North Georgia Waste Company, Inc.

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

IN THE MATTER OF NORTH GEORGIA WASTE COMPANY, INC.

TRADING AS :\OGA WASTE CO. INC. . ET AL. CO!\SENT ORDER, ETC" IN REGARD TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COM IISSION AXD THE TEXTILE FIBER Prodccts IDENTIFICA TION ACTS Docket C-l:!77. Complaint, Dec. 13, J.Cfi7-IJecision, Dec. 13, 1.97 Consent order requiring a La Fayette, Ga., fabrics m:wufacturer to cease misbranding its textile fiber products and failing' to majntain required records. COMPLAINT Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act dentification Act, and by virtueand the Textie Fiber Products I the authority vested in it by said Acts, the Federal Trade Commission, having reason to believe that North Georgia Vilm;te NOGA WASTE CO. , INC., ET AL. 969 968 Complaint Company, Inc. , a corporation, trading under its own name and as Koga Waste Co. Inc., and Wiliam M. Parnell and Dewey W. Hammond, individually and as offcers of said corporation, hereinafter referred to as respondents, have violated the provisions of said Acts and the Rules and Regulations promulgated under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and it appearing to the Commission that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be in the public interest, hereby issues its complaint stating its charges in that respect as follows:

PARAGRAPH 1. Respondent North Georgia Waste Company, oga Waste Co., Inc.Inc., trades under its own name and as X H is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia. Respondents William 1\. Parnell and Dewey W. Hammond are offcers of said corporate respondent. They formulate, direct and control the acts, practices and policies of said corporate respondent. Respondents are engaged in the manufacture and sale of textile fiber products, including textile stock, with their offce and principal place of business located at U.S, Highway 27, La Fayette Georgia.

PAR. 2. Respondents, are novv and for some time last past, have been engaged in the introduction, delivery for introduction manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising, and offering for sale, in commerce, and in the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, and in the importation into the United States, of textile fiher products; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised, delivered, transported and caused to be transported textile fiber products, which had been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; and have sold, offered for sale, advertised delivered, transported and caused to be transported, after shipment in commerce, textile fiber products, either in their original state or contained in other textile fiber products; as the terms commerce " and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

PAR. 3. Certain of said textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents within the intent and meaning of Section 4 (a) of the Textie Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder in that they were falsely and deceptively stamped, tagged, labeled, invoiced, advertised, or otherwise identified as to the names and amounts of the constituent fibers contained therein, Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited represented as 75thereto, was textile stock invoiced and Decision and Order 72 F.

Acrylic, 25 % Modacrylic whereas, in truth and in fact, such products contained substantially different amounts of fibers other than as represented.

PAR. 4. Certain of the textile fiber products were misbranded by respondents in that they were not stamped, tagged, labeled or otherwise identified to show each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, and in the manner and form prescribed by the Rules and Regulations promulgated under said Act. Among such misbranded textile fiber products, but not limited thereto, was textile stock without labels. PAR. 5. Respondents have failed to maintain proper records showing the fiber content of the textile fiber products manufactured by them, in violation of Section 6 of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Regulations promulgated thereunder.

PAR. 6. The acts and practices of respondents, as set forth above were, and are, in violation of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and the Rules and Regulations promulgated thereunder, and constituted, unfair methods of competition and deceptive acts and practices in commerce, under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

DECISION AND ORDER The Federal Trade Commission having initiated an investigation of certain acts and practices of the respondents named in the caption hereof, and the respondents having been furnished thereafter with a copy of a draft of complaint which the Bureau of Textiles and Furs proposed to present to the Commission for its consideration and which, if issued by the Commission would charge respondents with violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act; and The respondents and counsel for the Commission having thereafter executed an agreement containing a consent order, an admission by the respondents of all the jurisdictional facts set forth in the aforesaid draft of complaint, a statement that the signing of said agreement is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by respondents that the law has been violated as alleged in such complaint, and waivers and other provisions as required by the Commission s Hules; and The Commission having thereafter considered the matter and having determined that it had reason to believe that thc respondents have violated the said Acts, and that complaint should issue NOGA WASTE CO. , I1-C., ET AL. 971 968 Decision and Order stating its charges in that respect, and having thereupon accepted the executed consent agreement and placed such agreement on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days, now in further conformity with the procedure prescribed in 34 (b) of its Rules, the Commission hereby issues its complaint, makes the following jurisdictional findings, and enters the following order: 1. Respondent North Georgia Waste Company, Inc. , trades under its own name and as Noga \Vaste Co., Inc. It is a corporation organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the Jaws of the State of Georgia, with its offce and principal place of business located at U. S, Highway 27 , La Fayette, Georgia. Respondents Wiliam lvi. Parnell and Dewey W. Hammond are offcers of said corporation and their address is the same as that of said corporation, 2. The Federal Trade Commission has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and of the respondents, and the proceeding is in the public interest, ORDER It is ordered That respondents North Georgia Waste Company. Inc., a corporation, trading under its own name or as Noga Vi/aate Co., Inc., or any other name or names, and its offcers, and \Viliam M. Parnell and Dewey W. Hammond, individually and as offcers of said corporation, and respondents' representatives, agents and employees, directly or through any corporate or other device, in connection with the introduction, delivery for introduction, manufacture for introduction, sale, advertising, or offering for sale, in commerce, or the transportation or causing to be transported in commerce, or the importation into the Vnited States, of any textile fiber product; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, of any textile fiber product which has been advertised or offered for sale in commerce; or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, advertising, delivery, transportation, or causing to be transported, after shipment in commerce, of any textile fiber product, whether in its original state or contained in other textie fiber products, as the terms "commerce" and "textile fiber product" are defined in the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, do forthwith cease and desist from:

A. Misbranding textile fiber products by: 1. Falsely or deceptively stamping, tagging, labeling. invoicing, advertising, or otherwise identifying such Complaint 72 F.

products as to the name or amount of constituent fibers contained therein.

2. Failing to affx a stamp, tag, label or other means of identification to each such product showing in a clear legible and conspicuous manner each element of information required to be disclosed by Section 4 (b) of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act.

B, Failing to maintain and preserve proper records showing the fiber content of the textile fiber products manufactured by said respondents, as required by Section 6 of the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act and Rule 39 of the Regulations promulgated thereunder, It is tw.the?' ordered That the respondents herein shall, within sixty (60) days after service upon them of this order, file with the Commission a report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with this order.