[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36551-36554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-13151]


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

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: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') solicits 
comments on whether to amend Rule 7(m) of the Rules and Regulations 
Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (``Textile Rules'') 
to establish a new generic fiber subclass name and definition as an 
alternative to the generic name ``olefin'' for a specifically proposed 
subclass of olefin fibers manufactured by the Dow Chemical Company 
(``Dow''), of Midland, Michigan. Dow suggested the name ``lastol'' for 
the fiber, which it described as an elastic, cross-linked olefin fiber 
capable of retaining its shape at high temperatures and referred to as 
``CEF.''

DATES: Comments will be accepted through August 12, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to: Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Trade Commission, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington DC 20580. Comments should be identified as ``16 CFR Part 
303--Textile Rule 8 Dow Comment--P948404.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Blickman, Attorney, Division of 
Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 
Washington, DC 20580; (202) 326-3038.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Rule 6 of the Textile Rules (16 CFR 303.6) requires manufacturers 
to use the generic names of the fibers contained in their textile 
products in making fiber content disclosures on labels, as required by 
the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (``Textile Act''), 15 
U.S.C. 70b(b)(1). Rule 7 of the Textile Rules (16 CFR 303.7) sets forth 
the generic names and definitions that the Commission has established 
for synthetic fibers. Rule 8 (16 CFR 303.8) describes the procedures 
for establishing new generic names.
    Dow applied to the Commission on October 18, 2001, for a new olefin 
fiber subclass name and definition, and supplemented its application 
with additional information and test data on December 12, 2001, January 
16, 2002, and March 19, 2002.\1\ Dow stated that its new cross-linked 
elastic fiber, CEF, is a manufactured olefin textile fiber with a 
cross-linked polymer network structure. Dow stated that CEF meets the 
broad definition of olefin fiber in the Textile Rules, 16 CFR 303.7(m). 
According to Dow, however, CEF differs from commercially available 
olefin fibers because of its elasticity and wide temperature tolerance, 
which make it a good choice for easy-care stretch apparel applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Dow's petition and supplements thereto are on the rulemaking 
record of this proceeding. This material, as well as any comments 
filed in this proceeding, will be available for public inspection in 
accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, and 
the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 4.11, at the Consumer 
Response Center, Public Reference Section, Room 130, Federal Trade 
Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. Any 
comments that are filed will be found under the Rules and 
Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, 16 
CFR Part 303, Matter No. P948404, ``Dow Generic Fiber Petition 
Rulemaking.'' The comments and petition also may be viewed on the 
Commission's website at www.ftc.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of CEF's fiber structure, Dow maintained that CEF has 
the following distinctive properties: (1) Stretch and recovery power 
that is far superior to that of any olefin fiber; (2) shape retention 
at temperatures in excess of 170[deg]C, which enables CEF to survive 
rigorous manufacturing and consumer care processes; and (3) chemical 
resistance to solvents that typically dissolve conventional olefins. 
Dow asserted that olefin, widely recognized as a dependable carpet 
fiber that has no stretch or elastic recovery and poor high temperature 
stability, is an inappropriate categorization for the elastic olefin 
fiber, CEF, which is targeted for apparel applications. According to 
Dow, CEF will offer consumers a wider choice in garments containing 
stretch fabric. Dow contends, in essence, that it would be confusing to 
consumers if CEF is called simply ``olefin.''
    Dow, therefore, petitioned the Commission to establish the generic 
name ``lastol'' as an alternative to, and a subclass of, ``olefin.'' In 
addition, Dow proposed that the Commission add the following sentence 
to the current definition of olefin in Rule 7(m) to define CEF and 
similar fibers as a subclass of olefin:

    Where the fiber is a manufactured cross-linked elastic fiber in 
which a) the fiber-forming substance is a synthetic polymer, with 
low but significant crystallinity, composed of at least 99 percent 
by weight of ethylene and at least one other olefin unit, and b) the 
fiber exhibits substantial elasticity and heat resistance properties 
not present in traditional olefin fibers, the term lastol may be 
used as a generic description of the fiber.

