the instant program should be included with the broader program under consideration. Therefore, due to the aforementioned factors, it would seem that any attempt to project the duration of this program would be wholly arbitrary on our part.

Commissioner Jones also requested that we further spell out alternative methods of achieving the goals set forth in the basic planning document. In virtually all of the programs enumerated above, the alternative to industry-wide action would appear to be the case-by-case litigation approach. However, as each project develops within the Bureau it may be that the project would best be disposed of by horizontal transfer from one Division to another in that final determination would indicate proceedings in the form of guides rather than rules or vice versa would be most expeditious. In this connection, the alternatives open to this Bureau are essentially limited by the guidance techniques available to it, other than the basic alternatives set forth in the Program Memorandum. However, should as yet unforseen alternatives become available during the course of the development of each of the programs we shall evaluate them completely and, in the vent that it should be determined that an alternative be adopted which would radically alter what we have proposed, submit the matter to the Commission for its consideration and determination.

Among the subjects raised in Commissioner Nicholson's memorandum of June 10 was a suggestion that manpower requirements be designated in manyears rather than dollar allocation. Inasmuch as the cost of programs in this Bureau is basically salary, we have followed his suggestion and not placed a dollar value on each program. As Appendices A and B demonstrate, this format more clearly sets out our exact requirements. In this regard, assignment of time expended has been made by quarter, half and whole man-years on the presumption that to attempt to project manpower allocations at this distance on anything less than a quarterly period would be completely arbitrary.

APPENDIX A.-DIVISION OF INDUSTRY GUIDES-PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEARS 1970 AND 1971

Goal: To correct possible discriminatory rate structures and advertising charges in the newspaper advertising industry. (Maintaining Competition) The Bureau of Restraint of Trade has underway an investigation of advertising rate practices of major newspapers in eight principle metropolitan areas in which the Commission has field offices. The investigation seeks to ascertain the extent of possible discrimination in and disparity between "national” and “local” advertising rates charged by such newspapers to the two different classes of advertisers.

Strategy: Subsequent to completion of the investigation, this Bureau will confer with the Bureau of Restraint of Trade for the purpose of determining the extent of possible law violations and whether: (1) the Bureau of Restraint of Trade intends to institute adjudicative proceedings, (2) whether the practices are of such a nature as to require treatment on an industry-wide basis and, (3) whether adjudicative or industry guidance procedures would be the most effective and expeditious manner to dispose of the possible law violations. In the likely event that the practices in question are found to be industry-wide in nature and the guidance procedures determined to be the Commission's most effective means of dealing with the problem area, a trade regulation rule proceeding will be initiated and formulated in accordance with the conclusions of the investigation for the purpose of developing, in as short a time as possible, a proposed rule for presentation to the Commission and subsequent release for industry comment. In the event that a final rule can be adopted and is promulgated by the Commission, a compliance program will be instituted for the purpose of insuring meaningful correction of the forms of discrimination covered by the rule.

Basis: The size of the total advertising budgets for national and local newspaper advertisers is of such magnitude as to be of important economic significance within the advertising industry. It would appear that the Commission's role in maintaining competition would be enhanced by the proposed activities. It further appears that swift and effective Commission action may possibly be essential to insure and protect equality of advertising and promotional allowance rates in this industry.

Manpower: Until completion of the investigation and the extent of the questioned practices evaluated, no solid projection of manpower requirements can be made. On a tentative basis, however, it is anticipated that the full time assistance of one experienced attorney will be required for at least six months to formulate a rule. As to the compliance aspect of the project, here also we have a problem of projection until the extent of possible law violations can be determined. Nevertheless, experience would seem to dictate the necessity for assigning one attorney to the compliance program for a period of from 6-12 months in order that such program be effective.

Completion Date: If the project can be commenced early in the program year and depending upon the difficulties which may be encountered during the rulemaking phase of the project, it is tentatively planned that completion will be accomplished by the middle of FY 1972.

MEMORANDUM

Subject: Budget Plans for Fiscal 1971.

To: Commission.

JUNE 20, 1969.

From: Henry D. Stringer, Director, Bureau of Textiles and Furs.

I have carefully reviewed the budget proposals for 1971 prepared by the Divisions of Regulation and Enforcement.

There is really no need to comment upon the proposals of the Enforcement Division because based upon statistics in the past it has been shown that its work load "feeds," so to speak, upon the volume of work produced in the inspection programs of the Division of Regulation.

The proposals of the Regulation Division point up the areas where the inspection programs will be needed, i.e., the extended coverage of the Flammable Fabrics Act, as amended; the textile import situation; and the troublesome areas in the fur industry. Also pointed out is, what in my opinion, the woefully inadequate inspection programs under each of the Acts in question. I think the proposals are realistic and sound in approach.

In connection with Commissioner Jones' comments with respect to an alternative to the inspection work I wish to advise that when I first came with the Commision in September, 1943 the inspection program under the Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939 was being set up.

The Wool Act became effective on July 15, 1941. Shortly after that time a form letter was sent to all of the manufacturers and distributors of wool products other than those in the retail field. This form letter requested samples of labels and advice as to whether the records of fiber content required under the Act were being maintained. It became evident that handling the matter by correspondence was not sufficient. The labels submitted could be corrected as to form but there was no way of knowing whther the labels were substantively correct. It became evident that an inspection program would have to be set up to determine if a manufacturer or distributor was correctly labeling the merchandise manufactered so sold by him. This could only be done by checking his records. Over the years the value of the inspection work has been evident. Violations in the thousands have been found and many orders to cease and desist as well as assurances of voluntary compliance have been obtained.

