p.2; Ginetex (63) p.3.
    \28\ Aqua Clean (34) pp.1-2; UCLA PPERC (45) p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three organizations provided information about the equipment used 
in professional wet cleaning.<SUP>29</SUP> UCLA PPERC and CNT said that 
five companies provide the equipment systems necessary for professional 
wet cleaning.<SUP>30</SUP> Aqua Clean provided a detailed description 
of the equipment needed to provide professional wet cleaning services:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Aqua Clean (34) pp.2-3; UCLA PPERC (45) p.3; CNT (55) p.2.
    \30\ UCLA PPERC (45) p.3; CNT (55) p.2.

All professional wet cleaning systems consist of a computer-
controlled washer and dryer, wet cleaning software, and 
biodegradable chemicals specifically formulated to safely wet clean 
wool, silk, rayon, and other natural and man-made fibers. The washer 
always uses a frequency-controlled motor, which allows the computer 
to precisely control the degree of mechanical action imposed on the 
garments by the wet cleaning process. The computer also controls 
time, fluid levels, temperatures, extraction, chemical injection, 
drum rotation and extraction parameters, etc. The dryer always 
incorporates a residual moisture (or humidity) control to prevent 
overdrying of delicate garments. The wet cleaning chemicals are 
formulated from constituent chemicals which are on the EPA's public 
inventory of approved chemicals pursuant to the Toxic Substances 
Control Act (TSCA).<SUP>31</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Aqua Clean (34) pp.2-3.

    (2) As an Alternative to Dry Cleaning. The ANPR asked two related 
questions about the feasibility of wet cleaning as a practical 
alternative to dry cleaning, and the extent to which items that have 
historically been dry cleaned could successfully be professionally wet 
cleaned. Five commenters responded directly to the first question. ATMI 
and AAMA pointed out that, while the fibers and dyes now in use will 
stand up to the chemical solvents used in the dry cleaning process, the 
textile industry does not know if they will stand up to professional 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
wet cleaning.<SUP>32</SUP> ATMI predicted that:

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

If consumers just assume that they can use the new cleaning method 
on their existing wardrobe and current clothing purchases, we would 
expect to see an increase in apparel damage claims. This is because 
the fabrics used in these clothing items have finishes and 
formulations designed for dry cleaning. We told EPA that the 
industry would need a long phase-in time (2--3 years) to adjust our 
dyes and finishes to work compatibly with ``wet clean'' 
processes.<SUP>33</SUP>

    \33\ ATMI (41) p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ginetex, which is responsible for the care labeling system used in 
European countries, indicated its interest in the wet cleaning 
technique, but said it is waiting for a standardized test method so 
manufacturers can test garments to determine whether wet cleaning would 
be a safe care method.<SUP>34</SUP> IFI cautioned that wet cleaning 
technology is new and stated its determination to undertake research 
into the process:

    \34\ Ginetex (63) p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The use of machine wet cleaning is still in the investigative or 
infant stage. The technology originated in Europe and the most 
extensive analysis of these systems has been completed by two 
European research groups--Hohenstein and FCRA. The conclusion of 
these studies is that machine wet cleaning is an adjunct to dry 
cleaning, not a complete replacement. The Environmental Protection 
Agency, as a result of its evaluation of wet cleaning under its 
Design for the Environment Program, concludes that machine wet 
cleaning is not a complete replacement for drycleaning. There is 
still much investigative work to be done in this area. To that end, 
IFI has formed a partnership with Greenpeace, other industry groups, 
and other environmental and labor groups to explore the 
possibilities of wet cleaning--The Professional Wet Cleaning 
Partnership.<SUP>35</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ IFI (56) p.2.

    Aqua Clean estimated that 90% of garments can be safely and 
satisfactorily cleaned by professional wet cleaning. Aqua Clean stated 
that it has found no significant wetcleanability versus drycleanability 
differences applicable to wool, silk, rayon, acetate, linen, etc. with 
the exception of heavier wool suits, which are made with linings and 
shoulder pads that dry at a rate different from the wool, and thus 
require extra time.<SUP>36</SUP> CEC stated that estimates of the 
percentage of garments labeled ``dry clean only'' that can be 
successfully wet

[[Page 25421]]