The effect of Dow's proposed amendment would be to allow use of the 
name ``lastol'' as an alternative to the generic name ``olefin'' for 
the subcategory of olefin fibers meeting the further criteria contained 
in the sentence added by the proposed amendment.
    After an initial analysis with the assistance of a textile expert, 
the Commission has determined that Dow's proposed new fiber technically 
falls within Rule 7(m)'s definition of

[[Page 36552]]

``olefin.'' \2\ The Commission has further determined that Dow's 
application for a new subclass name and definition merits further 
consideration. Accordingly, the Commission has issued Dow the 
designation ``DCC 0001'' for temporary use in identifying CEF fiber 
pending a final determination on the merits of the application for a 
new generic fiber subclass name and definition. A final determination 
will be based on whether the record in this proceeding indicates that 
Dow meets the Commission's criteria for issuing new fiber subclass 
names and definitions, as described in Part II, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Rule 7(m) defines ``olefin'' as ``[a] manufactured fiber in 
which the fiber-forming substance is any long chain synthetic 
polymer composed of at least 85 percent by weight of ethylene, 
propylene, or other olefin units, except amorphous (noncrystalline) 
polyolefins qualifying under paragraph (j)(1) of this section.'' 16 
CFR 303.7(m). Rule 7(j)(1) defines ``rubber,'' in part, as ``[a] 
manufactured fiber in which the fiber-forming substance is comprised 
of natural or synthetic rubber, including the following categories: 
(1) [a] manufactured fiber in which the fiber-forming substance is a 
hydrocarbon such as natural rubber, polyisoprene, polybutadiene, 
copolymers of dienes and hydrocarbons, or amorphous (noncrystalline) 
polyolefins. 16 CFR 303.7(j)(1). In its petition, Dow stated that 
CEF is not a rubber because CEF fibers have a low but significant 
level of crystallinity, whereas rubber fibers are not crystalline. 
In addition, CEF exhibits much higher tensile set (lower elastic 
recovery) than rubber when extended to greater than 100% elongation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Invitation to Comment

