b'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\nFEDERALTRADE COMMISSION\n600 PENNSYLVANIA\n\nA VENUE, NW\n\nWASHINGTON,\nD.t. 20580\nDivision of Enforcement\nBureau of Consumer Protection\n\nAugust 5, 2002\n\nJohn S. Rode\nRode & Qualey\n295 Madison Avenue\nNew York, New York 10017\nDear Mr. Rode:\nI am writing in responseto your requestfor an advisory opinion on behalf of Amicale\nIndustries. I apologize for the delay in response.\nYour letter describes in detail Amicale\'s quality control procedures in the manufacture of\ncashmereand cashmere/woolblend fabrics. The letter then asks whether theseproGedures\nconstitute "due care" as the tenn is used in the Wool Products Labeling Act. The relevant\nlanguage of the statutereads as follows:\nProvided, That deviation of the fiber contents of the wool product from percentages\nstated on the stamp, tag, label, or other means of identification, shall not be misbranding\nunder this section if the person charged with misbranding proves such deviation resulted\nfrom unavoidable variations in manufactureand despite the exercise of due care to make\naccuratethe statementson such stamp,tag, label, or other means of identification.\n15 V.S.C. \xc2\xa7 68b(4)(a)(2)(A).\nThe Commission\'s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 1.1(a)state: "Any person,partnership,\nor corporation may requestadvice from the Commission with respectto a course of action which\ntoe requesting party proposes to pursue." The Rules further state: "Hypothetical questions will\nnot be answered,\n"\nAmicale\'s quality control procedures,as described in your letter, appearto be exemplary.\nIndeed, suchproceduresshould ensure that fabrics manufactured by Amicale are accurately\nlabeled with respectto fiber content.\n\n\x0cJohnS. Rode,page2\nHowever, your letter does not set forth a proposed course of action for which an advisory\nopinion would be relevant or appropriate. The proceduresdescribedare Amicale\'s general\nbusinesspractices, which presumablyhave been in effect for some time. Weare aware of no\nallegation or suggestionthat any of Amicale\'s products are improperly labeled. Therefore, there\nis no question for which a Commission or Commission staff advisory opinion would be\nappropriate.\nWe do appreciateAmicale\'s high level of concern and attention to labeling issuesand its\ncare in adhering to manufacturing and testing proceduresdesignedto ensureaccuratelabels.\nPursuantto Section 1.4 of the Commission\'s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 1.4, your\nletter, together with this response,will be placed on the public record.\n\nSincerelyyours,\n\n~ ~ 9~1-n?""~~\nCarol J. Jennings\n\n\x0c]OHN S. RODE\n\nATrORNEYS AT LAW\n295 MADISON AVENUE\nNEW YORK, N.Y. 10017\n\nMICHAEL S. O\'ROURKE\nPATRICK D. GILL\n\nWASHINGTON OFFICE\n1742 N STREET, N.W\nWASHINGTON, D.C.\nTELEPHONE: (202) 223-0957\nFACSIMILE: (202)785-2210\n\nR. BRIAN BURKE\nWILLIAM].\n\nTELEPHONE: (212) 685-4437\nFACSIMILE: (212) 213-3206\n\nMALONEY\n\nE-MAIL: TRADELA W@AOL.COM\nELEANORE KELLY-KOBAYASHI\n\nWWW.RODE-QUALEY.COM\n\nM ILYAS KHAN, OF COUNSEL\n(ADMITTED\n\nIN PAKISTAN)\n\nKARACHI, PAKISTAN\nTELEPHONE: (92-21) 5685541\nFACS1MILE: (92-21) 5683050\n\nDecember6,2001\n\nDivision of Enforcement\nBureau of Consumer Protection\nUnited States Federal Trade Commission\n600 Pennsylvania\n\nAvenue, N. W.\n\nWashington, D.C. 20580\n\nRe Labeling of Woven Fabrics Produced From 100% Cashmere Yarns\nand From Blended Cashmere and Wool Yarns\n\nDear Sir:\n\nAmicale Industries, Inc., with headquarters at 1375 Broadway, New\nYork, N.Y. 10018, is a leading maker of cashmere fabrics in the United States and is\nthe largest cashmere merchant in Europe; Amicale has asked us to seek your advice\nwith respect to the labeling of the woven fabrics they produce from yarns spun by\nAmicale from cashmere and wool fibers at Amicale\'s fabric division in the United\nStates. All of these fabrics fall within two general categories: fabrics produced from\nyarn spun from 100% cashmere fibers, and fabrics made from blended yarn spun\nfrom cashmere and wool fibers.\ncategory are most frequently\n\nThe blended yarns used to produce the latter\n\nspun from 50% (by weight) cashmere and 50% (by\n\nweight) of wool fibers, although Amicale often spins blended yarns to the order of\n\n\x0ctheir customers, in which the proportion of cashmere to wool is other then 50/50,\ne.g., 80% cashmere, 20% wool.\n\nAmicale, established. over fifty years ago, follows the Rules and\nRegulations issued under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Wool\nProducts Labeling Act, as well as the dictates of the commercial market for 100%\ncashmere and cashmere/wool blended products, and has accordingly devoted\nsubstantial time and resources to ensure that the articles produced by Amicale meet\nor exceed all applicable legal and commercial requirements.\n\nTo that end, upon\n\nwhich their worldwide reputation depends, Amicale rigorously controls all phases of\ntheir production from raw material procurement through finished goods. Our client\nis able to exercise such control because their production is vertically integrated,\nunlike some of their competitors, who must relinquish control over their materials\nand intermediate products at various stages of production, and send such materials\nand intermediate\n\nproducts to unrelated mills for the performance\n\nof manufacturing\n\noperations which they cannot conduct in their own facilities.\n\nConsequently, and perhaps uniquely, when Amicale delivers a finished\nfabric to one of its customers, our client is in a position to represent, accurately, that\nevery step in the manufacture of that product was accomplished within the facilities\nowned, operated, and supervised directly by Amicale\n\nCashmere and Wool Fiber Procurement\n\nAmicale purchases cashmere fibers from three principal sources:\n\n2\n\n\x0c1.\n\nAmicale obtains Mongolian cashmere from its joint venture with\n\nthe government of Mongolia, Mongol-Amicale, which was established in 1990.\nMongol-Amicale purchases the raw cashmere directly from the herdsmen through a\nchain of over twenty regional warehouses; this fiber is transported from those\nwarehouses to the Mongol-Amicale factory in Ulaan Baatar, where every kilogram\nof raw fiber is hand-sorted and examined, tested in the joint venture\'s laboratory,\nscoured, dehaired, baled, and then shipped to Amicale\'s wholly-owned subsidiary,\nW. Fein & Sons Limited, in Bradford, U.K.\n\n2.\n\nwhich\n\nis\n\nsupervised by the former head of the Export Section of the Cashmere Department\n\nof\n\nInner Mongolia.\n\nAmicale\n\nhas an office in Inner\n\nMongolia,\n\nChina,\n\nThis office of Amicale draws samples from every lot of Chinese\n\ncashmere which is offered for purchase, and forwards those samples to the\nlaboratory of W. Fein & Sons Limited for testing.\n\nIf a sample meets Amicale\'s\n\nquality standard, the office in Inner Mongolia is then authorized to purchase the lot\nfrom which that sample was drawn, and arrange for delivery of the approved lot to\nAmicale in Inner Mongolia, where the fibers are again inspected before shipment of\nthe Chinese cashmere to W. Fein & Sons Limited in the United Kingdom.\n\n3.\n\nAmicale also acquires cashmere fibers from other sources,\n\nprincipally\n\nraw cashmere offered on the "spot" market in Euroli>e; samples of these\n\nshipments\n\nare tested at the laboratories\n\nof W. Fein & Sons Limited,\n\nand fibers\n\npurchased on the spot market are usually shipped to W. Fein & Sons although, on\noccasion, such fibers may be shipped directly to Amicale in the United States.\n\nAmicale also purchases wool fibers for their use in blending; as with\ncashmere fiber purchases, the wool is inspected, sampled, and tested by Amicale,\n\n3\n\n\x0c~ODE & QUALEY\n\nand, as is done with Amicale\'s cashmere fiber, all lots of fiber are segregated by lot\nnumber until withdrawn from inventory for further manufacture. When such fibers\nare shipped to Amicale\'s fabric division in Charlotte, North Carolina, whether\nshipped by W. Fein & Sons or from other sources, each fiber lot is inspected and\ntested by the Quality Control Laboratory at Amicale North Carolina and is then\nplaced in inventory until required for production. Amicale maintains records of all\nexamination, sampling, and testing, whether performed in Mongolia, in China, at\nW. Fein & Sons, or in North Carolina, and maintains\n\nlot number integrity\n\nthroughout its manufacturing processes.\n\nFabric Production\nProduction in the United States of 100% cashmere fabrics and of\nblended cashmere/wool fabrics begins with the withdrawal from Amicale\'s inventory\nin North Carolina of selected lots of cashmere and, in the case of blended\ncashmere/wool fabrics, wool fibers.\n\nIf the desired end product is, for example, a\n\n50/50 cashmere/wool fabric, equal quantities of each fiber will be selected from our\nclient\'s inventory, typically 1,000 pounds of cashmere fiber and 1,000 pounds of\nwool fiber. The lot numbers of the selected cashmere or cashmere and wool fibers\nare recorded, and these fibers are then blended after a mixture of oil and water\nequal to approximately 6% of the total weight of fibers has been added. The oil in\nthis mixture lubricates the individual fibers so that they will be evenly mixed, and\nthe water provides moisture which minimizes breakage of the individual\n\nfibers\n\n.during the mechanical blending process. When the cashmere or cashmere and wool\nfibers have been blended to the satisfaction of the Amicale North Carolina Quality\nControl Laboratory, the resultant blend is carded into the form of a web, the web is\nconverted to sliver form, and the yarn is then spun. The finished yarn is then\n\n4\n\n\x0ctested to ensure that the yarn is uniform throughout, that is, that the different\nlength cashmere or cashmere and wool fibers are evenly distributed throughout the\nfull length of the yarn which has been produced; if the yarn contains both cashmere\nand wool fibers, it is further tested to ensure that the two fibers are evenly\ndistributed in the 50/50 or other specified proportions, as appropriate, at all points.\n\nAmicale notes that the different characteristics of cashmere and wool\nfibers, particularly the fiber diameter which, in the case of cashmere, ranges from\n14.5 to 16.5 microns, with a maximum of 17 microns, in contrast to the diameter of\nwool fibers which exceeds 18 microns, requires particular\nfibers to yield a uniform blend throughout\ntesting of the finished\nyarn, the total variation\n\nMer\nfibers\n\ninto yarn,\n\ncare in the mixing of these\n\nthe yarn run, and necessitates laboratory\n\nyarn to ensure that, whether it is a 50/150or other blended\nover the run does not exceed 1-2%.