Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods, 44485-44494 [2020-13919]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 142 / Thursday, July 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 8, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020–15079 Filed 7–22–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
16 CFR Part 423
Trade Regulation Rule on Care
Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel
and Certain Piece Goods
Federal Trade Commission.
Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Jul 22, 2020
Jkt 250001
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
The Commission has a long history of
seeking comment and considering
CFR 423.5 and 423.6(a) and (b).
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).
PO 00000
1 16
2 16
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44485
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
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
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
4 36
FR 23883 (Dec. 16, 1971).
FR 22733 (May 20, 1983).
6 62 FR 5724 (Feb. 6, 1997).
7 65 FR 47261 (Aug. 2, 2000).
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.
12 76 FR 41148 (July 13, 2011).
5 48
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
44486
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 142 / Thursday, July 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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
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
13 The comments are posted at http://
www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/initiative-384.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Jul 22, 2020
Jkt 250001
received 19 comments in connection
with the roundtable.18
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.
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.
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
1. Consumer Understanding Regarding
Professional Wetcleaning From Dry
Cleaning Instructions
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.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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
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).
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.
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 142 / Thursday, July 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
only or the recommended cleaning
method.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
31 Roundtable Transcript at 17–18.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Jul 22, 2020
Jkt 250001
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.
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
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.
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).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44487
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
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
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
40 TURI
(451–54).
PWA (548–59 and 60), Mo (548–19).
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).
46 Sinsheimer roundtable power point
presentation; Roundtable Transcript at 19, 67, and
69–70.
47 Roundtable Transcript at 70.
41 E.g.,
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
44488
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 142 / Thursday, July 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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
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
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
48 TURI
(451–54); Roundtable Transcript at 66.
Transcript at 67–68.
50 Id. at 68 and 71–72.
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).
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).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
49 Roundtable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Jul 22, 2020
Jkt 250001
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
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
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
Transcript at 91.
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).
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
PO 00000
57 Roundtable
58 E.g.,
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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.
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
Drycleaners Congress (451–32), NCA (451–98 and
548–22); Roundtable Transcript at 42–44, 46–47,
and 51.
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.
64 E.g., European Union (451–67), GreenEarth
(548–9), Kyllo (451–78); Roundtable Transcript at
130–136, 168–170 and 175–176.
65 E.g., AAFA (451–88 and 548–26), Bide (451–
48), Dr<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.
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 142 / Thursday, July 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
73 Id.
at 225–26.
at 229–30.
75 Id. at 226–28.
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.
74 Id.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
66 GreenEarth
(548–9), Roundtable Transcript at
132–33.
67 GreenEarth (548–9); Roundtable Transcript at
151.
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.
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.
71 Ginetex (384–39).
72 Roundtable Transcript at 175.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Jul 22, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44489
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.
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
44490
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 142 / Thursday, July 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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
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
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Leather Instruction
Commenters also disagreed on the
need to amend the Rule’s Appendix on
leather care instructions. Dart Poach of
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.
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Jul 22, 2020
Jkt 250001
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
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.
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:
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
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).
94 Roundtable Transcript at 202 and 205–08.
95 Id. at 205.
96 AATCC (548–15); Roundtable Transcript at
192–94.
97 Roundtable Transcript at 191–92 and 195–198.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 upto-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
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
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).
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 noncompliant parties appear to be misinformed or to
misunderstand the requirements. Textile Industry
Affairs (384–112) and The Clorox Company (384–
122).
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 142 / Thursday, July 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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
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
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_Information
(‘‘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.
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.’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Jul 22, 2020
Jkt 250001
care information currently available to
consumers.
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 tshirts. 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
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
103 In its comments (384–83), Ginetex argued that
a voluntary scheme could better adapt to technical
and environmental developments.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44491
prohibit innovation.104 Some nonindustry 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
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
Finally, as noted above, several
commenters provided empirical and
anecdotal evidence suggesting that the
Rule’s prescribed ‘‘dryclean’’ instruction
may create confusion among some
104 Roundtable
Transcript at 156 (Fitzpatrick).
