[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 2, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47261-47275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-19491]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 423


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

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Final amended rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission, pursuant to section 18 of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act, issues final amendments to its Trade 
Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain 
Piece Goods. The Commission is amending the Rule: To clarify what can 
constitute a reasonable basis for care instructions; and to change the 
definitions of ``cold,'' ``warm,'' and ``hot'' water in the Rule. The 
Commission has decided not to amend the Rule to require that an item 
that can be cleaned by home washing be labeled with instructions for 
home washing. In addition, it has decided not to amend the Rule at this 
time to include an instruction for professional wetcleaning. This 
document constitutes the Commission's Statement of Basis and Purpose 
for the amendments.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The amended Rule will become effective on September 1, 
2000.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the amended Rule and the Statement of 
Basis and Purpose should be sent to the Consumer Response Center, Room 
130, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, 
DC 20580.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constance M. Vecellio or James Mills, 
Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of 
Consumer Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, S-4302, Washington, DC 
20580, (202) 326-2966 or (202) 326-3035.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Care Labeling of Textile Wearing 
Apparel and Certain Piece Goods; Statement of Basis and Purpose and 
Regulatory Analysis

Introduction

    This document is published pursuant to section 18 of the Federal 
Trade Commission (``FTC'') Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a et seq., the provisions 
of part 1, subpart B of the Commission's rules of practice, 16 CFR 
1.14, and 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. This authority permits the Commission to 
promulgate, modify, and repeal trade regulation rules that define with 
specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive in or 
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC 
Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1).

I. Background

A. The Care Labeling Rule

    The Care Labeling Rule was promulgated by the Commission on 
December 16, 1971. 36 FR 23883. In

[[Page 47262]]

1983, the Commission amended the Rule to clarify its requirements by 
identifying in greater detail the washing or drycleaning information to 
be included on care labels. 48 FR 22733. The Care Labeling Rule, as 
amended, requires manufacturers and importers of textile wearing 
apparel and certain piece goods to attach care labels to these items 
stating what regular care is needed for the ordinary use of the 
product. 16 CFR 423.6(a) and (b). The Rule also requires that the 
manufacturer or importer possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis for 
the care instructions. 16 CFR 423.6(c).

B. Procedural History

1. Regulatory Review of the Rule
    As part of its continuing review of its trade regulation rules to 
determine their current effectiveness and impact, the Commission 
published a Federal Register notice on June 15, 1994, seeking comment 
on the costs and benefits of the Rule and related questions, such as 
what changes in the Rule would increase the Rule's benefits to 
purchasers and how those changes would affect the costs the Rule 
imposes on firms subject to its requirements. 59 FR 30733 (``the 
Regulatory Review Notice'').\1\ The comments in response to the 
Regulatory Review Notice generally expressed continuing support for the 
Rule, stating that correct care instructions benefit consumers by 
extending the useful life of the garment, by helping the consumer 
maximize the appearance of the garment, and by allowing the consumer to 
take the ease and cost of care into consideration when making a 
purchase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Regulatory Review Notice also sought comment on whether 
the Rule should be modified to permit the use of symbols in lieu of 
words. On November 16, 1995, the Commission published a notice 
announcing a tentative decision to adopt a conditional exemption to 
the Rule to permit the use of certain care symbols in lieu of words; 
it also sought additional comment on specific aspects of the 
proposal. 60 FR 57552. On February 6, 1997, the Commission announced 
its decision to adopt the conditional exemption, which became 
effective on July 1, 1997. 62 FR 5724.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The ANPR
    Based on this review, the Commission determined to retain the Rule, 
but to seek additional comment on possible amendments to the Rule. To 
begin the process, the Commission published an Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking on December 28, 1995. 60 FR 67102 (``the ANPR''). 
In the ANPR, the Commission discussed and solicited comment on 
standards for water temperature, the desirability of a home washing 
instruction and a professional wetcleaning instruction for items for 
which such processes are appropriate, and the Rule's reasonable basis 
standard. The Commission received 64 comments in response to this 
notice.
3. The NPR
    Based on the comments responding to the ANPR, and on other 
evidence, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
May 8, 1998, 63 FR 25417 (``the NPR''), in which the Commission 
proposed the following specific amendments to the Rule and sought 
comments thereon:

    1. An amendment to require that an item that can be safely 
cleaned by home washing be labeled with instructions for home 
washing;
    2. An amendment to establish a definition in the Rule for 
``professional wetcleaning'' and to permit manufacturers to label a 
garment that can be professionally wetcleaned with a 
``Professionally Wetclean'' instruction;
    3. An amendment to clarify that manufacturers must establish a 
reasonable basis for care instructions for an item based on reliable 
evidence for each component of the item in conjunction with reliable 
evidence for the garment as a whole; and
    4. An amendment changing the definitions of ``cold,'' ``warm'' 
and ``hot'' water to be consistent with those of the American 
Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (``AATCC''), and 
adding a new term--``very hot''--and corresponding definition 
consistent with AATCC's term and definition.

    In the NPR, at 63 FR 25425-26, the Commission also made the 
following announcement:

    The Commission has determined, pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20, to 
follow the procedures set forth in this notice for this proceeding. 
The Commission has decided to employ a modified version of the 
rulemaking procedures specified in Section 1.13 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice. The proceeding will have a single Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, and disputed issues will not be designated.
    The Commission will hold a public workshop-conference to discuss 
the issues raised by this NPR. Moreover, if comments in response to 
this NPR request hearings with cross-examination and rebuttal 
submissions, as specified in section 18(c) of the Federal Trade 
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(c), the Commission will also hold such 
hearings. After the public workshop, the Commission will publish a 
notice in the Federal Register stating whether hearings will be held 
in this matter, and, if so, the time and place of hearings and 
instructions for those desiring to present testimony or engage in 
cross-examination of witnesses.

    There were no requests for hearings in the 38 comments received in 
response to the NPR.\2\ Therefore, the Commission did not hold public 
hearings in this matter. The public workshop-conference (hereinafter 
``workshop'') \3\ took place on January 29, 1999 at the Commission's 
Headquarters Building at 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. 
There were 28 participants in the workshop, representing 20 different 
interests.\4\ There also were approximately 30 observers, some of whom, 
upon request, contributed to the discussion. At the workshop, an 
announcement was made that post-workshop comments would be accepted

[[Page 47263]]

until March 1, 1999, and 40 such comments were submitted.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The comments were from: Johnson Group Management Services, 
Ltd. (``Johnson Group'') (1); Mid-Atlantic Cleaners and Launderers 
Association (``MACLA'') (2); Bonnie Peters (3); Aqua Clean Systems, 
Inc. (``Aqua Clean'') (4); J. R. Viola Cleaners (``Viola'') (5); 
David Nobil, Nature's Cleaners, Inc. (``Nature's Cleaners'') (6); 
Bruce Barish, Meurice Garment Care (7); Industry Canada, Fair 
Business Practices Branch (``Industry Canada'') (8); American 
Textile Manufacturers Institute (``ATMI'') (9); Cleaner By Nature 
(10); American Apparel Manufacturers Association (``AAMA'') (11); 
International Fabricare Institute (``IFI'') (12); Elizabeth K. 
Scanlon (``Scanlon'') (13); National Association of Hosiery 
Manufacturers (``NAHM'') (14); Associazione Serica (15); Prestige. . 
. Exceptional Fabricare (``Prestige'') (16); Neighborhood Cleaners 
Association International (``NCAI'') (17); Association of Home 
Appliance Manufacturers (``AHAM'') (18); Dr. Charles Riggs, Texas 
Woman's University (``Riggs'') (19); Bruce W. Fifield (``Fifield'') 
(20); Consumer Policy Institute of Consumers Union (``Consumers 
Union'') (21); The Clorox Company (``Clorox'') (22); Marilyn 
Fleming, Natural Cleaners (23); Pollution Prevention Education and 
Research Center (``PPERC'') (24); Pendleton Woolen Mills 
(``Pendleton'') (25); Gap, Inc. (``Gap'') (26); Greenpeace (27); 
National Coalition of Petroleum Dry Cleaners (``NCPDC'') (28); Kathy 
Knapp (29); Center for Neighborhood Technology (``CNT'') (30); The 
Professional Wetcleaning Network (``PWN'') (31); Bowe Permac, Inc. 
(32); Alliance Laundry Systems UniMac (``Alliance'') (33); The 
Procter & Gamble Company (``P&G'') (34); GINETEX International 
Association for Textile Care Labeling (``Ginetex'') (35); Karen 
Smith (Smith) (36); Pellerin Milnor Corporation (Pellerin Milnor) 
(37); Mike Lynch (38). The comments are on the public record and are 
available for public inspection in accordance with the Freedom of 
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Commission's Rules of 
Practice, 16 CFR 4.11, at the Consumer Response Center, Public 
Reference Section, Room 130, Federal Trade Commission, 600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The comments also are 
available for inspection on the Commission's website at www.ftc.gov/bcp/rulemaking/carelabel/comments/comlist.htm>.
    \3\ The time and place of the workshop was announced in 63 FR 
69232, December 16, 1998.
    \4\ The participants were: Ed Boorstein, Elaine Harvey, Prestige 
Cleaners; Martin Coppack, American Association of Family and 
Consumer Sciences; Deborah Davis, Cleaner by Nature; David DeRosa, 
Greenpeace; Corey Snyder, Liz Eggert, P&G Eric Essma, Clorox; 
Sylvia Ewing, Anthony Star, CNT; Gloria Ferrell, Capital Mercury 
Apparel, Ltd. (``Ferrell''); Ann Hargrove, PWN; Nancy Hobbs, Pat 
Slaven, Consumers Union; Steve Lamar, Rachel Subler, AAMA; Cindy 
Stroup, Steve Latham, Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''); 
Melinda Oakes, Ronda Martinez, QVC, Inc. (``QVC''); Karen Mueser, 
Sears, Roebuck & Co. (``Sears''); Jo Ann Pullen, American Society 
for Testing and Materials (ASTM); Dr. Charles Riggs; Roy Rosenthal, 
RCG Marketing; Mary Scalco, Jackie Stephens, IFI; Dick Selleh, 
MACLA; and Peter Sinsheimer, PPERC. Six Commission staff members 
also participated in the proceeding.
    \5\ The post-workshop comments were from: Specialized Technology 
Resources (``STR'') (PW-1); Jo Ann Pullen (``Pullen'') (PW-2); EPA 
(PW-3); Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute (``MTURI'') 
(PW-4); Rawhide Cleaners (``Rawhide'') (PW-5) [consisting of two 
NPR-comments from June 1998 originally lost in transit]; Valet 
Cleaners (``Valet'') (PW-6); Minnesota Fabricare Institute (``MFI'') 
(PW-7); D.D. French (``French'') (PW-8); Coronado Cleaners & 
Laundry, Inc. (``Coronado'') (PW-9); MACLA (PW-10); South Eastern 
Fabricare Association (``SEFA'') (PW-11); Celanese Acetate 
(``Celanese'') (PW-12); Dr. Charles Riggs (PW-13); Shoemaker's/COBS, 
Inc. (``COBS'') (PW-14); PWN (PW-15); Prestige (PW-16); Dr. Manfred 
Wentz (``Wentz'') (PW-17); Gloria Ferrell (PW-18); Consumers Union 
(PW-19); IFI (PW-20); PPERC (PW-21); Hallak Cleaners (``Hallak'') 
(PW-22); Avon Cleaners (``Avon'') (PW-23); AAMA (PW-24); Comet 
Cleaners (``Comet'') (PW-25); CNT (PW-26); Spear Cleaning & Laundry 
(``Spear'') (PW-27); Greenpeace (PW-28); Cowboy Cleaners 
(``Cowboy'') (PW-29); Aqua Clean (PW-30); Randi Cleaners, Inc. 
(``Randi'') (PW-31); Korean Youth & Community Center (``KYCC'') (PW-
32); Cypress Plaza Cleaners (``Cypress'') (PW-33); Waco Comet 
Cleaners (PW-34) [an NPR-comment from June 1998 originally lost in 
transit]; Swannanoa Cleaners (``Swannanoa'') (PW-35); Sno White 
Cleaners & Launderers (``Sno White'') (PW-36); Environmental Finance 
Center, Region IX (``EFC9'') (PW-37); Perrys-Flanagans Cleaners 
(``Perrys-Flanagans'') (PW-38); Ecology Action, Inc. (``Ecology 
Action'') (PW-39); Micell Technologies (``Micell'') (PW-40). In 
addition, two written statements were read at the workshop and 
placed on the record: STR (PW-41), and PPERC (PW-42); and two 
presentations were made at the workshop with respect to which copies 
of graphic presentations were placed on the record: Clorox (PW-43), 
and P&G (PW-44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Commission Determination