\n\nspinning the 100% cashmere or blended cashmere and wool\nand upon completion\n\nof testing\n\nto ensure that\n\nevery finished\n\nblended yarn does not deviate significantly from the specified proportions, the 100%\ncashmere or blended cashmere/wool yarns are then woven into fabrics within the\nfacilities of Amicale North Carolina. As a consequence,Amicale is able to maintain\ncomplete control over this final stage in the production of 100% cashmere and\ncashmere/wool blended fabrics, and, as in each of the preceding production stages,\nAmicale is able to ensure that no materials other than the tested yarns spun by\nAmicale are introduced into the finished fabrics. The finished fabrics are, in fact,\nmade from and composed solely of the yarn spun by Amicale from the cashmere and\nwool fibers maintained in our client\'s inventory; our client\'s strict control over all\nphases of manufacturing eliminates any possibility of the introduction of any other\nnon-specification yarns or fibers.\n\n5\n\n\x0cl\\ODE & ~UALEY\n\nAmicale\'s\n\nLaboratory\n\nEguigment\n\nand Personnel\n\nThe quantity of cashmere fibers purchased by Amicale, coupled with\nthe volume of production at our client\'s integrated facilities, has led Amicale to\nconclude that\nquantitative\n\nthey cannot depend upon outside laboratories to conduct the\nand qualitative\n\ntesting and analyses at each of the stages of\n\nprocurement and manufacture of these high-quality luxury fabrics which our client\nhas determined are necessary for the production of 100% cashmere and blended\ncashmere/wool fabrics which will meet the standards of Amicale and its customers.\nWhile Amicale does use outside laboratories for some purposes, the scale and\nvolume of Amicale\'s manufacturing\n\noperations are viewed by our client as\n\nsufficiently great enough to warrant the investment in appropriate equipment and\nqualified personnel at their facilities in Mongolia, the United Kingdom, and North\nCarolina.\n\nThe testing performed in Amicale\'s laboratories is conducted in\naccordance with the standards and methods used by accredited independent\nlaboratories; in particular, Amicale\'s laboratories follow all applicable Standards\nand Procedures approved by ASTM and the\nManufacturers\n\nInstitute,\n\nCashmere and\n\nCamel Hair\n\nof which latter organization the President of Amicale,\n\nBoris Shlomm, is one of the two co-founders. Attached to this letter, as Exhibit A, are\nlists of the equipment maintained in each of Amicale\'s laboratories, as well as lists of\n.the personnel employed in each of those laboratories, with a summary of their\nexperience and qualifications.\n\n6\n\n\x0cConclusion\nAmicale believes, based upon over fifty years of experience in the\nproduction of 100% cashmere and cashmere/woolblended yarns and fabrics, that they\ntake appropriate steps to ensure that all of their cashmere and cashmere/wool yarns\nand fabrics will not vary from their stated fiber content for any reason other than "a\n\nsmall amount of unintended inconsistency in the manufacturing process," for purposes\nof the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, or "unavoidable variation\nmanufacture\n\nin\n\ndespite the exercise of due care to make accurate the statements" on\n\ntheir labels, for purposes of the Wool Products Labeling Act. We would very much\nappreciate your advising us whether, on the basis of the information\nthis\n\nletter\n\nand the material\n\nincluded\n\nin Exhibit\n\nA, you would\n\nset forth above in\nagree that the\n\nprocedures followed by Amicale constitute "due care" to ensure the accuracy of the\nlabels applied by Aniicale to their finished 100% cashmere and blended cashmere/wool\n\nfabrics. In the event you need additional information about the yarns and fabrics\nproduced by our client, please do not hesitate to call me at your convenience\n\nJSR/cps\n\nEnclosure\n\n7\n\n\x0cNov\'-13-01\n\nP.~2\n\n03:31P\n\n13-t--OJ-2001\n\n10:~\n\nFR(J1\n\nlJ F=EI N ~\n\nS!J-IS\n\nTO ~I~\n\nQ~a1ity Cobtrol PenoDQel& EouinmeDt/P~cedura at Mouaol-Amicale.JY\n\nQC O~rativ.\xc2\xa3~\n\nTumendemberel- Raw MaterialsManage!\n1.\n\n2.\n3.\n\n4.\n5.\n\n6.\n\n.,.\n8.\n\n9.\n1O.\n\nBulgan -Sorting\nBadamsetseg -Sorting\nMunkhzul -Sorting\nOtto Suren -Scouring\n\nHorol Suren-Scouring\nBolonuya -Scourinj\nAlginnaa -QC Mllnaaer/Dehairing/Press Control\nEnkhtungalag -Dehairiu&fPress Control\nUnmchimig -Carding/Spilming\nZ 01tuy a -C aring/ Spinning\n\n~guinment Used in Laboratorv:-\n\nMicron -Projectina Microscope\nMicron -Summa Sketch3\nScollrini -WlRA Grease Extractor\nScouring -Soxhlet ApparatuS\nScow-jng -Precision Economy Oven\nScouring -AND Moisture Determinine Balancc\n\nDehairing-Alfred SuterCo. LengthTester\nCarding/Spinning\nCarding/Spinning\nCarding/SpiMing\nCarding/Spinning\n\n-Henry\n-Twist\n-Brown\n-James\n\nL Scott Strength Tester\nTester\n81.Sharpe Count Tester\nH Heal Strength Tcste:r\n\nCaJ-dingiSpinning- CCV Teater\nCarding/Spinning -Uster Tester 3\nCarding/Spinning -WtRA Graphing Balancc:\n\nCarding/Spinning-Uster Roving Sensor\nElectronic Balance x 3\n\nP.O2/16\n\n\x0cNov-13-0103:32P\n1\';\'-f\'U}-~l.\n\n..~\n\n~~: ~\n\nt.JFEIN AtJD50\'S\n\nTO ~ICALE\n\nQuality Control Laboratory\nW. FEIN & SONSLIMITE!)\n\nLahoratorv ~uilment\n\nWIRA Rapid oil contenttester\nHC31\'swrap reel\nBlack boards I whitc boards I velvet board\n\nUsterAutomatic ~omctc\n\n(Str8nith and Elonaation)\n\nUs~er Evenness tester\n\nHeal\'! Two-fold tWisttester\nSUtercomb ~orter\nWIRA Fibre fiDCDefSmI;ter\n\nTorsionbalance\nDigital bWance\nHeal\'s conditioning oven\nHeal\'s ayrow.sh.\nBauschand Lomb projection mieroscope\nSamplecard\nSampl~spinne::r\nStreatelectroni~moisture meter\nElectrOnic moisture probe\n\nLi~ cabinet\nFumc cupboard\nHot plat~\nvarious chemicals (for oil extncUon,dye mipping, scouring)\nMatsuya 12 gaugcknittini roacbine\nTritex LT1OI 5 puge circl\\latbUningmachlnc\n\n10 gaugestrap knitting machine\nAir condjtioD~ laboratory\nComnute\'r:\n\nP.cjJ4\nP.04/16\n\n\x0cNov-13-0103:32P\n\nJ...)-~1-,,-~1\n\nl~: ~\n\n~~\n\nW I-clN ru~ 5()\xc2\xa3\n\nTO 1:t1ICALE\n\nP.05/16\n\nJulie Ann Smith\nQuality Control Manaler\n\nResponsibilities\n.Oreanisation\nand day.to-day running of the Quality Control l.aboratory\n.Monitoring\n\nof dehai red cashmere\n\nand yarn quality to ensure that the\n\nreQuired standards are met.\nEducation\n\nand Qaaaliftcations\n\n1983-1990\nLanpands Community College, St. N8otS~ Camba.\nThree A\' levels (advanced leve\'). one O\' \'evel (ordinary level) and Eight GI:SE\'s\n\n(Genera! certificate of secondary .ducatlon:,\n1990-1994\n\nThe University of Hudder5field. Huddersfi.ld,\n\nBEng. (Bachelor of Enlineering)\n\nWest Yorks.\n\nIn I-extile Manufacture with Clothing Studies\n\nUpper second class honours degree\n(subjects incorporated. yarn and fabric: manufacture, computing, enginecring,\ninstrumentation and control, management, mate(ials science. product\nevalu~tion, textile manUfacturing and developments, indu5trlat training).\n\nWork Experience\nF\'ebr.Sept.1993\nJ. H. WalkerLimited, ~.n.thorp8,\n\nWest Yorks-\n\nIfldustrial training as part of the BEng. Textile Manufacture degree cour~le.\nQuality Control Assistant responsible for the daily monitoring of weft krntted\nfleece and leisure wear fabrics. Other duties involved colour matching,\ncompiling fabric reports, 3S51sting with product development. producing fabric\n\nperformance standards and product specifications.\nMarch 1995.Present da,\nQuality Control Ma"ag~r\nLaboratory.\n\nMonitoring\n\nW. \'ein"\n.Orpnisation\n\nSons Limited, Bradford, West Yorks.\nand runntng of the Quality Control\n\nof quality standards,\n\ndehaired fibre purchases\n\n3"d\n\nassisting in the assessment of greasy and scoured material.\n\nTraining\nOct. 1115\n\nYocOltl-McCoIlTestiftC laborltoraH (Denver, USA)\n\nOne we~k training tl> use The Suter Comb Sorter (fibre length) and fibre\nid~ntification and measurement using a projection microscope, OFDA a,d\nLaserscan\n\nNov. 2001\nYorkshi,. Post Tralninc, Leeds, West Yorks.\n"I nsight to Mansgement" Management training course.\n\nP.~5\n\n\x0c~\n\nr t<U\'1 I" I-~ I N ~ND :;LJ"S\n\nTO\n\nAMICALf::\n\nP.06/16\n\nClaireLoui.eArmital8\nJob Title\nQuality Control Laboratory Technician\n\nReapon;i billtles\n.Daily\n\nmonitoring\n\nof dehalred\n\ncashmere\n\nquality.\n\n.Routine\nte~ting of cashmere fibre to ensure required standards are m~t\n.Perform\ntests to ensure that yarn proces$ed by commission dyers an(i\nspinner\'Scmeets required $tandards.\n\nEdueatlon Deta11s\n1"6~19\'4\nHanley High School & Stxth Form Centre\nOne A\' Level (advanced level), ten GCSE\'s (General certificate of second~ry\neducation). City & Guilds (Information Technology) and RSA (Royal SOClf!ty of\nArts) (D~sk top pub/ishini).\n\n1997-2000\n\nModern ApprenticeshiP\n\n8TEC (8usinesfo Technical Education Council) National Certificate in Textile\n\nTechnology\n\nBTEC Higher National Certificate in Textile Technology\nNVQ (Nationa[ Vocational Qualification) in Manufar..-turing Textiles (1extile\n\nLaboratory Technician)\nNEBS (National Examination Board) Management\nTrainee of the Year BTEC Natlonat Certificate Year 2. 1998\nTrainee of the Year BTEC ~igh8r National Certificate Year 1 .1999\nJohn 5 Dryer Cup for Innovation of Raw Materia! -1999 & 2000.\n\nWork Experience\nOct 1990\nR. Butterworth .& Sons (Hudder$field W Yorks)\nSchool work experience. Observed and took part in various practices around\nthe spinning mill, conc&ntrating mainly on the twisting operation.\n\nOct 1994-Mar\n\n1196\n\nPatons RTN (Huddersf1eld\n\nW Yorks)\n\nTrained as a y~rn colour matcher at ths carding and spinning mill\nMar 1996-Present\n\nDay\n\nW. Fein ..Sans (Bradford W Yorks)\n\nTrained as a Quality Control Laboratory Technician at the Ceshmer8\nDehairers.\n\n\x0c"\n\n,Nav-13-0103:34P\n"""-""""-"\'UU.1\n\nJ.t:)..).)\n\n"\'~U\'I\n\nw t"t:.l N\n\nHNlJ\n\n~U"I~\n\nIU\n\nF~W,",."t list.\nLI~ ~i~o.f:ope ~P~na.\n\n, I\nI I\n\nI .\n~I\n)\n\n:;\n;\nUstcr ~~n&$ Test,er( UT\'4)\n\nFoftf.\'~~$~~~AJ\nI\n\nr!,8\'*-\\.nd E\'~ption Tes~f\' ( SpliccScan"." 11)\n\np~ple~\n.\n\nI ;\n\nI (\n,:\n\n\\\n\nP.14/16\n\n1-I\'11~1;\n\nI I\n\nI :\ni\n(\n\nI !\nI\n,\n\n~.:rI;\n\nt\n\n:\n\ns~ Oil~..~ andS<..\\~\nu~ ..n~\nst.." 1r~.. Kftitti"1MaeniftU\n,\n\nT~;,t\n\nI\n\n\'t~r\'i\n\n\'\n\nI\n\n~\n\nL\n\nPr\'fods,bft\n8a4atK&\nrli d Elecb-oni~\n50\'!\n\nI\n\nsa~p\\e c:.Tdp:ran~ S,.",ncrMachina (on order)\n\n~aw .k.a"\n..,.\n\nI\n\ni\n\nDe""~!\n"\n\n:\nI\n\n;\n\n.,\n\n.\n\nI.\n\n,.\'Ii\n~., ...,\',\n\nI\nI\n\nI\nI\n\nII\nI ~\n! !\n\nI\n\nH,,#d~~P~:\n"\n\ny.T1oi~f.~\n,\n\n;.\n\n"\n\nI\n\nc~,\n\n~Iidp~~e"\n\n;\',:\n\nLi~\n\n!\n\n,\n\nJ\n\n8igc ;\n\n"\n\ni\n\n!\n!\n\n!,\n\\\n;\n\nI\n\nI\' ,\n\nI\n\n;:\n\n.\'.\n\nI\n\nI\n\nI\n:\nI\n\nI\nI\nI\n\n.\n\'\n\nI\n\nI\n\n4"(J~:M.""v.","-\xc2\xbbI :\n\nl\'"c:~~1\n\ni.\n\n~,l"L\'()~\n\'.\nl"I\'C:O"..\'~:""7()d) \'.".;l;::!\n\nt-" (7(.\'..i\'":i, 1,:4~\n\n..\n\n,.",,~II; ":"\'TtJ\'I\\I~"\'.IIM)\'"\n\nrOTRL P.04\n\nP_1~\n\n\x0c"\n\nNav-13-0103:34P\n"\'V"- c.~""J.\n\n.A...\n\n..~..).)\n\nr~UI\'1\n\n\'41 r-t:.lN\n\nH~\n\n~~\n\nIU\n\n\\\n\n~1(\';RLf:\n\nFax\ni\nI\n\nQ.c.T-t ~odt ~nd,Stan~Tds.\n!\n\nQ\\lanti~~.. \'AIIa~is\nI\n\nASrM D6Z9 .88\n\nF\'1b~Di.\'"~tfr(~iao" -l.lpt Micros~)\n\nASTM\n\nfl~: Unsthl(Hi"~ M~\n\nM~od\n\nI\n\nI\n\nDarki~ir :c+1tt\n\nI\n\nwh~~~t:\n\nI\n\nI\n\n,\n\n~ 8&\n\napprl1\\lCd by CCMl\n\nMethod approYedby CCMI\nM8thod IpprO~e4by CCM!\n\n..,\n\nN$Pi ~8\n\n062.9\n\n~~od\n\n~lantl\nI\n\na~raved\n\nby .co.t\'l\n\nI\n\nASn4 Dl~13 .\'1\n\nTwiit TCft\n\n~\n\n019(\\7.39\n\nAm" 014,~-s,\n~TW Dl44S .90\nAST).\\ D1574-17\nASTM D 1113:-\n\n--.\n\n.10~~~~~j.,~\nI\n\n(.~~~..\n".\nl\'I\'4:Jc\'\n.,1 (!(~J,-;~:\'\n\n\'\n~(\'4.~\n\n1-\'\\\';CfI>4)" :~~li~~\n\ni\n\nI\n1""\n~-IIt*i ~~\\~~\\~!