Advisory opinion letter to Mr. Weiser: the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and, in addition, the…

Opinion Letter
February 6, 1978
Dear Mr. Weiser:

It is the Commission’s understanding that in lieu of appeal to the Commission for discretionary release of documents (your letter of May 3, 1977) you wish instead definitive Commission advice respecting the specified subject matter thereof, viz., whether the name of the foreign manufacturer of an imported textile fiber product would be deemed to comply with Rules 16(a)(2) and 19(a) of the Rules and Regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, as amended. The Commission also has before it, at this time, a virtually identical request concerning the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and, in addition, the Wool Products Labeling Act. It is the Commission’s interpretation of both Acts, and their supporting Rules, that the labels of covered products imported into this country may carry the name of the foreign manufacturer or the name or tradename (where applicable) or registered identification number of a person or firm marketing the product in the United States. An election to use the name of the foreign manufacturer, accordingly, is completely permissible. The foreign manufacturer’s name, if used, must be that under which the firm does business. Responsibility for any misbranding of products under these Acts, however, rests with the person or firm introducing the product into commerce in the United

States.
By direction of the Commission.
Supplemental Letter of Request
May 8, 1977
Sir:

In our initial request of March 18, 1977 (copy enclosed herewith), we asked for “all rulings, memoranda, opinions, and all other documents, published or unpublished, whereby the Federal Trade Commission’s position with regard to whether the setting forth of the name of the foreign manufacturer of an imported textile fiber product would be deemed to comply with Rules 16(a)(2) and 19(a) of the Rules and

Regulations under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, as amended, is stated.” The Commission responded by its letter of April 18, 1977 (copy enclosed) and stated that our request had been partially granted and those documents which were being withheld had been deemed to be exempt from mandatory disclosure as they were interagency or intra-agency memoranda or letters. As to the portion of our request which was granted, the Commission enclosed a multitude of documents which, we would assume, was responsive to our initial request.

We have now completed our review of the documents. which the Commission forwarded to us and have deterrained that not a single one of them is at all responsive to our request of March 18th. Our request . was simple and specific: we had asked whether a foreign manufacturer’s name could be used on labels of textile products pursuant to the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and specific regulations above cited. Not one of the advisory opinions forwarded to us had anything to do with that request (copies of all documents returned herewith).

Therefore, we are returning unpaid your bill of April 18, 1977 in the amount of $31.10 with our comment that unfortunately a lot of timeconsuming and useless work has apparently been done by a Government employee who did not have the appropriate guidance in gathering the requested information.

Furthermore, it is requested that, as to the documents which were believed to be exempt from mandatory disclosure, the Commission exercise its discretion and release the material notwithstanding its ’ allegedly exempt status. The reason we are requesting the release of this subject matter is that our client, Frederick Atkins, Inc., an importer of wearing apparel, desires to use the name of the foreign manufacturer on a particular label of wearing apparel in lieu of an RN number.

We would appreciate your earliest advice with regard to this appeal.

Very truly yours,
SIEGEL, MANDELL & DAVIDSON
/s/ Steven S. Weiser