    The Commission is soliciting comment on Dow's application 
generally, and on whether the application meets the Commission's 
criteria for granting applications for new generic fiber subclass 
names.
    The Commission first articulated standards for establishing a new 
generic fiber ``subclass'' in the proceeding to allow use of the name 
``lyocell'' as an alternative generic description for a specifically 
defined subcategory of ``rayon'' fiber, pursuant to 16 CFR 303.7(d).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ There, the Commission noted 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, the Commission 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.
    60 FR 62352, 62353 (Dec. 6, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its recent notice of proposed rulemaking regarding DuPont's 
proposal to establish a generic fiber subclass of ``polyester,'' 67 FR 
7104 (Feb. 15, 2002), the Commission further articulated that a new 
generic fiber subclass may be appropriate in cases where the proposed 
subclass fiber: (1) Has the same general chemical composition as an 
established generic fiber category; (2) has distinctive properties of 
importance to the general public as a result of a new method of 
manufacture or substantially differentiated physical characteristics, 
such as fiber structure; and (3) the distinctive feature(s) make the 
fiber suitable for uses for which other fibers under the established 
generic name would not be suited, or would be significantly less well 
suited.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The criteria for establishing a new generic subcategory are 
different from the criteria to establish a new generic category. The 
Commission's criteria for granting applications for new generic 
names are as follows: (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; and (3) the granting 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 
these criteria in consideration of any future applications for 
generic names, and in a systematic review of any generic names 
previously granted that no longer meet these criteria. The 
Commission announced these criteria on Dec. 11, 1973, 38 FR 34112, 
and later clarified and reaffirmed them on Dec. 6, 1995, 60 FR 
62353, on May 23, 1997, 62 FR 28343, on Jan. 6, 1998, 63 FR 447 and 
63 FR 449, on Nov. 17, 2000, 65 FR 69486, and on Feb. 15, 2002, 67 
FR 7104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within the established 24 generic names for manufactured fibers, 
there are three cases where such generic name alternatives may be used: 
(1) Pursuant to Rule 7(d), 16 CFR 303.7(d), within the generic category 
``rayon,'' the term ``lyocell'' may be used as an alternative generic 
description for a specifically defined subcategory of rayon fiber; (2) 
pursuant to Rule 7(e), 16 CFR 303.7(e), within the generic category 
``acetate,'' the term ``triacetate'' may be used as an alternative 
generic description for a specifically defined subcategory of acetate 
fiber; and (3) 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.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In a fourth case under consideration, DuPont has proposed 
that pursuant to Rule 7(c), 16 CFR 303.7(c), within the generic 
category ``polyester,'' the term ``elasterell-p'' be used as an 
alternative generic description for a specifically defined 
subcategory of polyester fiber.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dow's application may describe a subclass of generic olefin fibers 
with distinctive features resulting from physical characteristics of 
the fiber and its method of manufacture, which meets the above standard 
for allowing designation by the subclass name ``lastol.'' 
Alternatively, CEF may fit within the current definition of olefin in 
Rule 7(m), with or without need for clarification. This notice of 
proposed rulemaking, therefore, suggests three approaches to resolve 
the situation, and requests comment from the public on the relative 
merits of each:
    1. Amend Rule 7(m) to broaden its definition for olefin to better 
describe the allegedly unique molecular structure and physical 
characteristics of CEF and any similar fibers (without creating a new 
subclass for CEF);
    2. Amend Rule 7(m)'s definition for olefin by creating a separate 
subclass name and definition for CEF and other similar qualifying 
fibers within the olefin category; or
    3. Deny Dow's application because CEF fiber fits within Rule 7(m)'s 
definition of olefin without need for any change.
    In today's notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission is 
soliciting comments on all aspects of the appropriateness of Dow's 
proposed amendment to Rule 7(m)'s definition of olefin. Although the 
Commission initially has determined that Dow's new fiber technically 
falls within the existing Rule 7(m), 16 CFR 303.7(m), definition of 
``olefin,'' the Commission believes it is in the public interest to 
solicit comments on whether it should amend Rule 7(m) by creating a 
subclass to recognize CEF's characteristics, or otherwise address the 
petition. Before deciding whether to amend Rule 7, the Commission will 
consider any comments submitted to the Secretary of the Commission 
within the above-mentioned comment period.

III. Dow's Petition

    Dow's petition and supplemental filings described in detail the CEF 
fiber. The following subsections are excerpted substantially verbatim.

A. CEF's Chemistry, Structure, and Manufacturing Process

    According to Dow, CEF is the first manufactured olefin fiber 
founded on metallocene-based polyolefin elastomer chemistry. Dow's CEF 
fiber is manufactured using a melt spinning process. After spinning, 
the fiber is crosslinked in order to prevent dissolution and impart 
high-temperature dimensional stability. After the crosslinking process, 
the polymer chains in the fiber are linked to one another via covalent 
bonds.

[[Page 36553]]