\'Il\\14""\nI\n\n90\n\nP.~3\nP. 13..\'16\n\n\x0cNov\':13-0103:34P\n\n.J..:J-,\'tUV-~~.L\n\n!~..)~\n\n!-/\'(Uf\'1\n\nW J-t: I N ~\n\n;;ur-4~\n\nTO\n\nI=v\'1ICALI:::\n\nF:mc\n\nTo:\nF\n\n:\n:\n\nI\n\nM"- :GtI~.\n\n0*;\n\n~\n\n11J/12(01\n\nf\'C)fft:\n\nM ~\',8.StIkJmm\n\nff,8tnl Tr.de Commission.\n\n5u~:i\n\n"a~:\'\n\n,\n\n4. I~"d~ng1ttis\n,\nI\n~ ~~\ni~..:~,~\nCotrttol: 3\n\n~.bfr\n\n:\n\n:\n\n.i\n\nMa~r\nT~Gl.\n\n~Aif AIS~aU of~e T~18 I,,~\n.nd Chartered T~1e\n~ J!O)\'rs expericft\xc2\xab witt. Spedt1t)lflbT\'U. "~mc\'ly Cash?ne.rc\nand\n\nCa~.t\n~.jr.\n\nI\n\n~c"Ns\'laU\n\npecfS.of QC taIti"l" QtTttte)\'ant div!s;o.,.\n\nkepQ.\'t\'s r~~~ Qnrawtn.wna.1Ind yam tc Mt.A.5hlomm.andreslAltson\nfa~t\n~~m. yn, ha.~. cm~t Amiale Norttt Carulira.\nA\nm{~ fp\' M7\'.fo-12D\nOt\'pftizd (O~1AtiOt\\~\n~ li.tIe,"c~pan)\' in Enp"d a~~:a~o"\'aft~n\nQua1~ orM~I!.\nAJttical.yam.\n;\n\'~~~\'P\'~ " ..~d tr;ats Whanavailablc.\nKnitttnr ~\n!~\n~sht\nofkn~\nfabric. stttr.h if.nJth, count. Cf ctc..:\n~\n41~ .~.\n\'t1t.11: wt rC5l1~ Oft nw mmml,\nspltn ya~ I\'ltd aJl\'tlltS\n\nam~ollt\n\nI,QC ;.0. ,\n\nNowbCiftJi~~~\n\n,\n\nwith fabri~ inspc(;tjon,~ tt\\.. fabrk fi"ishing dtriSi~-\n\n..\n\nsupe~r:\': 11 ~ ~~\n\n>\'" i".\xc2\xab~.\n\nat ",,"law...sta.rtit\\fU a JpilftnuWithtit. laStIS\n\n:\n\n~CI ;~. ...I\n~.;~/:\n\n:..\n\not\\~,~..\n\n:.;\n\nI\n\n~~\n\n::\n\n1~\'IA4"m,\'\nfibreaut)lm,fibredia~. ~~\n\nftk. ""stt. (Rand\n~.\n:.\n\n~.~ ;: qit i ..,;;\n.R~\n0:" cards,~,a~\n:.1M~. ~" : ,\n;c.:-.~\' -.ct eton_~\nTwI..nl ~ \' :.t "~ or .pikes ~ ~"\'. N~N\n\n~ctab1e, Ntbt \'~)\n\nacros.sca\'-; spl"~"g (Oa~\nwe_, U$ti1lr. ~~r\n,\n~.~\nO" "\'nishe.d \'\n\npa(~P, ...d, \'. 1"1.""~...qUf""d..\n;\n\nI\n\n,\n\nI\n\nQC Tedlnfdan : 28 )ITS:e~crien~\n~\ntJ\\Ctut .t >"is:i", QC.\n\n~\n\n: ..w~~t!t~\n\nMCttI9d),,.~~\n\n~",.\n\n~n~ ~,\n\n\'r\n\nI\n\n~7()1 ~\\\'\\""zI\n\ni\n\n_.\'-I\'~-\'\n~. I~~~ I ,\nI\n".I..(r\'.c),\'fl;y~..t>!)\n\'-.\n~:It;~):J\n\nbatrC4Utrt.,\nncp/sal1.CO\\tnts,\nfibreI4\'"gthtJland\n\n~\n\n~,ttI\n\nOfturd5. vaNtlQn 10"0" cards. -spinnins =WIJt\n\nandcl~gzttoIt.Usur8Ve~s tGtinr.\n\nI\n\n,/",\n\n.~t:J1"\'1 ""\'r""%.1"\\2\'i""-"""\'"\n,\n\n,\n\nIt Amlcale, iMludins spi"ning: ~nd s~pl:t\n\nmatt..1\'(\\11.4),\noil bt\'b. NPt\'b.\n\nYam. ~ai~t8s".c,~cki":J\n\nand~\n\n.\n\n\'\n\nP.12/16\n\nP.1jz\n\n\x0c'


b'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20580\n\n \n\nBureau of Consumer Protection\n\nApril 8, 2002\n\nRobert E. Hirshon, President\n\nRobert D. Evans, Director, Governmental Affairs\nAmerican Bar Association\n\n740 Fifteenth Street, NW\n\nWashington, DC 20005-1022\n\nDear Mr. Hirshon and Mr. Evans:\n\nTam writing in response to your correspondence regarding the application of Title We\nSubtitle A, of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 6801 et seq. (\xe2\x80\x9cGLB Act\xe2\x80\x9d) and the\nFederal Trade Commission\xe2\x80\x99s Rule, Privacy of Consumer Financial Information, 16 CFR \xc2\xa7 313\n(\xe2\x80\x9cthe Privacy Rule\xe2\x80\x9d), to attorneys at law.\n\nYour letters question the appropriateness and utility of applying the GLB Act\xe2\x80\x99s privacy\nprovisions to attorneys engaged in the practice of law. Specifically, you request that the\nCommission exempt attorneys at law from the application of the Privacy Rule.\n\nWe have carefully considered your concerns, and recognize the issues you have raised\nregarding the application of the GLB Act to attorneys at law. However, there are significant\nquestions as to the legal authority of the Commission to grant the exemption you request.\n\nAs you know, the GLB Act itself states that entities engaged in \xe2\x80\x9cfinancial activities\xe2\x80\x9d are\nsubject to the Act. Although the Commission has express authority under the GLB Act to grant\nexceptions, that authority is limited to providing exceptions to the requirements of Section 502.\nThe Act does not provide the Commission with express authority to grant exemptions from the\nother provisions of the GLB Act, including the initial and annual notice provisions. See GLB\nAct \xc2\xa7 504 (b), 15 U.S.C. 6804 (b).\n\nSincerely,\n\n|G fee,\n\nay . Howard Beales\nDirector\n\x0c'


b'\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c'


b'0\n\n"\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n.\xc2\xa3ti.~\n.600\n~.\n\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION\nPENNSYLVANIA\n.WASHINGTON,\n\nAVENUE, NW\nD.C. 20580\n\nDivision of Enforcement\nBureau of Consumer Protection\n\nNovember2, 2001\nMr. Daniel J. Schwarz,CFO\nDeanna Dee Inc.\n336 South Anderson Street\nLos Angeles, California 90033\n\nDearMr. Schwartz:\nI am writing in responseto your letter of October 30, 2001, with regard to fabric\npurchased by your finn for the manufacture of coats. You state that the fabric received by your\ncompany was labeled to be 50% cashmere,50% wool. You had the fabric tested, and the test\nreport showed the content to be 58.5% wool, 41.5% cashmere. You asked whether this fabric,\nand goods to be made from the fabric, can be labeled properly as 50% cashmere, 50% wool.\nThe deviation described in your letter is not the small amount of variation generally\nconsidered acceptable for blended fiber products. The Rules and Regulations under the Textile\nFiber Products Identification Act, 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 303.43, allow for a 3% variation for blended fiber\ntextile products. The Wool Products Labeling Act, 15 U .S.C. \xc2\xa7 68 et seq., and rules promulgated\npursuant to the Act, 16 C.F.R. Part 300, do not specify a tolerance for blended wool products. As\nyou noted, however, the Wool Act does contain a proviso acknowledging that small deviations\nmay occur as a result of unavoidable variations in the manufacturing process, despite the exercise\nof due care. As a result, the Commission has stated that it will apply to blended wool products\nthe 3% tolerance allowed for other blended textile products. Seethe enclosed copy of our\nbusiness guide, Threading Your Was Through the-Labeling Requirements Under the Textile and\n\nWoolActs.\nI hope that you will find this analysis helpful. In accordancewith Section 1.3(c) of the\nCommission\'s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 1.3(c), this is a staff opinion only\nand has not been reviewed or approved by the Commission or by an individual Commissioner.\nIt is not binding upon the Commission and is given without prejudice to the right of the\nCommission later to rescind the advice and, when appropriate, to commence an enforcement\nproceeding. Pursuant to Section 1.4 of the Commission\'s Rules of Practice and Procedure,\n16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 1.4, your request for advice, along with this response,will be placed on the public\n\nrecord.\nSincerely yours,\n\n{l~~,e<j ~71e~~~~\n~..a/\n\nCarol J. Jennings\n\nEnc.\n\nI\n\'-\n\n\x0c10-30-201\n\n11 : 45AM\n\nFROM FLEURETTE-DEANNA-DEE 323 269 5800\n\nP.1\n\nDEANNA DEE, INC.\nManU!QL\'turer of Ladit:~: Coats\n\n336 SouthAndersonStreet\nLos An,gcles,California 90033\nTelephone: (323) 269-5600\nFax: (323) 269-5800\n\nOctober 30,2001\nfederal Trade Commission\n600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW\nWashington PC 20580\nAttn: Ms Carol Jennings\n\n.FAXED TO: (202) 326-2558\n\nDear Ms. Jennings:\nRegarding our telephone conversation of this momiug, we wol,lld appreciate your\ncomments on the following facts:\nWe are a coat manufacturer and received piece goods labeled 50% Cashmere and 50%\nWool from the mitl. After having the fabric tested we were informed that the fabric was\n41.5 % Cashmere an 8.50/1)\ndeviation. (Copy of lab the lab test is attached).\nUpon receiving this inforrritttion we contactedthe mill and they responded by saying it\nwas not miss labeled. As proof, they sent us a copy of your letter to Mr. Bartmess (Copy\nenclosed). Since your letter refers to " the presenceof Small p;ercenta&e of wool\'> it\nwould s~emto us that an 8.5% deviation would not fall under this exception nor would it\nfall under the proviso stated at the top of page 2 of your letter dated October 3, 2001.\nThat pa,ragraphstated "that if the deviation of the fiber contents of the wool product from\npercentagesstated on the stamp, tag, label, or other meansof identification, shall not be\nmisbranding under this section if the person charged with misbranding proves such\ndeviation resulted from unavoidable variations in the manufacture and despite the\nexercisc of due care to make accurate the statementon such,ortarnp,\ntag, label or other\nmeans of identification."\n\n\x0c10-30-201\n\n11 :45AM\n\nFROM FLEURETTE-DEANNA-DEE 323 269 b~~~\n\n~.L\n\nI\n\nMs. Caroi Jennings\nPage 2\nWe would appreciate your comments as to whether or not an 8.5% deviation would fall\nunder any of the provisos that the item is not misbranded.\nPleasemail your reply to me at 336 $0. Anderson St. Los Angeles Ca 90033\nand as time is an issue, please fax a copy to me in New York at (212) 315-1839, as 1 will\nbe at that number From November 1 through November 5,2001.\nThank you in advance for your help with this matter and your speedyreply.\n\n.\n\nDeanna Dee Inc.\nBy Daniel J. Schwarz, CPO\n,\n\n\x0c11 :4.6AM\nFROM\n\n:\n\nP~nasonl\n\nc\n\nFROM FLEURETTE-DEANNA-DEE\n\nTRD/FRX\n\nPHONE\n\nK.D. Langl~\n\nNO.\n\n~:\n\nfiber Services\n\n.A~\n.~~\n\n162\n\n323\nA\n~\n\n269\n\n5800\n\n-P.3\n\n6868\n\nt! 4\n\nOct\n\n28\n\n20el\n\n07:05PM\n\n&~~~.,..t:..t\n~ 9\n\ng- -Q()\n\nP.O...7.\n\n~\n\nRI 0287t\n\n.T--=-~-.\n\n(\'111)81"\'.\n\n~\n\nOctober 27, 2UOJ\n\nMs. Stcphanie laPedis\nDeal1n8Dee. Inc.\n336 South Andcrson Stroot\nJ..osAng:eles, CA 90033\n\n..\n~.\n\nRL\'port on the QuDntirativc )fiber An81YKisof Finished F.bric\n\n,\nMaterial Submitted\n_~atchc~\n\n.-\n\ncolor b]~c:k, 8ubn~iUedon (>ct(\'Iber22. 2001.\n\nI..bur.tor)\' P~eedun\n\n.\n\nDye was removed from ute samples with II stripping Itgcnl. Then fjbet~ wcr~ ~ectiOnN\nwith a fiber cutter W1dInnunted on ft\'liCft1SCOpe\nslides. Over t 000 fibof;.; wcrc id~.\'tific:\\1\nIising light micl\'OscOPYat a magnificatinn of250.400X. All tosting W&$p0rfonnQ} i)J\naccordance with te.~tmethod AA TCC 20- J999 &nd AS 1M 0629-95.\n\nReluJt~\n.S"wat(:Jr\n# I contains 1 008/.. ,,",bIDeR- JIowc~~r it is Qut of sp_~ificat.i()n~ with regard it)\ncnaT~ehair c()ntent.: it c\\)I}tains 9S.6% cu,iJllDCrCd()WI1,4.4% ca~hmerc C()lifSChotir\n(>30 ~n1), \'luis e~cccds the AS1"M f> 2817-91 limit of 3% by wcight, .!bi~ J~vcl ofhuir\nitl~o caus~~thc saml,le to have a djafl\'l~ter coe{}icicn1 \\)fysriativn of 26_8% v~. the\nC~:)mncre and C:amel hai\'llimit of 24%.\n.\\;."ufch 1i/ contains S"-~% wonl, .1.~8/Q ~.8bmerr. tracc level (appY\\)X,0.5%) silk.\n\n;;(\nSincc:r~J)I}\'ours"-/\n\n~L\n\n\'");1\n\n.10-30-201\n\n/\n\n:J1.\n.i-7\xc2\xb0.\',\n\nKenneth D, J..ang1cy\n\nc-wuII"8\n\'" FIber\n.raT... ~\n\nP02\n\nI\n\n.\n\n/.?i\n\n\x0c'