cleaned vary from 30% to 70%, with industry experts narrowing that 
spread to 30% to 50%.<SUP>37</SUP> 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%.<SUP>38</SUP> 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.<SUP>39</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Aqua Clean (34) p.4. Aqua Clean said that it has 
corresponded with the International Wool Secretariat (IWS), the 
research and marketing arm of the wool industry, and anticipates 
cooperating with the IWS's announced intention to develop wool 
processing technologies at the mill level that will make wool 
garments better suited to professional wet cleaning, so they can be 
dried faster at higher temperatures. Id. at 5.
    \37\ CEC (44) p.4.
    \38\ IFI (56) p.2.
    \39\ CNT (55) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Businesses that Provide Wet Cleaning. When it filed its comment 
in early 1996, Aqua Clean estimated that, by the end of 1996, 
approximately 350 businesses would have professional wet cleaning 
systems.<SUP>40</SUP> Three other commenters estimated that 
professional wet cleaning is currently being offered by 100 
businesses.<SUP>41</SUP> 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.<SUP>42</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Aqua Clean (34) p.3.
    \41\ UCLA PPERC (45) p.3; CNT (55) p.3; AAMA (57) p.2.
    \42\ CEC (44) p.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Costs to Consumers. ATMI said that the additional costs 
incurred by textile and apparel manufacturers to substantiate a wet 
cleaning instruction would be passed on to consumers.<SUP>43</SUP> Both 
UCLA PPERC and CNT stated that the costs to consumers for wet cleaning 
services are comparable to the costs of dry cleaning.<SUP>44</SUP> 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.<SUP>45</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ ATMI (41) p.3.
    \44\ UCLA PPERC (45) p.4; CNT (55) p.4.
    \45\ CNT (55) p.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aqua Clean said that it was not aware of any cleaner charging more 
for wet cleaning services than for dry cleaning services, and that in 
some cases the cost of wet cleaning is less, because many dry cleaners 
impose a surcharge (typically 50 cents) to cover the rising cost of 
disposing of hazardous dry cleaning waste.<SUP>46</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Aqua Clean (34) p.5. Aqua Clean also raised an issue that 
was not addressed in the ANPR--consumer access to cleaning services:
    Many developers and owners of strip centers and shopping 
centers, which is where most consumers access cleaning services, are 
refusing to rent space to or renew leases for drycleaners. These 
landlords simply do not want to bear the legal exposure or insurance 
expense associated with drycleaning machines and their toxic waste 
stream. Aqua Clean Systems is currently negotiating with a major 
national shopping center owner to become their exclusive tenant for 
100% perc-free cleaning facilities. At present, they refuse to allow 
a drycleaner in any of their 1,800 shopping centers. Similar 
discussions are taking place with a major chain in the Southeast. 
This trend will continue. If the Rule is not amended to accommodate 
professional wet cleaning, access to cleaning services will decline 
as regulatory and landlord pressures cause a decline in the number 
of drycleaners, which will eventually reduce competition and cause 
an increase in consumer prices. Id., pp. 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) The Environmental Impact of the Process. Aqua Clean and CNT 
stated that none of the substances used in the process are prohibited 
by EPA; further, Aqua Clean said that the only materials released into 
the environment in connection with the process are chemicals that 
appear on EPA's public inventory of approved chemicals under the Toxic 
Substances Control Act.<SUP>47</SUP> 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.<SUP>48</SUP> UCLA PPERC stated that research suggests that wet 
cleaning is a safe alternative to dry cleaning.<SUP>49</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Aqua Clean (34) p.3; CNT (55) p.3.
    \48\ CEC (44) p.3.
    \49\ UCLA PPERC (45) p.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that it has not made an independent assessment 
of the environmental desirability of the various methods of cleaning 
textile wearing apparel. Rather, it has noted EPA's goal of reducing 
the use of dry cleaning solvents and the preference of numerous 
consumers for information about whether garments can be cleaned in 
water. The Commission has prepared a proposed Environmental Assessment 
in which it analyzed whether the amendments to the Rule were required 
to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Statement. Because the 
main effect of the proposed amendments is to provide consumers with 
additional information rather than directly to affect the environment, 
the Commission concluded in the proposed Environmental Assessment that 
an Environmental Impact Statement is not necessary. The Commission 
requests comment on this issue. The Environmental Assessment is on the 
public record and is available for public inspection at the Public 
Reference Room, Room 130, Federal Trade Commission, 6th and 
Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. It can also be obtained at the 
FTC's web site at http://www.ftc.gov on the Internet.
    (6) The Requirement for Fiber Identification on a Permanent Label. 
Eight comments addressed the desirability of a requirement for fiber 
identification on a permanent label, and all favored the 
idea.<SUP>50</SUP> Five recommended that the fiber identification be on 
the same label as the care instructions.<SUP>51</SUP> Several 
commenters said that fiber information need not necessarily be on the 
care label but should be on a permanent label.<SUP>52</SUP> Most of the 
commenters said that cleaners need fiber identification information in 
order to provide the best cleaning services for their customers. Aqua 
Clean explained as follows:

    \50\ Univ. of KY (20) p. 1; Aqua Clean (34) p. 7; ATMI (41) p. 
4; CEC (44) p. 2; UCLA PPERC (45) p. 3; Consumers Union (46) p. 2; 
AHAM (51) p. 2; P&G (60) p. 4.
    \51\ CEC (44) p. 2; UCLA PPERC 945) p. 3; Consumers Union (46) 
p. 2; AHAM (51) p. 2; P&G (60) p. 4.
    \52\ Univ. of KY (20) p. 1; Aqua Clean (34) p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[F]abric identification [should] be on a permanent label because it 
is essential information for all cleaners regardless of the 
technology employed; requiring this by regulation will merely codify 
a nearly uniform practice at no measurable cost to manufacturers. A 
secondary consideration is that individuals with allergies to 
certain fibers (e.g., wool) should be provided with this 
information. It is clear that requiring fiber identification on a 
permanent label should be acceptable to manufacturers and consumers 
because it has already become an accepted part of business at all 
levels of manufacture, distribution, sales, and garment 
care.<SUP>53</SUP>

    \53\ Aqua Clean (34) p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Proposed Amendment and Reasons Therefor. The comments show that 
professional wet cleaning is a process that is of interest to 
consumers, especially those who believe it has the potential for less 
negative impact on the environment than dry cleaning. Thus, the 
Commission is proposing amendments that will incorporate professional 
wet cleaning into the Rule's system of instructions for care.
    Nevertheless, professional wet cleaning is a very new technology, 
and it does not appear to be widely available. Moreover, there is not a 
standardized test by which manufacturers can establish a reasonable 
basis for a professional wet

[[Page 25422]]

cleaning instruction.<SUP>54</SUP> For these reasons, the Commission is 
not at this time proposing an amendment to the Rule that would require 
a wet cleaning instruction. Instead, the Commission is proposing 
amendments that would add a definition to the Rule for ``professional 
wet cleaning'' and would permit manufacturers to include a 
``professionally wet clean'' instruction on labels for those items for 
which they have a reasonable basis for a professional wet cleaning 
instruction. The proposed amendments do not require manufacturers who 
label items with a ``dry clean only'' instruction to be able to 
substantiate that professional wet cleaning would be an inappropriate 
method of care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Testing is one of several types of evidence that can serve 
as a reasonable basis for a care instruction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also concludes that fiber identification on a 
permanent label is important to professional wet cleaners.<SUP>55</SUP> 
The record contains numerous references to the need for precise fiber 
content information due to the complexity of the computer-controlled 
equipment used in the wet cleaning process. Therefore, the proposed 
amendment requires that, if a care instruction recommends professional 
wet cleaning, the fiber content must be provided on the permanent care 
label along with the care instructions. The Commission seeks comment as 
to whether any accompanying change should be made to the Textile 
Rules.<SUP>56</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (``Textile 
Act''), 15 U.S.C. 70 et seq., requires marketers of covered textile 
products to mark each product with the generic names and percentages 
by weight of the constituent fibers present in the product. The 
Commission has issued Rules and Regulations under the Textile Act 
(``Textile Rules''). Rule 15 of the Textile Rules, 15 CFR 303.15, 
allows any type of label to be used as long as the label is securely 
affixed and durable enough to remain attached to the product until 
the consumer receives it; Rule 15 does not require a permanent 
label.
    \56\ Rule 16 of the Textile Rules, 16 CFR 303.16, requires, with 
some exceptions, that all information required by the Textile Act 
shall be set out on one label, and on the same side of the label. 
The Commission recently sought comment on modifications of the 
Textile Rules. 61 FR 5344 (Feb. 12, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, it should be noted that at this time, the Commission 
proposes allowing a ``professional wet clean'' instruction along with a 
conventional care instruction because many consumers do not currently 
have access to professional wet cleaners. Nevertheless, because 
professional wet cleaning appears to be growing rapidly, the Commission 
seeks comment on this point.