    The interpolymer \6\ in CEF has been made from ethylene and, 
typically, octene in excess of 30 weight percent using a constrained 
geometry catalyst, a member of the metallocene family. The catalyst 
allows precise control of the molecular architecture of the polymer, 
which prior to crosslinking has a narrow molecular weight distribution. 
As a result, the molecules in CEF are very similar in size and 
composition to each other. In contrast, Dow states that typical olefin 
fiber manufactured today results from conventional multi-site catalyst 
technology (such as Ziegler-Natta catalysts). Consequently, typical 
olefin fiber has a broad compositional molecular weight distribution, 
and low or no comonomer content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Interpolymer refers to polymers prepared by the 
polymerization of at least two different types of monomers, 
typically ethylene and octene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of CEF's unique chemical structure, its high comonomer 
content, CEF has lower crystallinity and density than conventional 
olefin fibers. Unlike conventional olefin fiber where the polymer 
crystals are in lamellae form,\7\ the crystals in the CEF fiber-forming 
substance are in fringe micelle form.\8\ According to Dow, the fringed 
micellar crystalline morphology and the low, but significant, level of 
crystallinity in CEF impart elastic properties not seen in typical 
olefin fibers. The unique morphology of the CEF polymer results in high 
stretch and elasticity. In contrast, Dow asserts that conventional 
olefin fiber, such as drawn polypropylene fiber, is highly crystalline 
and dense. Additionally, conventional olefin fiber has low stretch and 
no significant elasticity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In lamellae form, the polymer chains are folded in the 
crystalline or ordered regions.
    \8\ In fringe micelle form, the polymer chains are parallel to 
each other in the crystalline regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. CEF's Distinctive Properties as a Result of a New Method of 
Manufacture or Substantially Differentiated Physical Characteristics, 
Such as Fiber Structure

1. Elasticity
    According to Dow, the most notable characteristic (and of greatest 
importance to consumers) of CEF is its elasticity, which is far 
superior to that of any conventional olefin fiber. This property is a 
direct result of CEF's fiber structure. Dow states that CEF's favorable 
stretch (at least five times its original length before breaking) and 
elasticity (stretching to twice its length and, when released, 
recovering to within 25 percent of its original length) are a 
consequence of its low but significant level of crystallinity. As a 
result, CEF can be successfully used in clothing applications where 
stretch is desirable.
    In contrast, Dow states that conventional olefin fiber is highly 
crystalline, with a degree of crystallinity greater than 50 percent. 
The crystals of conventional olefin fiber are in lamellae form, unlike 
crystals in the CEF fiber-forming substance, which are in a fringe 
micelle form. As a result, conventional olefin fiber manufactured today 
is stiff and inelastic. According to Dow, typical olefin fibers (in 
their manufactured, ``drawn,'' form) exhibit very low elongation before 
breaking (typically less than 50%) and, therefore, cannot be used 
successfully in today's apparel markets for stretch clothing.
2. High Temperature Stability
    Dow states that CEF's covalent crosslinks connect adjacent polymer 
chains into a contiguous three-dimensional polymer network. This 
crosslinked polymer network structure allows CEF to maintain its shape 
and mechanical integrity above its crystalline melting temperature. In 
fact, Dow asserts that CEF retains its shape at temperatures up to 
220[deg]C, well in excess of conventional olefin's melting point, which 
occurs at or below 170[deg]C.
    According to Dow, CEF's ability to withstand high temperatures has 
compelling advantages for textile manufacturers who can use more 
efficient dye and process methods requiring temperatures in excess of 
170[deg]C. Dow states that CEF also has advantages for consumers who 
can repeatedly wash, dry, and iron fabrics containing CEF at typical 
temperatures (up to 210[deg]C) without destroying CEF's stretch 
properties. In contrast, Dow asserts that since conventional olefin 
fiber manufactured today loses its shape and mechanical integrity at 
temperatures ranging from 105-170[deg]C, it cannot withstand the rigors 
of high heat and repeated launderings. Consequently, conventional 
olefin fiber is not widely used in apparel applications today where the 
consumer seeks easy wash and wear care.
3. Chemical Resistance
    Dow states that CEF's crosslinked polymer network structure also 
allows CEF to maintain its integrity in solvents that typically 
dissolve the starting polymer. In contrast, according to Dow, 
conventional olefin fiber is not crosslinked and, therefore, loses 
shape and mechanical integrity and/or dissolves above its crystalline 
melting temperatures which range up to about 170[deg]C.
4. Summary of CEF's Physical Properties
    The physical properties of CEF and conventional olefin fiber are 
summarized in the table below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Property                                   CEF                          Conventional Olefin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crystallinity, wt%.....................  12-16..................................  50
Elongation, %..........................  400.........................  <15--200
Breaking Strength (gm/den).............  0.9.........................  1.7-6.8
Initial Modulus........................  0.3....................................  34-56
Density (gm/cc)........................  0.87-0.875.............................  0.90-0.91
Dissolution Characteristics............  Does not dissolve......................  Dissolves
Temperature Stability..................  Up to 220[deg]C.............  Up to 170[deg]C
Manufacturing Method...................  Melt spinning followed by crosslinking.  Melt spinning
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 36554]]