b"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20580\n\n \n\nOffice of the Secretary\n\nMay 21, 2001\n\nJohn F. Dickey, Esq.\n\nE.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company\nBarley Mill Plaza 25/2218\n\nP.O. Box 80025\n\nWilmington, DE 19880-0025\n\nRe: Petition of DuPont for a new generic fiber name and definition under the\nRules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act,\n16 C.F.R. Part 303.\n\nDear Mr. Dickey:\n\nPursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products\nIdentification Act, 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 303.8, the Commission has assigned the designation \xe2\x80\x9cDP 0002\xe2\x80\x9d to\nDuPont's elastic fiber for temporary use until a final determination can be made as to the merits\nof the application.\n\nThe assignment of this temporary designation should not be construed as indicating that\nthe Commission will either grant or deny the application or that the Commission has determined\n\nthe application to be complete.\n\nBy direction of the Commission.\n\nDonald S. Clark\nSecretary\n\x0c"


b'\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c\x0c'


b'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION\n\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20580\n\n \n\nOffice of the Secretary\n\nOctober 30, 2000\n\nSheila A. Millar, Esq.\nKeller and Heckman, LLP\n1001 G Street N.W.\n\nSuite 500 West\nWashington, D.C. 20001\n\nRe: Petition of Cargill Dow for a new generic fiber name and definition under\nthe Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification\nAct, 16 C.F.R. Part 303.\n\nDear Ms. Millar:\n\nPursuant to Rule 8 of the Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products\nIdentification Act, 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 303.8, the Commission has assigned the designation \xe2\x80\x9cCD 0001\xe2\x80\x9d\nto Cargill Dow\xe2\x80\x99s PLA fiber for temporary use until a final determination can be made as to the\nmerits of the application.\n\nThe assignment of this temporary designation should not be construed as indicating that\nthe Commission will either grant or deny the application or that the Commission has determined\nthe application to be complete.\n\nBy direction of the Commission.\n\n\xc2\xa3 eh\xe2\x80\x94\n\nDonald S. Clark\nSecretary\n\x0c'


b'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20580\n\n \n\nDivision of Enforcement\nBureau of Consumer Protection\n\nSeptember 26, 2000\nMr. Ron Vega\nDirector of Customs Compliance\nFruit of the Loom\nOne Fruit of the Loom Drive\nP.O. Box 90015\nBowling Green, KY 42102-9015\n\nDear Mr. Vega:\n\nThis is in reply to your letter requesting a ruling from the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s Division of\nEnforcement regarding the application of 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 303.28 of the Rules and Regulations Under\nthe Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. Please be advised that the Federal Trade\nCommission and its staff do not issue \xe2\x80\x9crulings\xe2\x80\x9d in response to requests for advice. However, the\nCommission has authorized its staff to respond to requests for advisory opinions when\nappropriate. See 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 1.3.\n\nIn your letter, you state that Fruit of the Loom distributes wearing apparel items in\npolyethylene bags (packages) with a \xe2\x80\x9cflip-top\xe2\x80\x9d opening at one end of each bag. Multiple\ngarments are folded and packed into these bags in such a manner that the labels bearing the\ncountry of origin, fiber content, identity of the company, and care instructions are not necessarily\nvisible to the consumer through the packaging prior to purchase. You supplied staff with\nsamples of such garments in their bags. This staff opinion pertains to garments sold at retail\nstores and does not address the packaging of products sold via mail order catalogs or over the\nInternet."\n\nIn 1984, Congress amended the Textile and Wool Products Acts to require that a package\ncontaining a textile product intended for sale to the ultimate consumer bear the information also\nrequired to appear on the label of the product (i.e., fiber content, country of origin, and identity of\nmanufacturer or other dealer), unless the package is transparent and allows for a clear reading of\nthe label information. 15 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 70b(e) and 68c(c). The Commission implemented the\nstatutory requirement by adopting 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 303.28, which states:\n\n| For information about the packaging and labeling of textile products sold via mail\n\norder and over the Internet, see the Commission staff opinion letter, dated August 18, 2000, to\nthe Land\xe2\x80\x99s End company, as posted on the Textile, Wool & Fur page of the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s\nInternet website.\n\x0cMr. Ron Vega, page 2\n\nProducts contained in packages.\n\nWhen textile products are marketed and delivered in a package which is intended to\nremain unbroken and intact until after delivery to the ultimate consumer, each textile\nproduct in the package, except hosiery, and the package shall be labeled with the required\ninformation. If the package is transparent to the extent it allows for a clear reading of the\nrequired information on the textile product, the package is not required to be labeled.\n\nA similar requirement was adopted for wool products sold in packages. 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 300.15.\nAlso, the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s Care Labeling Rule states that if the product is packaged, displayed, or\nfolded so that customers cannot see or easily find the label, the care information must also appear\non the outside of the package or on a hang tag fastened to the product. 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 423.6(a).\n\nYou ask whether the flip-top polyethylene bags used by Fruit of the Loom for textile\nproducts sold at retail stores are considered packages \xe2\x80\x9cintended to remain unbroken and intact\nuntil after delivery to the ultimate consumer,\xe2\x80\x9d and therefore must be labeled in accordance with\n16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 303.28. Based on inspection of the sample packages that you provided, it is my\nopinion that the flip-top bags may easily be opened to inspect the labels on the garments.\nTherefore, I believe that it is not necessary to repeat the required label information on the bags.\n\nYou further inquire whether, pursuant to 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 303.16(c), certain \xe2\x80\x9cnon-required\xe2\x80\x9d\nstatements about country of origin and fiber content may be placed on packages that are not\ncovered by the marking requirements of section 303.28. Section 303.16(c) of the Rules states\nthat \xe2\x80\x9c...any non-required information or representations placed on the product shall not minimize,\ndetract from, or conflict with required information and shall not be false, deceptive, or\nmisleading.\xe2\x80\x9d In particular, you ask whether statements such as, \xe2\x80\x9cImported articles, see garment\nfor country of origin\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cSee garment for country of origin,\xe2\x80\x9d may be placed on packages\ncontaining items of varied origin. In general, package statements referring the consumer to\ngarment labels for origin information would not be misleading or conflict with required\ninformation. However, under certain circumstances, consumers could be misled concerning\ncountry of origin of packaged products. This could occur, for example, if multiple items were\npackaged together so that the label of one of them, stating \xe2\x80\x9cMade in USA,\xe2\x80\x9d could be seen\nthrough the package, while other labels, obscured by the first item, indicate foreign origin.\n(Obviously, this situation also could occur if no origin information is placed on the package.)\n\nIn addition, you ask whether a package label may indicate that items in the package have\ndifferent fiber content, provided that it clearly indicates which items are made of each particular\nfiber or fiber blend. Such label information would be appropriate provided that it is not\ndeceptive or misleading.\n\nI wish to emphasize that care must be taken to avoid deception in each of the situations\noutlined in your letter. Pursuant to the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 41 et seq., the Commission has\nbeen directed by Congress to act in the interest of all consumers to prevent deceptive or unfair\nacts or practices. Under Section 5 of that statute, 15 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7 45, the Commission has\ndetermined that a representation, omission, or practice is deceptive if (1) it is likely to mislead\n\x0cMr. Ron Vega, page 3\n\nconsumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and (2) it is material, that is, likely to\naffect consumers\' conduct or decisions with respect to the product at issue. For your\nconvenience, I have enclosed a copy of the Commission\xe2\x80\x99s Policy Statement on Deception.\n\nIf you have not already done so, you may wish to obtain a ruling from the United States\nCustoms Service as to whether poly-bags containing imported products must be marked with the\ncountry of origin pursuant to the Tariff Act.\n\nIn accordance with Section 1.3(c) of the Commission\'s Rules of Practice and Procedure,\n16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 1.3(c), this is a staff opinion only and has not been reviewed or approved by the\nCommission or by any individual Commissioner, and is given without prejudice to the right of\nthe Commission later to rescind the advice and, where appropriate, to commence an enforcement\naction.\n\nIn accordance with Section 1.4 of the Commission\'s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 16\nC.F.R. \xc2\xa7 1.4, your request for advice, along with this response, will be placed on the public\nrecord.\n\nThope this information has been helpful.\n\nSincerely,\n\n \n\nElaine D. Kolish\nAssociate Director for Enforcement\n\nEnclosure\n\x0c'