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).
107 See, e.g., Drycleaning’s Decline Is Permanent,
American Drycleaner (Dec. 20, 2010), at https://
americandrycleaner.com/articles/drycleaningsdecline-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.
105 Roundtable
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
44492
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 142 / Thursday, July 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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.
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
109 See section II.A.1. for a discussion of these
comments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:04 Jul 22, 2020
Jkt 250001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 142 / Thursday, July 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Jul 22, 2020
Jkt 250001
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
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
PO 00000
110 See
15 U.S.C. 57a(i)(2)(A); 16 CFR 1.18(c).
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
44493
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).
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
44494
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 142 / Thursday, July 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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.
By direction of the Commission.
April J. Tabor,
Secretary.
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.
[Docket No. USCG–2020–0137]
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.
ACTION:
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.
Proposed Regulatory Language
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
PART 423—[REMOVED]
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.
112 See
83 FR 15144 (Apr. 9, 2018).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:11 Jul 22, 2020
Jkt 250001
BILLING CODE 6750–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Middle River, Near Discovery Bay, CA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Coast Guard proposes to
change the operating schedule that
governs the Woodward Island Bridge
across Middle River, mile 11.8, near
Discovery Bay, CA. The proposed
operating schedule change will require
the removable span to open for vessels
engaged in emergency levee repairs. We
invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.
DATES: Comments and related material
must reach the Coast Guard on or before
October 21, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by docket number USCG–
2020–0137 using Federal e-Rulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
See the ‘‘Public Participation and
Request for Comments’’ portion of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for instructions on submitting
comments.
SUMMARY:
If
you have questions about this proposed
rulemaking, call or email Carl T.
Hausner, Chief, Bridge Section,
Eleventh Coast Guard District;
telephone 510–437–3516, email
Carl.T.Hausner@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423
Clothing, Labeling, Textiles, Trade
practices.
■
[FR Doc. 2020–13919 Filed 7–22–20; 8:45 am]
II. Background, Purpose and Legal
Basis
On September 20, 2017 the U.S. Coast
Guard issued San Joaquin County a
permit to construct the new removable
span Woodward Island Bridge across
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Middle River, mile 11.8, near Discovery
Bay, CA. Construction was completed
on January 23, 2020. The new bridge
provides 30 feet of vertical clearance in
the closed-to-navigation position,
unlimited vertical clearance when the
span is removed, and 83 feet of
horizontal clearance, dolphin to
dolphin, measured normal to the
centerline of the channel. The opening
requirement for the newly constructed
Woodward Island Bridge over Middle
River is currently governed by 33 CFR
117.5, which requires prompt and full
opening for the passage of vessels when
a request or signal to open is given.
A three-year navigational analysis of
that portion of Middle River was
conducted between 2000 and 2003. The
results of the analysis indicated the
newly constructed bridge would meet
the reasonable needs of recreational
vessels that normally use the waterway.
Vessels which cannot transit the bridge
in the closed position have an alternate
route to reach the opposite side of the
bridge.
The Woodward Island Bridge was
designed with a removable span to
allow emergency vessels engaged in
levee repair to request an opening when
necessary. Since most recreational
vessels can transit the new Woodward
Island Bridge and there is an alternate
route around the bridge, there is no
need for an ‘‘open on demand’’
regulation as prescribed in 33 CFR
117.5.
III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard proposes to change
the operating schedule that governs the
Woodward Island Bridge across Middle
River, mile 11.8, near Discovery Bay,
CA. This proposed rule change would
implement regulations for the bridge to
only open for vessels engaged in
emergency levee repairs. The regulatory
text we are proposing appears at the end
of this document.
IV. Regulatory Analyses
We developed this proposed rule after
considering numerous statutes and
Executive Orders related to rulemaking.
Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and Executive
Orders and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.
A. Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13771 directs agencies
to control regulatory costs through a
E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM
23JYP1
]]>Agencies
[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