3. The Reasonable Basis Requirement of the Rule

a. Background and Discussion of Comments
    The Rule requires that manufacturers and importers of textile 
wearing apparel possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis for the care 
instructions they provide. Under the Rule, a reasonable basis must 
consist of reliable evidence supporting the instructions on the label. 
16 CFR 423.6(c). Specifically, a reasonable basis can consist of (1) 
reliable evidence that the product was not harmed when cleaned 
reasonably often according to the instructions; (2) reliable evidence 
that the product or a fair sample of the product was harmed when 
cleaned by methods warned against on the label; (3) reliable evidence, 
like that described in (1) or (2), for each component part; (4) 
reliable evidence that the product or a fair sample of the product was 
successfully tested; (5) reliable evidence of current technical 
literature, past experience, or the industry expertise supporting the 
care information on the label; or (6) other reliable evidence. Id.
    The 1994 FRN solicited comment on whether the Commission should 
amend the Rule to conform with the interpretation of ``reasonable 
basis'' described in the FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising 
Substantiation, (``Advertising Policy Statement'') 104 F.T.C. 839 
(1984), or to change the definition of ``reasonable basis'' in some 
other manner. The comments in response to the 1994 FRN suggested that a 
significant number of care labels lack a reasonable basis. Based on 
these comments, the ANPR proposed amending the reasonable basis 
requirement to reduce the incidence of inaccurate and incomplete 
labels. The ANPR sought comment on that incidence, the extent to which 
it might be reduced by clarifying the reasonable basis standard, and 
the costs and benefits of such a clarification.
    The Commission further solicited comment on whether to amend the 
Rule to clarify that the reasonable basis requirement applies to a 
garment in its entirety rather than to each of its individual 
components. In addition, the Commission asked for comment on whether 
the Rule should specify standards for determining acceptable and 
unacceptable changes in garments following cleaning as directed, and 
whether the Rule should identify properties, such as colorfastness and 
dimensional stability, to which such standards would apply.
    The ANPR sought comment on the option of indicating in the Rule 
that whether one or more of the types of evidence described in Section 
423.6(c) constitutes a reasonable basis for care labeling instructions 
depends on the factors set forth in the Advertising Policy Statement 
and whether the Rule should be amended to make testing of garments the 
only evidence that could serve as a reasonable basis under certain 
circumstances. Finally, the ANPR sought comment on whether the Rule 
should specify particular testing methodologies to be used. Ten 
commenters responding to the ANPR discussed the reasonable basis 
provision.<SUP>57</SUP> Seven supported the modification of the Rule, 
arguing that the provision should be clarified and strengthened to 
reduce mislabeling.<SUP>58</SUP> 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.<SUP>59</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Univ. of KY (20) p.2; Clorox (31) pp. 4-5; ATMI (41) pp. 5-
7; SDA (43) pp. 1,3; Consumers Union (46) pp. 2-3; AHAM (51) p.2; 
IFI (56) p. 3; AAMA (57) p. 2; P&G (60) p. 5; Ginetex (63) p.4.
    \58\ Univ. of KY (20) p. 2; Clorox (31) pp. 4-5; SDA (43) pp. 
1,3; Consumers Union (46) pp. 2-3; AHAM (51) p. 2; IFI (56) p. 3; 
P&G (60) p. 5.
    \59\ AAMA (57) p. 2; ATMI (41) pp. 5-7. Ginetex, the European 
care labeling organization, stated that it gives technical advice 
``to give indications how to test in the case of uncertainty to 
choose the correct care label.'' Ginetex (63) p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only two commenters provided data on the incidence of mislabeling. 
Both concluded that there is a high incidence of inaccurate and/or 
incomplete labeling. IFI cited statistics from its Garment Analysis 
database (which, in 1995, consisted of 25,160 damaged garments) 
indicating that inaccurate care labels were responsible for 40% of the 
damaged garments. <SUP>60</SUP> Clorox concluded from its own study 
that 70% of all home washing instructions provide inaccurate bleach 
information.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ IFI (56) p.3.
    \61\ Clorox (31) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ATMI, however, stated that most home washing labels are accurate, 
and that the vast majority of dry clean instruction labels are 
accurate, despite limited problems associated with care instructions 
for special items such as beaded apparel, sequins, and leather 
appliques.\62\ ATMI and AAMA both

[[Page 25423]]