A. The Reasonable Basis Requirement of the Rule

1. Background and Current Requirements
    The Rule requires that manufacturers and importers of textile 
wearing apparel possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis for the care 
instructions they provide. A reasonable basis must consist of reliable 
evidence supporting the instructions on the label. Specifically, a 
reasonable basis can consist of: (1) Reliable evidence that the product 
was not harmed when cleaned reasonably often according to the 
instructions; (2) reliable evidence that the product or a fair sample 
of the product was harmed when cleaned by methods warned against on the 
label; (3) reliable evidence, like that described in (1) or (2), for 
each component part; (4) reliable evidence that the product or a fair 
sample of the product was successfully tested; (5) reliable evidence of 
current technical literature, past experience, or the industry 
expertise supporting the care information on the label; or (6) other 
reliable evidence. 16 CFR 423.6(c).
    The Regulatory Review Notice solicited comment on whether the 
Commission should amend the Rule to conform with the interpretation of 
``reasonable basis'' described in the FTC Policy Statement Regarding 
Advertising Substantiation (``Advertising Policy Statement''), 104 
F.T.C. 839 (1984), or to change the definition of ``reasonable basis'' 
in some other manner. The comments in response to the Regulatory Review 
Notice suggested that a significant number of care labels lack a 
reasonable basis. Based on these comments, the ANPR proposed amending 
the reasonable basis requirement.
    The ANPR sought comment on the incidence of inaccurate or 
incomplete care instructions, the extent to which it might be reduced 
by clarifying the reasonable basis standard, and the costs and benefits 
of such a clarification. The Commission further solicited comment on 
whether to amend the Rule to clarify that the reasonable basis 
requirement applies to a garment in its entirety rather than to each of 
its individual components.\6\ Ten commenters responding to the ANPR 
discussed the reasonable basis provision. Seven of these supported 
modification of the Rule, contending that clarification would reduce 
mislabeling.\7\ ATMI stated that the Rule should not be modified to 
require testing of completed garments; however, ATMI also asserted that 
``apparel manufacturers should be responsible for selecting and 
combining component materials that can be refurbished together'' and 
should provide warnings about potential problems if components cannot 
be refurbished by the same method.\8\ AAMA contended that changing the 
Rule was unnecessary.\9\ Ginetex, the organization responsible for the 
voluntary care labeling system used in European countries, noted that 
it provides technical advice on appropriate test procedures to ensure 
correct care labeling.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The ANPR also sought comment on: The option of indicating in 
the Rule that whether one or more of the types of evidence described 
in Sec. 423.6(c) constitutes a reasonable basis for care labeling 
instructions depends on the factors set forth in the Advertising 
Policy Statement; whether the Rule should be amended to make testing 
of garments the only evidence that could serve as a reasonable basis 
for certain types of garments and, if so, whether the Rule should 
specify particular testing methodologies to be used; and whether the 
Rule should specify standards for determining acceptable and 
unacceptable changes in garments following cleaning as directed and 
identify properties, such as colorfastness and dimensional 
stability, to which such standards would apply. For reasons set 
forth in the NPR, 63 FR at 25423-24, the Commission decided not to 
propose any of these changes in the reasonable basis section of the 
Rule.
    \7\ University of Kentucky College of Agriculture Cooperative 
Extension Service, comment 20 to ANPR, p. 2; Clorox, comment 31 to 
ANPR, pp. 4-5; Soap and Detergent Association (SDA), comment 43 to 
ANPR, pp. 1, 3; Consumers Union, comment 46 to ANPR, pp. 2-3; AHAM, 
comment 51 to ANPR, p. 2; IFI, comment 56 to ANPR, p. 3; P&G, 
comment 60 to ANPR, p. 5.
    \8\ ATMI, comment 41 to ANPR, pp. 4-7.
    \9\ AAMA, comment 57 to ANPR, pp. 2-4.
    \10\ Ginetex, comment 63 to ANPR, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters provided data on the incidence of mislabeling, which 
in both cases indicated that there is a significant incidence of 
inaccurate and/or incomplete labeling.\11\ ATMI, while stating that 
most home washing labels are accurate, and that the vast majority of 
dryclean instruction labels are accurate, noted that there are limited 
problems associated with care instructions for special items such as 
beaded apparel, sequins, and leather appliques.\12\ IFI noted that its 
database shows that ``a large portion of the garments damaged are the 
result of the trim or component part of the garment failing in a 
specified care procedure.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ IFI, comment 56 to ANPR, p. 3 (in 1995, 40% of the 25,000 
damaged garments in its Garment Analysis database incurred the 
damage because of inaccurate labeling); Clorox, comment 31 to ANPR, 
p. 2 (monitoring of bleach instructions on care labels showed 71% 
inaccuracy in November 1995).
    \12\ ATMI, comment 41 to ANPR, p. 5; see also AAMA, comment 57 
to ANPR, p. 3. The ANPR noted that the Commission had litigated one 
case involving inaccurate care instructions that resulted in damage 
to garments (FTC v. Bonnie & Co. Fashions, No. 90-4454) (D.N.J. 
1992)) and had obtained settlements in several other cases where the 
Commission alleged that care instructions were inaccurate because of 
damage to trim when the garments were cleaned according to those 
instructions.
    \13\ IFI, comment 56 to ANPR, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 423.6(c)(3) of the Rule currently states that a 
manufacturer or importer establishes a reasonable basis for care 
information by ``possessing prior to sale: Reliable evidence . . . for 
each component part of the product.'' In the NPR, the Commission 
proposed to amend the reasonable basis standard to make clear that the 
reasonable basis requirement applies to the garment in its entirety 
rather than to each of its individual components, noting that the 
record establishes that in some cases care instructions may not be 
accurate for the entire garment.\14\ Thus, in the NPR, the Commission 
proposed amending Sec. 423.6(c)(3) of the Rule to provide that 
``Reliable evidence . . . for each component part of the product, in 
conjunction with reliable evidence for the garment as a whole'' can 
constitute a reasonable basis for care instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments to the NPR
    Most commenters favored the proposal to clarify the reasonable 
basis

[[Page 47264]]

requirements of the Rule.\15\ Some commenters, who believe that only 
testing can constitute a reasonable basis, stated that the proposal did 
not go far enough because it does not require testing.\16\ Only one 
commenter, AAMA, opposed the proposed clarification of the reasonable 
basis standard. AAMA stated that its member manufacturers specify 
fabric performance from suppliers and test new styles to makeder sure 
that components are compatible. It also stated that there is only a 
very small portion of garments made in the United States with 
incompatible materials (for fashion reasons) and that ``(t)o require 
that all garments be made entirely of compatible components unduly 
restricts the creation of fashion.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Johnson Group (1) p. 1; MACLA (2); Industry Canada (8); 
ATMI (9); IFI (12) pp. 2-3; NAHM (14) p. 1; Associazione Serica (15) 
p. 1; NCAI (17) p. 4; AHAM (18) p. 3; Consumers Union (21) p. 2; 
Pendleton (25) p. 2; Gap (26) p. 1; P&G (34) pp. 2 and 4; Ginetex 
(35) p. 2.
    \16\ Prestige (16) p. 2; Consumers Union (21) p. 2; Clorox (22) 
p. 2; P&G (34) pp. 2 and 4; Ginetex (35) p. 2.
    \17\ AAMA (11) p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Rule Amendments and Reasons Therefor
    The Commission has decided to amend Sec. 423.6(c)(3) of the Rule to 
provide that ``Reliable evidence . . . for each component part of the 
product, in conjunction with reliable evidence for the garment as a 
whole'' can constitute a reasonable basis for care instructions. This 
amendment does not require testing of the entire garment if there is an 
adequate reasonable basis for the garment as a whole without such 
testing; the amendment clarifies, however, that testing of separate 
components is not necessarily sufficient if problems are likely to 
occur when the components are combined.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not believe that this revision of the Rule will 
unduly restrict the creativity of fashion, as AAMA feared. If the 
combination of components used to make a garment are so incompatible 
that the garment cannot be cleaned without damage, the Rule provides 
that the garment can be labeled ``Do not wash--do not dryclean.'' 16 
CFR 423.6(b). This is information that the consumer has a right to 
know, and indeed, under the Rule, it would be deceptive to sell a 
garment with a care label indicating that it could be successfully 
cleaned when in fact it cannot. With truthful labeling that indicates 
the garment cannot be cleaned, consumers are given adequate information 
and can choose to purchase the garment if they wish to do so even 
though it cannot be cleaned without damage.

B. Definitions of Water Temperatures

1. Background and Current Definitions
    The Rule currently requires that a care label recommending washing 
also must state a water temperature that may be used unless ``the 
regular use of hot water will not harm the product.'' 16 CFR 
423.6(b)(1)(i). The Rule also provides that if the term ``machine 
wash'' is used with no temperature indication, ``hot water up to 150 
degrees F (66 degrees C) can regularly be used.'' 16 CFR 423.1(d). This 
definition is repeated in Appendix 1.a. ``Warm'' is defined in Appendix 
1.b. as ranging from 90 to 110 degrees F (32 to 43 degrees C), and 
``cold,'' in Appendix 1.c., as cold tap water up to 85 degrees F (29 
degrees C).
    Based on the comments filed in response to the Regulatory Review 
Notice and the ANPR, including recommendations that the Commission 
adopt definitions developed by the AATCC, the Commission, in the NPR, 
stated that the definition of ``cold,'' ``warm,'' and ``hot'' water 
should be changed because of changes in settings on water heaters and 
in consumer washing practices in the years since the definitions were 
established.\19\ The Commission noted that AATCC has changed its 
definitions, which are used in textile testing by much of the apparel 
industry, to take account of these factors. The NPR proposed changing 
the upper range of temperature definitions in the Rule to the upper 
range of what is allowed in tests published by AATCC.\20\ Specifically, 
the Commission proposed the following definitions for water temperature 
in Appendix.1.b-1.d: ``Hot''--initial water temperature ranging from 
112 to 125 degrees F (45 to 52 degrees C); ``Warm''--initial water 
temperature ranging from 87 to 111 degrees F (31 to 44 degrees C); 
``Cold''--initial water temperature up to 86 degrees F (30 degrees C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ For a detailed discussion of the comments and the analysis 
that led the Commission to this conclusion, see 63 FR 25417, 25424-
426.
    \20\ The AATCC definitions were submitted as an attachment to 
AATCC's comment responding to the Regulatory Review Notice: 
``cold''--27 degrees C  3 degrees C (80 degrees F 
 5 degrees F); ``warm''--41 degrees C  3 
degrees C (105 degrees F  5 degrees F); ``hot''--49 
degrees C  3 degrees C (120 degrees F  5 
degrees F); and ``very hot''--60 degrees C  3 degrees C 
(140 degrees F  5 degrees F). AATCC (34) Attachment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also proposed adding the term ``very hot'' to the 
Rule, defined consistently with the AATCC definition, i.e., with an 
upper range of 63 degrees C (145 degrees F). The record indicated that 
some garments do need to be cleaned at temperatures higher than 125 
degrees F, and that some consumers have access to water hotter than 125 
degrees F, either at home or through laundering by professional 
cleaners. The Commission asked whether the addition of the term ``very 
hot,'' together with appropriate consumer education, would give notice 
to those consumers whose hottest water is 120 degrees F that they may 
have to use professional laundering for garments that should be cleaned 
in very hot water. The Commission indicated that it was aware, however, 
that the term ``very hot'' may be confusing to some consumers because 
most washing machine dials offer only the choices of ``cold,'' 
``warm,'' and ``hot.'' The NPR requested comment on the issue, and, in 
particular, on suggestions for methods of consumer education.
    The Commission noted in the NPR that some comments indicated that 
consumers need more precise information in order to select the 
appropriate temperature setting on their washing machines. For example, 
the comments suggested that some consumers in colder climates may 
unknowingly be using water that is too cold to activate detergents at 
the ``cold'' setting on their machines, and that these consumers would 
be alerted by a numerical temperature on the care label to use the 
``warm'' setting to compensate. The comments contended that, similarly, 
an upper range for ``warm'' might also be helpful to consumers because 
on many machines the dial setting for warm simply produces a mixture of 
hot and cold, and if the incoming tap water is very cold, the water in 
the machine may be too cold to produce optimal cleaning of the clothes 
being washed. The comments argued that the addition of a precise 
temperature (52 degrees C, 125 degrees F) after the word ``hot'' on the 
care label of a garment may give some consumers an indication that 
their hot water may be too hot for that garment. \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Commission noted that, although new water heaters are 
being set at lower temperatures, the comments indicated that many 
homes still have older heaters that produce water at 140 degrees F 
or even hotter. A garment that has been tested in water heated to 
125 degrees F may withstand washing in that temperature without 
damage but nevertheless be damaged by water at 140 degrees F.

