[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62352-62354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28555]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 303


Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products 
Identification Act

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On January 27, 1992, Courtaulds Fibers, Inc. (``Courtaulds'') 
applied to the Federal Trade Commission (``the Commission'') requesting 
establishment of a new generic name and definition for a fiber it 
manufactures. It recommended ``lyocell'' be adopted as the new generic 
name for this fiber. The application was filed pursuant to Rule 8 (16 
CFR 303.8) of the Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber 
Products Identification Act, 15 U.S.C. 70 et seq., and Subpart C of 
Part 1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 1.26. In the 
application Courtaulds stated that its cellulosic fiber differs in kind 
and chemical structure from any of the existing fiber definitions of 
Rule 7 (16 CFR 303.7).
    Commission staff, with the assistance of an expert on textiles, 
after review of Courtauld's application, determined that various tests 
were necessary in order to evaluate whether lyocell was, in fact, a new 
generic fiber. Courtaulds performed these tests using the procedures 
and under the conditions outlined by the textile expert. In March 1995, 
Courtaulds submitted the results of these tests, as well as other 
materials relating to its application.
    Although the Commission has determined that the proposed new fiber 
falls within the existing Rule 7(d) (16 

[[Page 62353]]
CFR 303.7(d)) definition of ``rayon,'' the Commission believes it is in 
the public interest to amend the Rule to recognize the fiber's unique 
characteristics.
    Rule 7(d) currently defines ``rayon'' as: a manufactured fiber 
composed of regenerated cellulose, as well as manufactured fibers 
composed of regenerated cellulose in which substituents have replaced 
not more than 15% of the hydrogens of the hydroxyl groups.
    Based on its review of the Courtaulds application and related 
materials, the Commission proposed to retain the current Rule 7(d) 
definition and to add the following sentence: Where the fiber is 
composed of cellulose precipitated from an organic solution in which no 
substitution of the hydroxyl groups takes place and no chemical 
intermediates are formed, the term lyocell may be used as a generic 
description of the fiber.
    The Commission now solicits comments as to whether Rule 7(d) should 
be amended and, if so, the form of such an amendment.

DATE: Written comments will be accepted until February 5, 1996.

ADDRESS: Comments and other submissions should be directed to: 
Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, Room H-159, Sixth and Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580. Submissions should be identified as 
``Rule 7(d) Under the Textile Act--Comment.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bret S. Smart, Program Advisor, Los Angeles Regional Office, Federal 
Trade Commission, 11000 Wilshire Boulevard, #13209, Los Angeles, CA 
90024, (310) 235-7890.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section A. Background

    Rule 6 (16 CFR Sec. 303.6) of the Rules and Regulations Under the 
Textile Act requires covered persons to use the generic names of the 
fibers contained in covered textile fiber products when making required 
disclosures of the fiber content of the products. Rule 7 (16 CFR 303.7) 
sets forth the generic names and definitions that the Commission has 
established for manufactured fibers. These generic manufactured fibers 
have been found by the Commission to be individually unique and 
distinctive by virtue of their chemical composition and physical 
properties. Rule 8 (16 CFR 303.8) sets the procedures for establishing 
new generic names. Upon receipt of an application for a new generic 
name, the Commission must, within 60 days, either deny the application 
or assign to the fiber a numerical or alphabetical symbol for temporary 
use during further consideration of the application.
    Courtaulds submitted its application requesting establishment of 
``lyocell'' as a new generic fiber name on January 27, 1992. After an 
initial analysis the Commission granted Courtaulds the designation 
``CF0001'' for temporary use in identifying the fiber until the final 
determination is made as to the disposition of the application. 
Commission staff, with the assistance of an expert on textiles, 
determined that various tests were necessary in order to evaluate 
whether lyocell was, in fact, a new generic fiber. Courtaulds performed 
these tests using the procedures and under the conditions outlined by 
the textile expert. In March 1995, Courtaulds submitted the results of 
these tests, as well as other materials relating to its application. 
The application and related materials have been placed on the 
rulemaking record.
    The effect of the proposed amendment would be to allow use of the 
name ``lyocell'' as an alternative to the generic name ``rayon'' for 
the subcategory of rayon fibers meeting the further criteria contained 
in the sentence added by the proposed amendment. Within the established 
21 generic names for manufactured fibers, there are presently two cases 
where such generic name alternatives may be used. Specifically, 
pursuant to Rule 7(e) (16 CFR 303.7(e)), within the generic category 
``acetate,'' the term ``tricacetate'' may be used as an alternative 
generic description for a specifically defined subcategory of acetate 
fiber. And pursuant to Rule 7(j) (16 CFR 303.7(j)), within the generic 
category ``rubber,'' the term ``lastrile'' may be used as an 
alternative generic description for a specifically defined subcategory 
of rubber fiber.
    The Commission takes this opportunity to clarify its policy 
concerning the criteria by which it will decide the disposition of 
petitions filed under Rule 8 of the Textile Act Rules, 16 CFR 303.8 
(1995). In 1973, at the conclusion of the rulemaking that led to 
creation of the new generic name ``aramid,'' the Commission declared 
the following policy for adopting generic fiber names:

