Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods
| Citation | 85 FR 44485 |
| Record Number | 2020-13919 |
| Published date | 23 July 2020 |
| Court | Federal Trade Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 142 (Thursday, July 23, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 142 (Thursday, July 23, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44485-44494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13919]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission seeks comment on a proposal to repeal its trade
regulation rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain
Piece Goods as Amended (``Care Labeling Rule'' or ``Rule'').
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 21,
2020. Parties interested in an opportunity to present views orally
should submit a request to do so as explained below, and such requests
must be received on or before September 21, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by
following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Please write ``Care Labeling
Rule, 16 CFR part 423, Project No. R511915'' on your comment, and file
your comment online at https://www.regulations.gov by following the
instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment
on paper, write ``Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR part 423, Project No.
R511915'' on your comment and on the envelope and mail your comment to
the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the
Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 5610, Washington, DC
20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade
Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th
Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex C), Washington, DC 20024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome, Attorney, Federal
Trade Commission, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer
Protection, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580, (202)
326-2889.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission finds that using streamlined
procedures in this rulemaking will serve the public interest.
Specifically, such procedures support the Commission's goals of
clarifying, updating, or repealing existing regulations, while ensuring
that the public has an opportunity to submit data, views, and arguments
on whether the Commission should repeal the Rule. Because written
comments should adequately present the views of all interested parties,
the Commission is not scheduling a public hearing or roundtable.
However, if any person would like to present views orally, he or she
should follow the procedures set forth in the DATES, ADDRESSES, and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of this document. Pursuant to 16 CFR
1.20, the Commission will use the procedures set forth in this
document, including: (1) Publishing this Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (``SNPRM''); (2) soliciting written comments on the
Commission's proposal to repeal or amend the Rule; (3) holding an
informal hearing (such as a roundtable) if requested by interested
parties; (4) obtaining a final recommendation from staff; and (5)
announcing final Commission action in a document published in the
Federal Register. Any motions or petitions in connection with this
proceeding must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission.
I. Introduction
The Care Labeling Rule requires manufacturers and importers of
textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods to attach labels to
their products disclosing the care needed for the ordinary use of the
product.\1\ The Rule also requires manufacturers or importers to
possess a reasonable basis for care instructions,\2\ and allows the use
of approved care symbols in lieu of words to disclose those
instructions.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 CFR 423.5 and 423.6(a) and (b).
\2\ 16 CFR 423.6(c).
\3\ The Rule provides that the symbol system developed by ASTM
International, formerly the American Society for Testing and
Materials, and designated as ASTM Standard D5489-96c, ``Guide to
Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Consumer Textile Products,''
may be used on care labels or care instructions in lieu of terms so
long as the symbols fulfill the requirements of part 423. 16 CFR
423.8(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission has a long history of seeking comment and
considering concerns about the Rule as well as the amendments proposed
by the Commission. It promulgated the Rule in 1971 and has amended it
three times since.\4\ In 1983, the Commission clarified its
requirements regarding the disclosure of washing and drycleaning
information.\5\ In 1997, the Commission adopted a conditional exemption
to allow the use of symbols in lieu of words.\6\ In 2000, the
Commission clarified what constitutes a reasonable basis for care
instructions and revised the Rule's definitions of ``cold,'' ``warm,''
and ``hot'' water.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 36 FR 23883 (Dec. 16, 1971).
\5\ 48 FR 22733 (May 20, 1983).
\6\ 62 FR 5724 (Feb. 6, 1997).
\7\ 65 FR 47261 (Aug. 2, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2000, the Commission also rejected two proposed amendments.
First, it declined to require marketers to provide instructions for
home washing on items that one can safely wash at home. The Commission
determined that the evidence was not sufficiently compelling to require
such instructions and that the benefits of the proposed change were
highly uncertain.\8\ Second, the Commission decided not to establish a
definition for ``professional wetcleaning'' or permit manufacturers to
label a garment with a ``Professionally Wetclean'' instruction.\9\ The
Commission concluded that it was premature to allow such an instruction
before the development of a suitable definition and an appropriate test
method.\10\ However, the Commission stated that it would consider such
an instruction if a more specific definition and/or test procedure were
developed.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id. at 47269.
\9\ The Commission initially proposed a definition of
professional wetcleaning, stating, in part, that it is a system of
cleaning by means of equipment consisting of a computer-controlled
washer and dryer, wetcleaning software, and biodegradable chemicals
specifically formulated to safely wetclean wool, silk, rayon, and
other natural and man-made fibers. Id. at 47271 n. 99.
\10\ Id. at 47272. The Commission explained that the definition
must either describe all important variables in the process, so that
manufacturers can determine that the process would not damage the
garment, or be coupled with a specific test procedure that
manufacturers can use to establish a reasonable basis for the
instruction. Id.
\11\ Id. at 47273.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of its ongoing regulatory review program, the Commission
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``ANPR'') in July
2011 seeking comment on the economic impact of, and the continuing need
for, the Rule; the benefits of the Rule to consumers; and any burdens
the Rule places on businesses.\12\ The ANPR also sought comment on
whether and how the Rule should address professional
[[Page 44486]]
wetcleaning and updated industry standards regarding the use of care
symbols, as well as whether the Rule should provide for non-English
disclosures. The Commission received 120 comments in response.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 76 FR 41148 (July 13, 2011).
\13\ The comments are posted at http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing these comments, in September of 2012 the Commission
published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'') proposing four
amendments.\14\ Specifically, it proposed: (1) Permitting manufacturers
and importers to provide a care instruction for professional
wetcleaning on labels if the garment can be professionally wetcleaned;
(2) permitting manufacturers and importers to use the symbol system set
forth in either ASTM Standard D5489-07, ``Standard Guide for Care
Symbols for Care Instructions on Textile Products,'' or ISO
3758:2005(E), ``Textiles--Care labelling code using symbols''; (3)
clarifying what constitutes a reasonable basis for care instructions;
and (4) updating the definition of ``dryclean'' to reflect then-current
practices and technology.\15\ The Commission received 87 comments in
response,\16\ including one requesting an opportunity to present views
orally at a workshop or hearing and several suggesting that the
Commission hold a hearing or workshop. Most of these comments also
urged the Commission to amend the Rule to require a wetcleaning
instruction rather than merely permit one. Accordingly, the Commission
conducted a roundtable on March 28, 2014 to provide interested parties
with an opportunity to present their views orally pursuant to the
procedures set forth in the NPRM.\17\ The Commission received 19
comments in connection with the roundtable.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 77 FR 58338 (Sept. 20, 2012).
\15\ The Commission published the NPRM pursuant to Section 18 of
the Federal Trade Commission Act (``FTC Act''), 15 U.S.C. 57, the
provisions of Part 1, Subpart B of the Commission's Rules of
Practice, 16 CFR 1.7, and 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. This authority
permits the Commission to promulgate, modify, and repeal trade
regulation rules that define with specificity acts or practices that
are unfair or deceptive in or affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1).
\16\ The comments are posted at http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-451.
\17\ The Commission originally scheduled this roundtable on
October 1, 2013, see 78 FR 45901 (July 30, 2013); however, it was
cancelled due to the government shutdown. The Commission announced
the March 28 roundtable in February 2014. See 79 FR 9442 (Feb. 19,
2014). For more information about the roundtable, including the
agenda, event materials, a transcript, and video recordings of the
roundtable, see http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2014/03/care-labeling-rule-ftc-roundtable.