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

[[Page 47265]]

    The Commission did not, however, propose in the NPR that the Rule 
be amended to require that precise temperatures be listed on care 
labels, noting that most Americans do not know the temperature of water 
in their washing machines. Although the Commission did not propose 
requiring precise temperatures on labels, it expressed interest in non-
regulatory solutions to the problems discussed in the comments and 
asked for comment on the feasibility of a consumer education campaign 
to provide consumers with more precise information on water temperature 
in order to help them more accurately select the appropriate 
temperature setting on their washing machines.
2. Comments Responding to the NPR
    a. The Proposal to Amend the Rule Definitions for ``Cold,'' 
``Warm,'' and ``Hot'' to Be Consistent with the AATCC Definitions. 
Seventeen comments addressed the issue of water temperature 
definitions.\22\ Five of the comments supported the Commission's 
proposal to amend the Rule's definitions for ``cold,'' ``warm,'' and 
``hot.'' \23\ Pendleton supported the proposal because it ``seems to 
reflect changes in consumer washing practices;'' AAMA noted that its 
members already use the AATCC definitions when testing their 
garments.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ MACLA (2); Industry Canada (8); ATMI (9); AAMA (11); IFI 
(12); Scanlon (13); NAHM (14); Associazione Serica (15); NCAI (17); 
AHAM (18); Riggs (19); Fifield (20); Consumers Union (21); Pendleton 
(25); Gap (26); P&G (34); Ginetex (35).
    \23\ AAMA (11) p. 3; NAHM (14) p. 2; Pendleton (25) p. 2; Gap 
(26) p. 2; P&G (34) pp. 2, 4.
    \24\ AAMA (11) p. 3; Pendleton (25) p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four other comments provided partial support. Dr. Charles Riggs 
conceded that the proposed definitions are probably realistic for 
typical household hot water temperatures, but argued that their 
inclusion in the Rule will not address the problem posed by most 
detergents not being activated thoroughly in water colder than 65 
degrees F.\25\ IFI agreed that the proposed temperatures reflect 
current trends in home water temperatures but contended that they do 
not correlate to current consumer behavior and consumers' use of 
professional laundering.\26\ MACLA favored amending the Rule to adopt 
the proposed definitions for ``cold'' and ``warm,'' but suggested that 
the definition of ``hot'' include the range between 125 degrees F and 
145 degrees F (52 degrees C--63 degrees C).\27\ Like MACLA, AHAM 
recommended establishing definitions for ``cold'' and ``warm'' that are 
consistent with the definitions proposed in the NPR \28\ and suggested 
a range of between 112 degrees F and 145 degrees F (44 degrees C--63 
degrees C) for ``hot.'' Contending that these definitions are 
``consistent with the clothes washer options available to consumers in 
their homes,'' AHAM provided a detailed explanation of how washing 
machines use cold and hot water to attain ``cold,'' ``warm,'' and 
``hot'' water.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Riggs (19) p. 2. Dr. Riggs contended that the only 
realistic solution to the problem would be for manufacturers to 
produce clothes washers equipped with thermostatic temperature 
controls.
    \26\ IFI (12) p. 3.
    \27\ MACLA (2) p. 1. MACLA stated that manufacturers, especially 
of bed linens and shirting materials, already test in water up to 
150 degrees F before attaching care labels associated with 
commercial laundering procedures.
    \28\ AHAM proposed: ``cold'': 86 degrees F (30 degrees C) and 
``warm'': 87 degrees F--111 degrees F (30 degrees C--44 degrees C).
    \29\ AHAM (18) pp. 1-2. AHAM also explained that the ranges of 
temperatures for each descriptor depend on several factors, 
including water heater temperature setting, heat loss in piping, the 
mix ratio of the particular washer, and the temperature of incoming 
cold water (which depends on geographical location and seasonal 
temperature).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agreeing that the Rule's definitions for water temperature should 
be consistent with AATCC's definitions, Consumers Union suggested a 
definition for ``cold'' (60 degrees F to 80 degrees F) that was 
different from the Commission's proposed definition, because ``most 
consumers are unaware that detergent becomes increasingly ineffective 
as temperatures drop below 60 degrees F,'' \30\ and a definition for 
``hot'' (120 degrees F to 140 degrees F), ``to realistically represent 
temperatures produced by domestic water heaters and scald laws in some 
states.'' \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ In this connection, Consumers Union recommended consumer 
education on ``minimum wash water temperatures.''
    \31\ Consumers Union (21) p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seven commenters remarked on the water temperature issue without 
making specific recommendations as to the proposed definitions.\32\ For 
example, four commenters contended that consumers need water 
temperature numbers on care labels.\33\ Ginetex stated that in its 
system, temperature numbers (in degrees Celsius) are disclosed in the 
system's washing instruction icons, and contended that terms like 
``hot,'' ``warm,'' and ``cold'' are not precise enough.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Industry Canada (8) p. 3; ATMI (9) p. 3; Scanlon (13) p. 1; 
Associazione Serica (15); NCAI (17) p. 4; Fifield (20) p. 1; Ginetex 
(35) p. 2.
    \33\ ATMI (9) p. 3; Associazione Serica, (15) p. 2; Fifield (20) 
p. 1; Ginetex (35) p. 2. See the separate discussion of numerical 
temperatures in section II.B.2.c., below.
    \34\ Ginetex (35) p. 2 (stating that ''. . . in Europe, clothes 
washers heat their own water internally. Consumers can choose a 
precise temperature and the washer will heat the water to it.''); 
Associazione Serica (15), p. 2, recommended harmonization of the 
Commission's Rule with the Ginetex/ISO system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. The Proposal to Add the Term ``Very Hot'' to the Rule. Four 
commenters expressed some level of support for the proposal to add the 
term ``very hot'' to the Rule. Gap agreed with the proposal without 
elaboration and Associazione Serica suggested associating the term to a 
``reference temperature.'' \35\ Procter & Gamble supported the 
proposal, adding:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Though the term `very hot' will not be understood by many 
consumers, our qualitative research indicates that if consumers see 
`very hot' they would be likely to select `hot' on their washer. 
This will be the best of available choices and therefore this 
addition of `very hot' will only be a benefit in providing more 
efficient cleaning for consumers.
    In addition, the separation of the old hot definition into `very 
hot' and `hot' categories allows more garments (that may have been 
harmed at temperatures above 125 degrees F) to be more efficiently 
and appropriately washed in hot temperatures less than 125 degrees 
F. P&G supports a consumer education campaign that would help 
consumers use appropriate and consistent water temperatures to 
achieve more efficient cleaning (better cleaning at less cost), 
especially in northern US states with colder water.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ P&G (34) pp. 4-5.

    While not specifically endorsing adoption of the proposed 
definition, Dr. Charles Riggs suggested that ``very hot'' have an upper 
limit of 160 degrees F rather than 145 degrees F, for use as a label 
for professional shirt laundering.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Riggs (19) p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seven comments opposed the Commission's proposal to add a 
definition for ``very hot'' to the Rule.\38\ As an alternative to the 
proposal, MACLA and AHAM suggested that the definition for ``hot'' in 
the amended Rule include a range of up to 145 degrees F, rather than 
the upper limit of 125 degrees F proposed by the Commission.\39\ MACLA 
contended that the term would be too confusing for consumers, and AHAM 
stated: ``It is not just an issue of confusing consumers or whether 
some garments do not need to be cleaned with temperatures above 125 
degrees, it is an issue of the temperatures a product (clothes washer) 
can provide with the existing water inlet

[[Page 47266]]

temperatures.'' \40\ Industry Canada argued that consumers would be 
unlikely to use very hot water under normal washing conditions unless 
there were a ``very hot'' indicator on their washing machines, and that 
it is improbable that they would conclude that they should use a 
professional cleaner. Rather, concluded Industry Canada, consumers 
would use the ``hot'' setting on their machines instead of incurring 
the cost of professional laundering.\41\ In contrast, IFI stated that 
consumer practice is to send out men's dress shirts, most of which are 
labeled ``Machine wash warm, cool iron,'' to be commercially laundered 
and pressed. Pointing out that commercial laundering is done at 
temperatures in excess of 145 degrees F, IFI concluded that the ``very 
hot'' label would not apply even if manufacturers used it, which 
current practice suggests they would not do.\42\ Noting that the need 
for the addition of a ``very hot'' water designation does not seem to 
be clearly demonstrated and that such an instruction would be 
confusing, Pendleton stated that the trend in home washing practices in 
recent years has been away from the use of hot water, citing as 
evidence that none of Pendleton's 30 or more current care labels carry 
a hot water instruction.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ MACLA (2) p. 1; Industry Canada (8) pp. 3-4; IFI (12) p. 3; 
Scanlon (13) p. 1 (``I would find it hard to believe that ``very 
hot'' water was really good for my clothes, and what I would do is 
use the ``hot'' setting.''); AHAM (18) p. 2; Pendleton (25) p. 2; 
Ginetex (35) p. 2 (Ginetex opposed the use of word designations as 
too imprecise, preferring its own system of temperature symbols tied 
to degrees Celsius.)
    \39\ MACLA (2) p. 2; AHAM (18) p. 2.
    \40\ AHAM (18) p. 2.
    \41\ Industry Canada (8) pp. 3-4.
    \42\ IFI (12) p. 3.
    \43\ Pendleton (25) pp. 2-3. Pendleton suggested that: ``If 
hotter wash temperatures are commonly used or needed in professional 
laundering, it would seem appropriate for this aspect of cleaning to 
be controlled by a ``professional laundering'' care instruction, 
much as the specifics of dry cleaning are controlled by the 
professional dry cleaner when the ``dry clean'' care instruction is 
used.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two textile industry trade associations, ATMI and AAMA, responded 
to the questions in the NPR without specifically supporting or opposing 
the proposed amendment. Speculating on how consumers would understand a 
care instruction to use ``very hot'' water, ATMI predicted that 
``responses may range from using the hottest temperature (consumers) 
can get from their water heater to adding a pot of boiling water to 
using the services of a professional wetcleaner.''
    ATMI suggested that the care label indicate that ``consumers should 
use `Temperatures which normally exceed home laundry and water heater 
settings,' which would justify a larger label if `very hot' is truly 
the preferred method.'' \44\ AAMA observed that ``the question of 
whether consumers understand very hot is important only when 
professional cleaning is needed. For environmental reasons most hot 
water heaters in the U.S. do not generate water above 120 F.'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ ATMI (9) p. 3. ATMI added that magazine articles, provided 
the advice is consistent, could influence consumers' behavior, and 
that further comments on what constitutes ``very hot'' would be 
important.
    \45\ AAMA (11) p. 4. In contrast, in responding to the ANPR, SDA 
estimated that only ``20% of today's homes have hot water heaters 
set at 120 degrees--125 degrees F.'' SDA, comment 43 to ANPR, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Numerical Temperatures and Consumer Education. Although the 
Commission did not propose requiring numerical temperatures on care 
labels, it sought comment on the possibility of a consumer education 
campaign on the issues surrounding numerical temperatures. AAMA agreed 
without elaboration with the Commission's decision not to require 
specific temperatures on labels.\46\ Appliance service technician Bruce 
Fifield contended that the care label should include the numerical 
temperature of the water.\47\ ATMI stated that consumers assume that 
there is a direct correlation between what the consumer sees on a care 
label (e.g., ``machine wash hot water'') and the temperature selection 
on their home washers without realizing the many factors that influence 
the water temperature in the machine. ATMI suggested that clothes 
washer manufacturers, with input from other affected parties, work 
towards a consensus on temperatures and a method for standardizing 
them.\48\ Ginetex stated that in the Ginetex/ISO system numerical 
temperatures (in degrees Celsius) appear along with washing 
instructions icons.\49\ Associazione Serica joined Ginetex in 
recommending harmonization of the Commission's Rule with the ISO/
Ginetex system.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ AAMA (11) p. 3.
    \47\ Fifield (20) p. 1.
    \48\ ATMI (9) p. 3.
    \49\ Ginetex (35) p. 2.
    \50\ Associazione Serica (15) p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three comments expressed their support for consumer education in 
connection with the wash water temperature issue, although none offered 
specific consumer education plans. AAMA and P&G stated that consumer 
education would be necessary to help consumers understand the 
variability issues (geographical and seasonal temperature differences) 
that affect water temperature.\51\ AAMA stated that ``Part of the 
education process will take place as consumers use care symbols. The 
current NAFTA care symbol guide indicates the median temperature for 
`hot,' `warm,' and `cold,' in both Fahrenheit and Celsius.'' \52\ Bruce 
Fifield, who lives in Maine, noted the importance of information about 
the low end of the temperature range and suggested educating the public 
by disclosing temperature degrees along with words on detergent 
packages and clothes washer owners manuals as well as on care 
labels.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ AAMA (11) p. 3; P&G (34) p. 2.
    \52\ AAMA (11) p. 3.
    \53\ Fifield (20) p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Rule Amendments and Reasons Therefor
    The Commission has decided to amend the definitions of ``cold'' and 
``warm'' in the Rule to make them consistent with the AATCC definitions 
for these terms. The Commission has decided against adding the term 
``very hot'' to the Rule. Rather, the Commission amends the Rule so 
that the term ``hot'' now includes the temperature range encompassed by 
both ``hot'' and ``very hot'' in the AATCC definitions. Finally, the 
Commission will leave unchanged its decision, announced in the NPR, not 
to require numerical temperatures on labels.
    The Commission is changing the Rule's definitions for ``cold'' and 
``warm'' to be consistent with the AATCC definitions primarily because 
the AATCC definitions are currently in widespread use in the textile 
industry and because of the changes in water heater settings, as 
discussed in the NPR and mentioned above. The Commission agrees with 
MACLA and AHAM that a ``very hot'' instruction on labels could be 
confusing to consumers and impractical in light of the temperature 
limitations on new water heaters and the majority of home clothes 
washers. Moreover, there is no evidence of consumer need or demand for 
information on such an instruction; nor is there evidence of any harm 
to garments because of the absence of such an instruction. Thus, the 
Commission will not create a separate temperature range for ``very 
hot.'' Because AATCC defines ``very hot'' water as a maximum of 145 
degrees F (63 degrees C), the Commission will lower the current range 
in place under the description of ``hot water,'' with the top end of 
the range changed from 150 degrees F (66 degrees C) to 145 degrees F 
(63 degrees C), to be consistent with the AATCC definitions of ``hot'' 
and ``very hot'' taken together.
    The Commission is not persuaded to add a requirement that labels 
include numerical temperatures. As indicated in the NPR, the Commission 
believes that requiring this type of additional information may not be 
cost-effective because most American consumers know so little about the 
temperature of

