Deanna Dee, Inc.

0" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
.£ti.~ FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
.600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW I
~. .WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 '-
Division of Enforcement
Bureau of Consumer Protection
November2, 2001
Mr. Daniel J. Schwarz,CFO
Deanna Dee Inc.
336 South Anderson Street
Los Angeles, California 90033
DearMr. Schwartz:
I am writing in responseto your letter of October 30, 2001, with regard to fabric
purchased by your finn for the manufacture of coats. You state that the fabric received by your
company was labeled to be 50% cashmere,50% wool. You had the fabric tested, and the test
report showed the content to be 58.5% wool, 41.5% cashmere. You asked whether this fabric,
and goods to be made from the fabric, can be labeled properly as 50% cashmere, 50% wool.
The deviation described in your letter is not the small amount of variation generally
considered acceptable for blended fiber products. The Rules and Regulations under the Textile
Fiber Products Identification Act, 16 C.F.R. § 303.43, allow for a 3% variation for blended fiber
textile products. The Wool Products Labeling Act, 15 U .S.C. § 68 et seq., and rules promulgated
pursuant to the Act, 16 C.F.R. Part 300, do not specify a tolerance for blended wool products. As
you noted, however, the Wool Act does contain a proviso acknowledging that small deviations
may occur as a result of unavoidable variations in the manufacturing process, despite the exercise
of due care. As a result, the Commission has stated that it will apply to blended wool products
the 3% tolerance allowed for other blended textile products. Seethe enclosed copy of our
business guide, Threading Your Was Through the-Labeling Requirements Under the Textile and
WoolActs.
I hope that you will find this analysis helpful. In accordancewith Section 1.3(c) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 16 C.F.R. § 1.3(c), this is a staff opinion only
and has not been reviewed or approved by the Commission or by an individual Commissioner.
It is not binding upon the Commission and is given without prejudice to the right of the
Commission later to rescind the advice and, when appropriate, to commence an enforcement
proceeding. Pursuant to Section 1.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,
16 C.F.R. § 1.4, your request for advice, along with this response,will be placed on the public
record.
Sincerely yours,
{l~~,e<j ~71e~~~~	~..a/
Carol J. Jennings
Enc.

10-30-201 11 : 45AM FROM FLEURETTE-DEANNA-DEE 323 269 5800 P.1
DEANNA DEE, INC. ManU!QL'turer of Ladit:~: Coats
336 SouthAndersonStreet
Los An,gcles,California 90033
Telephone: (323) 269-5600
Fax: (323) 269-5800
October 30,2001
federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington PC 20580
Attn: Ms Carol Jennings
.FAXED TO: (202) 326-2558
Dear Ms. Jennings:
Regarding our telephone conversation of this momiug, we wol,lld appreciate your
comments on the following facts:
We are a coat manufacturer and received piece goods labeled 50% Cashmere and 50%
Wool from the mitl. After having the fabric tested we were informed that the fabric was
41.5 % Cashmere an 8.50/1)deviation. (Copy of lab the lab test is attached).
Upon receiving this inforrritttion we contactedthe mill and they responded by saying it
was not miss labeled. As proof, they sent us a copy of your letter to Mr. Bartmess (Copy
enclosed). Since your letter refers to " the presenceof Small p;ercenta&e of wool'> it
would s~emto us that an 8.5% deviation would not fall under this exception nor would it
fall under the proviso stated at the top of page 2 of your letter dated October 3, 2001.
That pa,ragraphstated "that if the deviation of the fiber contents of the wool product from
percentagesstated on the stamp, tag, label, or other meansof identification, shall not be
misbranding under this section if the person charged with misbranding proves such
deviation resulted from unavoidable variations in the manufacture and despite the
exercisc of due care to make accurate the statementon such,ortarnp,tag, label or other
means of identification."

10-30-201 11 :45AM FROM FLEURETTE-DEANNA-DEE 323 269 b~~~ ~.L
I
Ms. Caroi Jennings
Page 2
We would appreciate your comments as to whether or not an 8.5% deviation would fall
under any of the provisos that the item is not misbranded.
Pleasemail your reply to me at 336 $0. Anderson St. Los Angeles Ca 90033
and as time is an issue, please fax a copy to me in New York at (212) 315-1839, as 1 will
be at that number From November 1 through November 5,2001.
Thank you in advance for your help with this matter and your speedyreply.
.
Deanna Dee Inc.
By Daniel J. Schwarz, CPO
,

.10-30-201
11 :4.6AM FROM FLEURETTE-DEANNA-DEE 323 269 5800 -P.3
I	.A~ 162 A 6868 Oct 28 20el 07:05PM P02
	FROM : P~nasonl c TRD/FRX PHONE NO. .~~ ~ .
~: t! 4 &~~~.,..t:..t	K.D. Langl~ fiber Services ~ 9 g- -Q() /.?i
-
P.O...7. ~ RI 0287t .T--=-~-. ('111)81"'.
~
October 27, 2UOJ
Ms. Stcphanie laPedis
Deal1n8Dee. Inc.
336 South Andcrson Stroot ..	~.	J..osAng:eles, CA 90033
RL'port on the QuDntirativc )fiber An81YKisof Finished F.bric
,
Material Submitted .-
_~atchc~ color b]~c:k, 8ubn~iUedon (>ct('Iber22. 2001.
I..bur.tor)' P~eedun .
Dye was removed from ute samples with II stripping Itgcnl. Then fjbet~ wcr~ ~ectiOnN
with a fiber cutter W1dInnunted on ft'liCft1SCOpe	slides. Over t 000 fibof;.; wcrc id~.'tific:\1
Iising light micl'OscOPYat a magnificatinn of250.400X. All tosting W&$p0rfonnQ} i)J
accordance with te.~tmethod AA TCC 20- J999 &nd AS 1M 0629-95.
ReluJt~
.S"wat(:Jr	# I contains 1 008/.. ,,",bIDeR- JIowc~~r it is Qut of sp_~ificat.i()n~ with regard it)
cnaT~ehair c()ntent.: it c\)I}tains 9S.6% cu,iJllDCrCd()WI1,4.4% ca~hmerc C()lifSChotir
(>30 ~n1), 'luis e~cccds the AS1"M f> 2817-91 limit of 3% by wcight, .!bi~ J~vcl ofhuir
itl~o caus~~thc saml,le to have a djafl'l~ter coe{}icicn1 \)fysriativn of 26_8% v~. the
C~:)mncre and C:amel hai'llimit of 24%.
.\;."ufch 1i/ contains S"-~% wonl, .1.~8/Q ~.8bmerr. tracc level (appY\)X,0.5%) silk.
;;(
Sincc:r~J)I}'ours"-/ /
~L :J1.	.i-7°.',
Kenneth D, J..ang1cy
c-wuII"8	'" FIber	.raT... ~
'");1