[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 164 (Friday, August 24, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48600-48603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-16841]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 303


Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products 
Identification Act

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to a 
petition filed by Mohawk Industries, Inc. (``Mohawk''), E. I. du Pont 
de Nemours and Company (``DuPont''), and PTT Poly Canada (``PTT 
Canada'') (all hereinafter ``Petitioners'') solicits comments on 
amending Rule 7(c) of the Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber 
Products Identification Act (``Textile Rules'') to establish a new 
generic fiber subclass name and definition within the existing 
definition of ``polyester'' for a specifically proposed subclass of 
polyester fibers made from poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (``PTT''). 
Petitioners state that PTT fiber, while having the same general 
chemical composition of polyester, has distinctive features of 
durability, resilience, softness, and ability to stretch with recovery 
that make PTT fiber significantly more suitable than conventional 
polyester (``PET'') for carpet and apparel. This notice also seeks 
comments on whether to amend Rule 7(c) to broaden or clarify its 
definition of polyester to describe more accurately the molecular 
structure and physical characteristics of PTT and any similar fibers, 
in the event that the petition does not warrant the establishment of a 
new subclass for PTT.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until November 12, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments. 
Comments should refer to ``16 CFR Part 303--Textile Rule 8, Mohawk, 
DuPont, and PTT Canada Comment, Matter No. P074201'' to facilitate the 
organization of comments. A comment filed in paper form should include 
this reference both in the text and on the envelope, and should be 
mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade Commission/
Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex K), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. Comments containing confidential 
material, however, must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled 
``Confidential,'' and must comply with Commission Rule 4.9(c).\1\ The 
FTC is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by 
courier or overnight service, if possible, because postal mail in the 
Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to 
heightened security precautions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for 
confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for 
the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment 
to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted 
or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with 
applicable law and the public interest. See Commission Rule 4.9(c), 
16 CFR 4.9(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments filed in electronic form should be submitted by following 
the instructions on the web-based form at http://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-Mohawk, DuPont and PTT Canada Comment. To 
ensure that the Commission considers an electronic comment, you must 
file it on that web-based form. You may also visit http://www.regulations.gov to read this Notice, and may file an electronic 
comment through that website. The Commission will consider all comments 
that www.regulations.gov forwards to it.
    The FTC Act and other laws the Commission administers permit the 
collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as 
appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive 
public comments that it receives, whether filed in paper or electronic 
form. Comments received will be available to the public on the FTC 
website, to the extent practicable, at http://www.ftc.gov. As a matter 
of discretion, the FTC makes every effort to remove home contact 
information for individuals from the public comments it receives before 
placing those comments on the FTC website. More information, including 
routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's 
privacy policy at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Podoll Frankle, Attorney, 
Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 
Commission, Washington, DC, 20580; (202) 326-3022.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

    The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (``Textile Act'') 
requires certain disclosures in textile labeling and advertising, and 
authorizes the Commission to promulgate rules needed to enforce the 
Textile Act and establish generic fiber names. Section 4(b)(1) of the 
Textile Act states that a textile product is misbranded unless it is 
labeled to show, among other elements, the percentages, by weight, of 
the constituent fibers in the product, designated by their generic 
names and in order of predominance by weight. 15 U.S.C. 70b(b)(1). 
Section 4(c) provides that the same information required by section 
4(b)(1) (except the percentages) must appear in written advertisements 
if any disclosure or implication of fiber content is made about a 
covered textile product. 15 U.S.C. 70b(c). Section 7(c) directs the 
Commission to promulgate such rules, including the establishment of 
generic names of manufactured fibers, as are necessary to enforce the 
Textile Act's directives. 15 U.S.C. 70e(c).
    The Commission's Textile Rules address the Textile Act's fiber 
content disclosure requirements, including the establishment of generic 
fiber names. Rule 6 (16 CFR 303.6) requires manufacturers to use the 
generic names of the fibers contained in their textile products in 
making fiber content disclosures. Rule 7 of the Textile Rules (16 CFR 
303.7) sets forth the generic names and definitions that the Commission 
has established for manufactured fibers. Rule 8 (16 CFR 303.8) 
describes the procedures for establishing new generic names.

B. Procedural History

    On February 21, 2006, Petitioners petitioned the Commission for the 
establishment of a new generic subclass within the existing polyester 
category for fibers made from PTT\2\ and submitted a revised petition 
(``Petition'')