\18\ One comment is posted at http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-489. Eighteen comments are posted at http://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-548.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upon consideration of the substantial record in this rulemaking,
the Commission now seeks comment on a proposal to repeal the Rule
altogether. As detailed in section III, the record suggests that the
Rule may not be necessary to ensure manufacturers provide care
instructions, may have failed to keep up with a dynamic marketplace,
and may negatively affect the development of new technologies and
disclosures.
This SNPRM summarizes the comments filed in response to the NPRM,
as well as the roundtable and the roundtable comments, and explains the
Commission's proposal. Additionally, it poses questions regarding the
proposal and whether informal guidance would be helpful in the absence
of the Rule. Finally, this SNPRM addresses procedural matters including
communications to Commissioners and their advisors and the requirements
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
II. Summary of Comments and Roundtable
The Commission received 106 comments in response to the 2012 NPRM
and 2014 roundtable.\19\ Individuals, many of them professional
cleaners, filed the majority of comments. The Commission also received
comments from government agencies,\20\ industry standard-setting and
related organizations,\21\ environmental advocacy organizations,\22\
equipment manufacturers and solvent suppliers,\23\ and trade
associations representing industries affected by the Rule.\24\ In
addition, 17 individuals representing a variety of stakeholders
participated in the three roundtable discussion groups, which included
audience participation. The commenters and roundtable participants
(``comments'' or ``commenters'') addressed four issues: (1)
Professional wetcleaning; (2) use of care symbols; (3) reasonable basis
provisions; and (4) the Rule definitions and appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The Commission has assigned each comment a number appearing
after the name of the commenter and the date of submission. This
SNPRM cites comments using the last name of the individual submitter
or the name of the organization, followed by the number assigned by
the Commission.
\20\ Two California agencies filed comments: The Air Resources
Board (451-70), Department of Toxic Substances Control (451-96). The
European Union also filed a comment (451-67).
\21\ American Association of Textile Chemists & Colorists
(AATCC) (548-15), ASTM International (451-77), and Ginetex (451-37),
which is responsible for the care labeling system used in European
countries.
\22\ The Toxic Use Reduction Institute (``TURI'') (451-54 and
548-28), UCLA Sustainable Technology & Policy Program (451-87 and
548-27).
\23\ E.g., Miele (451-68, 72 and 76) and GreenEarth Cleaning
(451-41 and 548-9 and 17).
\24\ American Apparel & Footwear Association (451-88 and 548-
26), Drycleaning & Laundry Institute (451-71), The Hosiery
Association (541-69), International Drycleaners Congress (451-32),
National Cleaners Association (451-98 and 548-22), Professional
Leather Cleaners Association (451-84 and 548-14), Professional Wet
Cleaners Association (451-59 and 548-18), United States Association
of Importers of Textiles & Apparel (USA-ITA) (451-73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Professional Wetcleaning
Commenters addressed a variety of issues relating to wetcleaning,
including: (1) The dryclean instructions on many labels, which some
commenters claimed are unfair or deceptive; (2) the environmental and
health benefits of wetcleaning; (3) the relative cost of wetcleaning
and drycleaning; (4) the cost of substantiating wetcleaning
instructions; (5) consumer access to, and preferences regarding,
wetcleaning; (6) the content of wetcleaning instructions; and (7)
whether the Rule should permit or require a wetcleaning instruction.
1. Consumer Understanding Regarding Professional Wetcleaning From Dry
Cleaning Instructions
Several commenters maintained that the current dryclean instruction
is deceptive and unfair because they argue that it implies that
drycleaning is the only safe and effective cleaning method, when, in
fact, wetcleaning may be an effective, alternative method of
cleaning.\25\ The Rule currently allows marketers to provide a dryclean
instruction on a label if they have a reasonable basis to believe that
drycleaning is a safe and effective cleaning method. Drycleaning need
not be the only, or even the best, method of cleaning the item. Some
commenters contended, however, that contrary to the Rule's intent
empirical and anecdotal evidence indicates many consumers misunderstand
the dryclean instruction to mean that drycleaning is either the
[[Page 44487]]
only or the recommended cleaning method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See roundtable presentation by Peter Sinsheimer from UCLA,
available at http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/114528/march_28_sinsheimer_ftc_presentation.pdf;
Sinsheimer (548-27), Huie (548-12) (dryclean instruction deceptive
because implies dryclean only), Roh (548-5) (dryclean instruction
deceptive unless wetclean instruction mandated); Roundtable
Transcript at 9 and 12-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Sinsheimer from UCLA submitted an online consumer study by
Harris Interactive to support his contention that the Rule's dryclean
instruction is deceptive and unfair.\26\ The study, conducted in
September 2013 using close-ended questions, involved 2,000 adults.
According to Sinsheimer, about 89% of the study respondents interpreted
``dryclean'' to mean that drycleaning is the only, or the recommended,
cleaning method.\27\ Only about 7% understood ``dryclean'' to mean that
drycleaning is just one reliable method for cleaning the item.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Sinsheimer roundtable presentation, available at http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/114528/march_28_sinsheimer_ftc_presentation.pdf; Sinsheimer (548-27);
Roundtable Transcript at 9 and 17-18. The Commission has concerns
about certain methodological limitations of the study that reduce
its probative value, discussed in greater detail in section III.A.2.
\27\ Specifically, 42% of the respondents interpreted
``dryclean'' to mean that drycleaning is the only method for
cleaning the item (Q3010). Additionally, 47% of respondents
interpreted ``dryclean'' to mean it is the recommended cleaning
method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several other commenters also asserted that consumers misinterpret
the dryclean instruction. For example, one trade association stated
that many, if not all, consumers interpret the dryclean label as ``do
not wash.'' \28\ In addition, two consumer surveys considered by the
Commission during the last Rule review yielded results consistent with
the Harris Interactive online survey. One 1998 survey showed that 73.2%
of the consumers surveyed interpreted ``dryclean'' to mean that the
item must be drycleaned, professionally cleaned, or otherwise specially
taken care of. \29\ A second survey of female heads of household who do
laundry showed that 44% interpreted ``dryclean'' to mean that
drycleaning is the only acceptable way to clean the item.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ DLI (451-71).
\29\ 65 FR at 47268. Despite this interpretation of the dryclean
instruction, 49% said they had washed or laundered items labeled
``dryclean.'' Of these consumers, 63.4% were satisfied with the
results, and 11.1% were sometimes satisfied. Id.
\30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters generally agreed that a substantial number of garments
labeled ``dryclean'' or ``dryclean only'' can be professionally
wetcleaned, although they disagreed on the percentage. Sinsheimer cited
studies showing that 99% of these items can be wetcleaned.\31\
Professional wetcleaners also indicated that a very high percentage of
these textiles can be wetcleaned, including those containing wool and
cashmere.\32\ Other commenters asserted that wetcleaning is not
necessarily suitable for certain types of fibers (e.g., pure wool) and
stains (e.g., water soluble stains can be wetcleaned while other types
of stains such as grease may require drycleaning) and can lead to loss
of color, bleeding, shrinkage, and undesired changes in an item's
surface character.\33\ None of the commenters disputed that wetcleaning
is a viable method of cleaning and an effective alternative to
drycleaning in at least some instances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Roundtable Transcript at 17-18.