b"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\n\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20580\n\n \n\nDivision of Enforcement\nBureau of Consumer Protection\n\nAugust 18, 2000\n\nCarolyn B. Malina\nImport/Export Manager\nLands\xe2\x80\x99 End, Inc.\n\n5 Lands\xe2\x80\x99 End Lane\nDodgeville, WI 53595\n\nDear Ms. Malina:\n\nThis is in reply to your letter requesting a ruling from the Commission that regulations\nfound in 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 303.28 and 300.15, concerning the labeling of packages containing textile\nor wool products, do not apply to products that are sold to consumers via print catalogs and the\nInternet. Please be advised that the Federal Trade Commission and its staff do not issue\n\xe2\x80\x9crulings\xe2\x80\x9d in response to requests for advice. However, the Commission has authorized its staff to\nrespond to requests for advisory opinions where appropriate. See 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 1.3.\n\nBased on your letter, and telephone conversations with staff, it is my understanding that\nLands\xe2\x80\x99 End is a direct merchant that sells textile products through mail order catalogs and the\nInternet. The products are labeled with the disclosures required by the Textile Fiber Products\nIdentification Act or the Wool Products Labeling Act, as well as the Care Labeling Rule, and\nsuch information is also set forth in the catalogs and on the Internet web site. You stated that the\nmajority of the items sold to Lands\xe2\x80\x99 End by its suppliers are shipped to Lands\xe2\x80\x99 End in transparent\npoly-bags that are taped or heat-sealed. The items are then sold and shipped to Lands\xe2\x80\x99 End\xe2\x80\x99s\ncustomers in these poly-bags. The product may be folded in such a way that the required\ninformation on the label is not visible through the bag.\n\nIn 1984, Congress amended the Textile and Wool Products Acts to require that a package\ncontaining a textile product intended for sale to the ultimate consumer bear the information also\nrequired to appear on the label of the product (i.\xc2\xa2., fiber content, country of origin, and identity of\nmanufacturer or other dealer), unless the package is transparent and allows for a clear reading of\nthe label information. 15 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 70b(e) and 68c(c). The Commission implemented the\nstatutory requirement by adopting 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 303.28, which states:\n\nProducts contained in packages.\n\nWhen textile products are marketed and delivered in a package which is intended to\nremain unbroken and intact until after delivery to the ultimate consumer, each textile\nproduct in the package, except hosiery, and the package shall be labeled with the required\ninformation. If the package is transparent to the extent it allows for a clear reading of the\nrequired information on the textile product, the package is not required to be labeled.\n\x0cMs. Carolyn B. Malina, page 2\n\nA similar requirement was adopted for wool products sold in packages. 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 300.15.\n\nThere appears to be nothing in the record to indicate that the requirement for the labeling\nof packages applies to mail order transactions. Rather, it appears that the intent of the\namendments was to ensure that packaged goods provide consumers with the required information\nprior to sale at the point of purchase. As you noted, at the time the consumer receives the\nproduct ordered by mail, the purchasing decision has already been made. A label on the\ndisposable poly-bag in which the product is shipped does not aid the consumer in making the\npurchasing decision, and does not provide any additional information beyond what is already\nattached to the product itself. Therefore, Commission staff members in the Division of\nEnforcement have concluded that the package labeling requirements do not apply to packages\nused to ship products ordered by mail or telephone or on the Internet.\n\nIf you have not already done so, you may wish to obtain a ruling from the United States\nCustoms Service as to whether poly-bags containing imported products must be marked with the\ncountry of origin pursuant to the Tariff Act.\n\nAs I\xe2\x80\x99m sure you are already aware, mail order -atalogs and other mail crder promotional\nmaterials, including those disseminated electronically on the Internet, must disclose whether a\ntextile or wool product was made in the U.S., imported, or both. 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7\xc2\xa7 303.1(u), 303.34,\n300.1(h), and 300.25a. Catalogs and other written advertisements, including those appearing on\nthe Internet, must disclose the complete fiber content of a textile product if the descriptive\ninformation about the product in any way states or implies the presence of a particular fiber or if\na fiber trademark is used. 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 303.40.\n\nIn accordance with Section 1.3(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,\n16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 1.3(c), this is a staff opinion only and has not been reviewed or approved by the\nCommission or by any individual Commissioner, and is given without prejudice to the right of\nthe Commission later to rescind the advice and, where appropriate, to commence an enforcement\naction.\n\nIn accordance with Section 1.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 16\nCFR. \xc2\xa7 1.4, your request for advice, along with this response, will be placed on the public\nrecord.\n\nhope this information has been helpful. Enclosed is a copy of our business guide\n\xe2\x80\x99 explaining the requirements of the textile and wool labeling rules.\n\nSincerely,\no (anu . Kiln\n\nElaine D. Kolish\nAssociate Director for Enforcement\nEnclosure\n\x0c"


b'L.13(Q\n\nf1\'\n\nMercedes K. Kelley\nDivision of Marketing Practices\n\nDirect Dial - 202- 326- 3665\n\nApril 5 ,\n\n1999\n\nMr. James O. Pinkerton\nVice Chairman\nPennsylvania State Board of Funeral Directors\n1014 California Avenue\nPittsburgh, PA 15202\n\nDear Mr. Pinkerton:\n\nI am writing this letter in response to your request for advisement on the implications of " The\nCatholic Funeral Plan " being offered by the Catholic Cemeteries Association of the Diocese of\nPittsburgh on the Funeral Rule. The Catholic Funeral Plan is a pre-need plan which aims to\nprovide customers with a package of funeral goods and services which is not only cost-effcient\nbut which also ensures a funeral that conforms with Catholic traditions and dictates. The plan is\nto be marketed by the Catholic Cemeteries Association ofthe Diocese of Pittsburgh and fueral\nhomes in the Pittsburgh area have been entreated to serve as providers of fueral goods and\nservices under the Catholic Funeral Plan. Since the plan contemplates providing a full funeral to\nthe customers, there is concern about how the Funeral Rule fits into this situation.\n\nThe following response (except as otherwise noted) is a staff opinion and does not necessarly\nreflect the views of the Federal Trade Commission or any ofthe Commisioners individually. My\nremarks are a reflection of the opinions of staff members who are charged with administering the\nFuneral Rule.\n\nThe Federal Trade Commission , in 1985 , published Compliance Guidelines for the Funeral Rule\nFederal Register.\nin the\nVolume 50 , No. 131 , 28062. These Compliance Guidelines were last\nupdated in August of 1995. These guidelines have a specific provision addressing special groups\nwho have alternative price lists and the " you " referred to is the funeral provider:\n\nSome funeral providers enter into agreements with religious groups , bural\n\n\x0csocieties , or memorial societies to arrange fuerals for their members at special\nprices. You are free to enter into such arrangements , but you must still comply\nwith the Rule s requirements. You must provide price lists to representatives of\n\nMr. James Pinkerton\n1999\n\nApril 5 ,\n\nthese groups when they inquire about fueral arrangements on behalf of their\nmembers. In addition , if an individual group member inquires in-person about\nfuneral arangements , you must provide the individual with your price lists. Even\nif a member chooses a package available only to society members , the member\nmust have the opportunity to look at your price lists. You can either have separate\nprice lists for qualifyng members or include such prices on your regular price\nlists.\n\nAccordingly, a religious group is free to sell packages of funeral goods and services to thcir\nmembers under the Funeral Rule. However, the funeral providers who choose to be involved in a\nprogram , such as the Catholic Funeral Plan , car the burden of making sure that the consumers\nbrought to them by the religious group get the disclosures required under the Funeral Rule.\n\nI hope this clarfication is helpful and if you have any more questions or concerns , please feel\nfree to contact me.\n\nSincerely,\n\nMercedes K. Kelley\n\n\x0c'


b'L-e I+.e\n\nRv Ie. Ij. c;k1e\ni e. NO CClS\n\nV ve:\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMEJUCA\n\nFEDERAL TRAE COMMISSION\n\nlc\n\n\\uJ\n\n(W\\ \')\n\nt.j3S-\n\nWASHINGTON , D. C. 205XO\n\nDivision of Marketing Practices\n\nLaurie Meehan\nStaff Attorney\n\nDirect Dial\n\n(202) 326.3755\n\nVIA FACSIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL\n\nMay 25 , 1998\n\nMichael H. Rasch , Esq.\nDunn & Rasch , Ltd.\n3500 Nort Causeway Blvd.\n\nSuite 1216\nExecutive Towers One\nMetairie , Louisiana 70002\nDear Mr. Rasch:\n\nI apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. I appreciate your concern regarding the\ninteraction of the Federal Trade Commission s Funeral Rule and the state laws of Louisiana.\nFirst , as a matter of background, an essential purose of the Funeral Rule is to " ensure that\nconsumers have access to sufficient information to permit informed purchase decisions , that consumers\nare not required to purchase items they do not want and are not required by law to purchase and that\nmisrepresentations are not used to influence consumer purchase decisions. " Statement of Basis and\nPurpose, Funeral Industr Practices Trade Regulation Rule , 59 Fed. Reg. at 1593 (January 11 1994)\n(reprinted ITom the 1982 Statement of Basis and Purose). As you know , the Funeral Rule governs the\nactivities offuneral providers , who are defined as entities that engage in the sale of both fueral goods\nand funeral services. In summar, the Funeral Rule: (I) requires funeral directors to provide\nconsumers with a general price list , a casket price list , an outer bural container price list and an itemized\nstatement of funeral goods and services selected by the consumer; (2) prohibits misrepresentations\nregarding embalming, casket or outer bural container requirements , legal and cemetery requirements\nand protective value claims; (3) prohibits funeral directors ITom requiring the purchase of certain goods\n\n\x0cand services as a condition for purchasing other goods and services; and (4) prohibits embalming\nwithout prior approval , except in limited circumstances.\nYou have requested an informal staff advisory opinion regarding the interaction between the\nrules and regulations of the Louisiana State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors and the FTC\'\nFuneral Rule.\n\nIn reviewing the state law and the rules and regulations of the Louisiana\nState Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors does a conflict exist\nbetween these provisions and the Funeral Rule conceming the retail sale\nof caskets?\nThe Louisiana state law and the Louisiana State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors\nrules and regulations state that it is an unlawful practice for any individual or entity that is not a licensed\nfuneral director to engage in the retail sale of fueral goods , including caskets. In addition , the\nLouisiana rules and regulations also require that prices of caskets be available in the display room and in\nthe caskets. The provisions of the Funeral Rule relating to caskets include the provision which prohibits\ncasket handling fees and specific provisions regarding the Casket Price List.