[[Page 48601]]

on September 7, 2006.\3\ After an initial analysis with the assistance 
of a textile expert, tentatively and without the benefit of public 
comment, the Commission agreed with Petitioners that PTT fiber 
technically falls within Rule 7(c)'s definition of ``polyester''\4\ (16 
CFR 303.7(c)). The Commission further determined that Petitioners' 
petition for a new subclass name and definition merits further 
consideration. Accordingly, on April 18, 2006, the Commission assigned 
Petitioners the designation ``PTT001'' for temporary use in identifying 
PTT fiber pending a final determination as to the merits of their 
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Mohawk sells a line of carpets manufactured from PTT under 
the trademark SmartStrand[reg]. DuPont markets PTT under the 
trademark Sorona[reg]. PTT Poly Canada markets PTT under the 
trademark Corterra[reg] Polymers.
    \3\ The revised petition, which restates and supplements the 
contents of the February 21, 2006 petition is available in 
electronic form at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/textile/info/PTTGenAppRev8-30-06.pdf. The revised petition, 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, NW, Washington, 
DC. 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. P074201, ``Mohawk, DuPont, and PTT Canada 
Generic Fiber Petition Rulemaking.'' The comments also may be viewed 
on the Commission's website at www.ftc.gov.
    \4\ Rule 7(c) defines ``polyester'' as ``a manufactured fiber in 
which the fiber-forming substance is any long chain synthetic 
polymer composed of at least 85% by weight of an ester of a 
substituted aromatic carboxylic acid, including but not restricted 
to substituted terephthalate units, and para substituted hydroxy-
benzoate units.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of the Petition

    Petitioners state that PTT fiber satisfies the Commission's 
standard for establishing a generic subclass because PTT has the same 
general chemical composition as the Commission's established polyester 
generic fiber category, but also has distinctive properties of 
importance to the general public as a result of its unique chemistry, 
molecular design, and fiber structure. In order to differentiate PTT 
from PET, Petitioners submitted tests showing that PTT fiber is 
superior to PET fiber with respect to durability, resilience, softness, 
and ability to stretch with recovery. According to Petitioners, these 
features make PTT fiber significantly more suitable than PET for carpet 
and apparel applications.
    Regarding carpet applications, Petitioners state that, prior to the 
use of PTT in residential carpet, the principal types of man-made fiber 
used to manufacture carpet were nylon, PET, and polypropylene. 
Petitioners observe that carpet made from PET is less highly regarded 
than nylon carpet because PET lacks the durability and resilience of 
nylon. Petitioners further state that, with the introduction of carpet 
made from PTT, consumers have a choice of a fiber that has stain 
resistance properties superior to those of nylon, along with 
durability, resilience, and softness that matches that of the highest 
quality nylon residential carpet.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Petitioners did not submit testing to support their 
statement that PTT has stain resistance properties superior to 
nylon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners contend that apparel made from PTT is superior to 
apparel made from PET with respect to two attributes important to 
consumers. Specifically, Petitioners state that DuPont conducted a 
survey to determine the attributes of fabrics of greatest importance to 
consumers. From a list of eight attributes,\6\ consumers identified 
ease of care, softness, and ability to stretch with recovery as the 
most important attributes. Petitioners state that PTT fiber is superior 
to PET fiber with regard to two of the three attributes, softness and 
ability to stretch with recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The eight attributes were: ability to stretch, softness 
(also referred to as ``drape''), ability to dye easily, ease of 
care, composition from renewable resources, stain resistance, 
resilience, and printability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Petitioners' Testing

    Petitioners submitted testing to illustrate the improved 
performance of PTT fibers over PET fibers with respect to durability/
resilience and softness for residential carpet, and softness and 
ability to stretch with recovery for apparel.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See pages 13-19 of the Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Carpet Durability/Resilience

    Petitioners submitted three tests that purportedly measured carpet 
durability and resilience. The first, the Hexapod Wear Test (three 
trials were conducted), which simulates carpet wear through a 
mechanical device, was conducted on three identical constructions of 
nylon, PET, and PTT fiber carpet samples. According to Petitioners, all 
three of the trials performed on these materials\8\ revealed that both 
nylon and PTT fibers wear significantly better than PET. The second 
test measured wear after 20, 40, and 60 thousand cycles of human 
footsteps on the carpet (``Walk Test''). Consistent with the Hexapod 
wear results, Petitioners stated that both nylon and PTT carpet 
performed much better than PET carpet. The third test examined the 
durability and resilience of PTT and PET carpets using the Hexapod Wear 
Test and the Walk Test. Table 4 of the Petition indicates that PTT 
outperformed PET on both tests.\9\ These tests did not find any 
significant difference between PTT and nylon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Tests were performed after 12, 24, and 36 thousand wear 
cycles. According to the Petition, the Hexapod Wear Test is an 
appearance retention test endorsed by the Carpet and Rug Institute. 
The test stimulates the most aggressive parts of a walking action 
using an accelerated process.
    \9\ See page 18 of the Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Carpet and Apparel Softness

    Petitioners submitted a test measuring softness as well. According 
to the Petition, fabric softness can be measured by the force or stress 
required to deflect or strain the fiber a given distance. Thus, in 
order to test carpet softness, Petitioners tested the stress versus the 
strain performance of PET and PTT fibers, as compared to nylon, and 
also compared the force required to deflect these yarns a given 
distance. This second measure was performed by placing the yarns 
between two clamps and depressing the yarns a particular distance. 
Figure 16 of the Petition indicates that PTT is softer than nylon and 
PET because it takes less force to deflect the PTT fiber.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See pages 20-21 of the Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Fabric Stretch with Recovery