stated that the costs to consumers of complaining to manufacturers or 
retailers about garments damaged in cleaning is minimal, usually 
consisting of returning that item to the store, a telephone call, or 
postage for mailing a letter.\63\ Moreover, according to both 
commenters, garment or piece goods manufacturers generally offer 
refunds for products damaged in cleaning despite adherence to care 
label directions if numerous consumers complain about an item.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ ATMI (41) p.5. See also AAMA (57) p.3 (``There are a few 
problems with leather patches and some other materials attached to 
garments.'') The Commission has litigated one case involving 
inaccurate care instructions that resulted in damage to garments. 
FTC v. Bonnie & Company Fashions, Inc. and Bonnie Boerer, Civ. 
Action No. 90-4454) (D.N.J.). In addition, since that litigation, 
the Commission has obtained five settlements that alleged violation 
of the Rule due to inaccurate care instructions; in three of those 
five settlements, the Commission alleged that the trim on the 
garments was damaged when cleaned.
    \63\ ATMI (41) p.7; AAMA (57) p.4. But see Univ. of KY (20) p.2 
(consumers may not complain to stores because they are intimidated 
or do not think their problems will be resolved).
    \64\ ATMI (41) p.7 (noting that if only one consumer complains 
about an item ``of which thousands were produced, it is likely that 
the damage was caused by a commercial cleaner or by the consumer''); 
AAMA (57) p.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters specifically addressed whether the Rule should 
require testing as a reasonable basis in certain situations. Two 
commenters argued that testing should be the only permissible 
reasonable basis.\65\ Clorox stated that tests performed on a 
representative sample of each garment are ``the most reliable evidence 
of care instruction accuracy,'' and that textbooks and manuals should 
not be allowed as evidence of a reasonable basis.\66\ Clorox maintained 
that such a requirement would place little additional expense on 
manufacturers because ``published tests on specific fabric and dye 
combinations are already shared among the trade.''\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ IFI (56) p. 3; Clorox (31) pp. 4-5.
    \66\ Clorox (31) p. 4.
    \67\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters, ATMI and AAMA, however, opposed such an amendment 
to the Rule.\68\ ATMI expressed its concern that a testing requirement 
would substantially increase the prices for apparel and home furnishing 
items.\69\ AAMA noted that its members already test new styles and 
fabrics for use in garments; thus, it is unaware of any garments which 
``would need a legal requirement to be tested.''\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ ATMI (41) p. 5; AAMA (57) p. 3.
    \69\ ATMI (41) p. 7.
    \70\ AAMA (57) p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of commenters discussed whether the rule should specify 
testing methodologies to be used. Consumers Union asserted that the 
Rule should specify test methods that relate to consumer expectations, 
assessing ``product performance after repeated cleaning, shrinkage, 
colorfastness, appearance retention, and at least one fabric strength 
test.''\71\ In contrast, AAMA contended that requiring specific test 
methods may impede the introduction of new fibers and fabrics.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Consumers Union (46) p. 2.
    \72\ AAMA (57) p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters responded to the Commission's questions relating 
to whether the Rule should require a reasonable basis for a whole 
garment versus each component. Three commenters maintained that the 
Rule should require a reasonable basis for a garment in its 
entirety.\73\ IFI noted that its database shows that ``a large portion 
of the garments damaged are the result of the trim or component part of 
the garment failing in a specified care procedure.''\74\ Consumers 
Union also argued that ``to state an instruction that excludes its 
applicability to garment trim is not often practical as some trim are 
hard to remove and reposition after cleaning.''\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Univ. of KY (20) p. 2; Consumers Union (16) p. 3.; IFI (56) 
p. 3.
    \74\ IFI (56) p. 3.
    \75\ Consumers Union (46) p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters stated that the Rule should not require testing on a 
complete garment.\76\ AAMA asserted that many garments are made of just 
one major fabric. Accordingly, there may not be a need to test an 
entire garment, as opposed to the materials used, if the other 
materials used in the garment are of the same fiber and basic 
construction.\77\ Moreover, AAMA argued that it is sufficient for 
manufacturers to specify in care instructions that a specific trim is 
excluded, because consumers are thereby warned that care must be taken 
when refurbishing the garment.\78\ ATMI stated that testing of 
completed garments would significantly raise the cost of manufacturing 
apparel, but noted that trim should be covered by the Rule, and that 
manufacturers should be responsible for selecting and combining 
component materials that can be refurbished together.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ AAMA (57) p. 4; ATMI (41) pp. 5-6.
    \77\ AAMA (57) p. 4.
    \78\ Id.
    \79\ ATMI (41) p. 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters responded to the Commission's request for comments 
on whether the Rule should refer to performance standards, concluding 
that it may not be feasible for the Rule to do so. Consumers Union, for 
example, noted that because fabrics and apparel items are continually 
offered and discontinued, it may not be possible for the Commission to 
set performance standards in a timely fashion to cover all properties 
and types of garments.\80\ AAMA asserted that although there is 
``reason to look at minimum performance standards, including 
colorfastness, abrasion resistance, etc.,'' the Commission should not 
modify the reasonable basis requirement until the United States, Mexico 
and Canada have harmonized their labeling standards.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Consumers Union (46) p. 2 (suggesting that the FTC 
implement a rule that requires manufacturers, retailers, and 
importers to issue refunds for products damaged in cleaning despite 
adherence to the label).
    \81\ AAMA (57) p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, two commenters stated that the Commission would improve 
the effectiveness of the Rule by incorporating the criteria from the 
Advertising Policy Statement.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ SDA (43) p. 3; P&G (60) p. 5 (also suggesting that the 
Commission consider methods of certification and other tools such as 
U.S. Customs requirements to reduce the number of mislabeled 
imported goods, especially those labeled ``Dry Clean Only.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Proposed Amendments and Reasons Therefor
    Section 423.6(c)(3) of the Rule currently states that a 
manufacturer or importer establishes a reasonable basis for care 
information by ``possessing prior to sale: [r]eliable evidence * * * 
for each component part of the product.'' Based on its review of the 
comments, the Commission proposes to amend the reasonable basis 
standard to make clear that the reasonable basis requirement applies to 
the garment in its entirety rather than to each of its individual 
components. The Commission believes that the record establishes that in 
some cases care instructions may not be accurate for the entire 
garment. A garment component that may be cleaned satisfactorily by 
itself might, for example, bleed onto the body of a garment of which it 
is a part. Thus, in the proposed Rule, Section 423.6(c)(3) has been 
amended to clarify that a manufacturer must possess a reasonable basis 
for the garment as a whole, including any trim.<SUP>83</SUP> 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.<SUP>84</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ The Commission notes that an instruction to clean 
``exclusive of trim'' is only a valid care instruction if the trim 
can be easily removed and easily reattached.
    \84\ For example, red trim that is to be placed on white fabric 
should be evaluated to determine if it is likely to bleed onto the 
surrounding fabric. A company may possess reliable evidence--for 
example, past experience with particular dyes and fabrics--that a 
particular red trim does not bleed onto surrounding fabric. In such 
a case testing of the entire garment might not be necessary.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 25424]]

    The Commission, however, believes that the comments do not provide 
sufficient reason to propose modifying other aspects of the reasonable 
basis provision at this time. As noted by the AAMA, the United States, 
Mexico, and Canada are in the process of harmonizing their labeling 
requirements. Until this harmonization is complete, the Commission 
believes that further modification of the reasonable basis provision 
may be premature.

4. Definitions of Water Temperatures

a. Background and Discussion of Comments
    The Rule currently requires that a care label that recommends 
washing must also state a water temperature that may be used unless 
``the regular use of hot water will not harm the product.'' 16 CFR 
423.6(b)(1)(i). The Rule also provides that if the term ``machine 
wash'' is used with no temperature indication, ``hot water up to 150 
degrees F (66 degrees C) can regularly be used.'' 16 CFR 423.1(d). This 
definition is repeated in Appendix 1.a. ``Warm'' is defined in Appendix 
1.b. as ranging from 90 to 110 degrees F (32 to 43 degrees C), and 
``cold,'' in Appendix 1.c., as cold tap water up to 85 degrees F (29 
degrees C).
    Some comments to the 1994 FRN recommended that the Commission 
revise the definition of cold water. Commenters noted that tap water 
temperatures vary across the United States, and that such differences 
can cause problems because, in the winter in colder parts of the 
country, detergents may not fully activate during a cold wash cycle. 
Other comments suggested that the Rule's definition of hot water should 
be changed. The American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists 
(``AATCC'') commented that the temperatures stated in the Appendix 
should be changed to match the AATCC definitions, which the AATCC 
believes ``more accurately reflect current washing machine settings and 
consumer practice.'' <SUP>85</SUP> The AATCC defines ``hot'' as 120 
degrees F plus or minus 5 degrees (49 degrees C plus or minus 3 
degrees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ Comment 34 to 1994 FRN, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ANPR sought comment on whether the Commission should amend the 
Rule to change the definitions of ``warm'' and ``hot'' water, or to 
include a new term such as ``cool'' or ``lukewarm'' in the Appendix. 
The Commission further sought comment on whether the Rule should be 
amended to state that care labels recommending ``cold'' wash must 
define the highest acceptable temperature for ``cold'' on the label, 
and on the benefits and costs to consumers and manufacturers of such an 
amendment.
    All eleven comments received in response to the ANPR that discussed 
the definitions of cold, warm, and hot water favored some 
change.<SUP>86</SUP> 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.<SUP>87</SUP> Six of the 
commenters also supported the idea of including a numerical temperature 
on the care label.<SUP>88</SUP> Consumers Union, for example, stated 
that consumers need to know the actual range of water temperature in 
which they can safely wash their clothes.