[[Page 47267]]

their tap water, the water from their water heaters (especially after 
it has passed through plumbing pipes), or the water in their washing 
machines at the various settings. The Commission recognizes that more 
information could help consumers avoid using water that is too hot and 
may damage some items, or not hot enough to clean others thoroughly, or 
so cold that detergents will not be effective. The Commission believes 
that non-regulatory approaches, such as industry-sponsored consumer 
education campaigns or voluntary product labeling, hold the most 
promise for helping consumers understand how to use water temperatures 
to their best advantage in cleaning their washable items. The 
Commission is willing to consider partnering with industry, consumer, 
or public interest groups or others in such an undertaking.

C. Proposal to Require Home Washing Instruction

1. Background of Proposed Amendment
    The Regulatory Review Notice noted that the EPA had been working 
with the dry-cleaning industry to reduce the public's exposure to 
perchloroethylene (``PCE'' or ``perc''), the most common drycleaning 
solvent,\54\ and asked whether the Rule poses an impediment to this 
goal. The Rule currently requires that the manufacturer provide 
instruction as to one appropriate method of cleaning the garment, i.e., 
either a washing instruction or a drycleaning instruction. Thus, 
garments legally labeled with a ``Dryclean'' instruction alone may also 
be washable, but the manufacturer is not required to provide that 
additional information. In contrast, a ``Dryclean Only'' label 
constitutes a warning that the garment cannot be washed, and the 
manufacturer is required to have a reasonable basis for this 
instruction. The Regulatory Review Notice asked about the prevalence of 
care labeling that does not indicate both washing and drycleaning 
instructions. In addition, it asked whether the use of drycleaning 
solvents would be lessened, and whether consumers and cleaners could 
make more informed choices as to cleaning method, if the Rule were 
amended to require both washing and drycleaning instructions for 
garments cleanable by both methods.\55\ 59 FR 30733-34. The response to 
this proposal was mixed; some commenters favored a required dual 
instruction, while others opposed it because of the increased cost to 
manufacturers of testing garments for both methods. Some pointed out 
that although many items routinely washed by consumers (such as ``wash 
and wear'' apparel) could safely be drycleaned, few consumers would 
choose to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ 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.
    \55\ When it amended the Rule in 1983, the Commission had 
considered and rejected an ``alternative care labeling'' requirement 
that garments be labeled for both washing and drycleaning if both 
are appropriate. 48 FR 22742-43. (See Section II.C.3, infra.) In 
1983, however, evidence about the harmful effects of PCE was not 
available. Therefore, it was appropriate for the Commission to 
revisit the issue during the recent regulatory review proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the ANPR, the Commission requested comment on a proposed 
amendment of the Rule to require a home washing instruction for all 
covered products for which home washing is appropriate. Under the 
proposal, drycleaning instructions for such washable items would be 
optional. Manufacturers marketing items with a ``Dryclean'' instruction 
alone, however, would be required to substantiate both that the items 
could be safely drycleaned and that home washing would be inappropriate 
for them; thus, a ``Dryclean'' instruction would be subject to the same 
burden of substantiation presently required for a ``Dryclean Only'' 
instruction. This revised proposal would eliminate some of the 
additional substantiation testing costs that a ``dual disclosure'' 
requirement would necessitate. 60 FR 67104-05.
    Eighteen commenters to the ANPR, including individual consumers, 
academics, and an appliance manufacturers' trade association, contended 
that many manufacturers currently label items that can be both washed 
and drycleaned with a ``Dryclean'' or ``Dryclean Only'' instruction. 
Many of these commenters suggested that a required home washing 
instruction could save consumers garment care dollars. Some commenters 
also noted that many consumers believe there are environmental benefits 
from home washing rather than drycleaning washable items. 63 FR 25418.
    Based on the ANPR comments, the Commission concluded that it had 
reason to believe that ``Dryclean'' labels on home-washable items are 
prevalent, that consumers have a preference for being told when items 
that they are purchasing can be safely washed at home, and that this 
aspect of the Rule is an impediment to EPA's goal of reducing the use 
of drycleaning solvents.\56\ The Commission also concluded that when a 
washable garment is labeled ``Dryclean,'' consumers may be misled into 
believing that the garment cannot be washed at home and therefore incur 
a drycleaning expense that they would otherwise prefer to avoid. 63 FR 
25419.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ EPA's comment (73) to the Regulatory Review Notice stated, 
at p.1, that the Rule should be revised to require manufacturers to 
state whether a garment ``can be cleaned by solvent-based methods, 
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 ANPR suggested that the Rule be amended to recognize 
professional wetcleaning. EPA, comment 17 to ANPR, p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, in the NPR the Commission proposed amending 
Sec. 423.6(b) of the Rule to read, in pertinent part, as follows:

    (b) Care labels must state what regular care is needed for the 
ordinary use of the product. In general, labels for textile wearing 
apparel must have either a washing instruction or a drycleaning 
instruction. If an item of textile wearing apparel can be 
successfully washed and finished by a consumer at home, the label 
must provide an instruction for washing. If a washing instruction is 
not included, or if washing is warned against, the manufacturer or 
importer must establish a reasonable basis for warning that the item 
cannot be washed and adequately finished at home, by possessing, 
prior to sale, evidence of the type described in paragraph (c) of 
this section. * * *
2. Response to the NPR and Public Workshop-Conference
    In the NPR, the Commission solicited empirical information about 
how consumers interpret a garment label that merely says ``Dryclean.'' 
The NPR posed the following question:

    (1) Is there empirical evidence regarding whether consumers 
interpret a ``dry clean'' instruction to mean that a garment cannot 
be washed? What does the evidence show?

    Several commenters offered opinions on this issue,\57\ but only 
two--Clorox and P&G--offered empirical evidence.

[[Page 47268]]

Clorox provided, with its comment, the results of a nationally 
representative survey of 1013 respondents (507 males and 506 females) 
performed by Market Facts, Inc. and Telenation from June 19 to June 21, 
1998.\58\ This research was presented at the workshop by Eric Essma of 
Clorox.\59\ Question 3 of the survey asked:

    \57\ Johnson Group (1) p. 1 (anecdotal evidence is more to the 
effect that consumers interpret the instruction to mean that a 
garment labeled ``Dryclean'' will last longer if drycleaned, than it 
is to the effect that they think it cannot be washed); Nature's 
Cleaners (6) p. 1 (no evidence, but the perception is true); 
Industry Canada (8) p. 1 (no data, but assume that's how most 
Canadian consumers read it); ATMI (9) p. 1 (it is possible that 
consumers make that assumption--a ``casual poll'' indicates that 
most consumers do make that interpretation, but do not necessarily 
follow their interpretation of the instruction); Scanlon (consumer) 
(13) (``Certainly I interpret a `dry clean' instruction to mean that 
a garment cannot be washed; why else would the manufacturer put dry 
clean? If that's not what it means, I would appreciate it if you 
would require manufacturers to be more accurate. If what they really 
mean is `dry cleaning preferred,' then they should say so.''); 
Associazione Serica (15) (Comments ``mainly based on European 
consumers' behavior'') (``Yes, there is (evidence). This instruction 
is considered as a prohibition (against) other washing methods.''); 
Prestige (16) p. 1 (experience has shown that many consumers who 
trust the care label will not attempt a non-listed care method).
    \58\ A description of the survey and its results are attached to 
Clorox's comment (22). Telenation conducted the survey using a 
single-stage, random digit-dial sample technique to select 
respondents from all available residential telephone numbers in the 
contiguous United States. Up to three attempts were made on the 
selected telephone numbers. Telenation's standard data tabulations 
are provided in a weighted format. The data are weighted on an 
individual multi-dimensional basis to give appropriate 
representation to the interaction between various demographic 
factors. The multi-dimensional array covers gender, within age, 
within household income in the four National Census regions, 
resulting in 144 different cells. The current Population Survey from 
the U.S. Census Bureau is used to determine the weighting targets 
for each of these 144 cells. Clorox (22) p. 5.
    \59\ A copy of Mr. Essma's presentation was placed on the public 
record as Clorox (PW-43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the care instruction on an article of clothing reads ``Dry 
Clean'' what does that mean to you? (Probe:) How would you care for 
clothing like that? (Probe:) Any other ways? (Record Verbatim. Probe 
for Clarification. Probe to Exhaustion.)

A majority of the respondents (73.2%) said a ``Dryclean'' instruction 
means the garment must be drycleaned, professionally cleaned, or 
otherwise specially taken care of.
    P&G stated, in its comment to the NPR, that it ``has much 
experience and qualitative evidence to indicate that consumers 
interpret a ``dry clean'' instruction or a `dry clean only' instruction 
to mean that a garment cannot be washed or cared for in the home.'' 
\60\ At the workshop, P&G presented a description of data obtained from 
a nationally representative survey of about 1,000 female heads of 
household who currently do the laundry.\61\ Respondents were asked 
which of five methods they would use to clean a garment labeled 
``Dryclean.'' Although multiple responses were allowed, 44% of 
respondents said drycleaning was the only acceptable way to clean such 
a garment.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ P&G (34) p. 3.
    \61\ P&G's two-page summary of the data was placed on the public 
record as P&G (PW-44).
    \62\ Workshop Transcript (``Tr.''), pp. 26-27. The difference 
between the results of the P&G survey (44% mentioned only 
drycleaning) and the Clorox survey (73.2% said the garment must be 
drycleaned or otherwise specially taken care of) may be due to the 
fact that the respondents in the P&G survey were female heads of 
household who currently do the laundry, whereas the Clorox 
respondents were a random sample of the population. Female heads of 
household who currently do the laundry may be more aware than the 
general population that items labeled ``Dryclean'' may also be 
washable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, empirical data in the record indicates that many consumers 
interpret a ``Dryclean'' label to mean that the garment cannot be 
washed. In addition, question 4 in the Market Facts survey asked 
respondents whether they had ``ever washed or laundered any clothing 
labeled `Dry Clean.' '' Almost half (49%) of the respondents said 
``yes.'' \63\ These respondents were then asked (in question 8) whether 
they were ``satisfied with the results of washing or laundering `Dry 
Clean' items,'' and 63.4% said `yes' and 11.1% said ``sometimes.'' \64\ 
Thus, the Market Facts study indicates that some garments labeled 
``Dryclean'' can in fact be washed at home to the satisfaction of the 
consumer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Clorox (22) Weighted Data, p. 6.
    \64\ Clorox (22) Weighted Data, p. 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several post-workshop comments discussed the Clorox research, but 
none questioned the finding that a large number of consumers interpret 
a ``Dryclean'' instruction to mean that a garment cannot be cared for 
at home. Rather, these comments focused on the data about consumer care 
label preferences. Question 9 in the Market Facts survey asked 
respondents:
    For clothing items that can be either washed or dry cleaned if the 
label can only show one instruction, which instruction would you prefer 
to see included on the label: (Read List. Enter Single Response. If 
Unsure Encourage Best Guess.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     j
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washing instructions, or.......................................       1
Dry cleaning instructions......................................       2
(Do Not Read):
    Don't know.................................................       X
    Refused....................................................       R
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The responses indicated that 88.8% of respondents would prefer 
washing instructions. \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Clorox (22) Weighted Data, p. 44. Pendleton (25) also 
stated, at p. 1, that its own market information indicates ``the 
importance of washability to consumers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Support for the proposed amendment came from Consumers Union, AHAM, 
Pendleton, Greenpeace, and individual consumers, as well as from Clorox 
and P&G.\66\ AHAM, for example, stated that the proposed amendment 
``will result in consumers saving garment care dollars and will lead to 
reduction in adverse environment impact resulting from the use of 
percloroethylene.'' \67\ Greenpeace asserted that ``consumers want to 
know from a care label whether a garment can be cleaned at home, in 
water-based laundry systems.'' \68\ Pendleton Woolen Mills stated:

    \66\ Consumers Union (21) p. 1; AHAM (18) p. 2; Pendleton (25) 
pp. 1-2; Greenpeace (27) p. 1; Smith (36) p 1; Clorox (22) p. 1; and 
P&G (34) pp. 2, 3.
    \67\ AHAM (18) p. 2.
    \68\ Greenpeace (27) p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed change is consistent with Pendleton's current 
direction for increased emphasis on garment washability. Market 
information gathered by Pendleton staff has indicated the importance 
of washability to consumers. This requirement may mean a relatively 
small increase in the amount of testing, but Pendleton is already 
seeking to put washable care instructions on garments when possible. 
\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Pendleton (25) p. 1.

