25417

Proposed Rules Federal Register Vol. 63, No. 89

Friday, May 8, 1998

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER Internet (http://www.ftc.gov) so that Section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. contains notices to the public of the proposed interested parties can review them. 45(a)(1). issuance of rules and regulations. The After the conclusion of the workshop, The Care Labeling Rule was purpose of these notices is to give interested the record will remain open for 30 days promulgated by the Commission on persons an opportunity to participate in the for additional or rebuttal comments. If December 16, 1971, 36 FR 23883 (1971). rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules. necessary, the Commission will also In 1983, the Commission amended the hold hearings with cross-examination Rule to clarify its requirements by and rebuttal submissions, as specified in identifying in greater detail the washing FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Section 18(c) of the Federal Trade or dry cleaning information to be Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(c). included on care labels. 48 FR 22733 16 CFR Part 423 Interested parties who wish to request (1983). The Care Labeling Rule, as such hearings should file a comment in amended, requires manufacturers and Trade Regulation Rule on Care response to this notice and indicate importers of textile wearing apparel and Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel therein why they believe such hearings certain piece goods to attach care labels and Certain Piece Goods are necessary and how they would to these items stating ‘‘what regular care AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. participate in such hearings. is needed for the ordinary use of the product.’’ (16 CFR 423.6(a) and (b)). The ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before July 27, 1998. Rule also requires that the manufacturer SUMMARY: or importer possess, prior to sale, a The Federal Trade ADDRESSES: Written comments should Commission (the ‘‘Commission’’) is be identified as ‘‘16 CFR Part 423—Care reasonable basis for the care commencing a rulemaking to amend its Labeling Rule—Comment,’’ and sent to instructions. (16 CFR 423.6(c)). As part of its continuing review of its Trade Regulation Rule on Care Labeling Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, trade regulation rules to determine their of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Sixth and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., current effectiveness and impact, the Piece Goods, 16 CFR Part 423 (‘‘the Care Washington D.C. 20580. To facilitate Commission published a Federal Labeling Rule’’ or ‘‘the Rule’’). The prompt and efficient review and Register notice (‘‘FRN’’) on June 15, Commission proposes amending the dissemination of the comments to the 1994, 59 FR 30733. This FRN sought Rule: (1) To require that an item that can public, all written comments should comment on the costs and benefits of be cleaned by home washing be labeled also be submitted, if possible, in with instructions for home washing; (2) the Rule, and related questions such as electronic form, on either a 51⁄4 or a 31⁄2 what changes in the Rule would to allow that a garment that can be inch computer disk, with a label on the increase the benefits of the Rule to professionally wet cleaned be labeled disk stating the name of the commenter purchasers and how those changes with instructions for professional wet and the name and version of the word would affect the costs the Rule imposes cleaning; (3) to clarify what can processing program used to create the on firms subject to its requirements. The constitute a reasonable basis for care document. Programs based on DOS are comments in response to the 1994 FRN instructions; and (4) to change the preferred. In order for files from other generally expressed continuing support definitions of cold, warm, and hot water operating systems to be accepted, they for the Rule, stating that correct care in the Rule. The Commission is should be submitted in ASCII text instructions benefit consumers by commencing this rulemaking because of format. the comments filed in response to its extending the useful life of the garment, Advanced Notice of Proposed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: by helping the consumer maximize the Rulemaking (‘‘ANPR’’), and other Constance M. Vecellio or James Mills, appearance of the garment, and/or by information discussed in this notice. Attorneys, Federal Trade Commission, allowing the consumer to take the ease The Commission invites interested Division of Enforcement, Bureau of and cost of care into consideration when parties to submit written data, views, Consumer Protection, Sixth St. and making a purchase. and arguments. This notice includes a Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., S–4302, Based on this review, the Commission description of the procedures to be Washington, D.C. 20580, (202) 326–2966 determined to retain the Rule, but to followed, an invitation to submit or (202) 326–3035. seek additional comment on possible written comments, a list of questions SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: amendments to the Rule. The and issues upon which the Commission Commission published an ANPR on Part A—Introduction particularly desires comments, and a December 28, 1995, 60 FR 67102, which description of a workshop conference This notice is being published elicited 64 comments on the several that will be held to discuss the issues. pursuant to Section 18 of the Federal possible amendments of the Rule The Commission will announce the Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) Act, 15 described therein.1 Based on the time and place of the public workshop U.S.C. 57a et seq., the provisions of Part after the close of the comment period. 1, Subpart B of the Commission’s Rules 1 The comments were from: 41 consumers; one consumer group; four academics; one clothing Any persons wishing to participate in of Practice, 16 CFR 1.7, and 5 U.S.C. 551 retailer; one textile manufacturers association; one the public workshop must file a et seq. This authority permits the apparel manufacturers association; one professional comment in response to this notice and Commission to promulgate, modify, and cleaner; one professional cleaners association; one must indicate therein their interest in repeal trade regulation rules that define wet cleaning equipment manufacturer; two manufacturers of cleaning products; one cleaning participating. The comments will be with specificity acts or practices that are products manufacturers association; one available on the public record and on unfair or deceptive in or affecting environmental protection group; one non-profit the Commission’s web site on the commerce within the meaning of Continued 25418 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules comments and the evidence discussed The ANPR asked for comment on an washing garments that are labeled ‘‘dry herein, the Commission proposes to amendment of the Rule to require a clean’’ or ‘‘dry clean only’’ but that amend the Rule in the following ways. home washing instruction for all appear washable (such as 100% cotton) covered products for which home is risky because, if the garment is Part B—Analysis of Proposed washing is appropriate; providing dry ruined, the manufacturer will not stand Amendments cleaning instructions for such washable behind it.6 AHAM, a trade association 1. Labeling for Home washing items would be optional. Manufacturers for appliance manufacturers, noted that: marketing items with a ‘‘Dry Clean’’ the cost for testing a garment fabric sample a. Background and Discussion of instruction alone would be required to for proper care instructions is just a fraction Comments substantiate both that the items could be of the consumer expense experienced by The 1994 FRN noted that the safely dry cleaned and that home many thousands of individuals incurring Environmental Protection Agency washing would be inappropriate for ongoing dry cleaning expenses for a garment (‘‘EPA’’) had been working with the dry that could be washed at home.7 them (as the Rule currently requires Many commenters also noted that cleaning industry to reduce the public’s them to do when providing a ‘‘Dry exposure to perchloroethylene (‘‘PCE’’ consumers believe there are Clean Only’’ instruction). This proposal environmental benefits from home or ‘‘perc’’), the most common dry would not result in the additional washing rather than dry cleaning cleaning solvent,2 and asked whether substantiation testing (and increased washable items.8 Consumers Union the Rule poses an impediment to this PCE use) that the comments suggested a stated, ‘‘If only one method must appear goal. The Rule currently requires either ‘‘dual disclosure’’ requirement could on the label, it has to be the least a washing instruction or a dry cleaning necessitate, because a dry cleaning expensive and the least hazardous to the instruction; it does not require both. instruction would be optional, as would consumer and the environment.’’ 9 Thus, garments that can legally be the necessary substantiation to support labeled with a ‘‘dry clean’’ instruction Three commenters recommended that it. Id. at 67105. That is, manufacturers both washing and dry cleaning alone also may in some cases be labeling their goods for home washing instructions be included if both are washable, a fact not ascertainable from (and possessing the appropriate appropriate.10 Two comments such an instruction. The 1994 FRN substantiation for that instruction) specifically opposed this type of ‘‘dual asked about the extent of care labeling would not have to also provide a dry labeling,’’ however, because of the that fails to indicate both washing and clean instruction or have substantiation dry cleaning instructions. Finally, the increased levels of dry cleaning that dry cleaning would harm the 11 1994 FRN asked whether the use of dry substantiation tests that would follow. garment. Two commenters (one of which is an cleaning solvents would be lessened, Fifty-three comments addressed association for apparel manufacturers) and whether consumers and cleaners whether the Commission should require argued that manufacturers (having made could make more informed choices as to a home washing instruction for items the items) are best qualified to make the cleaning method, if the Rule were that could be safely washed at home, amended to require both washing and and only three of those opposed the decision as to how garments can best be dry cleaning instructions for garments proposal.3 cleaned and urged the Commission to cleanable by both methods. 59 FR Eighteen commenters, including leave apparel manufacturers the 30733–34. individual consumers, academics, and In the 1995 ANPR, the Commission an appliance manufacturers’ trade 1; Spencer and Diana Hart (36) p. 1; Margie Helton (38) pp. 1–2; Jewell Brabson (40) p. 1; Susan DuBois analyzed the comments submitted in association, contended that many (42) p. 1; Aileen Mills (47) p. 1; Joyce Rash (48) p. response to the 1994 FRN and proposed manufacturers currently label items that 1; S.K. Taylor (49) p. 1; Helen DuBois (52) p. 1; M. amending the Rule to ensure that can be both washed and dry cleaned Adkins (54) p. 1; Teresa Mills (58) p. 1; Sarah consumers are provided with with a ‘‘dry clean’’ or ‘‘dry clean only’’ O’Neal (59) p. 1; Frances McCarter (61) p. 1; Gladys Bebber (62) p. 1. information that would allow them the 4 instruction.’’ Many commenters 6 Dana Dodson (4) p. 1; Margaret Petty (37) p. 1. choice of washing garments when stressed that knowing that garments can possible. The Commission concluded be washed at home would save them (or 7 AHAM (51) p. 2. that lack of such information can result 8 Linda Smith, Tenn. State Univ. Cooperative consumers in general) garment care Extension Program (3) p. 1; John & Elizabeth Gray 5 in substantial injury to consumers in the dollars. Two consumers stated that (15) p. 1; Univ. of KY (20) p. 2; Vera Rines (28) p. form of unnecessary expense and/or the 1; Thelma Carpenter (30) p. 1; Katherine King (32) inability to use what they regard as a 3 Aqua Clean Systems, Inc. (‘‘Aqua Clean’’) (34) p. 1; Ida Carpenter (33) p. 1; Margie Helton (38) pp. more environmentally friendly method pp. 8–9; Center for Emissions Control (‘‘CEC’’) (44) 1–2; Jewell Brabson (40) p. 1; Susan DuBois (42) p. of care. 60 FR 67104–05. pp. 5–6; American Apparel Manufacturers 1; Consumers Union (46) p. 2; Aileen Mills (47) p. Association (‘‘AAMA’’) (57) p.2. 1; S.K. Taylor (49) p. 1; Helen DuBois (52) p. 1; M. Adkins (54) p. 1; Teresa Mills (58) p. 1; Sarah clearinghouse for information on emissions control; 4 Henry Gluckstern, Esq. (16) pp. 1–2; Bette Jo O’Neal (59) p. 1; Frances McCarter (61) p. 1; Gladys one home appliance manufacturers trade Dedic, University of Kentucky College of Bebber (62) p. 1. association; one manufacturer of home appliances; Agriculture Extension Service (‘‘Univ. of KY’’) (20) 9 Consumers Union (46) p. 2. p. 1; Vera Rines (28) p. 1; Thelma Carpenter (30) one home applicance repairman; one international 10 International Fabricare Institute (‘‘IFI’’) (56) p. p. 1; Katherine King (32) p. 1; Ida Carpenter (33) association for textile care labeling; one federal 2; Ginetex (the International Association for Textile p. 1; Margie Helton (38) pp. 1–2; Jewell Brabson agency; and the Economic Union of European Care Labeling) (63) p. 4; European Union (64) p. 3. Countries. The comments are on the public record (40) p. 1; Susan DuBois (42) p. 1; UCLA Pollution 11 Univ. of KY (20) p. 2; Consumers Union (46) and are available for public inspection in Prevention Education and Research Center (‘‘UCLA accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 PPERC’’) (45) p. 3; Aileen Mills (47) p. 1; p. 2. See also the discussion of ‘‘dual disclosures’’ U.S.C. 552, and the Commission’s Rules of Practice, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers in the ANPR: 16 CFR 4.11, at the Public Reference Room, Room (‘‘AHAM’’) (51) p. 2.; Helen DuBois (52) p. 1; M. The Commission has learned from several 130, Federal Trade Commission, 6th and Adkins (54) p. 1; Teresa Mills (58) p. 1; Sarah commenters, primarily manufacturers, that Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C. The O’Neal (59) p. 1; Frances McCarter (61) p. 1; Gladys requiring both washing and dry clean labels (a comments are referred to in this Notice of Proposed Bebber (62) p. 1. But see Aqua Clean (34) p. 8: ‘‘As ‘‘dual disclosure’’ amendment) would require a dry Rulemaking (‘‘NPR’’) by their name and the number a general observation, garments which can be home cleaning instruction on virtually all washable items. assigned to each submitted comment. laundered or drycleaned are usually labeled with According to these commenters, this would 2 Congress designated PCE as a hazardous air both care instructions.’’ necessitate additional testing expenses for pollutant in Section 112 of the Clean Air Act; many 5 Univ. of KY (20) p. 1; Vera Rines (28) p. 1; manufacturers and a resulting increase in PCE use, state legislatures have followed suit under state air Thelma Carpenter (30) p. 1; Katherine King (32) p. to the detriment of human health and the toxics regulations. 1; Ida Carpenter (33) p. 1; Carolyn Powers (35) p. environment. (60 FR 67105, n. 30). Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25419 flexibility to decide which care were used and whether they will some items that could be washed in instructions to use.12 A third commenter survive washing. water, there would be many additional in opposition to the proposal, a non- Accordingly, the Commission finishing steps required for the garment profit clearinghouse for information on proposes amending the Rule to require that the average consumer could not emission control in chlorinated solvent a home washing instruction for perform at home. In the case of some applications, including dry cleaning, garments for which home washing is garments, such as suits made from wool stated that there did not appear to be appropriate. This amendment would or silk (fibers that generally can be many instances of washable items being permit optional dry cleaning safely washed in water), post-home labeled ‘‘dry clean.’’ 13 instructions for such washable items, washing finishing processes like provided dry cleaning would be an steampressing and pleat and crease b. Proposed Amendments and Reasons appropriate alternative cleaning setting are necessary for proper Therefor method. The amendment would, refurbishing. These processes are however, require that manufacturers beyond the capabilities of most Based on the comments, the selling items with a ‘‘dry clean’’ consumers and the equipment available Commission has reason to believe that instruction alone be able to substantiate to them.17 Under the proposed ‘‘dry clean’’ labels on home-washable both that the items could be safely dry amendments, a home washing items are prevalent and that consumers cleaned and that home washing would instruction would not be appropriate or have a preference for being told when be inappropriate for them.16 required for an item that could be safely items that they are purchasing can be As noted in the comments, the washed in water with the proper safely washed at home. Moreover, the proposed amendment would enable cleaning agents but could not be information about washability may be consumers to make a more informed finished properly at home by the important to consumers for economic or purchasing choice and provide them average consumer. Moreover, the environmental reasons, or both. Some with the option of saving money by Commission recognizes that consumers wish to avoid the use of PCE washing at home instead of incurring manufacturers have experience with the and clean in water when possible the higher expenses of dry cleaning. In consumers who buy their garments, and because they believe it is better for the addition, consumers who are concerned the Commission would expect to defer environment. The record also supports about reducing the use of PCE will have to manufacturers’ decisions in the case the conclusion that this aspect of the information about the ‘‘washability’’ of of garments that would be difficult to Rule is an impediment to EPA’s goal of all apparel items they are considering refurbish for some but not all reducing the use of dry cleaning purchasing. consumers.18 solvents.14 The Commission agrees, as it did in the ANPR, with the commenters 2. The ‘‘Professionally Wet Clean’’ When a garment that can be washed Instruction at home is labeled ‘‘dry clean,’’ many (primarily manufacturers) that consumers may be misled into believing cautioned against a ‘‘dual labeling’’ a. Background and Discussion of that the garment cannot be washed at instruction requiring both home Comments washing and dry cleaning instructions if home, and they may incur the The ANPR asked whether the Rule both methods are appropriate. Such an unnecessary expense of dry cleaning the should be amended to recognize the instruction would result in some garment and/or potential damage to the new technology referred to as manufacturers of traditionally washable environment that they wish to avoid.15 ‘‘professional wet cleaning’’ by products performing dry cleaning tests Moreover, it can be extremely difficult requiring a professional wet cleaning to substantiate that dry cleaning was an for consumers to obtain the information instruction for products that cannot be appropriate care method, which would about washability of an item for washed at home but could be cleaned by be contrary to EPA’s goal of reducing themselves. Although fiber content can means of this new technology.19 the use of dry cleaning solvents. be a guide to washability, other (Professional wet cleaning uses Moreover, the comments do not indicate factors—such as the type of dye or computer-controlled washers and dryers a consumer preference for such dual finish used—can also determine to achieve precise control of mechanical labeling. The Commission has no reason washability, and consumers have no action, fluid levels, temperatures, and to believe at this time that it is either way of learning what dyes and finishes other important factors.) The ANPR unfair or deceptive for a manufacturer asked for information on the cost of wet or importer to fail to reveal that a 12 Aqua Clean (34) pp. 8–9; AAMA (57) p. 2, cleaning, the availability of wet cleaning garment labeled for washing can also be noting that ‘‘There are some garments with ‘dry facilities, whether the process currently dry cleaned, and to require such dual clean only’ labels that can be washed at home could serve as a practical alternative to ** * but if the cleaning is not done correctly, it labeling might raise costs without dry cleaning, and whether fiber can lead to damage. providing any real benefit to consumers. 13 CEC (44) p. 5. The proposed amendments would 17 14 EPA’s comment (73) to the 1994 FRN stated, at permit a home washing instruction only See Aqua Clean (34) pp. 8–9. p. 1, that the Rule should be revised to require 18 In addition, manufacturers that wished to stress manufacturers to state whether a garment ‘‘can be for those covered products for which that a particular garment could be refurbished at cleaned by solvent-based methods, water-based home washing—and traditional home home but might be difficult for some consumers to methods, or both. We believe this change is finishing processes such as ironing— refurbish adequately at home could add a phrase necessary to advance the use of water-based would be an appropriate method of care. such as ‘‘For best results, dry clean.’’ cleaning technology.’’ EPA’s comment to the 1995 19 In the narrative discussing this issue in the FRN referred to the 1994 comment, and stressed the Many commenters cautioned that, for ANPR, the Commission sought information on the need for recognition in the Rule of professional wet feasibility of a ‘‘professionally wet clean’’ cleaning. EPA (17) p. 1. 16 The Rule currently requires this level of instruction on ‘‘all covered products bearing a dry 15 A Perdue University survey found that 89.3% substantiation for a ‘‘dry clean only’’ instruction. cleaning instruction.’’ 60 FR 67105. In the Request of the 962 respondents indicated that they would Under the proposed amendment, any garment for for Comments Section of the Notice, however, the not wash a garment labeled ‘‘dry clean.’’ Staff which home washing is not recommended and dry Commission limited the applicability of the Report to the Federal Trade Commission and cleaning is recommended, would have to be labeled question to ‘‘a garment that cannot be home Proposed Revised Trade Regulation Rule (16 CFR ‘‘dry clean only.’’ In other words, a ‘‘dry clean’’ laundered but can be dry cleaned.’’ 60 FR 67107. Part 423) (May 1978), p. 141. Other surveys showed instruction by itself would no longer be Most of the commenters responded in the latter similar results. Id. at 142–143. permissible. context. 25420 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules identification should be on a permanent information describing the wet cleaning professional wet cleaning.32 ATMI label. 60 FR 67105, 67107. process.27 They defined ‘‘machine wet predicted that: Twenty-nine commenters addressed cleaning’’ or ‘‘professional wet If consumers just assume that they can use the ‘‘professionally wet clean’’ cleaning’’ as an automatic, water-based the new cleaning method on their existing instruction.20 Only four opposed the cleaning process that relies on the use wardrobe and current clothing purchases, we proposal to amend the Rule to require would expect to see an increase in apparel of sophisticated, computer-controlled damage claims. This is because the fabrics a ‘‘professionally wet clean’’ instruction washers and dryers in which the used in these clothing items have finishes for wet cleanable garments that cannot washing and drying cycles, including and formulations designed for dry cleaning. be washed at home. The Soap and heat, moisture, and agitation, can be We told EPA that the industry would need Detergent Association and Procter & precisely controlled according to the a long phase-in time (2—3 years) to adjust Gamble contended that the term requirements of the various fiber, fabric, our dyes and finishes to work compatibly ‘‘professionally wet clean’’ may be and garment types.28 with ‘‘wet clean’’ processes.33 confused with a home washing Three organizations provided Ginetex, which is responsible for the instruction by consumers.21 The Center information about the equipment used care labeling system used in European for Emissions Control contended that in professional wet cleaning.29 UCLA countries, indicated its interest in the wet cleaning is a new technology that is PPERC and CNT said that five wet cleaning technique, but said it is neither well understood nor widely companies provide the equipment waiting for a standardized test method available, and that a required wet systems necessary for professional wet so manufacturers can test garments to cleaning instruction now would cleaning.30 Aqua Clean provided a determine whether wet cleaning would 34 therefore be unreasonable and detailed description of the equipment be a safe care method. IFI cautioned counterproductive.22 SDA, P&G, and needed to provide professional wet that wet cleaning technology is new and CEC all recommended requiring some cleaning services: stated its determination to undertake version of a ‘‘professionally clean’’ research into the process: All professional wet cleaning systems consist instruction that would encompass both The use of machine wet cleaning is still in of a computer-controlled washer and dryer, the investigative or infant stage. The dry cleaning and professionally wet wet cleaning software, and biodegradable cleaning.23 CEC also suggested that technology originated in Europe and the most chemicals specifically formulated to safely extensive analysis of these systems has been eventually the Rule could provide for a wet clean wool, silk, rayon, and other natural completed by two European research ‘‘professionally wet clean’’ instruction and man-made fibers. The washer always groups—Hohenstein and FCRA. The that would be permitted, but not uses a frequency-controlled motor, which conclusion of these studies is that machine required, when the manufacturer allows the computer to precisely control the wet cleaning is an adjunct to dry cleaning, thought professional wet cleaning degree of mechanical action imposed on the not a complete replacement. The would be appropriate.24 AAMA opposed garments by the wet cleaning process. The Environmental Protection Agency, as a result computer also controls time, fluid levels, of its evaluation of wet cleaning under its any provision in the Rule for temperatures, extraction, chemical injection, professional wet cleaning on the ground Design for the Environment Program, drum rotation and extraction parameters, etc. concludes that machine wet cleaning is not that it is too new and that there are too The dryer always incorporates a residual a complete replacement for drycleaning. few cleaners who can provide the moisture (or humidity) control to prevent There is still much investigative work to be service.25 overdrying of delicate garments. The wet done in this area. To that end, IFI has formed (1) Defining Professional Wet cleaning chemicals are formulated from a partnership with Greenpeace, other Cleaning.26 Six organizations provided constituent chemicals which are on the industry groups, and other environmental EPA’s public inventory of approved and labor groups to explore the possibilities 20 Joyce McCarter (14) p.1; John & Elizabeth Gray chemicals pursuant to the Toxic Substances of wet cleaning—The Professional Wet (15) p.1; Henry Gluckstern, Esq. (16) pp.1, 3; EPA Control Act (TSCA).31 Cleaning Partnership.35 (17) p.1; Linda Arant (18) p.1; Vera Rines (28) p.1; (2) As an Alternative to Dry Cleaning. Thelma Carpenter (30) p.1; Ida Carpenter (33) p.1; Aqua Clean estimated that 90% of Aqua Clean (34) pp. 6–7; Margie Helton (38) p.1; The ANPR asked two related questions garments can be safely and satisfactorily Jewell Brabson (40) p.1; American Textile about the feasibility of wet cleaning as cleaned by professional wet cleaning. Manufacturers Institute (‘‘ATMI’’) (41) p.3; Susan a practical alternative to dry cleaning, Aqua Clean stated that it has found no DuBois (42) p.1; The Soap and Detergent and the extent to which items that have Association (‘‘SDA’’) (43) pp.1; 3; CEC (44) pp.1– significant wetcleanability versus 2, 5; UCLA PPERC (45) pp.2–3; Consumers Union historically been dry cleaned could drycleanability differences applicable to (46) pp.1–2; Center for Neighborhood Technology successfully be professionally wet wool, silk, rayon, acetate, linen, etc. (‘‘CNT’’) (55) pp.2, 4; IFI (56) p.2.; AAMA (57) p.2; cleaned. Five commenters responded with the exception of heavier wool Teresa Mills (58) p.1; Sarah O’Neal (59) p.1; P&G directly to the first question. ATMI and (60) pp.2; 4; Frances McCarter (61) p.1; Gladys suits, which are made with linings and Bebber (62) p.1; Ginetex (63) p.3. AAMA pointed out that, while the fibers shoulder pads that dry at a rate different 21 SDA (43 pp.1, 3; Procter & Gamble (‘‘P&G’’) (60) and dyes now in use will stand up to from the wool, and thus require extra pp.2, 4. the chemical solvents used in the dry time.36 CEC stated that estimates of the 22 CEC (44) p.5. cleaning process, the textile industry percentage of garments labeled ‘‘dry 23 SDA (43) pp.1, 3; CEC (44) pp.1–1, 5; P&G (60) does not know if they will stand up to clean only’’ that can be successfully wet pp.2, 4. 24 CEC (4) p.5. those cleaners (Ecofranchising, NY; Cleaner Image, 32 25 AAMA (57) p.2. ATMI (41) p.3; AAMA (57) p.2. CT) which initially used multiprocess wet cleaning 26 The ANPR noted that EPA had published a have converted to professional wet cleaning 33 ATMI (41) p.3. summary of an alternative cleaning process referred because of the economic advantages.’’ See also CEC 34 Ginetex (63) p.3. to as ‘‘Multiprocess Wet Cleaning.’’ 60 FR 67103 (44) p.4. Consequently, Multiprocess Wet Cleaning 35 IFI (56) p.2. (Dec. 28, 1995). According to several commenters, is not addressed in the remainder of this Notice. ‘‘multiprocess wet cleaning’’ is a cleaning process 36 Aqua Clean (34) p.4. Aqua Clean said that it has 27 Aqua Clean (34) pp.1–2; CEC (44) p.4; UCLA that involves knowledgeable individuals hand- corresponded with the International Wool PPERC (45) p.3; CNT (55) p.2; IFI (56) p.2; Ginetex cleaning individual garments, often employing a Secretariat (IWS), the research and marketing arm (63) p.3. ‘‘spot cleaning’’ technique rather than full of the wool industry, and anticipates cooperating 28 immersion, and using water, heat, steam and Aqua Clean (34) pp.1–2; UCLA PPERC (45) p.3. with the IWS’s announced intention to develop natural soaps instead of perchloroethylene or 29 Aqua Clean (34) pp.2–3; UCLA PPERC (45) p.3; wool processing technologies at the mill level that petroleum solvents. Aqua Clean (34) pp.1–2, noting CNT (55) p.2. will make wool garments better suited to that ‘‘Professional wet cleaning has already 30 UCLA PPERC (45) p.3; CNT (55) p.2. professional wet cleaning, so they can be dried supplanted multiprocess wet cleaning. Indeed, 31 Aqua Clean (34) pp.2–3. faster at higher temperatures. Id. at 5. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25421 cleaned vary from 30% to 70%, with (5) The Environmental Impact of the public record and is available for public industry experts narrowing that spread Process. Aqua Clean and CNT stated inspection at the Public Reference to 30% to 50%.37 IFI contended that it that none of the substances used in the Room, Room 130, Federal Trade is too early to estimate the percentage process are prohibited by EPA; further, Commission, 6th and Pennsylvania with any certainty, but stated that early Aqua Clean said that the only materials Avenue, Washington, D.C. It can also be indications are that the percentage of released into the environment in obtained at the FTC’s web site at http:/ ‘‘dry clean’’ labeled garments that could connection with the process are /www.ftc.gov on the Internet. be effectively machine wet cleaned chemicals that appear on EPA’s public (6) The Requirement for Fiber could be anywhere from 25% to 75%.38 inventory of approved chemicals under Identification on a Permanent Label. CNT estimated, based on its own the Toxic Substances Control Act.47 CEC Eight comments addressed the research and research conducted by suggested, however, that the primary desirability of a requirement for fiber Environment Canada, that from 30% to environmental issue associated with the identification on a permanent label, and 70% of clothes generally cleaned in PCE wet cleaning process is water 50 could be safely cleaned using standard consumption, because the process uses all favored the idea. Five commercial or domestic laundering 2.5 gallons of water to clean a pound of recommended that the fiber equipment.39 clothes. CEC pointed out that, although identification be on the same label as 51 (3) Businesses that Provide Wet this compares favorably to the 6 gallons the care instructions. Several Cleaning. When it filed its comment in per pound used by home clothes commenters said that fiber information early 1996, Aqua Clean estimated that, washers, the wet cleaning process uses need not necessarily be on the care label 52 by the end of 1996, approximately 350 more water than the dry cleaning but should be on a permanent label. businesses would have professional wet process, which uses water primarily for Most of the commenters said that cleaning systems.40 Three other cooling purposes, and typically recycles cleaners need fiber identification commenters estimated that professional it.48 UCLA PPERC stated that research information in order to provide the best wet cleaning is currently being offered suggests that wet cleaning is a