It is my understanding, and this was prior to my employment by the Commission, that discussions were had with representatives of the Food and Drug Administration as to how they policed the labeling of products subject to their laws. The labeling requirements are somewhat similar and as the Food and Drug Administration had found it necessary to have inspectors handle their work it was decided that the same approach would have to be taken with respect to the Wool Act. It is equally applicable to the Textile, Fur and Flammable Fabrics Acts.

I might say that during the 1950's the Commission policy was to concentrate on formal cases and do less inspection work under the laws administered by the Division which preceded this Bureau. This let up in policing resulted in a substantial increase of misbranding by manufacturers and removal of fiber content labels by retailers.

To illustrate, approximately 50% of the cases arising under the Flammable Fabrics Act are based upon information, samples of fabrics and wearing apparel obtained by our field investigators. As always, work under the Flammable Fabrics Act has our highest priority and we would agree with the statement recently made by Doctor Tribus (Assistant Commerce Secretary for Science and Technology) when speaking with respect to statistical information on clothing burns at a recently held Symposium on Measurement of Flammability that he did not want a mountain of corpses before the standards were strengthened.

We feel the same way, that is we should prevent dangerously flammable clothing or fabrics from reaching the market or if on the market having them removed from sale before we receive a complaint when there is serious injury or death.

We have pointed out in the preceding paragraph as to what might happen if we relied upon complaints under the Flammable Fabrics Act and only differing as an economic fraud, the same can be said with respect to misbranding under the Wool, Fur and Textile Acts. The consumer as well as most merchants are

simply not sufficiently familiar with textiles and furs as to know when goods purchased or sold by them may be misbranded. As a consequence very little of our work is predicated upon complaints from the outside.

In conclusion I might say that the work of this Bureau is not confined to enforcement procedures. The writer and other employees in the Bureau, including our investigators, are often called upon to participate in programs before home economic groups in the educational field and programs of education for the elderly and needy. We also participate in trade association meetings and we work with such prestigious groups dealing in textiles as the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists and the textile sections of the American Society for Testing Materials. In other words, in addition to our enforcement work we are also in the educational field and working with businessmen who are engaged in the textile and fur industries.

Respectfully submitted,

HENRY D. STRINGER, Director, Bureau of Textiles and Furs.

MEMORANDUM

Subject: Budget plans for fiscal 1971.

JUNE 19, 1969.

To: Commission, via Henry D. Stringer, Director, Bureau of Textiles and Furs. From: Harold S, Blackman, Chief, Division of Regulation.

The Commission is aware of the general responsibilities carried on by the Division of Regulation, Bureau of Textiles and Furs, so that much mention may be omitted at this time in order to set out the plans which we have for fiscal year 1971.

Our inspection activity, discussion of problems with those concerned, pointing out errors of omission or commission, explaining in lay language the requirements of several laws and rules which have been delegated to us for administration by the Commission, in short attempting to secure the greatest possible degree of voluntary compliance at the least possible cost to government and industry in use of manpower time and time expense, is the very heart of our work. We feel it can only be fully performed by the presence of the investigator at the premises in question, be it a fiber producing plant, a processing plant, a weaving or knit-ting mill, a manufacturer of finished products (either textile or fur), an importer or jobber or a retail store. We can physically see, examine and handle the products, examine records, see how the label (or invoice) is made up and attached to the goods, determine whether such label is accurate and complete, is properly applied so it will remain on the product until sale, and usually if advertising and invoicing (where covered) are performed by the person or firm being inspected a full check can be made on the accuracy of such matters.

In addition to our field investigators, the primary subject of this memorandum, we have in the headquarters office, attorneys, examiners and clerical personnel to direct and back up our field work. Our attorneys follow up field inspections, write to and confer with principals, attorneys, trade association executives and others to keep our inspection work progressing. In headquarters we have 2 advertising examiners whose function is to examine and write upon deficient newspaper and magazine advertisements, catalogs, and from time to time written television material of the nature shown on television screens in connection with advertising under the Textile Act. Radio advertising is covered by the Fur Act, but not the Textile Act. These examiners cannot obtain a full picture of the products advertised, even though they perform very capably by correspondence. Other pertinent parts of our operation are the issuance of registered identifiation numbers, the maintenance of a public file of continuing guaranties and the record room where scores of thousands of active files are kept. A dispositionschedule, approved by the Archives, providing for destruction of certain file materials is currently being used.

During fiscal 1970 it is anticipated that the Secretary of Commerce under the Flammable Fabrics Act, as amended, will have designated certain categories of textile products which are hazardous and that the Department of Commerce will have provided standards of flammability for such products, The Department of Commerce, we are informed, will probably issue such standards for floor coverings in the very near future. In addition it is contemplated that additional standards for children's clothes as well as some types of bedding will be issued. Such action by the Department of Commerce will call for inspection in several areas where the Bureau of Textiles and Furs has not had occasion to call. The plans of the Division for the enforcement of the amended Flammable Fabrics Act are to contact and work closely with state and local fire marshals and chiefs. so that when fires involving fabrics occur in the categories specified by the Department of Commerce the Division's investigators will be called in to determine if the Flammable Fabrics Act has been violated. This program we believe is what the Congress and President Johnson expected when this amendment to the Flammable Fabrics Act was passed.

In connection with the increase of our investigational staff as set out in the 1970 Budget Justifications the additional investigators to be used under the Flammable Fabrics Act, their work of course will not be confined to that Act but all of them will be thoroughly schooled in all of the other statutes with which we work so that they will be available for any place within the territory assigned to them for immediate action upon matters arising under the Flammable Fabrics Act.