    Commenting on the Clorox survey results, the International 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabricare Institute opposed the proposed amendment. IFI stated:

    the fabricare industry takes issue with much of the data 
presented and believes that an additional consumer survey is 
required to provide the FTC with sufficiently broad information to 
determine consumer care label preferences. Clorox asked only whether 
consumers wanted to know when a garment can be home washed. The 
question should have been ``Would you like to know if a garment can 
be washed or drycleaned, would you like to know all appropriate 
methods of care?' \70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ IFI (PW-20), p. 2.

    In its comment to the NPR, IFI argued that failure to provide 
drycleaning instructions when appropriate is an injustice to those 
consumers who wish to have their garments professionally cleaned and 
that all appropriate methods of care should be listed on the care label 
(a concept which it referred to as ``alternative labeling'').\71\ IFI 
further asserted that ``there are consumers who want some of their 
washable items drycleaned.'' \72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ IFI (12) p. 1. Many other cleaners and cleaners' trade 
associations also favored requiring instructions for both washing 
and drycleaning or for all methods by which an item can be cleaned 
(including, presumably, professional wetcleaning and newly emerging 
techniques such as the use of liquid carbon dioxide for cleaning): 
MACLA (2) p. 1; Viola (5) p. 2; Prestige (16) p. 1; NCAI (17) p. 2 
(otherwise consumers might pay more in the long run because of 
``excess wear potentially caused by home care''); Valet (PW-6) p. 1; 
MFI (PW-7), p. 1; French (PW-8), p. 1; Coronado (PW-9), p. 1; MACLA 
(PW-10) p. 1; SEFA (PW-11) p. 1; COBS (PW-14) p. 1; Hallak (PW-22) 
p. 1; Avon (PW-23) p. 1; Comet (PW-25), p. 1; Spear (PW-27), p. 1; 
Cowboy (PW-29), p. 1; Randi (PW-31), p. 1; Swannanoa (PW-35) p. 1; 
Sno White (PW-36) p. 1; Perrys-Flanagans (PW-38) p. 1. One yarn 
manufacturer and one academic expert also favored dual or 
alternative labeling. Celanese (PW-12) p. 1; Riggs (PW-13) p. 3. EPA 
(PW-3) at pp.1-2, favored alternative labeling. Other cleaners and 
cleaners' trade associations opposed the proposed change and favored 
retaining the status quo--i.e., that either washing or drycleaning 
may be listed on the label of a garment that can either be washed or 
drycleaned. Rawhide (PW-5) pp. 1-4 (cleaning by consumers is more 
hazardous to the environment than cleaning by drycleaners); NCPDC 
(28) pp. 1-2 (recommending home washing as the preferred method is 
not necessarily providing consumers with the best method of cleaning 
their garments).
    \72\ IFI (12) p. 2.

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

[[Page 47269]]

    The AAMA also criticized the Clorox Market Facts survey, noting 
that it showed ``nothing more than a preference for home washable 
garments and not a preference for a change in the rule.'' \73\ AAMA 
opposed requiring that garments that can be either washed or drycleaned 
be labeled for home washing, stating: ``Responsible apparel firms label 
their garments according to what they believe to be the best method of 
cleaning.'' \74\ AAMA contended that the proposed change in the Rule 
would not reduce underlabeling (i.e., labeling washable garments 
``Dryclean'') without increased enforcement of the Rule; that the 
proposed change would increase costs to manufacturers; and that there 
is a ``gray area between garments that need some type of professional 
cleaning and finishing and those that can be maintained with home 
washing and finishing.'' \75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ AAMA (PW-24) p. 3.
    \74\ AAMA (11) p. 2.
    \75\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its post-workshop comment, AAMA also argued that the proposed 
change would be burdensome because of a lack of specific standards:

the definition of ``successful home washing'' is yet to be 
established. . . . While a definition may exist for a manufacturer 
establishing a reasonable basis for a garment that is traditionally 
home washed, it is unclear if this definition also applies to a 
garment that is traditionally dry cleaned. Does such a garment have 
to pass an absolute or a comparative test when reasonable basis is 
established? For example, is a garment ``successfully'' home washed 
if it can withstand a certain number of home wash cycles, even 
though it can withstand a greater number of dry clean cycles? 
Similarly, a mandatory home wash standard suggests that a garment 
must fail every conceivable home care method before the label can 
warn against home care. We are concerned that manufacturers will be 
expected to establish a reasonable basis with a law that is not 
fully defined.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ AAMA (PW-24) p. 2. Johnson Group (1) made a similar point, 
at p. 2, stating that appropriate criteria must be developed 
``specifying the product performance after a given number of 
cleaning cycles.''

AAMA reiterated its belief that the proposed change would increase 
costs to manufacturers, including costs of ``additional testing, 
increased paperwork, lost production time, increased liabilities, and 
damaged garments,'' but stated that its members were unable to quantify 
these costs.\77\ AAMA asserted that the proposed change would result in 
manufacturers losing revenues and customers because of high garment 
return rates for garments labeled for home washing when they should 
``ideally be dry cleaned'' and because of ``consumer anger at 
prematurely worn-out clothes.'' \78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ AAMA (PW-24) p. 2.
    \78\ Id. at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to its argument that the proposed change would harm 
manufacturers, AAMA contended that it would harm consumers for several 
reasons, including increased costs. AAMA stated: ``One apparel 
manufacturer currently carries a `performance-satisfaction guarantee' 
that it vows to revoke if the proposed amendment were to become part of 
the Rule.'' Consumers will also be hurt, according to AAMA, because 
they may not feel certain that they are caring for their garments in 
the best way: ``AAMA believes that consumers prefer to be given the 
best care instructions, not just the possible care instructions.'' AAMA 
further suggested that the proposed change would be confusing to 
consumers because the meaning of a simple `` Dryclean'' instruction 
will in effect change to ``Dryclean Only.'' Finally, AAMA argued that 
the proposed change should not be adopted because it would be difficult 
to convey in symbols. \79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Decision Not to Adopt the Proposed Amendment
    In promulgating or amending a trade regulation rule pursuant to 
section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, the Commission must act 
within its statutory mandate to ``define with specificity acts or 
practices which are unfair or deceptive . . . (within the meaning of 
(section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act))'' and to ``include requirements 
prescribed for the purpose of preventing such acts or practices.'' In 
promulgating the Rule in 1971 and amending it in 1983, the Commission 
found that it is both unfair and deceptive to fail to disclose any 
instructions of a method by which a garment can be cleaned. 36 FR 23889 
and 48 FR 22736. The Commission did not find, however, that it is 
either unfair or deceptive to label a garment with only one method of 
cleaning when another method also can be used. Indeed, in amending the 
Rule in 1983, the Commission considered but rejected requiring that 
instructions for both washing and drycleaning (which the Commission 
referred to as ``alternative care labeling'') be included on care 
labels, stating that the record did not show that the benefits of such 
a requirement would exceed its costs:

    An alternative care labeling requirement would impose 
significant testing and substantiation costs on manufacturers. For 
example, it would require [manufacturers] to give drycleaning 
instructions, and to have a reasonable basis for those instructions, 
for all items they already label as washable. 48 FR at 22742.

    In order to amend the Rule to require that a garment manufacturer 
list a particular cleaning method on the care label in all cases where 
that method is applicable, the Commission would have to find evidence 
indicating that the failure to list the method is both a prevalent 
practice and an unfair or deceptive one. The Commission also would have 
to conclude that the particular remedy was an appropriate and cost 
effective way to address the unfair or deceptive practice. \80\ There 
is evidence in the record that some garments labeled ``Dryclean,'' or 
even ``Dryclean Only,'' are in fact home washable. There is also 
evidence that some consumers believe a ``Dryclean'' instruction means 
that a garment cannot be washed; thus, they may be misled by the 
instruction and incur a cleaning cost they would not otherwise incur. 
The Commission is not convinced, however, that the evidence is 
sufficiently compelling to justify a change in the Care Labeling Rule 
at this time. Moreover, the benefits of the proposed amendment are 
highly uncertain. For example, it is not clear from the record how many 
garments currently labeled ``Dryclean'' would have to be labeled for 
home washing if the amendment were adopted. \81\ In addition, it 
appears that there have been changes in the marketplace, since the 
beginning of this rulemaking proceeding, that suggest regulatory change 
may not be needed. Therefore, after carefully weighing the evidence and 
the competing considerations at stake, the Commission has decided not 
to adopt the proposed amendment to require a home washing instruction 
for all garments that may be washed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 16 CFR 1.14.
    \81\ In the absence of standards for a successful wash result 
(in terms of the durability of the garment as compared to its 
durability when drycleaned), there is, as suggested by the AAMA, a 
``gray area'' where deference would have to be accorded the 
manufacturer's best judgment. AAMA (11) p. 2, (PW-24) p. 2. In 
addition, the use of ``Dryclean'' labels on garments that also could 
be washed seems to be limited to certain kinds of fabrics. Silk, 
wool, and rayon have been mentioned most frequently as fabrics often 
labeled ``Dryclean'' when in fact they could be washed. Other 
factors, such as the type of weave in the fabric and the dyes used 
also affect washability. Tr. 38-39; ATMI (9) p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One impetus for the proposed amendment to require a home washing 
instruction where applicable was the environmental goal of reducing use 
of PCE. 63 FR at 25418-19. Discussion at the workshop and some post-
workshop