C. CEF's Distinctive Feature(s) Allegedly Make the Fiber Suitable for 
Uses for Which Other Olefin Fibers Would Not Be Suited, or Would Be 
Significantly Less Well Suited

    Dow asserted that CEF is suitable for uses for which olefin fibers 
are not suited, or not as well suited. Dow's petition stated:

    Today's olefin--largely seen in carpet, thermal underwear, and 
socks--does not offer the consumer stretch or the easy-care 
characteristics gained through high temperature tolerance. To 
textile mill producers, CEF enables process economies and the 
production of new products with atypical stretch and performance 
properties. To the consumer, CEF offers a wider choice in garments 
containing stretch fabric plus the benefit of easy-care laundering 
at higher temperatures without degradation of the stretch fiber.\9\

    \9\ See Dow's petition dated March 19, 2002, at page 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to its commercialization plans, Dow stated that 
beginning in 1999, it identified and began working with developmental 
partners who are leaders in the fiber manufacturing and apparel 
industry around the world. Since the second quarter of 2001, CEF has 
been successfully made on commercial-scale spinning equipment, with 
resulting quantities subsequently produced and used in a wide range of 
fabrics, including both knits and wovens. These fabrics have been used 
to make a variety of goods, most notably for the apparel market. The 
market testing process of garments with leading retailers is presently 
underway, with completion expected within the near future. Dow expects 
commercialization of CEF to begin at the end of the second quarter of 
2002. In effect, therefore, Dow has argued that granting the petition 
would facilitate the use of CEF fiber in consumer applications, and 
using a new generic term (like lastol) would help consumers identify 
products made from CEF. Thus, Dow has maintained that a new generic 
fiber subclass name would be important to the public at large, not just 
knowledgeable professionals.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an 
initial regulatory analysis (5 U.S.C. 603-604) are not applicable to 
this proposal, because the Commission believes that the amendment, if 
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The Commission has tentatively 
reached this conclusion with respect to the proposed amendment, because 
the amendment would impose no additional obligations, penalties or 
costs. The amendment simply would allow covered companies to use a new 
generic name for a new fiber that may not appropriately fit within 
current generic names and definitions. The amendment would impose no 
additional labeling requirements.
    To ensure that no substantial economic impact is being overlooked, 
however, the Commission requests public comment on the effect of the 
proposed amendment on costs, profits, and competitiveness of, and 
employment in, small entities. After receiving public comment, the 
Commission will decide whether preparation of a final regulatory 
flexibility analysis is warranted. Accordingly, based on available 
information, the Commission certifies, pursuant to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that the proposed amendment, if 
promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed amendment does not constitute a ``collection of 
information'' under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PL 104-13, 109 
Stat. 163) and its implementing regulations. (5 CFR 1320 et seq.) The 
collection of information imposed by the procedures for establishing 
generic names (16 CFR 303.8) has been submitted to OMB and has been 
assigned control number 3084-0101.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 303

    Labeling, Textile, Trade Practices.

    Authority: Sec. 7(c) of the Textile Fiber Products 
Identification Act (15 U.S.C. 70e(c)).

    By direction of the Commission.
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 02-13151 Filed 5-23-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P