\32\ E.g., Chang (451-60), PWA (451-59) (99.9% can be
wetcleaned); Roundtable Transcript at 47-49.
\33\ See roundtable presentation by Professor Riggs of Texas
Woman's University, available at http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/114528/charles_riggs_presentation_ftc.pptx;
and Roundtable Transcript at 27-31, 43, 58, and 65-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Environmental and Health Issues
Some commenters contended that wetcleaning is always better for the
environment and human health than drycleaning. Others asserted that
drycleaning is comparable or superior under some circumstances. Both
roundtable presentations addressed this issue, as did a number of the
commenters.
Government agencies, environmental advocacy organizations, and
professional wetcleaners touted the environmental and health benefits
of wetcleaning. Paul Matthai, a senior regulatory analyst for the
Pollution Prevention Division/Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(PPD/OPPT) at the EPA opined that wetcleaning is ``inherently
environmentally preferable'' to drycleaning.\34\ Sinsheimer stated that
the vast majority of drycleaners in the United States operate machines
with perchloroethylene (``perc''), a chemical listed in the Clean Air
Act as a hazardous air pollutant and a leading source of soil and
drinking water contamination.\35\ Two California government agencies
\36\ and a second environmental advocacy organization \37\ also
asserted that perc causes soil and groundwater contamination while
professional wetcleaning uses less energy and water, and improves air
quality and employee health.\38\ In December 2007, the California Air
Resources Board adopted a regulation eliminating the use of perc in
drycleaning by 2023.\39\ Joy Onasch of the Toxic Use Reduction
Institute (``TURI'') asserted that hydrocarbons and other perc
alternatives have significant environmental and health hazards such as
increased emissions of volatile organic compounds, fire, groundwater
contamination, and potential adverse human health effects.\40\ A number
of professional wetcleaners favored wetcleaning due to concerns about
toxic or unhealthy drycleaning solvents.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Roundtable Transcript at 60.
\35\ Sinsheimer (451-87).
\36\ Air Resources Board (451-70) and Department of Toxic
Substances Control (451-96).
\37\ TURI (451-54 and 548-28).
\38\ Roundtable Transcript at 45, 56, 60-64.
\39\ Air Resources Board (451-70).
\40\ TURI (451-54).
\41\ E.g., PWA (548-59 and 60), Mo (548-19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters disputed these claims. Charles Riggs of Texas
Woman's University stated that modern drycleaning equipment filters and
then reuses solvents until they can be disposed of. He also asserted
that wetcleaning discharges water containing detergents as well as more
aggressive spot cleaning solvents into the sewage system.\42\ Mary
Scalco of the Drycleaning and Laundry Institute (``DLI'') asserted that
wetcleaning may be no more environmentally friendly than drycleaning,
depending on the equipment and drycleaning solvent used.\43\ Ann
Hargrove of the National Cleaners Association (``NCA'') asserted that
some wetcleaners are not allowed to use the septic system because they
used dry solvents that ended up in the water.\44\ Another commenter
stated that wetcleaning consumes significantly more water than
drycleaning and can lead to the discharge of solvents into the
sewer.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Riggs Roundtable PowerPoint presentation; Roundtable
Transcript at 34-37.
\43\ Roundtable Transcript at 54-55 and 59.
\44\ Id. at 58.
\45\ Sitz (548-6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Wetcleaning and Drycleaning Service Costs
Some commenters contended that wetcleaning costs no more than
drycleaning, while others explained that costs depend on many factors,
including the type and age of equipment and solvents used. Sinsheimer,
Onasch, and Juli Mo of the Professional Wetcleaners Association cited
research and anecdotal evidence that wetcleaning is either less
expensive or at least does not cost more than drycleaning.\46\ For
example, Onasch reported that several cleaners in Massachusetts did not
raise their prices after switching from perc drycleaning to
wetcleaning.\47\ A June 2012 report submitted by TURI estimated that
the average cost per pound for wetcleaning was $1.10; it also
[[Page 44488]]
estimated the cost was $1.02 for perc and $0.88 for high-flash
hydrocarbons, two types of drycleaning solvents.\48\ Onasch of TURI
asserted that data since 2012 shows that wetcleaning does not cost more
than drycleaning.\49\ Riggs stated that service prices vary not only by
the technology used to clean, but also the price range of the garments
cleaned and the age of the equipment.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Sinsheimer roundtable power point presentation; Roundtable
Transcript at 19, 67, and 69-70.
\47\ Roundtable Transcript at 70.
\48\ TURI (451-54); Roundtable Transcript at 66.
\49\ Roundtable Transcript at 67-68.
\50\ Id. at 68 and 71-72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Substantiation Costs
Commenters disagreed about the cost of substantiating wetcleaning
instructions and the potential burden associated with commenter
proposals to require manufacturers to provide a wetcleaning
instruction. Sinsheimer contended that his survey of professional
wetcleaners shows that they can determine whether an item can be
wetcleaned for an average cost of $50-$100 if testing is needed.\51\ In
contrast, Scalco contended that DLI provides comprehensive testing for
washing, drycleaning, and wetcleaning instructions for about $1,400,
and that wetcleaning testing costs about $467.\52\ Other commenters,
including Riggs, Marie D'Avignon of the American Apparel and Footwear
Association, and Adam Mansell of the United Kingdom Fashion and Textile
Association, disputed Sinsheimer's contention that requiring a
wetcleaning instruction would not entail significant or burdensome
costs for manufacturers.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Sinsheimer roundtable PowerPoint presentation; Roundtable
Transcript at 18.
\52\ Roundtable Transcript at 78-79.
\53\ Id. at 43-44, 75-77 and 81; AAFA (48-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Consumer Access and Preferences
Commenters who addressed consumers' desire for wet cleaning
asserted that at least some consumers would prefer wetcleaning but not
all consumers have access to it. As noted earlier, some commenters
presented evidence that many consumers would prefer wetcleaning if they
knew of the option and the quality and cost were comparable.\54\
Similarly, professional wetcleaners asserted that many cleaners and
consumers prefer wetcleaning.\55\ None of the commenters disputed this
contention, however GreenEarth noted that recent Google search data
suggests far less interest in wetcleaning than drycleaning.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See Sinsheimer roundtable presentation, available at http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_events/114528/march_28_sinsheimer_ftc_presentation.pdf; Sinsheimer (548-27);
Roundtable Transcript at 14.
\55\ E.g., PWA (548-59 and 60), Mo (548-19).