[[Page 47270]]

comments indicated, however, that use of this solvent by the 
drycleaning industry has already been dramatically reduced. \82\ The 
discussion suggested that the reason for this decline may be higher 
recovery rates for PCE during the cleaning process, as opposed to the 
use of other solvents or methods. \83\ Furthermore, the discussion 
showed that the effect of a mandatory wash instruction on consumer 
behavior simply could not be predicted. \84\ While it is clear that 
many consumers have a preference for more information, including 
washing instructions, it is not at all clear that a required washing 
instruction would change consumer behavior sufficiently to reduce 
either the use of PCE or the cost to consumers of caring for their 
garments. \85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ An EPA representative stated: ``From the numbers that I 
have seen . . . it would appear that the dry cleaners, the dry 
cleaning industry, has done an excellent job of reducing the use of 
PERC over the last ten and twenty years. . . . I think it's less 
than half of what it was ten years ago.'' Tr. p. 115. A 
representative of a drycleaners trade association in the Southwest 
stated in a written comment that improvements in the manner of using 
PERC over the last ten or fifteen years has resulted in a 75% 
reduction of usage of the solvent even though more clothes are 
cleaned in it every year. He further asserted that with the 
development of alternative solvents, including liquid carbon 
dioxide, drycleaning could become the environmentally preferable 
method of cleaning clothes in the future. Rawhide (PW-5) p. 2. IFI 
contends that PERC consumption has declined 70% over the past 10 
years. IFI (PW-20) p. 2.
    \83\ Riggs Tr. p. 118 and (PW-13) p. 2; IFI (PW-20) p. 2.
    \84\ Stroup (EPA) Tr. pp. 115-16.
    \85\ As noted above, it is speculative as to how many garments 
now labeled ``Dryclean'' would actually have to be re-labeled for 
home washing. In addition, it has been suggested that some consumers 
take washable garments to a drycleaner rather than washing them at 
home simply for the convenience of professional cleaning and/or 
because they believe the clothing will look better or last longer if 
professionally cleaned. French (PW-8); IFI (12) p. 2; MFI (PW-7) p. 
1; MACLA (PW-10) pp. 1-2; Spear (PW-27) p. 1; Greenpeace (27) p. 2; 
Tr. 107-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another change in the marketplace is the emergence of new cleaning 
technologies, including professional wetcleaning \86\ and liquid carbon 
dioxide. \87\ These new technologies are considered to be more 
``environmentally friendly'' than PCE \88\ and provide additional 
options for consumers. Another new technology is the formulation of 
home cleaning products, such as Dryel (a new P&G product). \89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See discussion in Part II.D, infra.
    \87\ See discussion in Part III, infra.
    \88\ EPA (PW-3) pp. 1-2.
    \89\ See discussion in Part III, infra. Although such products 
are not likely to be total replacements for professional 
drycleaning, they do offer consumers additional, and less costly, 
cleaning options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of commenters urged the Commission to amend the Rule to 
require that all appropriate methods of care be listed on the care 
label. \90\ While this proposal would have the advantage of maximizing 
the information and options provided to consumers, it is potentially 
costly and burdensome on manufacturers for the Commission to require 
that an evolving list of cleaning technologies be named on a permanent 
garment label and that manufacturers have substantiation for all of 
them (including contrary evidence for those not mentioned). The EPA 
suggested that the Commission not establish a preference for one 
environmentally friendly technology over others. \91\ The Commission 
agrees with this position; the Commission does not agree, however, that 
the rulemaking record supports a determination that it is an unfair or 
deceptive act or practice for a manufacturer to fail to provide a label 
listing all methods or technologies that could be used to clean a 
garment. Moreover, the rapidly changing nature of the garment care 
industry suggests that the Commission should not intervene with a 
regulatory change that might in the future prove to be inadequate or 
inappropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ E.g., IFI (PW-20) p. 2; Valet (PW-6) p. 1; MFI (PW-7) p. 1; 
MACLA (PW-10) p. 1; SEFA (PW-11) p. 1; Celanese (PW-12).
    \91\ EPA (PW-3) p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Market Facts study shows that despite the perception by some 
consumers that a ``Dryclean'' instruction is tantamount to a ``Dryclean 
Only'' instruction, nearly half of those surveyed had in fact washed a 
garment with a ``Dryclean'' label. \92\ Moreover, the majority of that 
group was satisfied with the results of washing. This suggests that 
consumers may be getting information about the ability to wash some 
garments with a ``Dryclean'' label from other reliable sources. Such 
sources could include retailers, consumer publications \93\ or media 
sources, professional cleaners, other consumers, or a consumer's own 
past experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ As some commenters noted, however, this study does not 
necessarily provide insight about the total percentage of garments 
labeled ``Dryclean'' that might also be washable. The consumers who 
answered ``yes'' to this question could be referring to only one 
garment out of many wardrobe items with a ``Dryclean'' label or one 
garment over a period of many years.
    \93\ For example, Consumers Union published an article 
describing results obtained when blouses and sweaters with a 
``Dryclean'' or ``Dryclean Only'' label were washed. Consumers Union 
concluded that many such garments can be home washed. Tr. pp. 38-39; 
article attached to comment of Consumers Union (21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Representatives of some large retailers, including J.C. Penney, 
Sears, and QVC, indicated that frequently they ask manufacturers to 
change the care labels of garments with a ``Dryclean'' instruction 
where the retailers'' own testing shows them to be machine washable. 
\94\ They do so because they believe that a washing instruction will be 
the most useful one for their customers. This is an example of the 
marketplace responding to consumer preferences and demonstrates the 
ability of retailers to ensure that their customers get the type of 
care information they want. In addition, some manufacturers themselves 
indicate they are responding to consumers' desire for information on 
washability by putting washing instructions on garments when possible. 
\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ Tr. pp. 58-60.
    \95\ E.g., Pendleton (25) p. 1. A recent trade press article 
notes that, in direct response to consumer demand, some other 
manufacturers are dramatically increasing the number of washable 
items they offer for sale. ``Cleaning Up With Washable Fabrics,'' A. 
D'Innocenzio, Women's Wear Daily, April 12, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, to the extent that consumers are being misled by 
``Dryclean Only'' labels on clothing that can be home laundered, the 
Commission points out that such an instruction would be illegal under 
the current Rule. 16 CFR 423.6(c)(2). The term conveys to consumers a 
warning that the item cannot be washed successfully. A manufacturer 
using such a label must have a reasonable basis for this warning, just 
as the manufacturer must also have a reasonable basis for stating that 
the garment can be drycleaned successfully. Although the Commission has 
not to date brought enforcement actions based on a misleading 
instruction of ``Dryclean Only,'' it may do so in the future if this 
practice occurs.
    The Commission hopes that manufacturers and their trade 
associations will respond affirmatively to the evidence in this 
proceeding that consumers want more information about cleaning options, 
particularly washing instructions where applicable. \96\ One 
manufacturer suggested, for example, use of label language such as: 
``machine wash...or dry clean for best results.'' \97\ If manufacturers 
are reluctant to lengthen labels to communicate that washing is 
possible, although drycleaning may be preferred for best long term 
results, they certainly can find other ways to convey the information. 
They could use hang tags, for example, to inform consumers that a 
``Dryclean'' instruction on the label does not mean that the garment 
cannot be cleaned by washing or other methods, but rather that 
drycleaning is an appropriate way to clean the item

[[Page 47271]]

and, in some cases, may be the preferred method for garment appearance 
or longevity. On a hang tag, consumers could be given additional useful 
information, not conducive to shortened form on a label, such as, with 
certain fabrics, white garments can be washed without harm, but 
brightly colored garments might fade if washed rather than drycleaned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ The AAMA agreed that ``underlabeling'' (i.e., labeling a 
garment simply ``Dryclean'' when washing at home is also a viable 
option) is a problem in the clothing industry. AAMA (PW-24) p. 6.
    \97\ Pendleton (25) p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Professional Wetcleaning Instruction

1. Background of Proposed Amendment
    Several comments submitted in response to the Regulatory Review 
Notice suggested that new technologies of professional wetcleaning 
offer promising alternatives to PCE-based drycleaning. Therefore, in 
the ANPR, the Commission requested information about the professional 
wetcleaning process. It also sought comment on the feasibility of 
amending the Rule to require such an instruction, when appropriate and 
in addition to a drycleaning instruction, for items that cannot be home 
laundered. 60 FR at 67105, 67107. Twenty-nine commenters addressed the 
wetcleaning issue. Some opposed amending the Rule to require such an 
instruction, arguing that the technology is too new and not yet well 
understood nor widely available. A number of commenters provided 
information about the available processes and equipment. In addition, 
they offered widely varying estimates of the percentage of garments now 
labeled ``Dryclean'' or ``Dryclean Only'' that could also be wetcleaned 
effectively. 63 FR at 25420-21. Ginetex stated that it is waiting for 
development of a standardized test method before incorporating 
wetcleaning into the European care labeling system.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ Ginetex, comment 63 to ANPR, p. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Response to the NPR
    In the NPR, the Commission sought comment on a proposed amendment 
that would permit, though not require, a ``Professionally Wetclean'' 
instruction on care labels. Under the proposed amendment, this 
instruction would be in addition to, not in place of, a care 
instruction for another method of cleaning, such as washing or 
drycleaning. The NPR also set forth a proposed definition of 
``professional wetcleaning.'' \99\ The proposed amendment specified 
that a label with a ``Professionally Wetclean'' instruction must state 
one type of professional wetcleaning equipment that may be used, unless 
the garment could be cleaned successfully by all commercially available 
types of professional wetcleaning equipment. The proposed amendment 
further specified that a label recommending professional wetcleaning 
must also list the fiber content of the garment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ See 63 FR 25417 at 25426:
    Professional wet cleaning means a system of cleaning by means of 
equipment consisting of a computer-controlled washer and dryer, wet 
cleaning software, and biodegradable chemicals specifically 
formulated to safely wet clean wool, silk, rayon, and other natural 
and man-made fibers. The washer uses a frequency-controlled motor, 
which allows the computer to control precisely the degree of 
mechanical action imposed on the garments by the wet cleaning 
process. The computer also controls time, fluid levels, 
temperatures, extraction, chemical injection, drum rotation, and 
extraction parameters. The dryer incorporates a residual moisture 
(or humidity) control to prevent overdrying of delicate garments. 
The wet cleaning chemicals are formulated from constituent chemicals 
on the EPA's public inventory of approved chemicals pursuant to the 
Toxic Substances Control Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the NPR, 25 comments addressed the issue of 
professional wetcleaning. A few of these opposed the proposed 
amendment, stating that the technology and availability of this process 
are not yet sufficiently advanced to justify a care labeling 
instruction.\100\ Most of the comments favored amending the Care 
Labeling Rule to recognize professional wetcleaning. They did not 
agree, however, on how this should be accomplished. Several argued that 
the Rule should require a ``Professionally Wetclean'' instruction 
whenever the method would be appropriate.\101\ Some believed that a 
``Professionally Wetclean'' instruction should always be accompanied by 
another appropriate care method,\102\ while others asserted that a 
second instruction should be allowed, but not required.\103\ With 
regard to the issue of specifying wetcleaning equipment, most thought 
it would be unnecessary and overly restrictive.\104\ Of those 
addressing the issue of whether fiber content should be stated on a 
label with a ``Professionally Wetclean'' instruction, most suggested 
that fiber content should be required on all care labels, not just 
labels that recommend professional wetcleaning.\105\ Eleven comments 
addressed the proposed definition of ``wetcleaning;'' \106\ a few 
favored it, others suggested modifications, and others rejected it as 
too narrow, encompassing only the newest technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ See, e.g., Viola (5) p. 2; AHAM (18) p. 3 (Delay 
incorporating a ``Professionally Wet Clean'' instruction in the Rule 
``until the manufacturers can establish a reasonable basis for this 
method of garment refurbishment.''); Alliance (33) p. 1 (``To create 
special labeling at this time is premature.'').
    \101\ See, e.g., Aqua Clean (4) p. 1; Cleaner By Nature (10) p. 
1; Riggs (19) p. 2; PPERC (24) p. 2; Pendleton (25) p. 2; Greenpeace 
(27) p. 3; CNT (30) p. 2.
    \102\ See, e.g., Johnson Group (1) p. 1; MACLA (2) p. 1; 
Industry Canada (8) p. 2; ATMI (9) p. 2; IFI (12) p. 2; Scanlon (13) 
p. 1; Riggs (19) p. 2; Pendleton (25) p. 2.
    \103\ See, e.g., Nature's Cleaners (6) p. 1; Associazione Serica 
(15) p. 1; CNT (30) pp. 2-3.
    \104\ See, e.g., Riggs (19) p. 2; Consumers Union (21) p. 2; CNT 
(30) p. 3 (label should not specify equipment type, but should 
specify finishing instructions, when needed.); PWN (31) p. 2; P&G 
(34) pp. 2, 3 (equipment statement should not be required; allow an 
optional statement of at least one type of equipment that can be 
used, unless all would work). But, see PPERC (24) p. 4 (require 
``Professionally Wetclean'' instructions to specify wetclean 
finishing equipment, if necessary).
    \105\ See, e.g., Consumers Union (21) p. 2; PPERC (24) p. 2; 
Greenpeace (27) p. 2; CNT (30) p. 3; PWN (31) p. 2.
    \106\ IFI (12) p. 2; Prestige Cleaners (16) p. 1; NCAI (17) p. 
1; Riggs (19) p. 1; Consumers Union (21) p. 3; PPERC (24) p. 2; 
Greenpeace (27) p. 2; CNT (30) pp. 2-3; PWN (31) p. 2; P&G (34) pp. 
2-3; Pellerin Milnor (37) p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Public Workshop-Conference and Post-Workshop Comments
    At the workshop, seven participants stated that professional 
wetcleaning is an established care method that is currently used not 
only by those who specialize in wetcleaning but also by many, if not 
most, conventional cleaners.\107\ Six of the participants and two 
observers agreed that a definition and test procedure should be 
developed before the Commission amends the Rule to permit or to require 
a wetcleaning instruction.\108\ The discussion made clear, however, 
that there is not one, clearly defined process performed by those who 
do professional wetcleaning.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ Star (CNT) Tr. pp. 155-59; Hargrove (PWN) Tr. p. 169; 
Boorstein (Prestige) Tr. p. 171; Sinsheimer (PPERC) Tr. p. 180; 
Oakes (QVC) Tr. p. 189; Davis (Cleaner by Nature) Tr. pp. 190-91; 
Scalco (IFI) Tr. p. 244.
    \108\ Riggs Tr. pp. 172-75; Easter (Univ. Ky.) [Observer] Tr. p. 
176; Pullen Tr. pp. 181-83; Ferrell (Capital Mercury Apparel, Ltd.) 
Tr. p. 186; Lamar (AAMA) Tr. p. 189; Essma (Clorox) Tr. pp. 207-08; 
Jones, General Electric Company (``GE'') [Observer] Tr. pp. 230-32; 
Stroup (EPA) Tr. p. 261.
    \109\ For example, Ms. Hargrove of PWN asked if IFI would agree 
that most of the nation's 30-35,000 cleaners do some amount of 
wetcleaning. Ms. Scalco of IFI agreed, but with the qualification 
that ``there's vast differences in how they do that wet cleaning 
from shop to [shop].'' Tr. p. 169.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was considerable discussion at the Workshop about the need to 
define ``wetcleaning'' and develop a test procedure that manufacturers 
could use to establish a reasonable basis for using a ``Professionally 
Wetclean'' instruction on labels. A representative of the Center for 
Neighborhood Technology read the definition CNT proposed in its comment 
responding to the NPR,\110\ and representatives of ASTM and AATCC 
offered to consider establishing a definition and test procedure at the 
next meetings of those organizations, using