    \86\ Bruce Fifield (22); ATMI (41); SDA (43); Consumers Union 
(46); AHAM (51); Maytag Appliances (``Maytag'') (53); IFI (56); AAMA 
(57); P&G (60); Ginetex (63); European Commission (64).
    \87\ ATMI (41) p.1.
    \88\ Fifield (22) p.1; Consumers Union (46) p.1.; AHAM (51) p.1; 
AAMA (57) p.1; European Commission (64) p.2; Ginetex (63) p.2. In a 
meeting with staff on August 7, 1996, AHAM indicated that it no 
longer favors this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Words such as lukewarm, cold, warm or hot serve their purposes 
only if the consumers are aware of safe water temperature ranges. 
Testing laboratories have assigned temperature ranges onto each of 
these words. They use these ``safe temperature ranges'' to test 
products for durability to repeated cleaning. Consumers should know 
what these safe water temperature ranges are.<SUP>89</SUP>

    \89\ Consumers Union (46) p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Definition of cold water. As noted, six commenters favored the 
inclusion of a numerical temperature on the care label. Two others 
favored a numerical temperature when the label recommends a ``cold'' 
wash. SDA noted that in northern locations in winter, cold water washes 
can be as cold as 40 degrees F and that ``the performance of all 
laundry products is seriously diminished if they are used in water 
temperatures below 60 degrees F.'' <SUP>90</SUP> SDA suggested the 
following care instruction, in lieu of ``cold'':

    \90\ SDA (43) p.2. P&G (60) stated, at p.3, that ``all 
detergency and cleaning performance decreases substantially in cold 
water below 70 degrees F.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wash in the warmest available water, not to exceed (approximate 
temperature) degrees F.

    Maytag suggested that a range of 65 to 80 degrees F should be 
stated on the care label because

consumers are not aware that water can be too cold to activate 
detergents, thus they experience poor cleaning and other laundry 
problems. By incorporating a temperature range consumers would know 
exactly what temperatures will provide good results. <SUP>91</SUP>

    \91\ Maytag (53) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    P&G said that a national consumer study it had conducted showed 
that 78% of ``cold'' loads washed in January and February were in 
temperatures below 65 degrees F (with some as low as 34 degrees F), and 
that, year round, 50% of ``cold'' loads were washed in temperatures 
below 65 degrees F.<SUP>92</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ P&G (60) p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ATMI suggested that ``cold'' be defined consistently with the 
definition specified in AATCC test methods [27 degrees C plus or minus 
3 degrees, or 82 degrees F plus or minus 5 degrees] and with standards 
developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (``ASTM'') 
[30 degrees C, or 86 degrees F].<SUP>93</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ ATMI (41) p.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Definition of warm water. Section 1.b of the Appendix to the 
Rule defines warm water as 90 to 110 degrees F (32 to 42 degrees C). 
Several commenters recommended maintaining this definition, but adding 
the term ``lukewarm,'' defined as 70 to 89 F (21 to 31 C).<SUP>94</SUP> 
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.<SUP>95</SUP> ATMI suggested a 
definition of 40 degrees C plus or minus 5 degrees (104 degrees F plus 
or minus 9 degrees), which it described as consistent with the 
definition established by AATCC for use in garment testing [41 degrees 
C plus or minus 3 degrees, or 106 degrees F plus or minus 5 degrees] 
and by ASTM in its standards [40 degrees C or 104 F].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ SDA (43) p.2; P&G (60) p.2.
    \95\ ATMI (41) p.1; AHAM (51) p.2; Maytag (53) p.1; AAMA (57) 
p.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Definition of hot water.
    Maytag stated that ``the current definition of hot water as up to 
150 degrees is unrealistic due to scald laws in some states'' and 
because new water heaters are preset at 120 degrees F.<SUP>96</SUP> 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.'' <SUP>97</SUP> SDA 
estimated that ``20% of today's homes have hot water heaters set at 
120-125 F.'' <SUP>98</SUP> Maytag favored

[[Page 25425]]