safe cleaning services for their customers. by 100 businesses.41 CEC also estimated alternative to dry cleaning.49 Aqua Clean explained as follows: that it will be several years, even at best, The Commission notes that it has not [F]abric identification [should] be on a before a substantial number of the made an independent assessment of the permanent label because it is essential nation’s 30,000 cleaners have purchased environmental desirability of the information for all cleaners regardless of the professional wet cleaning technology.42 various methods of cleaning textile technology employed; requiring this by (4) Costs to Consumers. ATMI said wearing apparel. Rather, it has noted regulation will merely codify a nearly that the additional costs incurred by EPA’s goal of reducing the use of dry uniform practice at no measurable cost to textile and apparel manufacturers to cleaning solvents and the preference of manufacturers. A secondary consideration is substantiate a wet cleaning instruction numerous consumers for information that individuals with allergies to certain would be passed on to consumers.43 about whether garments can be cleaned fibers (e.g., wool) should be provided with Both UCLA PPERC and CNT stated that in water. The Commission has prepared this information. It is clear that requiring the costs to consumers for wet cleaning a proposed Environmental Assessment fiber identification on a permanent label services are comparable to the costs of in which it analyzed whether the should be acceptable to manufacturers and dry cleaning.44 CNT estimated that the amendments to the Rule were required consumers because it has already become an range for wet cleaning a two-piece wool to be accompanied by an Environmental accepted part of business at all levels of suit was from $4.50 to $9.00, and added Impact Statement. Because the main manufacture, distribution, sales, and garment that interviews with cleaners indicated effect of the proposed amendments is to care.53 that those who provided both types of provide consumers with additional b. Proposed Amendment and Reasons cleaning were providing them for information rather than directly to affect Therefor. The comments show that approximately the same cost, and that in the environment, the Commission professional wet cleaning is a process no case were charges for wet cleaning concluded in the proposed that is of interest to consumers, higher than for dry cleaning.45 Environmental Assessment that an especially those who believe it has the Aqua Clean said that it was not aware Environmental Impact Statement is not potential for less negative impact on the of any cleaner charging more for wet necessary. The Commission requests environment than dry cleaning. Thus, cleaning services than for dry cleaning comment on this issue. The the Commission is proposing services, and that in some cases the cost Environmental Assessment is on the amendments that will incorporate of wet cleaning is less, because many professional wet cleaning into the Rule’s dry cleaners impose a surcharge access cleaning services, are refusing to rent space system of instructions for care. (typically 50 cents) to cover the rising to or renew leases for drycleaners. These landlords cost of disposing of hazardous dry simply do not want to bear the legal exposure or Nevertheless, professional wet 46 insurance expense associated with drycleaning cleaning is a very new technology, and cleaning waste. machines and their toxic waste stream. Aqua Clean Systems is currently negotiating with a major it does not appear to be widely 37 CEC (44) p.4. national shopping center owner to become their available. Moreover, there is not a 38 IFI (56) p.2. exclusive tenant for 100% perc-free cleaning standardized test by which 39 CNT (55) p.2. facilities. At present, they refuse to allow a manufacturers can establish a drycleaner in any of their 1,800 shopping centers. 40 Aqua Clean (34) p.3. Similar discussions are taking place with a major reasonable basis for a professional wet 41 UCLA PPERC (45) p.3; CNT (55) p.3; AAMA chain in the Southeast. This trend will continue. If (57) p.2. the Rule is not amended to accommodate 50 Univ. of KY (20) p. 1; Aqua Clean (34) p. 7; 42 CEC (44) p.5. professional wet cleaning, access to cleaning ATMI (41) p. 4; CEC (44) p. 2; UCLA PPERC (45) 43 ATMI (41) p.3. services will decline as regulatory and landlord p. 3; Consumers Union (46) p. 2; AHAM (51) p. 2; 44 UCLA PPERC (45) p.4; CNT (55) p.4. pressures cause a decline in the number of P&G (60) p. 4. 45 CNT (55) p.4. drycleaners, which will eventually reduce 51 CEC (44) p. 2; UCLA PPERC 945) p. 3; 46 Aqua Clean (34) p.5. Aqua Clean also raised an competition and cause an increase in consumer Consumers Union (46) p. 2; AHAM (51) p. 2; P&G prices. Id., pp. 9–10. issue that was not addressed in the ANPR— (60) p. 4. 47 Aqua Clean (34) p.3; CNT (55) p.3. consumer access to cleaning services: 52 Univ. of KY (20) p. 1; Aqua Clean (34) p. 7. Many developers and owners of strip centers and 48 CEC (44) p.3. shopping centers, which is where most consumers 49 UCLA PPERC (45) p.4. 53 Aqua Clean (34) p. 7. 25422 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules cleaning instruction.54 For these 3. The Reasonable Basis Requirement of evidence described in Section 423.6(c) reasons, the Commission is not at this the Rule constitutes a reasonable basis for care labeling instructions depends on the time proposing an amendment to the a. Background and Discussion of factors set forth in the Advertising Rule that would require a wet cleaning Comments instruction. Instead, the Commission is Policy Statement and whether the Rule proposing amendments that would add The Rule requires that manufacturers should be amended to make testing of a definition to the Rule for ‘‘professional and importers of textile wearing apparel garments the only evidence that could wet cleaning’’ and would permit possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis serve as a reasonable basis under certain manufacturers to include a for the care instructions they provide. circumstances. Finally, the ANPR ‘‘professionally wet clean’’ instruction Under the Rule, a reasonable basis must sought comment on whether the Rule on labels for those items for which they consist of reliable evidence supporting should specify particular testing have a reasonable basis for a the instructions on the label. 16 CFR methodologies to be used. Ten professional wet cleaning instruction. 423.6(c). Specifically, a reasonable basis commenters responding to the ANPR The proposed amendments do not can consist of (1) reliable evidence that discussed the reasonable basis the product was not harmed when 57 require manufacturers who label items provision. Seven supported the cleaned reasonably often according to with a ‘‘dry clean only’’ instruction to modification of the Rule, arguing that the instructions; (2) reliable evidence be able to substantiate that professional the provision should be clarified and that the product or a fair sample of the 58 wet cleaning would be an inappropriate strengthened to reduce mislabeling. product was harmed when cleaned by method of care. Two maintained that the reasonable methods warned against on the label; (3) basis provision should not be amended, The Commission also concludes that reliable evidence, like that described in because the proposed changes would fiber identification on a permanent label (1) or (2), for each component part; (4) likely increase the cost to consumers is important to professional wet reliable evidence that the product or a and apparel firms without materially cleaners.55 The record contains fair sample of the product was increasing the benefits to consumers.59 numerous references to the need for successfully tested; (5) reliable evidence Only two commenters provided data precise fiber content information due to of current technical literature, past on the incidence of mislabeling. Both the complexity of the computer- experience, or the industry expertise concluded that there is a high incidence controlled equipment used in the wet supporting the care information on the of inaccurate and/or incomplete cleaning process. Therefore, the label; or (6) other reliable evidence. Id. labeling. IFI cited statistics from its proposed amendment requires that, if a The 1994 FRN solicited comment on Garment Analysis database (which, in care instruction recommends whether the Commission should amend 1995, consisted of 25,160 damaged professional wet cleaning, the fiber the Rule to conform with the garments) indicating that inaccurate content must be provided on the interpretation of ‘‘reasonable basis’’ care labels were responsible for 40% of permanent care label along with the care described in the FTC Policy Statement the damaged garments. 60 Clorox instructions. The Commission seeks Regarding Advertising Substantiation, concluded from its own study that 70% comment as to whether any (‘‘Advertising Policy Statement’’) 104 of all home washing instructions accompanying change should be made F.T.C. 839 (1984), or to change the provide inaccurate bleach to the Textile Rules.56 definition of ‘‘reasonable basis’’ in some information.61 other manner. The comments in ATMI, however, stated that most Finally, it should be noted that at this response to the 1994 FRN suggested that home washing labels are accurate, and time, the Commission proposes a significant number of care labels lack that the vast majority of dry clean allowing a ‘‘professional wet clean’’ a reasonable basis. Based on these instruction labels are accurate, despite instruction along with a conventional comments, the ANPR proposed limited problems associated with care care instruction because many amending the reasonable basis instructions for special items such as consumers do not currently have access requirement to reduce the incidence of beaded apparel, sequins, and leather to professional wet cleaners. inaccurate and incomplete labels. The appliques.62 ATMI and AAMA both Nevertheless, because professional wet ANPR sought comment on that cleaning appears to be growing rapidly, incidence, the extent to which it might 57 Univ. of KY (20) p.2; Clorox (31) pp. 4–5; ATMI the Commission seeks comment on this be reduced by clarifying the reasonable (41) pp. 5–7; SDA (43) pp. 1,3; Consumers Union point. (46) pp. 2–3; AHAM (51) p.2; IFI (56) p. 3; AAMA basis standard, and the costs and (57) p. 2; P&G (60) p. 5; Ginetex (63) p.4. benefits of such a clarification. 58 Univ. of KY (20) p. 2; Clorox (31) pp. 4–5; SDA 54 Testing is one of several types of evidence that The Commission further solicited (43) pp. 1,3; Consumers Union (46) pp. 2–3; AHAM can serve as a reasonable basis for a care comment on whether to amend the Rule (51) p. 2; IFI (56) p. 3; P&G (60) p. 5. instruction. to clarify that the reasonable basis 59 AAMA (57) p. 2; ATMI (41) pp. 5–7. Ginetex, 55 The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act the European care labeling organization, stated that (‘‘Textile Act’’), 15 U.S.C. 70 et seq., requires requirement applies to a garment in its it gives technical advice ‘‘to give indications how marketers of covered textile products to mark each entirety rather than to each of its to test in the case of uncertainty to choose the product with the generic names and percentages by individual components. In addition, the correct care label.’’ Ginetex (63) p. 4. weight of the constituent fibers present in the Commission asked for comment on 60 IFI (56) p.3. product. The Commission has issued Rules and 61 whether the Rule should specify Clorox (31) p.2. Regulations under the Textile Act (‘‘Textile Rules’’). 62 ATMI (41) p.5. See also AAMA (57) p.3 (‘‘There Rule 15 of the Textile Rules, 15 CFR 303.15, allows standards for determining acceptable are a few problems with leather patches and some any type of label to be used as long as the label is and unacceptable changes in garments other materials attached to garments.’’) The securely affixed and durable enough to remain following cleaning as directed, and Commission has litigated one case involving attached to the product until the consumer receives inaccurate care instructions that resulted in damage it; Rule 15 does not require a permanent label. whether the Rule should identify to garments. FTC v. Bonnie & Company Fashions, 56 Rule 16 of the Textile Rules, 16 CFR 303.16, properties, such as colorfastness and Inc. and Bonnie Boerer, Civ. Action No. 90–4454) requires, with some exceptions, that all information dimensional stability, to which such (D.N.J.). In addition, since that litigation, the required by the Textile Act shall be set out on one standards would apply. Commission has obtained five settlements that label, and on the same side of the label. The The ANPR sought comment on the alleged violation of the Rule due to inaccurate care Commission recently sought comment on instructions; in three of those five settlements, the modifications of the Textile Rules. 61 FR 5344 (Feb. option of indicating in the Rule that Commission alleged that the trim on the garments 12, 1996). whether one or more of the types of was damaged when cleaned. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25423 stated that the costs to consumers of specific test methods may impede the AAMA asserted that although there is complaining to manufacturers or introduction of new fibers and fabrics.72 ‘‘reason to look at minimum retailers about garments damaged in Several commenters responded to the performance standards, including cleaning is minimal, usually consisting Commission’s questions relating to colorfastness, abrasion resistance, etc.,’’ of returning that item to the store, a whether the Rule should require a the Commission should not modify the telephone call, or postage for mailing a reasonable basis for a whole garment reasonable basis requirement until the letter.63 Moreover, according to both versus each component. Three United States, Mexico and Canada have commenters, garment or piece goods commenters maintained that the Rule harmonized their labeling standards.81 manufacturers generally offer refunds should require a reasonable basis for a Finally, two commenters stated that for products damaged in cleaning garment in its entirety.73 IFI noted that the Commission would improve the despite adherence to care label its database shows that ‘‘a large portion effectiveness of the Rule by directions if numerous consumers of the garments damaged are the result incorporating the criteria from the complain about an item.64 of the trim or component part of the Advertising Policy Statement.82 garment failing in a specified care Several commenters specifically b. Proposed Amendments and Reasons procedure.’’74 Consumers Union also addressed whether the Rule should Therefor require testing as a reasonable basis in argued that ‘‘to state an instruction that Section 423.6(c)(3) of the Rule certain situations. Two commenters excludes its applicability to garment currently states that a manufacturer or argued that testing should be the only trim is not often practical as some trim importer establishes a reasonable basis permissible reasonable basis.65 Clorox are hard to remove and reposition after 75 for care information by ‘‘possessing stated that tests performed on a cleaning.’’ prior to sale: [r]eliable evidence * ** representative sample of each garment Two commenters stated that the Rule should not require testing on a complete for each component part of the are ‘‘the most reliable evidence of care garment.76 AAMA asserted that many product.’’ Based on its review of the instruction accuracy,’’ and that garments are made of just one major comments, the Commission proposes to textbooks and manuals should not be fabric. Accordingly, there may not be a amend the reasonable basis standard to allowed as evidence of a reasonable need to test an entire garment, as make clear that the reasonable basis basis.66 Clorox maintained that such a opposed to the materials used, if the requirement applies to the garment in requirement would place little other materials used in the garment are its entirety rather than to each of its additional expense on manufacturers of the same fiber and basic individual components. The because ‘‘published tests on specific construction.77 Moreover, AAMA Commission believes that the record fabric and dye combinations are already argued that it is sufficient for establishes that in some cases care shared among the trade.’’67 manufacturers to specify in care instructions may not be accurate for the Two commenters, ATMI and AAMA, instructions that a specific trim is entire garment. A garment component however, opposed such an amendment excluded, because consumers are that may be cleaned satisfactorily by 68 to the Rule. ATMI expressed its thereby warned that care must be taken itself might, for example, bleed onto the concern that a testing requirement when refurbishing the garment.78 ATMI body of a garment of which it is a part. would substantially increase the prices stated that testing of completed Thus, in the proposed Rule, Section for apparel and home furnishing garments would significantly raise the 423.6(c)(3) has been amended to clarify 69 items. AAMA noted that its members cost of manufacturing apparel, but noted that a manufacturer must possess a already test new styles and fabrics for that trim should be covered by the Rule, reasonable basis for the garment as a use in garments; thus, it is unaware of and that manufacturers should be whole, including any trim.83 Proposed any garments which ‘‘would need a responsible for selecting and combining Section 423.6(c)(3) provides that 70 legal requirement to be tested.’’ component materials that can be ‘‘Reliable evidence * * * for each A number of commenters discussed refurbished together.79 component part of the product, in whether the rule should specify testing Many commenters responded to the conjunction with reliable evidence for methodologies to be used. Consumers Commission’s request for comments on the garment as a whole’’ can constitute Union asserted that the Rule should whether the Rule should refer to a reasonable basis for care instructions. specify test methods that relate to performance standards, concluding that The proposed Rule does not require consumer expectations, assessing it may not be feasible for the Rule to do testing of the entire garment if there is ‘‘product performance after repeated so. Consumers Union, for example, an adequate reasonable basis for the cleaning, shrinkage, colorfastness, noted that because fabrics and apparel garment as a whole without such appearance retention, and at least one items are continually offered and testing; the proposed change would fabric strength test.’’71 In contrast, discontinued, it may not be possible for clarify, however, that testing of separate AAMA contended that requiring the Commission to set performance components is not necessarily sufficient standards in a timely fashion to cover if problems are likely to occur when the 80 63 ATMI (41) p.7; AAMA (57) p.4. But see Univ. all properties and types of garments. components are combined.84 of KY (20) p.2 (consumers may not complain to stores because they are intimidated or do not think 72 AAMA (57) p. 3. 81 AAMA (57) p. 2. their problems will be resolved). 73 Univ. of KY (20) p. 2; Consumers Union (16) 82 SDA (43) p. 3; P&G (60) p. 5 (also suggesting 64 ATMI (41) p.7 (noting that if only one p. 3.; IFI (56) p. 3. that the Commission consider methods of consumer complains about an item ‘‘of which 74 IFI (56) p. 3. certification and other tools such as U.S. Customs thousands were produced, it is likely that the 75 Consumers Union (46) p. 3. damage was caused by a commercial cleaner or by requirements to reduce the number of mislabeled 76 AAMA (57) p. 4; ATMI (41) pp. 5–6. the consumer’’); AAMA (57) p.4. imported goods, especially those labeled ‘‘Dry 77 AAMA (57) p. 4. Clean Only.’’) 65 IFI (56) p. 3; Clorox (31) pp. 4–5. 78 Id. 83 The Commission notes that an instruction to 66 Clorox (31) p. 4. 79 ATMI (41) p. 6. clean ‘‘exclusive of trim’’ is only a valid care 67 Id. 80 instruction if the trim can be easily removed and 68 Consumers Union (46) p. 2 (suggesting that the ATMI (41) p. 5; AAMA (57) p. 3. FTC implement a rule that requires manufacturers, easily reattached. 69 ATMI (41) p. 7. retailers, and importers to issue refunds for 84 For example, red trim that is to be placed on 70 AAMA (57) p. 3. products damaged in cleaning despite adherence to white fabric should be evaluated to determine if it 71 Consumers Union (46) p. 2. the label). Continued 25424 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules

The Commission, however, believes a new term such as ‘‘cool’’ or Maytag suggested that a range of 65 to that the comments do not provide ‘‘lukewarm’’ in the Appendix. The 80 degrees F should be stated on the sufficient reason to propose modifying Commission further sought comment on care label because other aspects of the reasonable basis whether the Rule should be amended to consumers are not aware that water can be provision at this time. As noted by the state that care labels recommending too cold to activate detergents, thus they AAMA, the United States, Mexico, and ‘‘cold’’ wash must define the highest experience poor cleaning and other laundry Canada are in the process of acceptable temperature for ‘‘cold’’ on problems. By incorporating a temperature harmonizing their labeling the label, and on the benefits and costs range consumers would know exactly what requirements. Until this harmonization to consumers and manufacturers of such temperatures will provide good results. 91 is complete, the Commission believes an amendment. P&G said that a national consumer that further modification of the study it had conducted showed that All eleven comments received in 78% of ‘‘cold’’ loads washed in January reasonable basis provision may be response to the ANPR that discussed the premature. and February were in temperatures definitions of cold, warm, and hot water below 65 degrees F (with some as low 4. Definitions of Water Temperatures favored some change.86 ATMI stated as 34 degrees F), and that, year round, that it is very important that the Rule’s a. Background and Discussion of 50% of ‘‘cold’’ loads were washed in water temperature definitions be 92 Comments temperatures below 65 degrees F. consistent with those used in standard ATMI suggested that ‘‘cold’’ be The Rule currently requires that a care test methods developed by AATCC defined consistently with the definition label that recommends washing must because those test methods are used by specified in AATCC test methods [27 also state a water temperature that may the textile and apparel industries.87 Six degrees C plus or minus 3 degrees, or 82 be used unless ‘‘the regular use of hot of the commenters also supported the degrees F plus or minus 5 degrees] and water will not harm the product.’’ 