Harrison Mills, Inc.

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MATTER OF IlAHRISON MILLS, INC., GRANITE FABRICS COllP. ET AL. Doclcet 5981. Complaint, April 30 , 1952--onler r1Jne 11)54 Charge: Neglecting to disclose flammability of brushed rayon fabrics. Before Jll1 . lVebster Ballinger hearing examiner. Mr. J. W. BToo7cfield, JT. for the Commission. Tenzer, Greenblatt, Fallon Kaplan of Ncw York City, for respondents.

ORDER DISJlISSIKG COJlfPLAI T WITHOUT PRE,IlJDICE This matter having come on to be heard by the Commission upon respondents' appeal from the initial decision of the hearing examiner and upon briefo and oral argument of counsel in support of and in opposition to said appeal; and The Commission having duly considered said appeal and the record herein and being of the opinion, for the reasons st.ated in the accompanying opinion 01' the Commission, that the complaint should be dismissed without prej udice, such disposition of this case rendering it unnccessary to rule specifically on each of the points raised by respondents ill their appeal:

It is ordered. That the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed without prejudice.

Commissioner Mead not participating for the reason that he did not heal' oral argument and Commissioner Gwynne not participating for the reason that oral argument 'was heard prior to his appointment to the Commission.

OPINION OF Tile GOJlIJlflSSION By :\lysol, Commissioner:

This matter is before ns on respondents' appeal from j he hearing examiner s initial decision.

The respondents are charged with having violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. by failing to dioclose that their rayon fabrics are composed of rayon and by failing to reveal the flammable charaeteristics of their brushed rayon fabrics. The hearing examiner found the facts to be substantially as alleged in the complaint, except with respect to two of the individual respond en to as to ,,-hom the complaint is dismissed, and his order directs the remaining respondents to cease and desist from:

HARRISON MILLS, INC., ET AL. 1045 1044 Opinion 1. Offering for sale or selling said fabrics without clearly disclosing thereon their rayon content.

2. Offering for sale or selling fabrics made of brushed rayon which because of the length of the fibers on the raised surface or because of any other reason, is highly inflammable, without affrmatively and clearly disclosing thereon that said fabrics are made of a highly inflammable material and garments made therefrom are dangerous and unsafe to be worn as articles of clothing. The facts material to our consideration of this matter are these: The respondents are engaged in the manufacture and sale of fabries some of which are made of rayon but resemble wool in texture and appearance, and some of which are made of brushed rayon and are highly inflammable because of the length of the nap on the brushed up surface of the fabrics. Respondents formerly did not, by label or otherwise, inform purchasers of these fabrics that they were com.. posed of rayon or that they were highly inflammable. On December 11, 1951, the Commission promulgated Trade Practice Rules for the Rayon and Acetate Textile Industry. These rules declare that it is an unfair trade practice to sell or advertise products including fabrics, composed of rayon without disclosure that they are rayon. The record shows that respondents, since February 11, 1952 more than two months prior to the issuance of the complaint, have been complying with the provisions of those rules with respect to the labeling of fabrics sold by them. There is no reason for us to believe that respondents will not continue to oomply with these rules. Therefore, with respect to the allegations of the complaint relating to respondents' failure to disclose the rayon content of their rayon fabrics it appears that everything that can be accomplished by a cease and desist order has already been aceomplished by cooperative effort. The factual situation thus presented is similar in many respects to the one which was recently before us in the Matter of Wildroot Oompany, Inc. Docket 5928, in which the complaint was dismissed without prejudice. ",,ye are of the opinion that similar action with respect to respondents' failure to disclose the rayon content of their rayon fabrics is appropriate in this ease.

Subsequent to the hearings in this matter, an Act entitled Flammable Fabrics Act" (67 Stat. 111) was passed. This Act becomes effective June 30, 1954, one year from the date of its passage. The Act declares, among other things, that the sale or offering for sale in commerce of any fabric which, under the standard of flammability contained in the Act, is so highly flammable as to be dangerous when worn by individuals, shall be unlawful and shall be an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or Opinion 50 F. T. C.

practice under the Federal Trade Commission Aet. 'Vilful violation of the Aet is punishable by a fine of not more than $5 000, or by imprisonment of not more than a, year, or both. If the brushed rayon flammable within thefabrics involved in this proceeding are highly 30meaning of this Act, respondents will be prohibited after .June 1954, from selling or ofJ'ering for sale such fabrics in commerce regardless of whether they are labeled. The record in this proceeding does not warrant an order directing the respondents to cease and desist from sellng or offering for sale fabrics which are highly flammable. It would support an order directing the respondents to cease and desist from selling or offering for sale in commerce highly flammable fabrics which are not properly labeled to show that they are highly flammable but such an order obviously would not be appropriate in view of the absolute prohibition in the Flammable Fabrics Act against the sale or offering for sale of highly flammable fabrics. In view of the above considerations, we are of the opinion that the public interest will be adequately served by dismissing the complaint without prejudice. Such disposition of this case renders it unneeessary for us to rule more specifically on each of the points raised by respondents in their appeal from the hearing examiner s initial decision.

, HARLEY-DAVIDSON MOTOR CO. 1047 Syllabus