[[Page 47272]]

the CNT definition and the definition proposed by the Commission in the 
NPR as a basis for discussion.\111\ Responding to many participants' 
expressed need for additional time to standardize a definition and test 
method for wetcleaning, Commission staff conducting the workshop 
suggested that the rulemaking record could be kept open for nine months 
to a year to allow time for affected interests to develop a definition 
and test procedure before the Commission makes a final decision on 
whether to add a wetcleaning instruction to the Rule.\112\ It was the 
general sense of the participants that this would be a desirable 
approach.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Ewing (CNT) Tr. p. 178.
    \111\ Pullen Tr. p. 211; Riggs Tr. pp. 172-74.
    \112\ See Engle (FTC) Tr. pp. 228, 270-71; Kolish (FTC) Tr. 
pp.234-36, 294-95.
    \113\ See, e.g., Jones (GE) [Observer] Tr. pp. 230-32; Pullen 
Tr. p. 234. Sinsheimer (PPERC), however, asserted that, although 
some time would be necessary to standardize a definition and test, 
nine months would be too long a delay. Tr. pp. 229-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Post-workshop comments confirmed that wetcleaning is a growing and 
viable technology for professional garment care,\114\ and 
overwhelmingly supported the idea that the rulemaking record remain 
open on this issue for an extended period of time. The Center for 
Neighborhood Technology, for example, reported that at the February 
1999 meeting of the AATCC, steps were taken to form a subcommittee to 
begin the development of the necessary test methods.\115\ Another 
conference participant reported that the issue of defining 
``professional wetcleaning'' had been placed on the ASTM D13.62 
agenda.\116\ Nineteen of the 23 post-workshop comments that addressed 
the timing question supported the idea of keeping the rulemaking record 
open to allow the relevant stakeholders a reasonable interval of time 
to continue the dialogue begun at the FTC's workshop.\117\ The other 
four commenters believed the Commission should amend the Care Labeling 
Rule without delay so as not to hinder the development of this 
``environmentally friendly'' cleaning technology.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ E.g., EPA (PW-3) p. 1; Aqua Clean (PW-30) pp. 1-2; KYCC 
(PW-32) pp. 1-2.
    \115\ CNT (PW-26) p. 1.
    \116\ Pullen (PW-2) p. 1.
    \117\ EPA (PW-3) p. 2; Valet (PW-6) p. 2; Celanese (PW-12) p. 1; 
COBS (PW-14) p. 1; PWN (PW-15) p. 1; Prestige (PW-16) p. 1; Wentz 
(PW-17) p. 2; Consumers Union (PW-19) p. 1; IFI (PW-20) pp. 1, 4; 
Hallak (PW-22) p. 1; Avon (PW-23) p. 1; AAMA (PW-24) p. 7; Comet 
(PW-25) p. 2; CNT (PW-26) pp. 1-2; Randi (PW-31) p. 1; Swannanoa 
(PW-35) p. 3; Sno White (PW-36) p. 1; EFC9 (PW-37) p. 2; Perrys-
Flanagans (PW-38) p. 1.
    \118\ PPERC (PW-21) pp. 2, 6; Greenpeace (PW-28) p.1; KYCC (PW-
32) p. 3; Cypress (PW-33) p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Commission Decision Not to Adopt the Proposed Amendment and To Close 
the Record
    Based on the discussion of professional wetcleaning at the 
workshop, combined with the NPR comments and the post-workshop 
comments, the Commission has concluded that it would be premature at 
this time to amend the Rule to allow a ``Professionally Wetclean'' 
instruction. The Commission believes that a final definition of 
``professional wetcleaning'' and an appropriate test method for the 
process must be developed before the Commission can amend the Rule to 
permit a ``Professionally Wetclean'' instruction on required care 
labels.\119\ This is necessary in order to give manufacturers clear 
guidance as to how they may establish a reasonable basis for a wetclean 
instruction. Currently, manufacturers can test garments for drycleaning 
by having them drycleaned in perchloroethylene. They can test for home 
washing by having them laundered at various water temperatures. In 
order to have a reasonable basis for a ``Professionally Wetclean'' 
instruction, manufacturers would need to be able to subject the 
garments to such a cleaning method. In this case, however, the 
``method'' may encompass many different processes, and the one chosen 
would depend in large part on the particular cleaner. In recommending a 
particular cleaning method, manufacturers must have assurance that the 
method they are recommending--and for which they have established a 
reasonable basis--is the same method that cleaners actually would use 
to clean the garment labeled for that method. For this reason, a 
definition of ``professional wetcleaning,'' for purposes of amending 
the Care Labeling Rule, must either describe all important variables in 
the process, so that manufacturers could determine that their garments 
would not be damaged by the process, or be coupled with a specific test 
procedure that manufacturers could use to establish a reasonable 
basis.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Presumably, all garments that could be safely washed at 
home also could be cleaned by professional wet cleaning. The record 
indicates, however, that the reverse is not true: there are certain 
garments that can be professionally wet cleaned but cannot be 
successfully washed and finished at home. Under the Care Labeling 
Rule, the first category of garments can be labeled for washing. No 
amendment of the Rule is needed to provide cleaners with the 
information about cleaning such garments in water. A proposed 
definition of ``professional wet cleaning'' needs to focus, 
therefore, only on the second category of garments, i.e., those that 
cannot be washed at home but could be professionally wet cleaned.
    \120\ Although the Rule does not require a manufacturer to 
conduct testing to establish a reasonable basis (see discussion, 
Part II.A.1, supra), other indices of reliability, such as past 
experience, would likely not be present with respect to a new 
technology such as professional wetcleaning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One workshop participant suggested that a reasonable basis already 
exists in the marketplace in the form of wetcleaning being performed on 
a daily basis by professional wetcleaners, and that the Commission 
should add a wetcleaning instruction to the Rule while the definition 
and test are being formally standardized.\121\ The Neighborhood 
Cleaners Association International suggested, in its NPR comment, that 
the use of a computer-controlled washer and dryer is not necessary and 
that it is the operator's knowledge of the chemistry of wetcleaning and 
of fabrics, fibers, and dyes that is determinative.\122\ It is not 
clear how this body of knowledge could be incorporated into a 
definition, however, given that there is no way to ensure that persons 
who attempt such cleaning will have such knowledge. A regional 
drycleaners association stated that professional wetcleaning is an 
emerging technology that ``has yet to be standardized.'' \123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Sinsheimer (PPERC) Tr. pp. 179-81, 229, and 241.
    \122\ NCAI (17) p 2.
    \123\ SEFA (PW-11) p. 1. SEFA further stated: ``Wetcleaning, as 
practiced in our industry, to date, includes everything from hand 
washing to computerized equipment to specialized finishing 
equipment.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has concluded that some level of standardization is 
necessary before a ``Professionally Wetclean'' instruction can be 
placed on garments that are to be sold throughout the entire country. 
The Commission is encouraged by the fact that, during the year since 
the workshop took place, standards-setting organizations and other 
interested participants in this proceeding appear to have been working 
independently to resolve these outstanding issues. It appears, however, 
that progress has been slow toward developing a definition and test 
procedure that would enable manufacturers to have a reasonable basis 
for a wetcleaning instruction.
    The Commission has learned, for example, that although AATCC is 
close to a final definition for the wetcleaning process, the draft 
definition appears to be general enough in its terminology that a test 
procedure would be needed to complement it before manufacturers could 
have a reasonable basis to determine if their garments would

[[Page 47273]]

survive the process.\124\ If, as currently seems to be the case with 
the AATCC draft, the definition is not sufficiently specific for a 
manufacturer to make such a determination, there must be a test 
procedure in place upon which manufacturers can rely before the 
Commission can amend the Rule in this respect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ According to the Winter, 2000 volume of Wetcleaning 
Update, published by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, AATCC's 
RA43 Committee on Professional Textile Care approved the following 
definition for wetcleaning:
    Professional Wetcleaning--A process for cleaning sensitive 
textiles (e.g., wool, silk, rayon, linen) in water by professionals 
using special technology, detergents and additives to minimize the 
potential for adverse effects. It is followed by appropriate drying 
and restorative finishing procedures.
    Wetcleaning Update reported that the Committee on Textile 
Cleaning of the International Standards Organization also is 
conducting a ballot on this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is clear to the Commission that additional time is necessary for 
standards-setting organizations such as AATCC or ASTM to develop a test 
procedure.\125\ Given the fact that more than one year has already 
elapsed since the workshop, with development of only a very general 
draft definition for professional wetcleaning and no agreement on an 
appropriate test procedure, it appears unlikely that a final test 
procedure will be established in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ As part of a project known as AQUACARB (partially funded 
by the European Union), six European research institutes are also 
attempting to develop a test procedure for professional wetcleaning. 
AATCC is coordinating its efforts with AQUACARB , as well as with 
research efforts at North Carolina State University. ``Dynamics of 
Change in Professional Garment Cleaning,'' Textile Chemist and 
Colorist & American Dyestuff Reporter, December 1999, pp. 38, 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Commission is not amending the Rule to include a 
definition and instruction for wetcleaning. If a more specific 
definition and/or test procedure, which would provide manufacturers 
with a reasonable basis for a wetcleaning instruction, is developed in 
the future, the Commission will consider a proposal to add such an 
instruction to the Rule. In the meantime, the Commission is concluding 
this rulemaking proceeding.