16 idea of including a numerical with standards developed by the CFR 423.6(b)(1)(i). The Rule also temperature on the care label.88 American Society for Testing and provides that if the term ‘‘machine Consumers Union, for example, stated Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) [30 degrees C, or 86 wash’’ is used with no temperature that consumers need to know the actual degrees F].93 indication, ‘‘hot water up to 150 degrees range of water temperature in which (2) Definition of warm water. Section F (66 degrees C) can regularly be used.’’ they can safely wash their clothes. 1.b of the Appendix to the Rule defines 16 CFR 423.1(d). This definition is Words such as lukewarm, cold, warm or warm water as 90 to 110 degrees F (32 repeated in Appendix 1.a. ‘‘Warm’’ is hot serve their purposes only if the to 42 degrees C). Several commenters defined in Appendix 1.b. as ranging consumers are aware of safe water recommended maintaining this from 90 to 110 degrees F (32 to 43 temperature ranges. Testing laboratories have definition, but adding the term degrees C), and ‘‘cold,’’ in Appendix assigned temperature ranges onto each of ‘‘lukewarm,’’ defined as 70 to 89 F (21 1.c., as cold tap water up to 85 degrees these words. They use these ‘‘safe to 31 C).94 Other commenters opposed F (29 degrees C). temperature ranges’’ to test products for ‘‘lukewarm,’’ stating that it would be Some comments to the 1994 FRN durability to repeated cleaning. Consumers confusing to consumers because recommended that the Commission should know what these safe water washing machine dials only offer the revise the definition of cold water. temperature ranges are.89 choices of cold, warm, and hot.95 ATMI Commenters noted that tap water (1) Definition of cold water. As noted, suggested a definition of 40 degrees C temperatures vary across the United six commenters favored the inclusion of plus or minus 5 degrees (104 degrees F States, and that such differences can a numerical temperature on the care plus or minus 9 degrees), which it cause problems because, in the winter label. Two others favored a numerical described as consistent with the in colder parts of the country, detergents temperature when the label definition established by AATCC for use may not fully activate during a cold recommends a ‘‘cold’’ wash. SDA noted in garment testing [41 degrees C plus or wash cycle. Other comments suggested that in northern locations in winter, minus 3 degrees, or 106 degrees F plus that the Rule’s definition of hot water cold water washes can be as cold as 40 or minus 5 degrees] and by ASTM in its should be changed. The American degrees F and that ‘‘the performance of standards [40 degrees C or 104 F]. Association of Textile Chemists and all laundry products is seriously (3) Definition of hot water. Colorists (‘‘AATCC’’) commented that diminished if they are used in water Maytag stated that ‘‘the current the temperatures stated in the Appendix temperatures below 60 degrees F.’’ 90 definition of hot water as up to 150 should be changed to match the AATCC SDA suggested the following care degrees is unrealistic due to scald laws definitions, which the AATCC believes instruction, in lieu of ‘‘cold’’: in some states’’ and because new water ‘‘more accurately reflect current Wash in the warmest available water, not heaters are preset at 120 degrees F.96 washing machine settings and consumer to exceed (approximate temperature) degrees P&G also noted that hot water heaters practice.’’ 85 The AATCC defines ‘‘hot’’ F. are now usually preset at 120 F, ‘‘much as 120 degrees F plus or minus 5 less than the 140 degrees F of older 97 degrees (49 degrees C plus or minus 3 86 Bruce Fifield (22); ATMI (41); SDA (43); models.’’ SDA estimated that ‘‘20% of degrees). Consumers Union (46); AHAM (51); Maytag today’s homes have hot water heaters The ANPR sought comment on Appliances (‘‘Maytag’’) (53); IFI (56); AAMA (57); set at 120–125 F.’’ 98 Maytag favored whether the Commission should amend P&G (60); Ginetex (63); European Commission (64). 87 ATMI (41) p.1. 91 Maytag (53) p.2. the Rule to change the definitions of 88 Fifield (22) p.1; Consumers Union (46) p.1.; 92 P&G (60) p.3. ‘‘warm’’ and ‘‘hot’’ water, or to include AHAM (51) p.1; AAMA (57) p.1; European 93 Commission (64) p.2; Ginetex (63) p.2. In a meeting ATMI (41) p.2. 94 is likely to bleed onto the surrounding fabric. A with staff on August 7, 1996, AHAM indicated that SDA (43) p.2; P&G (60) p.2. company may possess reliable evidence—for it no longer favors this. 95 ATMI (41) p.1; AHAM (51) p.2; Maytag (53) example, past experience with particular dyes and p.1; AAMA (57) p.1. 89 Consumers Union (46) p.1. fabrics—that a particular red trim does not bleed 96 Maytag (53) p. 2; see also SDA (43) p. 2, P&G onto surrounding fabric. In such a case testing of 90 SDA (43) p.2. P&G (60) stated, at p.3, that ‘‘all (60) p. 2. the entire garment might not be necessary. detergency and cleaning performance decreases 97 P&G (60) p. 3. 85 Comment 34 to 1994 FRN, p. 1. substantially in cold water below 70 degrees F.’’ 98 SDA (43) p. 2. Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25425 defining hot as 120 to 140 degrees F, be cleaned in very hot water it should take, and industry members and SDA and P&G favored defining hot professionally laundered. The and consumer groups that would be as 111 to 140 F. ATMI recommended 50 Commission is aware, however, that the interested in participating. Moreover, degrees C plus or minus 5 degrees C, term ‘‘very hot’’ may be confusing to should the comments provide which it described as consistent with some consumers because most washing additional information about how definitions used by AATCC [49 degrees machine dials only offer the choices of numerical temperatures on care labels C plus or minus 3 degrees C, or 120 F ‘‘cold,’’ ‘‘warm,’’ and ‘‘hot.’’ The could be of use to American consumers, plus or minus 5 degrees F] and ASTM Commission requests comment on this the Commission is willing to reconsider [50 C or 122 F].99 issue, and, in particular, on suggestions that issue. Several commenters argued for the for methods of consumer education to The following changes are proposed addition of ‘‘very hot.’’ 100 P&G noted alleviate this problem. in the definitions Section of the Rule that some American consumers will be In addition, some comments indicate and in the Appendix to the Rule. able to achieve the higher temperatures that consumers need more precise Section 6.(b)(1)(I) of the Rule would ‘‘as new washing machines from Europe information in order to select the be modified to read as follows: 101 with onboard heaters enter the U.S.’’ appropriate temperature setting on their The label must state whether the product IFI noted that professional laundries can washing machines. Consumers may be should be washed by hand or machine. The achieve the higher temperatures, and using water that is too cold to activate label must also state a water temperature— that the higher temperatures are detergents. Similarly, the addition of a in terms such as cold, warm, hot, or very necessary to clean certain types of precise temperature (52 degrees C, 125 hot—that may be used. However, if the clothes, such as men’s dress shirts.102 degrees F) after the word ‘‘hot’’ on the regular use of very hot water will not harm care label of a garment might give those the product, the label need not mention any b. Proposed Amendments and Reasons consumers some notice that their hot water temperature. [For example, ‘‘Machine Therefor water may be too hot for that garment.103 wash’’ means very hot, hot, warm or cold water can be used.] The Commission believes that the An upper range for ‘‘warm’’ might also definition of cold, warm, and hot water be helpful to consumers because on The last sentence of Section 1(d) of should be changed because of changes many machines the dial setting for the Rule would be modified to read as in settings on hot water heaters and in warm simply produces a mixture of hot follows: consumer washing practices in the years and cold, and if the incoming tap water When no temperature is given, e.g., since the definitions were established. is very cold, the water in the machine ‘‘warm’’ or ‘‘cold,’’ very hot water up to 145 The AATCC has changed its definitions, may be too cold to produce optimal degrees F (63 C) can be regularly used. which are used in textile testing, to take cleaning of the clothes being washed. ‘‘Hot’’ water would be defined in account of these factors, and AATCC The Commission does not believe, Appendix 1.a as ranging from 112 to 125 test methods are used by much of the however, that the solution to these degrees F [45 to 52 degrees C], ‘‘warm’’ apparel industry. Consequently, the problems at this time is to require water would be defined in Appendix 1.b Commission believes that the numerical temperatures on care labels. as ranging from 87 to 111 degrees F [31 definitions in the Rule should be Such additional information may not be to 44 degrees C], and ‘‘cold’’ water changed to be consistent with the cost-effective because most American would be defined in Appendix 1.c as definitions used by AATCC. The consumers do not know the temperature ranging up to 86 degrees F [30 degrees Commission proposes changing the of the tap water entering their homes or C]. In addition, ‘‘very hot’’ water would upper range of temperature definitions the cold or warm water in their washing be defined in Appendix 1.a as ranging in the Rule to the upper range of what machines. Indeed, some may also lack from 126 to 145 degrees F [53 to 63 is allowed in tests published by AATCC. precise information about the degrees C]. Thus, the upper range for ‘‘cold’’ would temperature of the hot water heated by The Commission seeks comment on be 30 degrees C (86 degrees F); for their water heaters, and, even those who these proposed changes, their ‘‘warm,’’ 44 degrees C (111 degrees F); know the upper limit of their hot water importance to consumers, the necessity and for hot, 52 degrees C (125 degrees may not know the temperature of the for a consumer education campaign to F). hot water that enters their washing help consumers understand and use Finally, the Commission proposes machines given the heat loss that occurs information about water temperature, adding the term ‘‘very hot’’ to the rule, as water is piped to washing machines. and the form such a campaign might defined consistently with the AATCC Therefore, at this time the take.104 definition, i.e., with an upper range of Commission is not proposing to modify 63 degrees C (145 degrees F). The the Rule to require that precise Part C—Rulemaking Procedures comments indicate that some garments temperatures be listed on care labels. The Commission has determined, do need to be cleaned at temperatures The Commission is interested, however, pursuant to 16 CFR 1.20, to follow the higher than 125 degrees F, and that in non-regulatory solutions to this procedures set forth in this notice for some consumers have access to water problem. Accordingly, this notice asks this proceeding. The Commission has hotter than 125 degrees F, either at questions about the possibility of a home or through laundering by consumer education