defining hot as 120 to 140 degrees F, and SDA and P&G favored defining 
hot as 111 to 140 F. ATMI recommended 50 degrees C plus or minus 5 
degrees C, which it described as consistent with definitions used by 
AATCC [49 degrees C plus or minus 3 degrees C, or 120 F plus or minus 5 
degrees F] and ASTM [50 C or 122 F].<SUP>99</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Maytag (53) p. 2; see also SDA (43) p. 2, P&G (60) p. 2.
    \97\ P&G (60) p. 3.
    \98\ SDA (43) p. 2.
    \99\ ATMI (41) p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters argued for the addition of ``very hot.'' 
<SUP>100</SUP> 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.'' <SUP>101</SUP> 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.<SUP>102</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ ATMI (41) p. 1.
    \101\ P&G (60) p. 3.
    \102\ P&G (60) p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Proposed Amendments and Reasons Therefor
    The Commission believes that the definition of cold, warm, and hot 
water should be changed because of changes in settings on hot water 
heaters and in consumer washing practices in the years since the 
definitions were established. The AATCC has changed its definitions, 
which are used in textile testing, to take account of these factors, 
and AATCC test methods are used by much of the apparel industry. 
Consequently, the Commission believes that the definitions in the Rule 
should be changed to be consistent with the definitions used by AATCC. 
The Commission proposes changing the upper range of temperature 
definitions in the Rule to the upper range of what is allowed in tests 
published by AATCC. Thus, the upper range for ``cold'' would be 30 
degrees C (86 degrees F); for ``warm,'' 44 degrees C (111 degrees F); 
and for hot, 52 degrees C (125 degrees F).
    Finally, the Commission proposes adding the term ``very hot'' to 
the rule, defined consistently with the AATCC definition, i.e., with an 
upper range of 63 degrees C (145 degrees F). The comments indicate that 
some garments do need to be cleaned at temperatures higher than 125 
degrees F, and that some consumers have access to water hotter than 125 
degrees F, either at home or through laundering by professional 
cleaners. The addition of the term ``very hot,'' together with 
appropriate consumer education, should give notice to those consumers 
whose hottest water is 120 degrees F that they may have to have 
garments that should be cleaned in very hot water professionally 
laundered. The Commission is aware, however, that the term ``very hot'' 
may be confusing to some consumers because most washing machine dials 
only offer the choices of ``cold,'' ``warm,'' and ``hot.'' The 
Commission requests comment on this issue, and, in particular, on 
suggestions for methods of consumer education to alleviate this 
problem.
    In addition, some comments indicate that consumers need more 
precise information in order to select the appropriate temperature 
setting on their washing machines. Consumers may be using water that is 
too cold to activate detergents. Similarly, the addition of a precise 
temperature (52 degrees C, 125 degrees F) after the word ``hot'' on the 
care label of a garment might give those consumers some notice that 
their hot water may be too hot for that garment.<SUP>103</SUP> An upper 
range for ``warm'' might also be helpful to consumers because on many 
machines the dial setting for warm simply produces a mixture of hot and 
cold, and if the incoming tap water is very cold, the water in the 
machine may be too cold to produce optimal cleaning of the clothes 
being washed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ Although new water heaters are being set at lower 
temperatures, the comments indicate that many homes still have older 
heaters that produce water at 140 degrees F or even hotter. A 
garment that has been tested in water heated to 125 degrees F may 
withstand washing in that temperature without damage but 
nevertheless be damaged by water at 140 degrees F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not believe, however, that the solution to 
these problems at this time is to require numerical temperatures on 
care labels. Such additional information may not be cost-effective 
because most American consumers do not know the temperature of the tap 
water entering their homes or the cold or warm water in their washing 
machines. Indeed, some may also lack precise information about the 
temperature of the hot water heated by their water heaters, and, even 
those who know the upper limit of their hot water may not know the 
temperature of the hot water that enters their washing machines given 
the heat loss that occurs as water is piped to washing machines.
    Therefore, at this time the Commission is not proposing to modify 
the Rule to require that precise temperatures be listed on care labels. 
The Commission is interested, however, in non-regulatory solutions to 
this problem. Accordingly, this notice asks questions about the 
possibility of a consumer education campaign on these issues. The 
Commission solicits comment on the feasibility of such a consumer 
education campaign, the form it should take, and industry members and 
consumer groups that would be interested in participating. Moreover, 
should the comments provide additional information about how numerical 
temperatures on care labels could be of use to American consumers, the 
Commission is willing to reconsider that issue.
    The following changes are proposed in the definitions Section of 
the Rule and in the Appendix to the Rule.
    Section 6.(b)(1)(I) of the Rule would be modified to read as 
follows:

    The label must state whether the product should be washed by 
hand or machine. The label must also state a water temperature--in 
terms such as cold, warm, hot, or very hot--that may be used. 
However, if the regular use of very hot water will not harm the 
product, the label need not mention any water temperature. [For 
example, ``Machine wash'' means very hot, hot, warm or cold water 
can be used.]

    The last sentence of Section 1(d) of the Rule would be modified to 
read as follows:

    When no temperature is given, e.g., ``warm'' or ``cold,'' very 
hot water up to 145 degrees F (63 C) can be regularly used.

    ``Hot'' water would be defined in Appendix 1.a as ranging from 112 
to 125 degrees F [45 to 52 degrees C], ``warm'' water would be defined 
in Appendix 1.b as ranging from 87 to 111 degrees F [31 to 44 degrees 
C], and ``cold'' water would be defined in Appendix 1.c as ranging up 
to 86 degrees F [30 degrees C]. In addition, ``very hot'' water would 
be defined in Appendix 1.a as ranging from 126 to 145 degrees F [53 to 
63 degrees C].
    The Commission seeks comment on these proposed changes, their 
importance to consumers, the necessity for a consumer education 
campaign to help consumers understand and use information about water 
temperature, and the form such a campaign might take.<SUP>104</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Some companies have already begun to educate consumers 
about these issues. A consumer chart prepared by Maytag, with 
numerical definitions for hot, warm, and cold water, states, ``The 
clothes washer will not ensure these temperatures because the actual 
water temperatures entering the washer are dependent on water heater 
settings and regional water supply temperatures. For example, cold 
water entering the home in the northern states during winter may be 
40 degrees F which is too cold for effective cleaning. The water 
temperature in this situation will need to be adjusted by selecting 
a warm setting or adding some hot water to the fill.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part C--Rulemaking Procedures

    The Commission has determined, pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20, to follow 
the procedures set forth in this notice for this proceeding. The 
Commission has

[[Page 25426]]

decided to employ a modified version of the rulemaking procedures 
specified in Section 1.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice. The 
proceeding will have a single Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and 
disputed issues will not be designated.
    The Commission will hold a public workshop conference to discuss 
the issues raised by this NPR. Moreover, if comments in response to 
this NPR request hearings with cross-examination and rebuttal 
submissions, as specified in Section 18(c) of the Federal Trade 
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(c), the Commission will also hold such 
hearings. After the public workshop, the Commission will publish a 
notice in the Federal Register stating whether hearings will be held in 
this matter, and, if so, the time and place of hearings and 
instructions for those desiring to present testimony or engage in 
cross-examination of witnesses.