III. Other Issues Raised in the Comments and the Workshop

    Other proposals introduced in the comments or in the workshop 
included: Care instructions for liquid carbon dioxide; home fabric care 
instructions for products such as Dryel; a ``professionally clean'' 
instruction; and requiring specific dryer temperatures on care labels. 
Neither the ANPR nor the NPR afforded notice or solicited comment about 
these issues; hence, their inclusion in the rulemaking proceeding at 
this final stage would be inappropriate.
    The use of liquid carbon dioxide as a cleaning solvent is a new 
technique that was introduced last year at one site in the United 
States. Micell Technologies, Inc. (``Micell''), the corporation that 
developed this new technology and launched it on February 9, 1999, 
recommended that the Commission require a care instruction for ``Liquid 
Carbon Dioxide Process.'' \126\ In its post-workshop comment, EPA urged 
the Commission ``to begin the process to develop a standard definition 
and test protocol, and eventually a ``Liquid Carbon Dioxide Process'' 
care label instruction requirement.'' \127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ Micell (PW-40) p. 1.
    \127\ EPA (PW-3) p. 2. While not specifically referring to 
liquid carbon dioxide, Greenpeace (PW-28) also commented, at p. 2, 
that it encouraged the FTC ``to find a way to streamline and 
accelerate the proper labeling of these [new] processes' and 
suggested that environmental impact studies are a good way ``to 
objectively prioritize the value of consumer technologies.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the Commission will consider amending the Rule to 
recognize a new technology for care label purposes when there is a 
standard definition of that technology, so that manufacturers can give 
an instruction for ``Method X'' with assurance that the ``Method X'' 
they are describing (and which they have a reasonable basis to believe 
will refurbish their garments without damage) is the same ``Method X'' 
that cleaners who attempt to clean their garments are using.\128\ The 
development of a standardized process must precede the development of a 
standardized definition, however, and the standardization of a new 
technology must, to a large extent, occur within the industry that is 
offering the new technology to the public. The Commission can help 
articulate a definition for a new technology when the technology has 
progressed to a stage where there is at least some standardization of 
the process. It is not within the Commission's mandate, however, to try 
to create demand for new technologies that might be environmentally 
desirable; nor does the Commission have the expertise necessary to 
evaluate the environmental effects of such new technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ If such an instruction is to be the only instruction on 
the care label, the Commission would also inquire into the 
accessibility of the method to consumers, who are accustomed to 
garments that are labeled for one of two widely available cleaning 
methods, washing or drycleaning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Procter & Gamble recommended that the Commission modify the Rule to 
permit manufacturers to include an optional ``home fabric care 
instruction'' on labels of garments that could be cleaned at home with 
the use of a product such as Dryel, a new product marketed by P&G. P&G 
described Dryel as an ``in-dryer ``dryclean only'' fabric care product 
which offers the consumers a convenient, safe and inexpensive method 
for cleaning and freshening garments at home.'' P&G also stated that it 
has developed test methods for Dryel performance.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ P&G (34) p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not believe it is appropriate at this time to 
include in the Rule provisions for labeling for products such as Dryel. 
The only evidence the record contains about Dryel is evidence P&G 
submitted in response to the NPR. Hence, inclusion of a labeling 
instruction for products such as Dryel would be premature. The product 
can be offered to consumers regardless of whether instructions for its 
use appear on garment care labels. Indeed, if garment manufacturers 
wish to recommend the use of this type of product on their garments, 
they are free to do so as long as they have a reasonable basis for 
whatever recommendations they give consumers.
    The Center for Neighborhood Technology suggested that the 
Commission consider a ``Professionally Clean'' label, which would leave 
the choice of solvent to the cleaner and would encompass both wet and 
drycleaning, along with future technologies. It also stated that ``if a 
particular garment would not be serviceable in a specific solvent, this 
label could have an exclusion for that solvent.'' \130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ CNT (30) p. 2, (PW-26) p. 2. PWN (PW-15) p. 1 and EFC9 
(PW-37) p. 2 also supported a ``Professionally Clean'' label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not believe it is appropriate to include the 
option of a ``Professionally Clean'' label in the Rule at this time. 
Currently, the Rule refers to one method of professional cleaning--
drycleaning--and requires the manufacturer to provide warnings when the 
normal drycleaning process (as defined in the Rule) must be modified to 
prevent damage to the garment. CNT's proposal for a ``Professionally 
Clean'' label would absolve the manufacturer of the responsibility to 
provide such warnings but would make the manufacturer responsible for 
warning that particular solvents could not be used on the garment. In 
fact, however, whether or not certain drycleaning solvents can be used 
can depend on whether or not warnings (such as, for example, ``short 
cycle'') are provided. The responsibility to provide

[[Page 47274]]

warnings as to how the normal drycleaning process should be modified 
for a particular garment is currently placed on the manufacturer. This 
is appropriate because, as the Commission said when it amended the Rule 
in 1983, the manufacturer, having chosen all the components of a 
garment, would be able to determine the ``care traits of a given item'' 
and ``professional drycleaners may be unable to determine the 
combination of fibers and finishes used in a particular fabric and thus 
may not be able to determine the appropriate solvent and drycleaning 
procedure to be followed.'' 48 FR 22739.
    Consumers Union recommended that the Rule require specific dryer 
temperatures (instead of ``high,'' ``medium,'' and ``low'') on care 
labels that recommend washing and machine drying because there are no 
standardized temperature definitions in the dryer industry for these 
words.\131\ The Commission agrees that consumers would benefit if the 
terms that appear on clothes dryers--such as ``high,'' ``medium,'' and 
``low''--had standardized definitions, and it urges the industry to 
develop such definitions through private standards-setting 
organizations.\132\ At the present time, the Commission does not 
believe that requiring specific dryer temperatures on care labels would 
be helpful to consumers because consumers have no way of knowing the 
temperature in their clothes dryers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ Consumers Union (21) p. 4.
    \132\ Pursuant to section 12(d)(1) and (3) of the National 
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, P.L. 104-13, 110 
Stat. 783, when setting standards, federal agencies are required to 
use ``technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary 
consensus standards bodies' except when use of such standards is 
``inconsistent with other laws or otherwise impractical.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Regulatory Analysis and Regulatory Flexibility Act Requirements

    Under section 22 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b, the Commission must 
issue a final regulatory analysis for amendments to a rule only when it 
(1) estimates that the amendments will have an annual effect on the 
national economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) estimates that the 
amendments will cause a substantial change in the cost or price of 
goods or services that are used extensively by particular industries, 
that are supplied extensively in particular geographic regions, or that 
are acquired in significant quantities by the federal government, or by 
state or local governments; or (3) otherwise determines that the 
amendments will have a significant effect upon covered entities and 
upon consumers. A final regulatory analysis is not required because the 
Commission finds that the amendments to the Rule will not have such 
effects on the national economy, on the cost of textile wearing apparel 
or piece goods, or on covered businesses and consumers.
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601-12, requires 
agencies to conduct an analysis of the anticipated economic impact of 
proposed amendments on small businesses.\133\ The purpose of a 
regulatory flexibility analysis is to ensure that the agency considers 
impact on small entities and examines regulatory alternatives that 
could achieve the regulatory purpose while minimizing burdens on small 
entities. Section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, provides that such an 
analysis is not required if the agency head certifies that the 
regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ The RFA addresses the impact of rules on ``small 
entities,'' defined as ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Care Labeling Rule covers manufacturers and importers of 
textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods, and the Commission 
preliminarily concluded in the NPR that any amendments to the Rule may 
affect a substantial number of small businesses. For example, 
unpublished data prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau under contract to 
the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') show there are 288 
manufacturers of men's and boys'' suits and coats (SIC Code 2311), more 
than 75% of which qualify as small businesses under applicable SBA size 
standards.\134\ There are more than 1,000 establishments manufacturing 
women's and misses' suits, skirts, and coats (SIC Code 2337), most of 
which are small businesses. Other small businesses are likely covered 
by the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ SBA's revised small business size standards are published 
at 61 FR 3280 (Jan. 31, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nevertheless, for reasons stated in the NPR, the Commission 
certified under the RFA that the proposed amendments to the Care 
Labeling Rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small businesses, and concluded, 
therefore, that a regulatory analysis was not necessary. To ensure that 
no significant economic impact was being overlooked, however, the 
Commission requested comments on this issue. The only commenters to 
address this issue did so with respect to the proposed amendment to 
require a home wash instruction for garments that can safely be washed 
at home `` a proposal that the Commission has decided not to adopt at 
the present time.
    The comments addressed no issues with regard to the impact of other 
proposed amendments on small businesses. The amendment to the 
reasonable basis provision of the rule is simply a clarification of the 
fact that the manufacturer or importer must have a reasonable basis for 
care instructions for the garment as a whole, not simply for the 
separate components. It does not impose any significant additional 
burden on covered entities. The amendments to the Rule's definitions of 
``cold,'' ``warm,'' and ``hot'' simply conform the Rule to standards 
currently used in the textile industry and do not impose any additional 
burdens on manufacturers and importers. Therefore, the Commission has 
determined that the Rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities and concludes that a regulatory 
flexibility analysis is not required. In light of the above, the 
Commission certifies, under section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, that 
the Rule amendments adopted herein will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Rule contains various information collection requirements for 
which the Commission has obtained clearance under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Office of Management and Budget 
Control Number 3084-0103. A notice soliciting public comment on 
extending the clearance for the Rule through December 31, 2001, was 
published in the Federal Register on October 6, 1999, 64 FR 54324. OMB 
subsequently extended the clearance until December 31, 2001.
    As noted above, the Rule requires manufacturers and importers of 
textile wearing apparel to attach a permanent care label to all covered 
items and requires manufacturers and importers of piece goods used to 
make textile clothing to provide the same care information on the end 
of each bolt or roll of fabric. These requirements relate to the 
accurate disclosure of care instructions for textile wearing apparel. 
Although the Rule also requires manufacturers and importers to base 
their care instructions on reliable evidence, it does not contain any 
explicit record keeping requirements. The Rule also provides a 
procedure whereby an industry member may petition the Commission for an 
exemption for products that are claimed

[[Page 47275]]

to be harmed in appearance by the requirement for a permanent label. 
Such petitions have been filed only rarely in recent years.
    In the NPR, the Commission preliminarily concluded that the 
proposed amendments to the Rule, if enacted, would not increase the 
paperwork burden associated with these paperwork requirements. The 
Commission stated that the proposed amendment to change the numerical 
definitions of the words ``hot,'' ``warm,'' or ``cold,'' when they 
appear on care labels, would not add to the burden for businesses 
because they are already required to indicate the temperature in words 
and to have a reasonable basis for whatever water temperature they 
recommend. Moreover, businesses would not be burdened with determining 
what temperature ranges should be included within the terms ``hot,'' 
``warm,'' or ``cold'' because the Rule would provide the appropriate 
numerical temperatures. OMB regulations, at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2), provide 
that ``the public disclosure of information originally supplied by the 
Federal government to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to 
the public is not included within [the definition of collection of 
information].''
    The Commission concludes on the basis of the information now before 
it that the amendments to the Care Labeling Rule adopted herein will 
not increase the paperwork burden associated with Rule compliance.

VI. Environmental Assessment

    In the NPR, the Commission noted that it had prepared a proposed 
Environmental Assessment in which it analyzed whether the proposed 
amendments to the Rule were required to be accompanied by an 
Environmental Impact Statement. Because the main effect of the 
amendments is to provide consumers with additional information rather 
than directly to affect the environment, the Commission concluded in 
the proposed Environmental Assessment that an Environmental Impact 
Statement is not necessary.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ The proposed Environmental Assessment is on the public 
record and is available for public inspection at the Public 
Reference Room, Room 130, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, Washington, DC. It can also be obtained at the FTC's web 
site at http://www.ftc.gov on the Internet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPR, the Commission requested comment on this issue. 
Consumers Union stated that it believed the proposed amendment to 
permit labeling for professional wetcleaning (as opposed to requiring 
labeling for professional wetcleaning) would be a disincentive to the 
widespread adoption and use of wetcleaning, and therefore the Rule as 
proposed in the NPR would require an environmental impact statement for 
its potential negative impacts on the increase of wetcleaning 
technology.\136\ Greenpeace also stated that an environmental impact 
statement ``would be helpful in deciding how to finally amend the 
proposed Care Labeling Rule.'' \137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ Consumers Union (21) p. 2.
    \137\ Greenpeace (27) p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has concluded that a final Environmental Assessment 
and an Environmental Impact Statement are not necessary. The Commission 
is not amending the Rule at this time to include an instruction for 
professional wetcleaning. Even if the Commission were deciding to 
include professional wetcleaning in the Rule, the main effect of that 
decision would be to provide consumers with additional information 
rather than directly to affect the environment. With respect to the 
final amendments of the Rule that are adopted herein, the Commission 
concludes that there is no discernible effect on the environment.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423

    Clothing; Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; 
Textiles; Trade practices.

VII. Final Amendments

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends title 16, 
chapter I, subchapter D of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 423--CARE LABELING OF TEXTILE WEARING APPAREL AND CERTAIN 
PIECE GOODS AS AMENDED

    1. The authority for part 423 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 38 Stat. 717, as amended; (15 U.S.C. 41, et seq.)

    2. In Sec. 423.1, the last sentence of paragraph (d) is revised to 
read as follows:


Sec. 423.1  Definitions.

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

    3. In Sec. 423.6, paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (c)(3) are revised to 
read as follows:


Sec. 423.6  Textile wearing apparel.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Washing. The label must state whether the product should be 
washed by hand or machine. The label must also state a water 
temperature--in terms such as cold, warm, or hot--that may be used. 
However, if the regular use of hot water up to 145 degrees F (63 
degrees C) will not harm the product, the label need not mention any 
water temperature. [For example, Machine wash means hot, warm or cold 
water can be used.]
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) Reliable evidence, like that described in paragraph (c)(1) or 
(2) of this section, for each component part of the product in 
conjunction with reliable evidence for the garment as a whole; or
* * * * *

    4. In Appendix A to Part 423--Glossary of Standard Terms, 
paragraphs 1.d. through 1.o. are redesignated as paragraphs 1.e. 
through 1.p., paragraphs 1.a. through 1.c. are revised, and a new 
paragraph 1.d. is added to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 423--Glossary of Standard Terms

    1. Washing, Machine Methods:
    a. ``Machine wash''--a process by which soil may be removed from 
products or specimens through the use of water, detergent or soap, 
agitation, and a machine designed for this purpose. When no 
temperature is given, e.g., ``warm'' or ``cold,'' hot water up to 
145 degrees F (63 degrees C) can be regularly used.
    b. ``Hot''--initial water temperature ranging from 112 to 145 
degrees F [45 to 63 degrees C].
    c. ``Warm''--initial water temperature ranging from 87 to 111 
degrees F [31 to 44 degrees C].
    d. ``Cold''--initial water temperature up to 86 degrees F [30 
degrees C].
* * * * *


    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-19491 Filed 8-1-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P