\56\ GreenEarth (548-9 at 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters also agreed that not all consumers have access to
wetcleaning, particularly in certain regions of the country. GreenEarth
added that the limited number of cleaners in the Professional
Wetcleaners Directory suggests that drycleaning services are much more
accessible than wetcleaning services and that wetcleaners tend to be
concentrated on the East and West Coasts. Sinsheimer described this as
a ``chicken and egg'' problem, arguing that the absence of a
wetcleaning instruction on labels is an enormous barrier to the
diffusion of wetcleaning services.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Roundtable Transcript at 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Content of Wetcleaning Instructions
Many commenters favored a ``professionally wetclean'' instruction
because they asserted that consumers might misinterpret a ``wetclean''
instruction to mean home washing.\58\ None preferred ``wetclean'' to
``professionally wetclean.'' Some also urged the Commission to require
a ``do not wash'' warning--where warranted--to minimize the risk that
consumers will misunderstand a care instruction and inadvertently
damage a garment that is labeled for wetcleaning by laundering it.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ E.g., Brown (451-11), Camerino (451-14), Chen (451-17),
Culotta (451-56), Daniel (451-42), DLI (451-71), Ocampo (451-52),
Feingold (548-7), GreenEarth (451-41 and 548-9 at 3), Park (451-95),
Blacker (451-82), Knox (451-65), Yerby (451-55), Peterson (451-39),
Kinzer (451-36), Veach (451-31), Shaffer (451-30), Woodruff (451-
27), Wentworth (451-26), Laramee (451-13), Mishann (451-12), Staal
(451-9), Johnson (451-6); Roundtable Transcript at 95-98.
\59\ E.g., Chen (451-17), GreenEarth (451-41 and 548-9 at 3),
Shaffer (451-30), Woodruff (451-27), Laramee (451-13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Whether To Permit or Require a Wetcleaning Instruction on Items That
Can Be Wetcleaned
Commenters disagreed on whether the Commission should require or,
as the Commission proposed, permit a wetcleaning instruction.
Sinsheimer, Onasch, Mo, California government agencies, many members of
the wetcleaning industry, and some consumers urged the Commission to
require a wetcleaning instruction.\60\ In contrast, Riggs, D'Avignon,
Mansell, Scalco, and many members of the drycleaning industry favored
permitting a wetcleaning instruction.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ E.g., Sinsheimer Roundtable presentation, California Air
Resources Board (451-70), California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (451-96), Yim (451-83), Feingold (548-7), Huie (451-80 and
548-12), Mo (451-79), Miele (451-68 and 76), Onasch (451-54),
Ornholmer (451-66), PWA (451-59), Roh (451-75 and 548-21), Sung
(451-74); Roundtable Transcript 19-20 and 85.
\61\ E.g., AAFA (451-88), Behzadi (451-88), GreenEarth (451-41
and 548-9 at 3), International Drycleaners Congress (451-32), NCA
(451-98 and 548-22); Roundtable Transcript at 42-44, 46-47, and 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Use of Care Symbols
Commenters addressed: (1) The use of ASTM and ISO symbols; (2) the
differences between the 2005 and 2012 ISO symbols; (3) concerns about
the Rule specifying the year of the permitted ASTM or ISO symbol
system; (4) the timing of future symbol system changes; and (5)
consumer understanding of symbols.
1. ASTM vs. ISO Symbols
Commenters addressing the issue urged the Commission to modify the
Rule to allow for the use of updated ASTM symbols, and most supported
amending the Rule to permit the use of ISO symbols, and either
supported, or did not object to, retaining the option of using ASTM
symbols.\62\ These commenters explained that manufacturers commonly use
ISO symbols in other countries; therefore, allowing their use in the
United States would increase flexibility and reduce labeling costs.
None of the commenters viewed the differences between the ISO and ASTM
symbols as a problem, with the exception of natural drying symbols
discussed further below.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ E.g., AAFA (451-88 and 548-26), European Union (451-67),
Ginetex (451-37), GreenEarth (451-41), International Drycleaners
Congress (451-32), Kyllo (451-78), Knox (451-65), Lee (451-51),
Poggi (451-4), and USA-ITA (451-73); and Roundtable Transcript at
122-23, 163-64, and 171.
\63\ Roundtable Transcript at 120-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, commenters opposed the Commission's proposal to
require labels to identify the symbols as ISO-based.\64\ None believed
that identifying the ISO system on labels would help consumers, and
many noted that requiring this disclosure would impose unnecessary
costs on manufacturers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ E.g., European Union (451-67), GreenEarth (548-9), Kyllo
(451-78); Roundtable Transcript at 130-136, 168-170 and 175-176.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Differences Between the 2005 and 2012 ISO Symbols
Nearly all relevant commenters favored the 2012 ISO symbols.\65\
They noted that manufacturers use the current 2012 ISO symbols and use
of the 2005 symbols would therefore impose unnecessary costs. In
addition, three commenters explained that either the key differences
between the 2012 and 2005 ISO standards are minor, or the
[[Page 44489]]
2012 standard is an improvement.\66\ Some noted that, unlike the 2005
symbols, the 2012 symbols include natural drying symbols that differ
from the ASTM natural drying symbols. Two commenters supported allowing
use of the 2012 ISO symbols in lieu of written terms, except for the
natural drying symbols. They contended these drying symbols are
confusing, seldom used in the United States, or differ from ASTM
symbols.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ E.g., AAFA (451-88 and 548-26), Bide (451-48),
Dr[oslash]jdahl (451-53), European Union (451-67), Ginetex (451-37),
GreenEarth (451-41), Kyllo (451-78), International Drycleaners
Congress (451-32), and Poggi (451-4); Roundtable Transcript at 125-
26 and 140.
\66\ GreenEarth (548-9), Roundtable Transcript at 132-33.
\67\ GreenEarth (548-9); Roundtable Transcript at 151.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Recognizing ASTM and ISO Standards Without Identifying the Year
Some commenters advocated allowing the most recent ASTM and ISO
symbol systems without specifying the year or version of the
standards.\68\ They asserted that it takes too long for the Commission
to update the Rule once the ASTM or ISO symbol system changes, creating
problems for marketers.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ E.g., AAFA (451-88 and 548-26), Kyllo (451-78), Keyes (451-
64); Roundtable Transcript at 144-45.
\69\ Roundtable Transcript at 130, 144-45, 162, and 173-75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Timeline for ASTM and ISO Updates
Both ASTM and ISO have updated their care labeling symbol systems
since the Commission initiated its review of the Care Labeling Rule.
ASTM most recently updated its care labeling system in 2018, while ISO
updated its system in 2012. Several commenters expressed concern that
the ASTM and ISO symbol systems have not adequately addressed
drycleaning solvents other than perc and petroleum.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ E.g., Brown (451-11), Camerino (451-14), Daniel (451-42),
Douglas (451-33), GreenEarth (451-41 and 548-9), Slan (451-57). ASTM
updated its symbol system in 2014 to provide that the letter ``F''
enclosed in the circle symbol represents drycleaning in hydrocarbon
or silicone solvent but not perc solvent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its comment on the ANPR, Ginetex urged the Commission to repeal
the Rule in part due to the difficulty of keeping up with market
developments and innovations. Specifically, it argued that the Rule
should not be mandatory because a voluntary scheme could better adapt
to technical and environmental developments.\71\ Others noted that
Canada and European nations do not require care labeling
instructions.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Ginetex (384-39).
\72\ Roundtable Transcript at 175.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, some commenters urged the Commission to review the Rule
more frequently to help keep up with changes in the marketplace and
ASTM and ISO standards.\73\ One explained that, for many years, the
industry and technology were relatively static,\74\ but recently there
has been a lot of change, with more expected. If the Commission plans
to continue regulating care labels, another urged the Commission staff
to attend ISO, ASTM, and American Association of Textile Chemists &
Colorists (``AATCC'') meetings to keep abreast of industry changes.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Id. at 225-26.