Part D--Section-By-Section Description of Proposed Amendments

1. Amendments Relating to Required or Permissible Care Instructions

    The Commission proposes to amend section 423.1, ``Definitions'' to 
include the following definition:
    (h) Professional wet cleaning means a system of cleaning by means 
of equipment consisting of a computer-controlled washer and dryer, wet 
cleaning software, and biodegradable chemicals specifically formulated 
to safely wet clean wool, silk, rayon, and other natural and man-made 
fibers. The washer uses a frequency-controlled motor, which allows the 
computer to control precisely the degree of mechanical action imposed 
on the garments by the wet cleaning process. The computer also controls 
time, fluid levels, temperatures, extraction, chemical injection, drum 
rotation, and extraction parameters. The dryer incorporates a residual 
moisture (or humidity) control to prevent overdrying of delicate 
garments. The wet cleaning chemicals are formulated from constituent 
chemicals on the EPA's public inventory of approved chemicals pursuant 
to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
    The Commission proposes to amend section 423.6(b) of the Rule to 
read as follows:
    (b) Care labels must state what regular care is needed for the 
ordinary use of the product. In general, labels for textile wearing 
apparel must have either a washing instruction or a dry cleaning 
instruction. If an item of textile wearing apparel can be successfully 
washed and finished by a consumer at home, the label must provide an 
instruction for washing. If a washing instruction is not included, or 
if washing is warned against, the manufacturer or importer must 
establish a reasonable basis for warning that the item cannot be washed 
and adequately finished at home, by possessing, prior to sale, evidence 
of the type described in paragraph (c) of this section. If a washing 
instruction is included, it must comply with the requirements set forth 
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If a dry cleaning instruction is 
included, it must comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section. An instruction for professional wet cleaning 
may also be given. If an instruction for professional wet cleaning is 
given, it must comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph 
(b)(3) of this section. If the product cannot be cleaned by any 
available cleaning method without being harmed, the label must so 
state. [For example, if a product would be harmed both by washing and 
by dry cleaning, the label might say, ``Do not wash--do not dry 
clean,'' or ``Cannot be successfully cleaned.''] The instructions for 
washing, dry cleaning, and professional wet cleaning are as follows:
    It should be noted that, in addition to the additions to section 
(b) noted in bold, the following sentence has been deleted: ``If either 
washing or dry cleaning can be used on the product, the label need have 
only one of these instructions.''
    The Commission also proposes to add the following subsection to 
section (b).
    (3) Professional wet cleaning.
    If a professional wet cleaning instruction is included on the 
label, it must state at least one type of professional wet cleaning 
equipment that may be used to clean the garment. However, if the 
product can be successfully cleaned by all commercially available types 
of professional wet cleaning equipment, the label need not mention any 
type of wet cleaning equipment. A care label that recommends 
professional wet cleaning must list the fiber content of the garment 
and must recommend one other method of cleaning, such as washing or 
drycleaning, or must warn that the garment cannot be washed or 
drycleaned if such is the case.

2. Amendment of Reasonable Basis Section

    The Commission proposes to amend Sec. 423.6(c)(3) as follows:
    (c) A manufacturer or importer must establish a reasonable basis 
for care information by possessing prior to sale:
    (3) Reliable evidence, like that described in paragraph (c)(1) or 
(2) of this section, for each component part of the product in 
conjunction with reliable evidence for the garment as a whole;

3. Amendment of Definitions of Water Temperatures

    The Commission proposes to amend the last sentence of Sec. 423.1(d) 
of the Rule to read as follows:
    When no temperature is given, e.g., ``warm'' or ``cold,'' very hot 
water up to 145 degrees F (63 C) can be regularly used.
    The Commission proposes to amend section 423.6(b)(1)(I) of the Rule 
to read as follows:
    The label must state whether the product should be washed by hand 
or machine. The label must also state a water temperature--in terms 
such as cold, warm, hot, or very hot--that may be used. However, if the 
regular use of very hot water will not harm the product, the label need 
not mention any water temperature. [For example, ``Machine wash'' means 
very hot, hot, warm or cold water can be used.]
    The Commission proposes that Appendix A.1.a-1.c be modified to read 
as follows:
    1. Washing. Machine Methods:
    a. Machine wash--a process by which soil may be removed from 
products or specimens through the use of water, detergent, or soap, 
agitation, and a machine designed for this purpose. When no temperature 
is given, e.g., ``warm'' or ``cold,'' very hot water up to 145 degrees 
F (63 degrees C) can be regularly used.
    b. Hot--initial water temperature ranging from 112 to 125 degrees F 
[45 to 52 degrees C].
    c. Warm--initial water temperature ranging from 87 to 111 degrees F 
[31 to 44 degrees C].
    d. Cold--initial water temperature up to 86 degrees F [30 degrees 
C].

Part E--Regulatory Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act 
Requirements

    Under section 22 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b, the Commission must 
issue a preliminary regulatory analysis for a proceeding to amend a 
rule only when it (1) estimates that the amendment will have an annual 
effect on the national economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) estimates 
that the amendment will cause a substantial change in the cost or price 
of certain categories of goods or services; or (3) otherwise determines 
that the amendment will have a significant effect upon covered entities 
or upon consumers. The Commission has preliminarily determined that the 
proposed amendments to the Rule will not have such effects on the 
national

[[Page 25427]]

economy, on the cost of textile wearing apparel or piece goods, or on 
covered businesses or consumers. The Commission, however, requests 
comment on these effects.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601-12, requires 
that the agency conduct an analysis of the anticipated economic impact 
of the proposed amendments on small businesses.<SUP>105</SUP> The 
purpose of a regulatory flexibility analysis is to ensure that the 
agency considers impact on small entities and examines regulatory 
alternatives that could achieve the regulatory purpose while minimizing 
burdens on small entities. Section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, 
provides that such an analysis is not required if the agency head 
certifies that the regulatory action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ The RFA addresses the impact of rules on ``small 
entities,'' defined as ``small businesses.'' ``small businesses,'' 
``small governmental entities,'' and ``small [not-for-profit] 
organizations,'' 5 U.S.C. 601. The Rule does not apply to the latter 
two types of entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Care Labeling Rule covers manufacturers and importers 
of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods, the Commission 
believes that any amendments to the Rule may affect a substantial 
number of small businesses. For example, unpublished data prepared by 
the U.S. Census Bureau under contract to the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') show there are some 288 manufacturers of men's 
and boys'' suits and coats (SIC Code 2311), more than 75% of which 
qualify as small businesses under applicable SBA size 
standards.<SUP>106</SUP> There are more than 1,000 establishments 
manufacturing women's and misses' suits, skirts, and coats (SIC Code 
2337), most of which are small businesses. Other small businesses are 
likely covered by the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ SBA's revised small business size standards are published 
at 61 FR 3280 (Jan. 31, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, the proposed amendments would not appear to have a 
significant economic impact upon such entities. The amendment to allow 
for labeling for professional wet cleaning simply provides an option 
that can be taken advantage of by businesses if they wish. The 
amendment to require that garments that can be safely washed at home be 
labeled for home washing will also not add significantly to the cost of 
compliance for most businesses because businesses will still only be 
required to provide instructions for one method of cleaning. It is true 
that those businesses that currently label garments for dry cleaning 
without investigating whether they can be washed at home would have to 
make that determination. Most businesses, however, obtain information 
about the washability of the components of their garments from the 
sources of those components, and in many cases this simple inquiry will 
provide a reasonable basis for either a dry clean instruction or a home 
washing instruction. Although some businesses may have to engage in 
additional efforts, such as testing, to make this determination, it 
does not seem likely that this will be the case for most businesses. 
The Rule specifies that a reasonable basis can consist of various types 
of reliable evidence other than testing, and most businesses do not 
routinely test each garment style they manufacture or import. 
Nevertheless, the Commission specifically seeks comment regarding these 
amendments' potential impact on small businesses.
    In addition, the Commission is proposing to amend one category of 
the types of evidence that can constitute a reasonable basis, i.e., 
evidence of testing of components of the garment, to clarify that the 
manufacturer or importer must also have reliable evidence that the 
garment as a whole can be cleaned as directed without damage. The 
Commission specifically has indicated that testing of the garment as a 
whole is not required in all instances, however; what is required is an 
evaluation of whether the garment as a whole can be successfully 
cleaned without damage in the manner recommended on the care label. The 
Commission views the amendment of this section of the Rule as simply a 
clarification of the fact that the manufacturer or importer must have a 
reasonable basis for the garment as a whole, not simply for the 
separate components.
    Based on available information, the Commission certifies that 
amending the Care Labeling Rule as proposed will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. To ensure 
that no significant economic impact is being overlooked, however, the 
Commission requests comments on this issue. The Commission also seeks 
comments on possible alternatives to the proposed amendments to 
accomplish the stated objectives. After reviewing any comments 
received, the Commission will determine whether a final regulatory 
flexibility analysis is appropriate.