campaign on these 104 Some companies have already begun to professional cleaners. The addition of issues. The Commission solicits educate consumers about these issues. A consumer the term ‘‘very hot,’’ together with comment on the feasibility of such a chart prepared by Maytag, with numerical appropriate consumer education, should definitions for hot, warm, and cold water, states, consumer education campaign, the form ‘‘The clothes washer will not ensure these give notice to those consumers whose temperatures because the actual water temperatures hottest water is 120 degrees F that they 103 Although new water heaters are being set at entering the washer are dependent on water heater may have to have garments that should lower temperatures, the comments indicate that settings and regional water supply temperatures. many homes still have older heaters that produce For example, cold water entering the home in the water at 140 degrees F or even hotter. A garment northern states during winter may be 40 degrees F 99 ATMI (41) p. 1. that has been tested in water heated to 125 degrees which is too cold for effective cleaning. The water 100 ATMI (41) p. 1. F may withstand washing in that temperature temperature in this situation will need to be 101 P&G (60) p. 3. without damage but nevertheless be damaged by adjusted by selecting a warm setting or adding some 102 P&G (60) p. 3. water at 140 degrees F. hot water to the fill.’’ 25426 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules decided to employ a modified version of label must provide an instruction for this section, for each component part of the rulemaking procedures specified in washing. If a washing instruction is not the product in conjunction with reliable Section 1.13 of the Commission’s Rules included, or if washing is warned evidence for the garment as a whole; of Practice. The proceeding will have a against, the manufacturer or importer 3. Amendment of Definitions of Water single Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, must establish a reasonable basis for Temperatures and disputed issues will not be warning that the item cannot be washed designated. and adequately finished at home, by The Commission proposes to amend The Commission will hold a public possessing, prior to sale, evidence of the the last sentence of § 423.1(d) of the workshop conference to discuss the type described in paragraph (c) of this Rule to read as follows: issues raised by this NPR. Moreover, if section. If a washing instruction is When no temperature is given, e.g., comments in response to this NPR included, it must comply with the ‘‘warm’’ or ‘‘cold,’’ very hot water up to request hearings with cross-examination requirements set forth in paragraph 145 degrees F (63 C) can be regularly and rebuttal submissions, as specified in (b)(1) of this section. If a dry cleaning used. Section 18(c) of the Federal Trade instruction is included, it must comply The Commission proposes to amend Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(c), the with the requirements set forth in section 423.6(b)(1)(I) of the Rule to read Commission will also hold such paragraph (b)(2) of this section. An as follows: hearings. After the public workshop, the instruction for professional wet cleaning The label must state whether the Commission will publish a notice in the may also be given. If an instruction for product should be washed by hand or Federal Register stating whether professional wet cleaning is given, it machine. The label must also state a hearings will be held in this matter, and, must comply with the requirements set water temperature—in terms such as if so, the time and place of hearings and forth in paragraph (b)(3) of this section. cold, warm, hot, or very hot—that may instructions for those desiring to present If the product cannot be cleaned by any be used. However, if the regular use of testimony or engage in cross- available cleaning method without very hot water will not harm the examination of witnesses. being harmed, the label must so state. product, the label need not mention any [For example, if a product would be water temperature. [For example, Part D—Section-By-Section Description harmed both by washing and by dry ‘‘Machine wash’’ means very hot, hot, of Proposed Amendments cleaning, the label might say, ‘‘Do not warm or cold water can be used.] 1. Amendments Relating to Required or wash—do not dry clean,’’ or ‘‘Cannot be The Commission proposes that Permissible Care Instructions successfully cleaned.’’] The instructions Appendix A.1.a–1.c be modified to read for washing, dry cleaning, and as follows: The Commission proposes to amend 1. Washing. Machine Methods: section 423.1, ‘‘Definitions’’ to include professional wet cleaning are as follows: It should be noted that, in addition to a. Machine wash—a process by which the following definition: the additions to section (b) noted in soil may be removed from products or (h) Professional wet cleaning means a bold, the following sentence has been specimens through the use of water, system of cleaning by means of deleted: ‘‘If either washing or dry detergent, or soap, agitation, and a equipment consisting of a computer- cleaning can be used on the product, the machine designed for this purpose. controlled washer and dryer, wet label need have only one of these When no temperature is given, e.g., cleaning software, and biodegradable instructions.’’ ‘‘warm’’ or ‘‘cold,’’ very hot water up to chemicals specifically formulated to The Commission also proposes to add 145 degrees F (63 degrees C) can be safely wet clean wool, silk, rayon, and the following subsection to section (b). regularly used. other natural and man-made fibers. The (3) Professional wet cleaning. b. Hot—initial water temperature washer uses a frequency-controlled If a professional wet cleaning ranging from 112 to 125 degrees F [45 motor, which allows the computer to instruction is included on the label, it to 52 degrees C]. control precisely the degree of must state at least one type of c. Warm—initial water temperature mechanical action imposed on the professional wet cleaning equipment ranging from 87 to 111 degrees F [31 to garments by the wet cleaning process. that may be used to clean the garment. 44 degrees C]. The computer also controls time, fluid However, if the product can be d. Cold—initial water temperature up levels, temperatures, extraction, successfully cleaned by all to 86 degrees F [30 degrees C]. chemical injection, drum rotation, and commercially available types of Part E—Regulatory Analysis and extraction parameters. The dryer professional wet cleaning equipment, incorporates a residual moisture (or Regulatory Flexibility Act the label need not mention any type of Requirements humidity) control to prevent overdrying wet cleaning equipment. A care label of delicate garments. The wet cleaning that recommends professional wet Under section 22 of the FTC Act, 15 chemicals are formulated from cleaning must list the fiber content of U.S.C. 57b, the Commission must issue constituent chemicals on the EPA’s the garment and must recommend one a preliminary regulatory analysis for a public inventory of approved chemicals other method of cleaning, such as proceeding to amend a rule only when pursuant to the Toxic Substances washing or drycleaning, or must warn it (1) estimates that the amendment will Control Act. that the garment cannot be washed or have an annual effect on the national The Commission proposes to amend drycleaned if such is the case. economy of $100,000,000 or more; (2) section 423.6(b) of the Rule to read as estimates that the amendment will follows: 2. Amendment of Reasonable Basis cause a substantial change in the cost or (b) Care labels must state what regular Section price of certain categories of goods or care is needed for the ordinary use of The Commission proposes to amend services; or (3) otherwise determines the product. In general, labels for textile § 423.6(c)(3) as follows: that the amendment will have a wearing apparel must have either a (c) A manufacturer or importer must significant effect upon covered entities washing instruction or a dry cleaning establish a reasonable basis for care or upon consumers. The Commission instruction. If an item of textile wearing information by possessing prior to sale: has preliminarily determined that the apparel can be successfully washed and (3) Reliable evidence, like that proposed amendments to the Rule will finished by a consumer at home, the described in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of not have such effects on the national Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules 25427 economy, on the cost of textile wearing whether they can be washed at home U.S.C. 3501 et seq., Office of apparel or piece goods, or on covered would have to make that determination. Management and Budget Control businesses or consumers. The Most businesses, however, obtain Number 3084–0103. As noted above, the Commission, however, requests information about the washability of the Rule requires manufacturers and comment on these effects. components of their garments from the importers of textile wearing apparel to The Regulatory Flexibility Act sources of those components, and in attach a permanent care label to all (‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–12, requires that many cases this simple inquiry will covered items and requires the agency conduct an analysis of the provide a reasonable basis for either a manufacturers and importers of piece anticipated economic impact of the dry clean instruction or a home washing goods used to make textile clothing to proposed amendments on small instruction. Although some businesses provide the same care information on businesses.105 The purpose of a may have to engage in additional efforts, the end of each bolt or roll of fabric. regulatory flexibility analysis is to such as testing, to make this These requirements relate to the ensure that the agency considers impact determination, it does not seem likely accurate disclosure of care instructions on small entities and examines that this will be the case for most for textile wearing apparel. Although regulatory alternatives that could businesses. The Rule specifies that a the Rule also requires manufacturers achieve the regulatory purpose while reasonable basis can consist of various and importers to base their care minimizing burdens on small entities. types of reliable evidence other than instructions on reliable evidence, it does Section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, testing, and most businesses do not not contain any explicit recordkeeping provides that such an analysis is not routinely test each garment style they requirements. required if the agency head certifies that manufacture or import. Nevertheless, The Rule also provides a procedure the regulatory action will not have a the Commission specifically seeks whereby a member of the industry may significant economic impact on a comment regarding these amendments’ petition the Commission for an substantial number of small entities. potential impact on small businesses. exemption for products that are claimed Because the Care Labeling Rule covers In addition, the Commission is to be harmed in appearance by the manufacturers and importers of textile proposing to amend one category of the requirement for a permanent label, but wearing