\74\ Id. at 229-30.
\75\ Id. at 226-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Consumer Understanding of Symbols
Several commenters opined that many consumers do not understand all
of the care symbols currently in use.\76\ As a result, they opposed
allowing the use of any symbols.\77\ Still others contended that using
both ASTM and ISO symbols will likely cause consumer confusion.\78\
Others expressed concern that consumers may not understand some
symbols, but nonetheless favored allowing their use. They explained
that consumers understand the most relevant symbols (e.g., washing,
ironing, and professional care symbols), and professional cleaners will
know the rest.\79\ Moreover, some consumers prefer written terms to
symbols, possibly because they do not understand the symbols. For
example, J.C. Penney reported that its customers complained when it
tried to use only symbols with one brand.\80\ However, none of the
roundtable participants that expressed concern about consumer
understanding of symbols opposed allowing the use of symbols to provide
care instructions. In addition, several noted that the majority of
labels in the United States already use symbols in addition to, or in
lieu of, written instructions.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ E.g., GreenEarth (548-9), Huie (548-12); Roundtable
Transcript at 94-95, 123-27, 146, 157-58, and 166.
\77\ E.g., Daniel (451-42), The Hosiery Association (451-69),
Slan (451-57), Patel (451-40), Kinzer (451-36), Reiner (451-25),
Pflueger (451-5).
\78\ E.g., DLI (451-71) and Keyes (451-64); Roundtable
Transcript at 119-120 and 122.
\79\ Roundtable Transcript at 126-27 and 146-47.
\80\ Id. at 170-71. Given the context of the Workshop remarks
(``We did try one brand, specifically in our intimates, to just use
the symbols and our customers complained so much about it, they had
no idea''), it appears that JCPenney discontinued the symbol-only
practice for the brand in question.
\81\ Id. at 131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Reasonable Basis Provisions
Commenters addressed a variety of issues relating to the Rule's
reasonable basis provision, including the Commission's proposal, Green
Earth's proposal, and whether, and to what extent, the Rule should
require the testing of entire products to substantiate care
instructions.
1. Commission Proposal
In 2012, the Commission proposed clarifying the Rule's reasonable
basis requirement by incorporating examples of instances where testing
an entire garment may be needed to determine care instructions, and
where such testing is not needed.
Commenters generally favored the Commission's proposal. All of the
commenters addressing the issue supported clarifying the reasonable
basis provision, and either supported the proposal \82\ or urged the
Commission to provide more clarification and additional examples.\83\
Commenters identified materials and components possibly warranting
testing when combined with other materials or components, including
elastic, spandex, vinyl, acetates, triacetates, polyurethane, silks,
leather, metallic, and plasticizers, along with components not easily
removed, including beads, buttons, sequins, and interfacings.\84\ None
opposed the Commission's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ E.g., AAFA (451-88 and 548-26), DLI (541-71), GreenEarth
(451-41 and 548-9), Knox (451-65), and NCA (451-98); Roundtable
Transcript at 179-185.
\83\ E.g., Brown (451-11), Chen (451-17), DLI (541-71),
GreenEarth (451-41 and 548-9), Feingold (548-7), International
Drycleaners Congress (451-32), Kinzer (451-36), Knox (451-65),
Laramee (451-13), Patel (451-40), Shaffer (451-30), Sitz (548-6),
Staal (451-9), Viezcas (451-10), and Yerby (451-55); Roundtable
Transcript at 185-186.
\84\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. GreenEarth Proposal
GreenEarth agreed with the Commission's proposal but also suggested
listing additional examples that may require testing, such as garments
containing: (1) Sizings, elastics, vinyl, acetates, triacetates,
polyurethanes, silks, natural skins, or other plasticizers known to be
damaged in drycleaning; and (2) water soluble dyes, wool, natural
fiber, or skins when wetcleaning is recommended. No commenters
expressed support for, or opposition to, GreenEarth's proposal.
However, as noted above, many commenters identified similar issues.
3. Testing of Entire Garments vs. Components
Commenters disagreed on the extent to which manufacturers need to
test entire items. Some identified situations where such testing would
be necessary, such as white and black spandex, where
[[Page 44490]]
dye bleed is an issue.\85\ NCA and others explained that the
aggressiveness of the drycleaning solvent is not the only factor that
may require testing because less aggressive solvents can be heated to
enhance their aggressiveness, and longer cleaning and drying cycles
result in more aggressive mechanical action.\86\ Manufacturers,
however, indicated that testing entire items is often unnecessary and
would entail excessive costs.\87\ For example, one said that it tests
fabrics as necessary rather than finished garments and solicits
information from suppliers about how their trim reacts to certain
chemicals.\88\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ E.g., Anderson (548-13), Feingold (548-7), GreenEarth (548-
9 and 548-17), and Sitz (548-6); Roundtable Transcript at 185-186.
\86\ E.g., NCA (548-22); Roundtable Transcript at 142-4.
\87\ E.g., AAFA (548-26); Roundtable Transcript at 186-88.
\88\ E.g., Roundtable Transcript at 187-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Rule Definitions and Appendix
Commenters addressed a variety of issues relating to the Rule's
definitions and Appendix, including the Commission's proposal to amend
the definition of drycleaning, the Appendix's provision on leather care
instructions, and the Rule's definitions of hot, warm, and cold water.
1. Drycleaning Definition Revisions
Commenters generally favored the Commission's proposal, although
they disagreed on whether to list specific solvents in the drycleaning
definition. All relevant commenters favored updating the definition by
clarifying that it includes solvents other than water (non-aqueous
solvents) and dropping the term ``organic'' and the reference to
fluorocarbons (a solvent no longer in use).\89\ They disagreed on
whether to list examples of current drycleaning solvents. Some
supported the proposal to update the list. Others expressed concern
that any list would be misinterpreted as complete, rather than
illustrative. Therefore, they stated that the list might discourage
innovation and the use of new solvents.\90\ Some expressed concerns
about including solvents rarely used, such as aldehyde, or solvents
that cleaners may stop using in the future.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ AAFA (451-88), DLI (451-71), GreenEarth (451-41 and 548-
17), Knox (451-65), NCA (451-98); Roundtable Transcript at 209-11.
\90\ Roundtable Transcript at 212-13.
\91\ Blacker (451-82); Roundtable Transcript at 211-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Leather Instruction
Commenters also disagreed on the need to amend the Rule's Appendix
on leather care instructions. Dart Poach of the Professional Leather
Cleaners Association (``PLCA'') urged the Commission to amend this
provision so the instruction addresses professional refinishing.\92\
Specifically, PLCA proposed the instruction ``Leather Clean and
Refinish by Professional Leather Cleaner Only'' because many textile
products with leather components need professional leather refinishing
as well as professional leather cleaning. In addition, several
commenters urged the Commission to amend the Rule's reasonable basis
provision to address leather care.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ PLCA (451-84 and 548-14); Roundtable Transcript at 182,
200, 202-03, and 208-09.