\nFirst , the Funeral Rule prohibits charging fees , apar ITom the Basic Services fee , other than\nthose for the goods or services selected by the consumer or the goods and services required to be\npurchased as a matter of law. This prohibition was specifically directed at the practice of charging\nconsumers who provided their own caskets a casket handling fee. The Louisiana State Board of\nEmbalmers and Funeral Directors Rules and Regulations touches on a related issue by limiting retail\ncasket sales to licensed funeral directors and licensed funeral establishments. The Funeral Rule does\nnot prohibit ths type of regulation, nor does it demand that retail casket sales be open to entities other\nthan licensed funeral establishments. Accordingly, there is no direct conflict between the provisions of\nthe Funeral Rule and the provisions of the Louisiana regulations. This opinion is limited to the\ninteraction between Louisiana state regulations and the FTC\' s Funeral Rule. It does not reach the issue\nof whether the Louisiana regulations are in compliance with other FTC rules , regulations and statutes\nincluding, but not limited to , those addressing restraint oftTade.\nTensions exist , however , between the spirit and intention ofthe FTC\' s Funeral Rule and the\n\nLouisiana Regulations. Although the FTC\'s Funeral Rule does not address what entities may sell\ncaskets or what entities a consumer may buy a casket ITom , the Funeral Rule does encourage consumer\nchoice in the area of funeral goods and services , and the Louisiana statute may have the effect of\nrestrcting a consumer s choice of suppliers of funeral goods or their choice of funeral goods and\nservICes.\n\nDurng one of our conversations , you stated that , in Louisiana, some consumers have purchased\ncaskets ITom funeral homes other than the one where services were performed and that some\nconsumers have furnished home made caskets. Because ofthese instances , you stated that the\n\n\x0cLouisiana regulation did not significantly limit consumers \' choices as they could still purchase caskets\nITom competing funeral homes or provide home made caskets. It is likely, however , that limiting the\ntypes of entities that may sell caskets may have the overall effect of reducing the number of casket\nchoices or choices of suppliers of caskets.\n\nFor additional information , I am enclosing a letter to The Honorable Franklin P. Hall ITom the\nDirector ofthe FTC\' s Bureau of Competition. The letter addressed a similar issue with respect to\nproposed legislation in the state of Virginia which sought to limit the sales of pre-need funeral planing.\nThe Commission authorized the Director to send this letter , which stated , in pertinent par , that\nThe Commission is concerned with restTictions that allow only licensed\nfuneral directors to sell pre-need funeral plans , including fueral goods\nand arrangements for providing funeral services. Such restrictions may\nharm consumers by preventing the intToduction and development of\ninnovative forms of competition and lower cost alternatives for fueral\nproducts and services for which the professional expertise of a funeral\ndirector is not required. For example , consumers may be hared if\nowners of cemeteries and manufacturers of fueral goods are\ncompletely prohibited ITom selling caskets and bural vaults\n\nconsumers in Virginia.\n\nThus , although the Funeral Rule does not directly address this issue , the Commission has previously\nexpressed concerns regarding the competitive effects of regulations which restrict the tyes of entities\nwhich may sell funeral goods.\nSecond , the Funeral Rule requires fueral providers , defined as entities offering both fueral\ngoods and fueral services , to either list the retail price of each casket on the General Price List or\nprepare a separate Casket Price list including the effective date of the list and the retail prices and\n\nalternative containers offered. Furher, the Funeral\nRule requires fueral providers to offer consumers an opportty to review the Casket Price List upon\na discussion of caskets , but prior to showing consumers caskets. The Louisiana State Board of\nEmbalmers and Funeral Directors Rules and Regulations, however, simply require that the fueral\nservice licensee have the prices of caskets available in the display room and in the casket in public view.\nNote , in order to comply with the FTC\' s Funeral Rule , fueral providers must provide a casket price\nlist prior to showing the display room.\nsuffcient identifyng information for caskets and\n\nDoes the Funeral Rule have any specific provisions which allow the\nanv individual or group?\nretail sale of caskets by\nThe FTC\' s Funeral Rule provisions regarding the sale of caskets are limited to the requirement\nto provide a Casket Price List , the prohibition against casket handling fees , and the prohibitions against\n\n\x0c,"\n\nmisrepresenting the necessity of or preservative effects of a casket. The Funeral Rule does not address\nthe retail sale of caskets by a particular individual or group. It neither prohibits nor allows thc retail sale\n, however, assumes or encourages a competitive\nof caskets. The prohibition on casket handling fees\n\nmarket in the retail sale of caskets.\nIf the Funeral Rule would not apply to a " casket store\n\n" is it not proper\n\nfor such an entity to comply with all state laws concerning the retail sale\nof fueral merchandise?\n\n, who are defined as entities\nThe FTC\'s Funeral Rule governs the activities of funeral providers\ngoods which are\nboth the sale of funeral goods and funeral services. Funeral goods are " " Funeral\nthat engage in\nsold or offered for sale directly to the public for use in connection with ,funeral\nservices.\ncremation\nor other final\nservices are: (1) services used to care for and prepare bodies for burial\n\n, supervise , or conduct the funeral ceremony or final\ndisposition; and (2) services used to arange\ncasket store " engaged solely in retail sale of caskets or even\ndisposition of human remains. Thus , if a "\n" also engaged in the sale of\n\nother fueral goods , the Funeral Rule would not apply unless the "\n\nstore\n\nfueral services.\n\n, as well as the\nAs the Compliance Guide states you must comply with all state regulations\nITom the\nLouisiana is not exempt\nFTC Funeral Rule " unless your state has been granted an exemption.\ns Funeral Rule and any state\nFuneral Rule , so fueral providers must comply with both the FTC\'\nregulations.\nfueral provider," the\n\nWith respect to entities which are not covered within the definition of "\nFTC\' s Funeral Rule does not apply. The regulation ofthose outside this definition or such outside\nstaff charged\nentities \' compliance with any other regulation is simply beyond the scope of opinion ofthe\nwith enforcement of the Funeral Rule.\n\nPlease note that the views expressed in this letter are those of staff only. They have not been\n, and they are not binding on the Commission.\nreviewed, approved or adopted by the Commission\nThey do, however , reflect the opinions of the staff charged with enforcement ofthe Funeral Rule.\nI hope that you find the above information helpful.\nhave any additional questions.\n\nPlease do not hesitate to contact me if you\n\nSincerely,\n\nLaurie Meehan\n\nFuneral Rule Enforcement Staff\n\n\x0cEnclosure\n\n\x0c'


b'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20580\n\n \n\nDivision of Enforcement\nBureau of Consumer Protection\n\nMarch 27, 1998\n\nJohn F. Sterling\n\nAssociate General Counsel\nPillowtex Corporation\n4111 Mint Way\n\nDallas, Texas 75237-1605\n\nDear Mr. Sterling:\n\nThis is in reply to your letter of February 13, 1998, addressed to Donald S. Clark,\nSecretary of the Commission, requesting an advisory opinion on behalf of your client, Fieldcrest\nCannon, Inc., with regard to fiber labeling requirements of the Textile Fiber Products\nIdentification Act and the rules and regulations thereunder. Your question concerns appropriate\nlabeling for a cotton towel, or other terry cloth product, consisting of Egyptian (or Pima or\ncombed") cotton loops with an upland cotton ground or base. Specifically, you ask whether this\nproduct may be labeled "100% Cotton, 100% Egyptian Cotton Loops," or whether a more\ndetailed disclosure is required, such as "Pile: 100% Egyptian Cotton; Ground: 100% Upland\nCotton (ground constitutes 60% of fabric and pile 40%)."\n\nStaff members in the Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, have\nreviewed the legal analysis set forth in your letter, and are in general agreement with it. If the\nloops and base of a pile fabric towel are entirely cotton, with the loops composed of 100%\nEgyptian (or Pima or "combed") cotton and the base composed of a different type of cotton, such\nas Upland cotton, staff believes that a truthful disclosure, such as "100% Cotton, 100% Egyptian\nCotton Loops," would comply with the fiber identification requirements of the Textile Act and\nRules. Where both the base and the loops are of the same generic fiber classification, it is staff\'s\nopinion that there is no requirement, pursuant to Textile Rule 24 (16 C.F.R. \xe0\xb8\xa2\xe0\xb8\x87 303.24), to state\nthe ratio of the base and loops to the total fabric weight, or to state the different types of fibers\nused in the base and the loops. Manufacturers may choose to identify the base, for example, by\nsaying "100% Cotton, Egyptian Cotton Loops and Upland Cotton Base," but such additional\ndisclosure would not be required. In contrast, if the base and loops were composed of different\ngeneric fibers, and the manufacturer chose to identify the base and loops separately on the label,\nthen the full disclosure, with relative weights as set forth in Textile Rule 24, would be required.\nStaff believes that part of the underlying intent of Textile Rule 24 is to assist consumers in\ndistinguishing between different generic classifications of fibers, rather than between different\ntypes of fibers of the same generic classification.\n\x0cJohn F. Sterling, Esq., page 2\n\nOf course, care must be taken to avoid deception if labeling or advertising makes\nreference to a premium fiber that is used in only a portion of the textile product. For example,\nreferences to a premium cotton cannot be used deceptively to imply that the entire product is\nmade of the premium cotton, if such is not the case. Moreover, a trademark that implies the\npresence of a premium cotton (such as a trademark that includes a slightly altered form of the\nwords "Pima" or "Egyptian") may trigger the need for additional disclosures to avoid a\nmisleading implication that the product is composed solely of the premium cotton, if such is not\nthe case. I refer you generally to Sections 303.16, 303.17, 303.18, 303.40, and 303.41 of the\nTextile Rules. As you may know, the Textile Rules recently were revised by the Commission.\nFor your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of the revised Rules and the Federal Register notice\nannouncing the amendments.\n\nCommission staff will revise the appropriate section in the FTC leaflet, "Calling It\nCotton," to reflect more accurately the requirements pertaining to the labeling of pile fabrics. We\nappreciate your bringing this issue to our attention.\n\nAs I am sure you are aware, this staff opinion in no way limits or changes any of the\nprovisions of the Consent Decree, entered June 6, 1997, in the matter of United States of\nAmerica v. WestPoint Stevens, Inc., Civ. No. 97-4085, U.S.D.C., Central District of California.\n\nIn accordance with Section 1.3(c) of the Commission\'s Rules of Practice and Procedure\n(16 C.F.R. \xe0\xb8\xa2\xe0\xb8\x87 1.3(c)), this is a staff opinion that has not been reviewed or approved by the\nCommission or by any individual Commissioner, and is given without prejudice to the right of\nthe Commission later to rescind the advice and, where appropriate, to commence an enforcement\naction.\n\nIn accordance with Section 1.4 of the Commission\'s Rules of Practice and Procedure (16\nC.F.R. \xe0\xb8\xa2\xe0\xb8\x87 1.4), your request for advice, along with this response, will be placed on the public\nrecord.\n\nI hope this has been helpful. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to write to me or\ncall me at 202-326-3161.\n\nVery truly yours,\nfie 9 ev fay\n\nMary K. Engle\nAssistant Director\n\nAttachment\n\x0c'


