Federal Trade Commission
Received Documents
P894219
Nov 24 1995
B18354900009
Secretary

CAPITAL MERCURY SHIRT CORPORATION
1372 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10018-9998, (212) 704-4800 Telex: 237391 CAPUR

Richard F. Bebon
President

November 17, 1995

Federal Trade Commission
Office of the Secretary, Room 159
6th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20580

Dear Sirs:

This is in response to a request for public comments in a Commission notice appearing in the
Federal Register October 19, 1995. 60FR53922.  The notice involved the application of a
standard for the unqualified use of the "Made in the U.S.A." label.

Capital-Mercury is a domestic manufacturer of men's and ladies' shirts and is one of the largest
suppliers of private label shirts to retail establishments in this country.  In recent years Capital-Mercury has also imported a significant portion of its requirements from sources located outside
the United States.  Capital Mercury has always paid careful attention to the FTC requirements
with respect to Made in U.S.A. labelling as well as to the U.S. Customs marking requirements
under 19 U.S.C. 1304 with respect to goods which it imports.  Our company supports the current
standards as applies by the Federal Trade Commission as well as those enforced by the U.S.
Customs Service.

With respect to unqualified Made in U.S.A. claims, the company makes that claim only in the case
of garments which are manufactured in the United States from all or virtually all U.S.
components. When imported fabric is used in the manufacture of shirts at our U.S. manufacturing
facility, we are always careful to label such shirts as "Made in U.S.A. of imported fabric" in
compliance Rule 33 of the Commission rules under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. 
We support the Commission standard requiring the indication of the use of imported fabric, even
though under U.S. Customs Service rules, the garment would be considered as made in the
United States entirely of U.S. components.  Under U.S. Customs Service rules, the cutting of
fabric into component parts renders those component parts products of the United States and the
further assembly of the garments into finished articles renders them made in the United States of
U.S. components.  Nevertheless, we adhere to the FTC standard indicating the use of imported
fabric when imported fabric rather than domestic fabric is used.

We believe that this standard is a good standard and is reasonably designed so as not to mislead
the public as to the origin of goods containing the Made in U.S.A. label.  However, we do not
believe that any further changes in this standard should be made as it would cause undue hardship
on domestic manufacturers and create confusion in the minds of the public.  As an example, we
note that in the consent order, one of the so-called safe harbor exceptions indicated that
permissible marking would include marking such as Made in the U.S.A. "primarily" of domestic
components and "some" foreign components or the opposite, "primarily" of foreign components
and "some" domestic components.  While those safe harbor exceptions would appear to make
sense in the context of the particular case involved and are not troublesome as a permissive
standard, we do not believe that it would be prudent to expand the current standard to require
percentages when there is a mix of foreign and U.S. components or to require even the
representation of those components which predominate over others.  This would be too difficult a
task in normal wearing apparel manufacturing operations, and I am sure many other
manufacturing operations.  Such a standard would be confusing to the manufacturer and the
public and would make compliance an expensive if not impossible burden.  It should be sufficient
to indicate the presence of domestic and foreign components when that is the case without further
qualifications, and indeed, one of the safe harbor exceptions in the consent order provides for
that.

The current standards with respect to Made in U.S. especially as they are embodied in Rule 33 of
the rules and regulations under the Textile Product Fiber Identification Act as well as the
standards under the Wool Products Labeling Act, are standards which do not impose an
unreasonable burden on industry and at the same time are reasonably calculated to inform the
public.  We would hope that no changes are made with respect to these standards as they apply to
textile and wearing apparel products.

We welcome this opportunity to submit comments to the Commission and would be pleased to
respond to any further questions which the Commission may have.

Very truly yours,

Richard F. Bebon
President