\93\ E.g., Laramee (451-13), Staal (451-9), and Viezcas (451-
10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other commenters questioned the need for the proposed amendment
because they have not received consumer complaints or otherwise seen a
problem.\94\ For example, one stated that with the advent of more
gentle alternatives to perc, many items with leather trim do not need
refinishing.\95\ No other commenters supported the amendment proposed
by PLCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Roundtable Transcript at 202 and 205-08.
\95\ Id. at 205.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Water Temperature Issues
Commenters disagreed on whether the Commission should amend the
Rule to incorporate the AATCC's most recent definitions of hot, warm,
and cold water used in testing. AATCC explained that its new
temperature ranges fall within those in the Rule, and therefore the
Commission does not need to revise them.\96\ Instead, AATCC proposed
adding a new provision stating:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ AATCC (548-15); Roundtable Transcript at 192-94.
The Standardization of Home Laundry Test Conditions Monograph
(M6) developed by American Association of Textile Chemist &
Colorists (AATCC) may be used as a supplement to refer [to] a range
of washing temperatures available in today's consumer laundering
machines. It should be noted that these temperatures fall within the
tolerance range specified in section 423.2(d) of 16 CFR [sic]. This
monograph may be obtained from the AATCC website: http://www.aatcc.org/testing/supplies/docs/205-M06.pdf or may be reviewed
at the Federal Trade Commission, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NW, Washington DC.
Several commenters disagreed, arguing that the Rule's temperatures
should match those specified for testing, even though consumers'
laundry temperatures vary significantly based on location, season, and
heater settings.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Roundtable Transcript at 191-92 and 195-198.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Proposed Repeal
Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, authorizes the Commission
to promulgate, amend, and repeal trade regulation rules that define
with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive in or
affecting commerce within the meaning of section 5(a)(1) of the FTC
Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1). The Commission regularly reviews its rules to
ensure they are up-to-date, effective, and not overly burdensome, and
has repealed a number of trade regulation rules after finding they were
no longer necessary to protect consumers.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ See, e.g., 16 CFR part 410 (television screen sizes) (83 FR
50484 (Oct. 19, 2018)) (rule unnecessary; lack of deceptive claims);
16 CFR part 419 (games of chance) (61 FR 68143 (Dec. 27, 1996))
(Rule outdated; violations largely non-existent; and Rule has
adverse business impact); 16 CFR part 406 (used lubricating oil) (61
FR 55095 (Oct. 24, 1996)) (Rule no longer necessary, and repeal will
eliminate unnecessary duplication); 16 CFR part 405 (leather content
of belts) (61 FR 25560 (May 22, 1996)) (Rule unnecessary and
duplicative; Rule's objective can be addressed through guidance and
case-by-case enforcement); and 16 CFR part 402 (binoculars) (60 FR
65529 (Dec. 20, 1995)) (technological improvements render Rule
obsolete).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments in the record suggest that current conditions support
repealing the Rule. Specifically, the record suggests that the existing
Rule may no longer be necessary because manufacturers, in the absence
of the Rule, are likely to provide accurate care information to
consumers as a matter of course.\99\ Additionally, the Rule may have
failed to keep up with a dynamic marketplace. The record also raises
concerns that the Rule may have a negative impact on innovation,
particularly in the development and adoption of cleaning technologies
and disclosures. Finally, repeal would provide manufacturers with
additional flexibility in labeling and address concerns raised by some
commenters that the Rule mandates care disclosures that may be
confusing to some consumers. To the extent that confusion about
currently mandated care disclosures may exist, labelers will be
incentivized by competitive pressure, rather than compelled by the
Rule, to respond to consumer demand for better disclosures. In light of
these considerations, the Commission seeks comment on the costs and
benefits of repealing the Rule. The Commission emphasizes that, even if
it repeals the
[[Page 44491]]
Rule, Section 5 of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)) would continue to
prohibit manufacturers from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices
in labeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Although commenters in this proceeding did not provide
substantial information about the prevalence of deceptive practices
in the current marketplace, no commenter indicated that the market
is free of deception. In response to the ANPR, for instance, a few
indicated that some non-compliant parties appear to be misinformed
or to misunderstand the requirements. Textile Industry Affairs (384-
112) and The Clorox Company (384-122).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. The Rule May Be Unnecessary
The record suggests that a legal mandate may not be necessary to
ensure manufacturers provide clear, accurate care instructions on
garments. Notably, most European Union nations and Canada have
voluntary care instruction systems and, according to the record,
manufacturers in those markets voluntarily provide cleaning
instructions on a routine basis.\100\ Moreover, the record also
suggests that market demand for clear care labels in the U.S. is
sufficient to motivate marketers to provide them. For example, a
representative for JCPenney reported that consumer outcry was
substantial when the company tried to sell one of its brands without
word-based care instructions, apparently leading the company to
discontinue the practice.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Care labeling is voluntary in Canada and most of Europe;
see Roundtable Transcript at 175 (indicating that care labeling is
voluntary in Europe and Canada) and Ginetex (384-83) (urging the
Commission to consider a voluntary approach). See also Feltham, T.,
Martin, L. (2006, June) ``Apparel Care Labels: Understanding
Consumers' Use of Information,'' https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228295594_Apparel_Care_Labels_Understanding_Consumers'_Use_of_Informa
tion (``Even though the care labeling (in Canada) is voluntary,
consumers see care labels on almost all garments purchased in
Canada''); and ``European Commission DG Enterprise and Industry
Study of the need and options for the harmonisation of the labelling
of textile and clothing products,'' 24 January 2013, Final Report,
Matrix Insight Ltd., at 43-44, available at ec. europa.eu/DocsRoom/
documents/10480/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native.
\101\ Roundtable Transcript at 170-171.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This result is not surprising. Consumers need to clean their
clothes and want to do so without ruining their investment,
particularly when that investment is significant. Manufacturers who do
not provide cleaning instructions will likely disappoint consumers and
lose sales. The J.C. Penney example demonstrates this point.\102\
Therefore, market forces appear to be sufficient to ensure that
manufacturers provide cleaning instructions to their consumers without
a regulatory requirement. Accordingly, the Rule's repeal appears
unlikely to have any significant negative impact on care information
currently available to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Moreover, if a manufacturer provides no cleaning
information, failing to warn that a method a consumer could
reasonably assume would be a safe method would in fact harm the
garment, the manufacturer could be in violation of Section 5 and
subject to a Commission law enforcement action. See, e.g., Int'l
Harvester, 104 F.T.C. 949, 1058 (1984) (``It can also be deceptive
for a seller to simply remain silent, if he does so under
circumstances that constitute an implied but false
representation.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, mandatory care labeling instructions for all garments may
impose unnecessary compliance costs on manufacturers. With mandatory
instructions, manufacturers bear the cost of providing instructions on
all garments. However, there is no indication that every type of
garment needs instructions to ensure proper cleaning. For example,
consumers may not need instructions for basic cotton t-shirts. Without
mandatory instructions, manufacturers likely would provide care
instructions for garments only if consumer demand warranted, thereby
avoiding those costs when care instructions are not necessary for
consumers.