b'L.( 3\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION\nWASHINGTON , D. C. 20580\n\nDivision of Marketing Practices\n\nLaurie Meehan\nAttorney\nDirect Dial\n\n202- 326- 3755\n\nOctober 31 ,\n\n1997\n\nLisa Carlson\nExecutive Director\nFuneral & Memorial Societies of America, Inc.\nO. Box 10\nHinesburg, Vermont 05461\n\nDear Ms. Carlson:\nThan you for your letter of October 24 , 1997. I apologize for the fact that you received\nno response to your July 14 , 1997 correspondence; however , this correspondence was never\nreceived in this office. I regret any inconvenience that this may have caused. Staff of the FTC is\nconcerned about fueral industry practices that may be unfair or deceptive , and we appreciate\nyour efforts to bring such potentially unlawfl practices to our attention.\n\nThe practices you describe surounding the " required identification viewing " and the\nadditional storage charges in the event a consumer elects not to identifY a body are certainly\ndistubing. Staff is especially concerned that in the context of "required identification viewing,\nfueral providers may be misrepresenting that there are legal requirements that engender delay,\nthe necessity to store remains for some period of time , and consequently, additional charges.\nStaff is unaware of any state law requirement that demands an identification, forms and other\npaperwork , or , where that identification is not performed , a waiting period of several days , prior\nto cremation. If there are no state law requirements regarding forms , paperwork or identification\nof the body for cremation , and a fueral provider is representing that these laws exist , in staff s\nview, such misrepresentations would likely affect the conduct of a consumer acting reasonably\nunder the circumstances with respect to a fueral provider s offered goods and services.\nTherefore , such practices would likely be deceptive , in violation of 9 5 of the FTC Act.\nMoreover , in staffs view, a provider that makes such misrepresentations would also be in\nviolation of Section 453.3 (d)(I) of the Funeral Rule , which states that " it is a deceptive act or\n\n\x0cstate , or local laws , or paricular\ncemeteries or crematories , require the purchase of any fueral goods or fueral services when\nsuch is not the case.\n\npractice for fueral providers to represent that federal ,\n\nFurher , apar from the scenarios described above , you alleged more generally that some\nconsumers who opt for direct cremation are being charged a fee for a " required identification\nviewing. " Such a fee , if it is non- declinable , may also violate the Funeral Rule. The only\npermissible non- declinable charges are the basic services fee and , in some instances , fueral\ngoods and services that are required to be purchased by law. Thus , if a fueral provider charges a\nconsumer for "required identification viewing " of the deceased , and it is neither par of the basic\nservices fee nor required by law , the unavoidable charge would likely be in violation of Section\n453.4 (b)(1) of the Funeral Rule. I should note that staff at the FTC is unaware of any state law\nrequiring that an "identification" be purchased as a service or good from a fueral home.\nIn your letter , you also request that the FTC endorse several statements which you state\nwere prompted by recent consumer experiences that have been reported to your office. First , I\ninterpret your request to be a solicitation for a staff opinion as to whether the several statements\nin your letter comport with the FTC\' s Funeral Rule. Accordingly, for puroses of clarity, the\nfollowing reflects a staff opinion regarding whether the statements you proposed in your July 14\n1997 letter comport with the Funeral Rule and accurately reflect the scope of the Rule.\n\nThe first statement is that "No consumer may be charged for identifYing a deceased. " As\ndiscussed above , if a charge for identification of the deceased is non- declinable , and not within\nthe permissible non- declinable charges , it is likely a violation of the Funeral Rule. Accordingly,\nunder those circumstances , a consumer should not be charged for identifYing a deceased.\nHowever, it is possible that fueral providers might offer consumers an opportunty to view a\ndeceased as a service or good , perhaps akin to the use of facilities and staff for viewing or other\nservices , prior to cremation. In that scenario , it is possible that a fueral provider may offer an\noptional use of facilities and staff for viewing a deceased with a charge.\nSecond , you propose that the FTC endorse the statement that\n\nNo consumer may be forced to view a deceased body for " routine " identification\npuroses. If there is any question as to the identity of the deceased , it is the\nresponsibility of the fueral home to ascertain such before performing services of\nany kind for which there wil be a charge , including removal.\n\nIn staff s view, the issue of identification of a deceased prior to final disposition of the remains is\nprobably appropriately addressed by state or local regulatory law enforcement authority. In the\nabsence of material misrepresentations , the provisions of the Funeral Rule simply do not address\nthe policies , practices and methods that a funeral provider uses to identifY remains. The purose\nof the Funeral Rule , in par , is to make price information readily available to consumers to enable\nthem to do comparative shopping for fueral goods and services. In addition, disclosures\nrequired to appear on the general price list inform consumers that they have the right to purchase\n\n\x0conly those goods and services that they specifically select. The Rule seeks to promote informed\ndecision-makng so that consumers are able to make fueral arangements that are within their\nmeans. Furher, the Funeral Rule addresses other unair or deceptive practices in the context of\npurchasing fueral goods and services. It has not yet been established that the practices or\npolicies of fueral homes , with respect to requiring an identification, are either unair or\ndeceptive. I should note , though , that additional facts and circumstances may prove that\npractices regarding identification are unair or deceptive and , thus , in violation of the Funeral\nRule and the FTC Act.\nThird , you request that the FTC endorse the statement that\n\nNext-of-kin or other designated person(s) must be permitted private time with the\nbody of a deceased in order to say their " goodbyes " ifthey wish. A mortar may\nnot require embalming for this purose. A mortar may charge a per-hour or\nper- day fee for the use of a room in its facilities for this but may not limit the\namount of time for private visitation.\n\nAs with the second statement, above , that you proposed , the issue of "private time " with the\ndeceased is simply outside the scope ofthe Funeral Rule. Again, though, I should note that if the\ncircumstances surounding a funeral home s practices with respect to allowing or not allowing\nprivate time " with the deceased amounted to an unfair or deceptive practice , such practices\nwould likely violate the Funeral Rule or the FTC Act. Without additional information, however\nand within the confines of the Funeral Rule , staff at the FTC are unable to endorse the\naforementioned statement.\nFinally, please be advised that the views expressed in this letter are those of the FTC\nstaff. They have not been reviewed , approved or adopted by the Commission, and they are not\nbinding upon the Commission. However, they do reflect the opinions of those staff members\ncharged with enforcement of the Funeral Rule.\n\nI hope that you will find the above information helpful. We appreciate your interest in\nthis matter. Please let us know whenever we can be of assistance.\n\nSin\n\nLaurie M. Meehan\n\n\x0cUND STATE OF AMRICA\n\nFEDERA TRAE COMMISSION\nWASHIGTON , D. C. 20580\n\nDivision of Marketing Practices\nLaurie Meehan\n\nAttorney\nDirect Dial\n\n202- 326- 3755\n\nOctober 31 ,\n\n1997\n\nLisa Carlson\nExecutive Director\nFuneral & Memorial Societies of America , Inc.\nO. Box 10\nHinesburg, Vermont 05461\n\nDear Ms. Carlson:\n\nno\n\nThan you for your letter of October 24 1997. I apologize for the fact that you received\nresponse to your July 14 , 1997 correspondence; however , ths correspondence was never\n\nreceived in ths offce. I regret any inconvenience that ths may have caused. Sta of the FTC is\nthat may be unai or deceptive , and we appreciate\nyour efforts to bring such potentially iuawf practices to our attention.\nconcerned about fueral industr practices\n\nThe practices you describe surounding the "required identification viewig " and the\nadditional storage charges in the event a consumer elects not to identifY a body are certaiy\ndistubing. Sta is especially concerned that in the context of "required identification viewig,\nfueral providers may be misrepresenting that there are legal requirements that engender delay,\nthe necessjty to store remains for some period of time , and consequently, additional charges.\nStaff is unaware of any state law requiement that demands an identification , forms and other\npaperwork, or , where that identification is not performed , a waiting period of several days , prior\nto cremation. If there are no state law requirements regarding forms , paperwork or identification\nof the body for cremation, and a fueral provider is representing that these laws exist , in stafs\nview, such misrepresentations would likely affect the conduct of a consumer acting reasonably\nunder the circumstances with respect to a fueral provider s offered goods and services.\nTherefore , such practices would likely be deceptive, in violation of 95 of the FTC Act.\nMoreover , in stafs view, a provider that makes such misrepresentations would also be in\nviolation of Section 453.3 (d)(l) of the Funeral Rule , which states that "it is a deceptive act or\n\n\x0cpractice for fueral providers to represent that federal ,\n\nstate , or local laws, or paricular\n\ncemeteries or crematories , require the purchase of any fueral\nsuch is not the case.