apparel and certain piece types of evidence that can constitute a only one petition, subsequently goods, the Commission believes that any reasonable basis, i.e., evidence of testing withdrawn, has been filed in recent amendments to the Rule may affect a of components of the garment, to clarify years. A Notice soliciting public substantial number of small businesses. that the manufacturer or importer must comment on extending the clearance for For example, unpublished data also have reliable evidence that the the Rule through December 31, 1999, prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau garment as a whole can be cleaned as was published in the Federal Register under contract to the Small Business directed without damage. The on August 26, 1996, 61 FR 43764. OMB Administration (‘‘SBA’’) show there are Commission specifically has indicated has extended the clearance until some 288 manufacturers of men’s and that testing of the garment as a whole is December 31, 1999. boys’’ suits and coats (SIC Code 2311), not required in all instances, however; The proposed amendments would not more than 75% of which qualify as what is required is an evaluation of increase the paperwork burden small businesses under applicable SBA whether the garment as a whole can be associated with these paperwork size standards.106 There are more than successfully cleaned without damage in requirements. The Commission’s 1,000 establishments manufacturing the manner recommended on the care proposed amendment regarding women’s and misses’ suits, skirts, and label. The Commission views the professional wet cleaning does not coats (SIC Code 2337), most of which amendment of this section of the Rule increase the paperwork burden because are small businesses. Other small as simply a clarification of the fact that it is optional. Businesses that do not businesses are likely covered by the the manufacturer or importer must have believe it is beneficial to label for Rule. a reasonable basis for the garment as a professional wet cleaning are not Nevertheless, the proposed whole, not simply for the separate required to do so. The proposed amendments would not appear to have components. amendment of the Rule to require that a significant economic impact upon Based on available information, the any garment or fabric that can be such entities. The amendment to allow Commission certifies that amending the washed at home be so labeled will not for labeling for professional wet Care Labeling Rule as proposed will not increase the burden for businesses cleaning simply provides an option that have a significant economic impact on because they will still need to label for can be taken advantage of by businesses a substantial number of small only one method of cleaning. if they wish. The amendment to require businesses. To ensure that no significant The proposed amendment to change that garments that can be safely washed economic impact is being overlooked, the numerical definition of the words at home be labeled for home washing however, the Commission requests ‘‘hot,’’ warm,’’ or ‘‘cold,’’ when they will also not add significantly to the comments on this issue. The appear on care labels, and to add the cost of compliance for most businesses Commission also seeks comments on term ‘‘very hot,’’ will not add to the because businesses will still only be possible alternatives to the proposed burden for businesses because they are required to provide instructions for one amendments to accomplish the stated already required to indicate the method of cleaning. It is true that those objectives. After reviewing any temperature in words and to have a businesses that currently label garments comments received, the Commission reasonable basis for whatever water for dry cleaning without investigating will determine whether a final temperature they recommend. regulatory flexibility analysis is Moreover, businesses are not burdened 105 The RFA addresses the impact of rules on appropriate. with determining what temperature ‘‘small entities,’’ defined as ‘‘small businesses.’’ should accompany the words ‘‘very ‘‘small businesses,’’ ‘‘small governmental entities,’’ Part F—Paperwork Reduction Act hot,’’ ‘‘hot,’’ ‘‘warm,’’ or ‘‘cold’’; the and ‘‘small [not-for-profit] organizations,’’ 5 U.S.C. The Rule contain various information proposed amendment would provide 601. The Rule does not apply to the latter two types of entities. collection requirements for which the the numerical temperature that should 106 SBA’s revised small business size standards Commission has obtained clearance accompany each term. OMB regulations are published at 61 FR 3280 (Jan. 31, 1996). under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 provide, at 5 CFR 1320.3(c)(2), that ‘‘the 25428 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 89 / Friday, May 8, 1998 / Proposed Rules public disclosure of information C. Definitions of Water Temperatures Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The originally supplied by the Federal (5) How can consumers best be made proposed amendment consists of government to the recipient for the aware of the approximate water proposed changes to North Dakota’s purpose of disclosure to the public is temperatures in which they can safely revegetation policy document, not included within [the definition of and effectively wash their clothing? ‘‘Standards for Evaluation of collection of information.]’’ How can consumers best be made aware Revegetation Success and Thus, the Commission concludes that of how these temperatures correlate to Recommended Procedures for Pre- and the proposed amendments would not the descriptors ‘‘hot,’’ ‘‘warm,’’ and Postmining Vegetation Assessments.’’ increase the paperwork burden ‘‘cold’’? Do consumers need to The changes pertain to (1) prime associated with compliance with the determine the actual or approximate farmland woodland productivity Rule. To ensure that no significant water temperature in their washing standards, (2) woodland cover paperwork burden is being overlooked, machines when they select ‘‘hot,’’ standards, (3) wetland standards, (4) however, the Commission requests ‘‘warm,’’ and ‘‘cold’’ on their washing woodland and shelterbelt standards for comments on this issue. machine dials, and, if so, how could recreational lands, and (5) methods for sampling woodland cover. The Part G—Request for Comments they easily and practically do this? Could consumers use this information amendment is intended to revise the Members of the public are invited to to select the optimal temperature offered North Dakota program to be consistent comment on any issues or concerns they by their washing machines for clothes with SMCRA and the Federal believe are relevant or appropriate to the labeled for ‘‘hot,’’ ‘‘warm,’’ or ‘‘cold’’ regulations, and to improve operational Commission’s consideration of washing? efficiency. proposed amendments to the Care (6) Would consumers understand an DATES: Written comments must be Labeling Rule. The Commission instruction to use ‘‘very hot’’ water? received by 4:00 p.m., m.d.t., June 8, requests that factual data upon which Could consumers use this information 1998. If requested, a public hearing on the comments are based be submitted either to select the optimal temperature the proposed amendment will be held with the comments. In addition to the offered by their washing machines for on June 2, 1998. Requests to present oral issues raised above, the Commission clothes labeled for ‘‘very hot’’ washing testimony at the hearing must be solicits public comment on the costs or to determine that such clothes should received by 4:00 p.m., m.d.t. on May 26, and benefits to industry members and be washed by a professional cleaner? 1998. ADDRESSES: Written comments should consumers of each of the proposals as Authority: Section 18(d)(2)(B) of the well as the specific questions identified Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. be mailed or hand delivered to Guy below. These questions are designed to 57a(d)(2)(B). Padgett at the address listed below. assist the public and should not be Copies of the North Dakota program, construed as a limitation on the issues List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 423 the proposed amendment, and all on which public comment may be Care labeling of textile wearing written comments received in response submitted. apparel and certain piece goods; Trade to this document will be available for practices. public review at the addresses listed Questions below during normal business hours, By direction of the Commission, A. Requiring Instructions for Cleaning in Commissioner Azcuenaga not participating. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Each requester may receive Water Donald S. Clark, one free copy of the proposed (1) Is there empirical evidence Secretary. amendment by contacting OSM’s Casper regarding whether consumers interpret a [FR Doc. 98–12233 Filed 5–7–98; 8:45 am] Field Office. ‘‘dry clean’’ instruction to mean that a BILLING CODE 6750±01±P Guy Padgett, Director, Casper Field garment cannot be washed? Office, Office of Surface Mining (2) How many domestic businesses Reclamation and Enforcement, 100 provide professional wet cleaning, as DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR East ‘‘B’’ Street, Federal Building, defined in Part D.1. above, to the public Room 2128, Casper, Wyoming 82601– Office of Surface Mining Reclamation on a regular basis? 1918, Telephone: 307/261–6550 (3) Should the Rule provide that, if an and Enforcement James R. Deutsch, Director, Reclamation instruction for professional wet cleaning 30 CFR Part 934 Division, Public Service Commission, is provided, no other instruction need State Capitol—600 E. Boulevard, be given, or should a professional wet [SPATS No. ND±037±FOR, Amendment No. Bismarck, North Dakota 58505–0480, cleaning instruction only be allowed XXVI] Telephone: 701/328–2400. along with another cleaning instruction? North Dakota Regulatory Program FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: B. The Reasonable Basis Requirement of Guy Padgett, Telephone: 307/261–6550; the Rule AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Internet: GPadgettOSMRE.GOV Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (4) Would the amendment of Section ACTION: Proposed rule; public comment 423.6(c)(3) of the Rule, which provides I. Background on the North Dakota period and opportunity for public Program that a reasonable basis can consist of hearing on proposed amendment. reliable evidence that each component On December 15, 1980, the Secretary of the garment can be cleaned according SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining of the Interior conditionally approved to the care instructions, to state, Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is the North Dakota program. General additionally, that a manufacturer or announcing receipt of a proposed background information on the North importer must possess a reasonable amendment to the North Dakota Dakota program, including the basis for the garment as a whole, clarify regulatory program (hereinafter, the Secretary’s findings, the disposition of the reasonable basis requirements? Is ‘‘North Dakota program’’) under the comments, and conditions of approval any additional clarification needed? Surface Mining Control and of the North Dakota program can be