Part F--Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Rule contain various information collection requirements for 
which the Commission has obtained clearance under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Office of Management and Budget 
Control Number 3084-0103. As noted above, the Rule requires 
manufacturers and importers of textile wearing apparel to attach a 
permanent care label to all covered items and requires manufacturers 
and importers of piece goods used to make textile clothing to provide 
the same care information on the end of each bolt or roll of fabric. 
These requirements relate to the accurate disclosure of care 
instructions for textile wearing apparel. Although the Rule also 
requires manufacturers and importers to base their care instructions on 
reliable evidence, it does not contain any explicit recordkeeping 
requirements.
    The Rule also provides a procedure whereby a member of the industry 
may petition the Commission for an exemption for products that are 
claimed to be harmed in appearance by the requirement for a permanent 
label, but only one petition, subsequently withdrawn, has been filed in 
recent years. A Notice soliciting public comment on extending the 
clearance for the Rule through December 31, 1999, was published in the 
Federal Register on August 26, 1996, 61 FR 43764. OMB has extended the 
clearance until December 31, 1999.
    The proposed amendments would not increase the paperwork burden 
associated with these paperwork requirements. The Commission's proposed 
amendment regarding professional wet cleaning does not increase the 
paperwork burden because it is optional. Businesses that do not believe 
it is beneficial to label for professional wet cleaning are not 
required to do so. The proposed amendment of the Rule to require that 
any garment or fabric that can be washed at home be so labeled will not 
increase the burden for businesses because they will still need to 
label for only one method of cleaning.
    The proposed amendment to change the numerical definition of the 
words ``hot,'' warm,'' or ``cold,'' when they appear on care labels, 
and to add the term ``very hot,'' will not add to the burden for 
businesses because they are already required to indicate the 
temperature in words and to have a reasonable basis for whatever water 
temperature they recommend. Moreover, businesses are not burdened with 
determining what temperature should accompany the words ``very hot,'' 
``hot,'' ``warm,'' or ``cold''; the proposed amendment would provide 
the numerical temperature that should accompany each term. OMB 
regulations provide, at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2), that ``the

[[Page 25428]]

public disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal 
government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public 
is not included within [the definition of collection of information.]''
    Thus, the Commission concludes that the proposed amendments would 
not increase the paperwork burden associated with compliance with the 
Rule. To ensure that no significant paperwork burden is being 
overlooked, however, the Commission requests comments on this issue.

Part G--Request for Comments

    Members of the public are invited to comment on any issues or 
concerns they believe are relevant or appropriate to the Commission's 
consideration of proposed amendments to the Care Labeling Rule. The 
Commission requests that factual data upon which the comments are based 
be submitted with the comments. In addition to the issues raised above, 
the Commission solicits public comment on the costs and benefits to 
industry members and consumers of each of the proposals as well as the 
specific questions identified below. These questions are designed to 
assist the public and should not be construed as a limitation on the 
issues on which public comment may be submitted.

Questions

A. Requiring Instructions for Cleaning in Water

    (1) Is there empirical evidence regarding whether consumers 
interpret a ``dry clean'' instruction to mean that a garment cannot be 
washed?
    (2) How many domestic businesses provide professional wet cleaning, 
as defined in Part D.1. above, to the public on a regular basis?
    (3) Should the Rule provide that, if an instruction for 
professional wet cleaning is provided, no other instruction need be 
given, or should a professional wet cleaning instruction only be 
allowed along with another cleaning instruction?

B. The Reasonable Basis Requirement of the Rule

    (4) Would the amendment of Section 423.6(c)(3) of the Rule, which 
provides that a reasonable basis can consist of reliable evidence that 
each component of the garment can be cleaned according to the care 
instructions, to state, additionally, that a manufacturer or importer 
must possess a reasonable basis for the garment as a whole, clarify the 
reasonable basis requirements? Is any additional clarification needed?

C. Definitions of Water Temperatures

    (5) How can consumers best be made aware of the approximate water 
temperatures in which they can safely and effectively wash their 
clothing? How can consumers best be made aware of how these 
temperatures correlate to the descriptors ``hot,'' ``warm,'' and 
``cold''? Do consumers need to determine the actual or approximate 
water temperature in their washing machines when they select ``hot,'' 
``warm,'' and ``cold'' on their washing machine dials, and, if so, how 
could they easily and practically do this? Could consumers use this 
information to select the optimal temperature offered by their washing 
machines for clothes labeled for ``hot,'' ``warm,'' or ``cold'' 
washing?
    (6) Would consumers understand an instruction to use ``very hot'' 
water? Could consumers use this information either to select the 
optimal temperature offered by their washing machines for clothes 
labeled for ``very hot'' washing or to determine that such clothes 
should be washed by a professional cleaner?

    Authority: Section 18(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission 
Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(d)(2)(B).

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423

    Care labeling of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods; 
Trade practices.

    By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Azcuenaga not 
participating.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-12233 Filed 5-7-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P