\n\ngoods or fueral services\n\nwhen\n\nFurer, apar from the scenaos described above, you alleged more generally that some\nconsumers who opt for direct cremation are being charged a fee for a " required identification\nviewig. " Such a fee , if it is non- declinable , may also violate the Funeral Rule. The only\npermissible non- declinable charges are the basic services fee and , in some instances , fueral\ngoods and services that are required to be purchased by law. Thus , if a fueral provider charges a\nconsumer for "required identification viewing" of the deceased, and it is neither par of the basic\nservices fee nor requied by law, the unavoidable charge would likely be in violation of Section\n453.4 (b)(I) of the Funeral Rule. I should note that staf at the FTC is unaware of any state law\nrequiring that an "identification" be purchased as a service or good from a fueral home.\nIn\nyour letter, you also request that the FTC endorse several statements which you state\nwere prompted by recent consumer experiences that have been reported to your offce. First, I\ninterpret your request to be a solicitation for a sta opinion as to whether the several statements\nin your letter comport with the FTC\' s Funeral Rule. Accordingly, for puroses of clarty, the\nfollowing reflects a staf opinion regarding whether the statements you proposed in your July 14\n1997 letter comport with the Funeral Rule and accurately reflect the scope of the Rule.\n\nThe first statement is that "No consumer may be charged for identifYing a deceased. " As\ndiscussed above , if a charge for identification of the deceased is non- declinable , and not with\nthe permssible non- declinable charges, it is likely a violation of the Funeral Rule. Accordingly,\nunder those circumstaces , a consumer should not be charged for identifYing a deceased.\nHowever, it is possible that fueral providers might offer consumers an opportty to view a\ndeceased as a service or good, perhaps ak to the use of facilities and sta for viewing or other\nservices , prior to cremation. In that scenaro , it is possible that a fueral provider may offer an\noptional use of facilties and staff for viewing a deceased with a charge.\nSecond , you propose that the FTC endorse the statement that\n\nNo consumer may be forced to view a deceased body for "routine " identification\npuroses. If there is any question as to the identity of the deceased , it is the\nresponsibility of the fueral home to ascertain such before performg services of\nany kind for which there will be a charge , including removal.\n\nstaffs view, the issue of identification of a deceased prior to final disposition of the remains is\nIn the\nabsence of material misrepresentations , the provisions of the Funeral Rule simply do not address\nthe policies , practices and methods that a fueral provider uses to identifY remains. The purose\nof the Funeral Rule, in par, is to make price inormation readily available to consumers to enable\nIn\n\nprobably appropriately addressed by state or local regulatory law enforcement authority.\n\nthem to do comparative shopping for fueral goods and services. In addition , disclosures\n\nrequired to appear on the general price list inorm consumers that they have the right to purchase\n\n\x0conly those goods and services that they specifically select. The Rule seeks to promote inormed\ndecision-makg so that consumers are able to make fueral arangements that are with their\nmean s. Furer , the Funeral Rule addresses other unair or deceptive practices in the context of\npurchasing fueral goods and services. It has not yet been established that the practices or\npolicies of fueral homes , with respect to requig an identification, are either unai or\ndeceptive. I should note , though , that additiona facts and circumstaces may prove that\npractices regarding identification are unai or deceptive and, thus , in violation of the Funeral\nRule and the FTC Act.\nThird, you request that the FTC endorse the statement that\nNext-of-kin or other designated person(s) must be permitted private time with the\nbody of a deceased in order to say their "goodbyes " if they wish. A mortar may\nnot require embaling for ths purose. A mortar may charge a per- hour or\nper- day fee for the use of a room in its facilities for this but may not limt the\namount of tie for private visitation.\n\nAs with the second statement, above , that you proposed , the issue of "private time" with the\ndeceased is simply outside the scope of the Funeral Rule. Agai, though, I should note that if the\ncircumstaces surounding a fueral home s practices with respect to allowig or not allowig\nprivate time " with the deceased amounted to an unair or deceptive practice , such practices\nwould likely violate the Funeral Rule or the FTC Act. Without additional information, however\nand withn the confnes of the Funeral Rule , sta at the FTC are unable to endorse the\naforementioned statement.\nFinally, please be advised that the views expressed in ths letter are those of the FTC\n\nstaff. They have not been reviewed , approved or adopted by the Commission , and they are not\nbinding upon the Commission. However, they do reflect the opinons of those staff members\ncharged with enforcement of the Funeral Rule.\nI hope that you will fmd the above information helpful. We appreciate your interest in\nths matter. Please let us know whenever we can be of assistace.\n\nLaure M. Meehan\n\n\x0c'


b'432UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION\nWASHINGTON , D. C. 20580\n\nDivision of Marketing Practices\n\nLaurie Meehan\nAttorney\nDirect Dial\n\n202- 326- 3755\n\nApril 16 ,\n\n1997\n\nDavid Nixon\nFuneral Management Service , Inc,\n\nO. Box 13320\nSpringfield , Ilinois 62791- 3320\nDear Mr. Nixon:\n\n1 apologize for the delay in responding to your inquiry. You have raised several issues\nwith respect fueral homes granting discounts to consumers in the course of offering to sell and\nselling funeral goods and services. As we discussed in our last conversation, if discounts are\ngranted as a matter of course to consumers , these discounts should , instead , be the actual prices\nand included as such on the General Price List. As the FTC publication\nComplying with the\nFuneral Rule states\n\nThe itemized prices on your General Price List, as well as your\nCasket Price List and Outer Burial Container Price List\nshould be accurate and up- to- date. These prices should reflect\n\nthe prices that you actually charge your customers.\nAccordingly, as a general practice , if the cost of any item is discounted for all consumers , the\ndiscounted prices should be listed as the actual price.\nIn your letter , you propose four scenarios with respect to discounting services on the basis\nof whether or not a consumer purchases a casket trom the fueral home. As a general matter, I\nmust reiterate that the Funeral Rule prohibits charging casket handling fees pursuant to Section\n453.4(b)(1)(ii) ofthe Funeral Rule. The scenarios you proposed are addressed as follows:\n\n\x0c1. A\n\noffers families a discounted price for\nhis/her Basic Services of Funeral Director & Stafffee , if the family\npurchases a casket ftom his/her fueral business. Families\nsupplying their own casket are not offered this discount. Is this\nallowed under the FTC Funeral Rule.\nfueral director\n\nThis practice is impermissible under the Funeral Rule. Funeral homes may charge a nondeclinable Basic Services Fee as a condition for the purchase of other goods and services. When\nthis fee is included in the price of a casket, the rule requires fueral homes to disclose to\nconsumers that the " same fee shall be added to the total cost of your fueral arangements if you\nprovide the casket." Section 453. 2(b)(4)(C)(2). A discounted fee for consumers who purchase\nthe casket ftom the fueral home would be inconsistent with this section of the rule stating that\nconsumers who do not purchase a casket ftom the funeral home would have the\nsame fee added\nto their arangement. In addition , this discount would , in effect , become a fee assessed to only\nthose consumers who do not purchase a casket ftom the fueral home , and would equate to a\ncasket handling fee. Accordingly, this proposal is inconsistent with Section 453. 2(b)(4)(C)(2)\nand is potentially violative of Section 453.4(b )(1\n\n)(ii).\n\n2. A\n\nfuneral director offers families a discounted price for all\nhis/her service fees (Basic Services of Funeral Director & Staff\nEmbalming, Other Preparation of the Body, etc. ), if the family\npurchases a casket ftom his/her funeral business. Families\nsupplying their own caskets are not offered this discount. Is this\nallowed under the FTC Funeral Rule.\nAgain , this scenario is not allowable under the Funeral Rule. The same issues arise with\nrespect to scenario number one. First, if the Basic Services fee was included in the price ofthe\ncasket , the required disclosure concerning the " same " fee as mentioned above would be\ninconsistent with the fueral home s practice of assessing a " different" fee to consumers\nproviding their own caskets. Second , discounting fees on the basis of the purchase of a casket\nhas the effect of charging fees to those consumers who do not purchase caskets ftom the funeral\nhome. Consistent with previous staff opinions on this subject, fueral homes are permitted to\n\noffer fueral packages which offer a discount to all consumers. Strcturing discounts to\nexplicitly burden consumers who purchase a casket outside of the fueral home or discourage\nconsumers ftom purchasing a casket from outside the funeral home, while benefitting only those\nconsumers who purchase a casket ftom the fueral home effectively amounts to a casket\nhandling fee that is prohibited by the Funeral Rule.\n\n3. A\n\noffers families a discounted price for all\nhis/her service fees (except the Basic Services of Funeral Director\n& Staff), if the family purchases a casket ftom his/her fueral\nbusiness. Families supplying their own casket are not offered this\nfueral director\n\n\x0cdiscount. Is this allowed under the FTC Funeral Rule.\nThis is allowable under the FTC Funeral Rule. Although we are certainly concerned\nabout the premise of a proposed discount when it is structued in a way to monetarly burden\nconsumers who supply their own casket or discourage consumers ftom supplying their own\ncasket , fueral homes may encourage consumers to purchase a casket ftom their organization by\noffering discounts on services or items except for a non- declinable Basic Services Fee.\n\n4.\n\nAllowing that a fueral director is permitted to offer a\ndiscounted price in one of the thee prior examples , I believe that\nhe/she can enter either the itemized prices on the Statement of\nFuneral Goods & Services Selected or a single package total price\nwith a check mark on all the service items included in that package\npnce.\n\nIf a fueral home offers a package of goods and services that complies with the Funeral\nRule , it may list the goods and services included in the package together with the package price.\nSee Complying with the Funeral Rule , page 24.\n1 hope that you find this information helpful. Please note that the views expressed in this\nletter are those of staff only. The have not been reviewed , approved or adopted by the\nCommission , and they are not binding on the Commission, They do , however, reflect the\nopinions of the staff charged with enforcement of the Funeral Rule.\n\nSincerely,\n\nLaurie Meehan\nFuneral Rule Enforcement Staff\n\n\x0c'