B. Keeping Up With Marketplace Changes
As some commenters discussed (section II.A. and B.), the Rule does
not appear to have kept pace with advances in cleaning technology and
care symbol revisions. Specifically, although the option of wetcleaning
has been available in the marketplace for many years, the Rule still
does not allow manufactures to present that option on labels. Moreover,
the Rule currently incorporates a symbol system (ASTM D5489-96c) that
has been superseded. Repeal would remove the confusion caused by
outdated Rule provisions, as well as the need to update provisions
constantly to address market changes.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ In its comments (384-83), Ginetex argued that a voluntary
scheme could better adapt to technical and environmental
developments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Potential Negative Impacts on Innovation
Repeal would also eliminate any possibility the Rule negatively
affects market innovation. Over the course of the proceeding, some
commenters suggested that the Rule might have had a negative impact on
the adoption of new cleaning technologies. For example, commenters and
workshop participants explained that the Rule's failure to address
wetcleaning has placed professional wetcleaners at a competitive
disadvantage and discouraged greater use of that technology. PWA
explained, ``we cannot market our services as `Professional Wet
Cleaning' because the care label says Dry Cleaning.'' Comments from
wetcleaning equipment makers also raised concerns about the Rule's
impact. For example, a representative for wetcleaning system developer
Kreussler suggested the Rule language might prohibit innovation.\104\
Some non-industry commenters raised similar concerns. Sinsheimer stated
that if ``the wet cleaning care label is not on the garment . . . that
is an enormous barrier to the diffusion'' of wetcleaning services. In
addition, the Toxics Use Reduction Institute asserted that the current
Rule ``is limiting the spread of this safer technology [wetcleaning].''
\105\ The commenters also suggested the Rule has limited the use of
newer solvents in drycleaning.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Roundtable Transcript at 156 (Fitzpatrick).
\105\ Roundtable Transcript at 91 (Sinsheimer); and Toxics Use
Reduction Institute (394-86). See also, PWA (451-59), Miele (384-
108), and San Francisco Department of the Environment (384-89). PWA
also argued that labeling garments ``Dry Clean'' or ``Dry Clean
Only'' even though they can be successfully wetcleaned is unfair to
professional wetcleaners. If a consumer prefers to dryclean such
garments, the wetcleaner faces the prospect of losing the business
or deceiving the consumer by wetcleaning instead of drycleaning such
garments. The dilemma of either lying to the customer or potentially
losing business makes professional wetcleaning unappealing to many
drycleaners. PWA (384-102).
\106\ Earlier in the proceeding, several commenters argued the
Rule's restrictive ``dryclean'' definition discourages the use of
solvents not recognized by the Rule and, therefore, risks curtailing
technological advancement. See 77 FR at 58342-3 and 58347 (citing to
comments Bromagen (384-91); Hagearty (384-61); Preece (384-54); and
Yazdani (384-78)). More recent comments and statements at the
Roundtable echoed these concerns. GreenEarth Cleaning (548-17) and
Roundtable Transcript at 209 (Sopcich).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, countervailing market trends unrelated to
labeling may have contributed to the lack of adoption of new cleaning
technologies identified by these commenters. Specifically, an overall
decline in the demand for professional cleaning may have affected the
adoption of new technologies, driven by factors such as the increased
wear of casual workplace clothing, reduced smoking, and the use of
``wrinkle free'' clothing that consumers can wash at home.\107\
Nevertheless, repeal would eliminate any negative impacts the Rule may
have on innovation in cleaning and disclosures.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\ See, e.g., Drycleaning's Decline Is Permanent, American
Drycleaner (Dec. 20, 2010), at https://americandrycleaner.com/articles/drycleanings-decline-permanent.
\108\ Another possibility is that rescinding the Rule may afford
manufacturers and sellers the freedom to label new cleaning methods
as they enter the market, to develop innovative and informative new
disclosures, and to use widely recognized care symbol systems
without waiting for updates to the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, as noted above, several commenters provided empirical and
anecdotal evidence suggesting that the Rule's prescribed ``dryclean''
instruction may create confusion among some
[[Page 44492]]
consumers.\109\ To the extent that current mandated labels may be
imperfect or limited, a benefit of the Rule's repeal would be to afford
manufacturers and sellers the freedom to improve existing labels, to
label new cleaning methods as they enter the market, and to use widely
recognized care symbol systems without waiting for updates to the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ See section II.A.1. for a discussion of these comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Request for Comments
In light of the record evidence suggesting that the Rule may be
unnecessary and out of date, the Commission is seeking comments whether
to repeal the Rule in its entirety. In deciding whether to repeal the
Rule, the Commission considers whether: (1) The Rule's costs are offset
by countervailing benefits to consumers or the market; (2) consumer
demand is already sufficient to require labeling of at least the
garments consumers care about; and (3) Section 5 of the FTC Act could
adequately protect consumers in labeling those garments absent the
Rule. In considering this third issue, the Commission is interested in
views as to what type of agency guidance, if any, would assist
manufacturers in complying with Section 5 of the FTC Act absent the
Rule. The Commission, therefore, asks for comment on these questions
and any others issues commenters think are important for the Commission
to consider in deciding whether to repeal the Rule.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to
consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 21,
2020. Write ``Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR part 423, Project No.
R511915'' on your comment. Because of the public health emergency in
response to the COVID-19 outbreak and the agency's heightened security
screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to
delay. We strongly encourage you to submit your comment online through
the https://www.regulations.gov website. To ensure the Commission
considers your online comment, please follow the instructions on the
web-based form provided by regulations.gov. Your comment, including
your name and your state, will be placed on the public record of this
proceeding, including the https://www.regulations.gov website.
If you file your comment on paper, write ``Care Labeling Rule, 16
CFR part 423, Project No. R511915'' on your comment and on the
envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite
CC-5610 (Annex C), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the
following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary,
Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610,
Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the
Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible
website, https://www.regulations.gov, you are solely responsible for
making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or
confidential information. In particular, your comment should not
include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone's
Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other
state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport
number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You
are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not
include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or
other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your
comment should not include any ``[t]rade secret or any commercial or
financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential''--as
provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule
4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)--including in particular competitively
sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories,
formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer
names.
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is
requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled
``Confidential,'' and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular,
the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the
comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and
must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from
the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c). Your comment will be kept
confidential only if the General Counsel grants your request in
accordance with the law and the public interest. Once your comment has
been posted at www.regulations.gov--as legally required by FTC Rule
4.9(b)--we cannot redact or remove your comment from the website,
unless you submit a confidentiality request that meets the requirements
for such treatment under FTC Rule 4.9(c), and the General Counsel
grants that request.
Visit the FTC website to read this Notice and the news release
describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission
administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and
use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all
timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before
September 21, 2020. For information on the Commission's privacy policy,
including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see https://www.ftc.gov/site-information/privacy-policy.
The Commission invites members of the public to comment on any
issues or concerns they believe are relevant or appropriate to the
Commission's consideration of the proposed repeal of the Care Labeling
Rule. The Commission requests that comments provide factual data upon
which they are based. These questions are designed to assist the public
and should not be construed as a limitation on the issues on which
public comment may be submitted.
Questions
The Commission seeks comment on the costs, benefits, and market
effects of repealing the Rule as proposed, and particularly the cost on
small businesses. Comments opposing the proposed repeal should explain
the reasons they believe the Rule is still needed and, if appropriate,
suggest specific alternatives. Please identify any data and empirical
evidence that supports your answer.