    [T]he Commission, in the interest of elucidating the grounds on 
which it has based this decision and shall base future decisions as 
to the grant of generic names for textile fibers, sets out the 
following criteria for grant of such generic names.
    1. The fiber for which a generic name is requested must have a 
chemical composition radically different from other fibers, and that 
distinctive chemical composition must result in distinctive physical 
properties of significance to the general public.
    2. The fiber must be in active commercial use or such use must 
be immediately foreseen.
    3. The grant of the generic name must be of importance to the 
consuming public at large, rather than to a small group of 
knowledgeable professionals such as purchasing officers for large 
Government agencies.
    The Commission believes it is in the public interest to prevent 
the proliferation of generic names, and will adhere to a stringent 
application of the above-mentioned criteria in consideration of any 
future applications for generic names and in a systematic review of 
any generic names previously granted which no longer meet these 
criteria.

    As exemplified by today's action and reflected in this notice, the 
Commission generally reaffirms its 1973 criteria. In addition, it notes 
that where appropriate, in considering applications for new generic 
names for fibers that are of the same general chemical composition as 
those for which a generic name already has been established, rather 
than of a chemical composition that is radically different, but that 
have distinctive properties of importance to the general public as a 
result of a new method of manufacture or their substantially 
differentiated physical characteristics, such as their fiber structure, 
it may allow such fiber to be designated in required information 
disclosures by either its generic name, or alternatively, by its 
``subclass'' name. The Commission will consider this disposition when 
the distinctive feature or features of the subclass fiber make it 
suitable for uses for which other fibers under the established generic 
name would not be suited or would be significantly less well suited.
    The Commission believes that Courtaulds' current application 
describes a subclass of generic rayon fibers with significant 
distinctions to consumers resulting from physical characteristics of 
the fiber and its new mode of manufacture that meet the above standard 
for allowing designation by the subclass name ``lyocell.'' Courtaulds' 
application and other documents and materials related to the petition 
describe the lyocell fiber, its manufacture and possible uses as 
follows:
    Lyocell fiber results from the dissolution of cellulose into an 
aqueous solution of N-methyl morpholine oxide and the precipitation of 
the fiber out of solution. This process is unique among methods used to 
manufacture other existing rayons. As a result, the molecular structure 
of lyocell fiber is radically different from that of other rayons in 
that it has a substantially 

[[Page 62354]]
higher degree of polymerization and greater crystallinity. These 
differences induce high wet and dry tenacity as well as high initial 
wet modulus in lyocell fiber. Consequently, garments made from the 
fiber are highly resistant to shrinkage and wrinkling and therefore do 
not require drycleaning, unlike other rayons. In addition to its use in 
apparel, Courtaulds maintains that lyocell may be used to produce 
biodegradable paper and hydro-entangled nonwoven products since, unlike 
other rayons, it fibrillates upon beating.

Section B. Invitation to Comment

    In today's notice, the Commission is soliciting comments on all 
aspects of the appropriateness of the proposed amendment to Rule 7(d). 
Before adopting this proposed amendment, the Commission will give 
consideration to any written comments and materials submitted to the 
Secretary of the Commission within the time period stated above. 
Submissions will be available for public inspection in accordance with 
the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and Commission 
Regulations on normal business days between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 
5 p.m. at the Public Reference Room, Room 130, Federal Trade 
Commission, 6th & Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

Section C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an 
initial and final regulatory analysis, 5 U.S.C. 603-604, are not 
applicable to this document because it is believed the amendment, if 
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. In considering the economic 
impact of the proposed amendment on manufacturers and retailers, the 
Commission notes that the amendment will impose no obligations, 
penalties, or costs. The amendment would simply allow covered companies 
to use the term ``lyocell'' as an alternative generic description for 
``rayon'' for a well-defined subcategory of rayon fibers. The amendment 
would impose no additional labeling requirements nor would it mandate 
any changes in labeling.
    To ensure, however, that no substantial economic impact is being 
overlooked, public comment is requested on the effect of the proposed 
amendment on costs, profit, competitiveness, and employment in small 
entities. Subsequent to the receipt of public comments, the Commission 
will decide whether the preparation of a final regulatory flexibility 
analysis is warranted. Accordingly, based on available information, the 
Commission hereby certifies, pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 605(b), that the proposed amendment will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This notice serves as certification to that effect for the purposes of 
the Small Business Administration.

Section D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed amendment does not constitute a ``collection of 
information'' under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, P.L. 104-13, 
109 Stat. 163, and the implementing regulation, 5 CFR Part 1320 et seq.
    The generic name petition request has already been submitted to the 
OMB and has been assigned a control number, 3084-0047.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 303

    Labeling, Textiles, Trade practices.

    Authority: Sec. 7(c) of the Textile Fiber Products 
Identification Act, 15 U.S.C. 7(c); Sec. 553 of the Administrative 
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-28555 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M