1. What are the costs and benefits to manufacturers, retailers,
professional cleaners, and consumers of the existing Rule?
2. What are the potential costs and benefits to manufacturers,
retailers, professional cleaners, and consumers associated with the
proposed repeal? Please specify whether the costs and benefits of an
option are measured relative to the existing Rule.
3. What potentially unfair or deceptive practices concerning care
labeling are occurring in the market?
4. What effect, if any, would repeal have on the care instruction
information manufacturers provide to consumers, including whether and
how care instructions, or the manner in which they are conveyed (e.g.,
symbols versus text), change under each option?
5. Are care label instructions helpful in all instances, or only
for certain types of garments? Please identify any data and empirical
evidence that support your answer.
6. If the Commission were to repeal the Rule, what new or different
costs
[[Page 44493]]
would manufacturers incur to ensure they provide truthful and
substantiated care information?
7. What incentives do manufacturers have to provide care labels in
the absence of a regulatory mandate?
8. Do manufacturers or other sellers have refund policies for their
garments? If so, what evidence must consumers provide to obtain
refunds? How do companies inform consumers about refunds? What is the
consumer burden associated with such refund programs? What are the
costs associated for refund programs?
9. What, effect, if any, would repeal have on consumers' decisions
regarding cleaning methods?
10. What effect would repeal have on consumers' use of alternative
cleaning methods that are not specifically listed on the labels but
that consumers may currently be using?
11. What effect would repeal likely have on the ability of industry
participants to develop or adopt new technology?
12. What symbol systems would marketers use if the Commission were
to repeal the Rule? Do commenters anticipate voluntary adoption of ASTM
or ISO?
13. If the Commission repeals the Rule, should it issue guidance
clarifying that a manufacturer need not list every possible cleaning
method for a garment, and does not violate Section 5 as long as it
possesses a reasonable basis for the care method(s) listed on its
label?
14. Would repeal of the Rule create uncertainty among manufacturers
with regard to ``dry clean'' instructions in light of the commenter
concerns about potential confusion associated with the existing label?
Would manufacturers need additional guidance on this issue from the
FTC? If so, what should that guidance be?
15. What new or additional topics relating to care labeling or the
Rule would it be useful for the Commission to address in guidance
documents? Should such business guidance identify the use of ASTM or
ISO symbols as safe harbors?
V. Communications to Commissioners and Commissioner Advisors by Outside
Parties
Pursuant to Commission Rule 1.18(c)(1), the Commission has
determined that communications with respect to the merits of this
proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner
advisor shall be subject to the following treatment. Written
communications and summaries or transcripts of oral communications
shall be placed on the rulemaking record if the communication is
received before the end of the comment period on the staff report. They
shall be placed on the public record if the communication is received
later. Unless the outside party making an oral communication is a
member of Congress, such communications are permitted only if advance
notice is published in the Weekly Calendar and Notice of ``Sunshine''
Meetings.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ See 15 U.S.C. 57a(i)(2)(A); 16 CFR 1.18(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Regulatory Analysis
Under Section 22 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b-3, the Commission
must issue a preliminary regulatory analysis for a proceeding to amend
a rule only when it: (1) Estimates that the amendment will have an
annual effect on the national economy of $100 million or more; (2)
estimates that the amendment will cause a substantial change in the
cost or price of certain categories of goods or services; or (3)
otherwise determines that the amendment will have a significant effect
upon covered entities or upon consumers. The Commission has
preliminarily determined that the rescission will not have such effects
on the national economy; on the cost of labeling apparel and piece
goods; or on covered parties or consumers. Accordingly, the proposed
repeal of the Rule is exempt from Section 22's preliminary regulatory
analysis requirements. To ensure the accuracy of this certification,
however, the Commission requests comment on the economic effects of the
proposed rescission.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601-612,
requires that the Commission provide an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (``IRFA'') with a proposed Rule and a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (``FRFA''), with the Final Rule, if any, unless
the Commission certifies that the Rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C.
603-605. In the Commission's view, the repeal should not have a
significant or disproportionate impact on the costs of small entities
that manufacture or import apparel or piece goods. Therefore, based on
available information, the Commission certifies that repealing the Rule
as proposed will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Although the Commission certifies under the RFA that the repeal
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities, the Commission has determined, nonetheless, that is
appropriate to publish an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to
inquire into the impact of the proposed repeal on small entities.
Therefore, the Commission has prepared and seeks comment on the
following analysis:
A. Description of the Reasons That Action by the Agency Is Being Taken
In response to public comments, the Commission proposes to repeal
the Rule to respond to changes in technology, changed commercial
practices, and updated industry standards.
B. Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed
Amendments
The Commission issued the Rule pursuant to Section 18 of the FTC
Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a. The proposed repeal would alleviate burden on
manufacturers and importers subject to the Rule. As described above,
the record suggests that the existing Rule may no longer be necessary,
has failed keep pace with a dynamic marketplace, and may have
undermined the adoption of new technologies, and the proposed repeal
would allow manufacturers additional flexibility in labeling garments
for sale to consumers.
C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed Amendments Will Apply
Under the Small Business Size Standards issued by the Small
Business Administration, textile apparel and some fabric manufacturers
qualify as small businesses if they have 500 or fewer employees.
Clothing and piece good wholesalers qualify as small businesses if they
have 100 or fewer employees. Commission staff has estimated that
approximately 10,744 manufacturers or importers of textile apparel are
covered by the Rule's disclosure requirements.\111\ A substantial
number of these entities likely qualify as small businesses. The
proposed repeal would not impose any new requirements on small
businesses, and it would eliminate the information collection burdens
associated with the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Federal Trade Commission: Agency Information Collection
Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request, 83 FR 2156 (Jan.
16, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44494]]
D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements, Including Classes of Covered Small Entities and
Professional Skills Needed to Comply
The proposed amendments would repeal the Rule and would therefore
not impose any recordkeeping, reporting, or compliance requirements on
any entities. Instead, the proposed repeal would eliminate the Rule's
disclosure and other compliance obligations for all small entities
subject to the Rule.
E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
The Commission has not identified any federal statutes, rules, or
policies that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with proposed repeal of
the Rule.
F. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Amendments
The Commission is not aware of any significant alternatives that
would further minimize the impact on small entities of the proposed
repeal, but solicits comments on this approach.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The existing Rule contains various ``collection of information''
(e.g., disclosure) requirements for which the Commission has obtained
OMB clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''), 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. OMB has approved the Rule's existing information
collection requirements through May 31, 2021 (OMB Control No. 3084-
013).\112\ The proposed rule contains no collections of information
under the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3502(3). Accordingly, there is no
paperwork burden associated with the proposed rule. As discussed above,
the Commission seeks comment on repealing the Rule and it is the
Commission's intention to rescind the associated information collection
in connection with the proposed repeal. Accordingly, repeal of the Rule
would eliminate the burdens imposed by the Rule's disclosure
requirements on manufacturers or importers of textile apparel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ See 83 FR 15144 (Apr. 9, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Regulatory Language
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423
Clothing, Labeling, Textiles, Trade practices.
PART 423--[REMOVED]
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of 15
U.S.C. 57a, the Commission proposes to remove 16 CFR part 423.
By direction of the Commission.
April J. Tabor,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13919 Filed 7-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