    Petitioners also conducted two tests comparing the stretch and 
recovery properties of fabrics knitted or woven from PTT and PET. In 
the first test, knitted fabrics, with identical constructions and made 
from PTT and PET yarns, were dyed, heat-set, and softened. Figure 17 of 
the Petition indicates that PTT has better recovery\11\ and a lower 
set\12\ than PET.\13\ In the second test, PTT woven fabric has more 
stretch than PET.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Recovery'' refers to the extent to which the fabric 
returns to its original shape after being stretched.
    \12\ ``Set'' refers to the extent to which the fabric remains 
stretched when it does not recover completely.
    \13\ See page 22 of the Petition.
    \14\ See page 23 of the Petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Additional Information

A. Proposed Subclass Definition

    Petitioners propose the following definition for a new subclass of 
polyester at 16 CFR 303.7(c):

    ``[a] manufactured fiber in which the fiber-forming substance is 
any long chain synthetic polymer composed of at least 85% by weight 
of an ester of a substituted aromatic carboxylic acid, including but 
not restricted to substituted terephthalate units, [formula omitted] 
and para substituted hydroxy-benzoate units, [formula omitted] and 
where specifically the glycol used to form the ester consists of at 
least ninety mole percent 1,3-propanediol.''

[[Page 48602]]

B. Extent of PTT Fiber Commercialization

    Petitioners state that PTT is currently being used in both carpet 
and apparel applications and has been commercialized by DuPont and PTT 
Canada. Also, Petitioners observe that carpet fiber spun from PTT has 
been commercialized by Mohawk (including Lees Carpets), Shaw 
Industries, and CAF Extrusions. The Petition additionally states that 
apparel fibers spun from PTT have been commercialized by more than 20 
different mills.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See page 24 of the Petition for PTT apparel fiber mills 
grouped by apparel type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Recycling Properties

    Petitioners observe that while recycling of man-made polymers 
currently is of secondary importance to U.S. consumers, to the extent 
that PET and PTT are included in the same polymer pool for recycling 
(because they are currently both classified as ``polyester''), mixing 
of the two polyesters could have adverse effects on the melt 
temperature and tenacity properties of the recycled polymer. 
Petitioners state that if the two polymers are mixed during processing, 
different safe handling procedures will be required and thus suggest 
that the two polymers should be separated during recycling. 
Accordingly, Petitioners argue that use of a different generic name 
would facilitate the separation of polymers during recycling.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Petitioners also observe that the byproducts of PTT and PET 
have different properties and thus different Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (``OSHA'') exposure limits; accordingly, 
recycling firms need to be aware of these differences. Thus, 
Petitioners argue that a new generic name for PTT could help such 
firms comply with OSHA regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Invitation to Comment

    The Commission is soliciting comment on whether the petition meets 
the standard for granting applications for new generic fiber subclass 
names, and thus, whether it should amend Rule 7(c)'s polyester 
definition by creating a separate subclass name and definition for PTT 
and other similar qualifying fibers within the polyester category. The 
Commission articulated a standard for establishing a new generic fiber 
``subclass'' in the ``lyocell'' proceeding (16 CFR 303.7(d)). 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.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 60 FR 62352, 62353 (Dec. 6, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, a new generic fiber subclass for PTT may be appropriate 
if it: (1) has the same general chemical composition as an established 
generic fiber category, and (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.
    The Commission also seeks comment on two alternatives, if the 
Commission were to find that the petition does not meet the above 
standard: (1) amending Rule 7(c) to address PTT without establishing a 
subclass (e.g., by broadening or clarifying the definition of 
polyester); or (2) retaining Rule 7(c) in its current form. In addition 
to soliciting comments on the merits of Petitioners' proposed amendment 
to Rule 7(c)'s definition of polyester, the Commission solicits 
comments on Petitioners' suggested names for the proposed new subclass. 
Petitioners propose, in order of preference, the following names: 
``triexta,'' ``resisoft,'' and ``durares.''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Petitioners state that they conducted word searches for 
each of the proposed generic subclass names and found no confusing 
similar use of these names.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. The full text of the 
Petition can be found on the Commission's website at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/textilejump.htm.

VI. Communications by Outside Parties to Commissioners or Their 
Advisors

    Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral 
communications respecting the merits of this proceeding from any 
outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor will be 
placed on the public record. See 16 CFR 1.26(b)(5).

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act relating to an 
initial regulatory analysis (5 U.S.C. 603-605) do not apply to this 
proposal because the Commission believes that neither of the amendments 
under consideration, if promulgated, will affect small entities. The 
Commission has tentatively reached this conclusion with respect to the 
proposed alternative amendments because neither would impose additional 
obligations, penalties, or costs. The alternative amendments simply 
would: (1) allow covered companies to use a new generic fiber subclass 
name and definition for polyester, or (2) broaden or clarify the 
definition of polyester to describe more accurately the molecular 
structure of polyester. Likewise, the alternative amendments impose no 
additional labeling requirements. Accordingly, based on available 
information, the Commission certifies, pursuant to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that neither of the proposed 
amendments, if promulgated, would affect small entities. This document 
serves as notice to the Small Business Administration of the agency's 
certification of no effect.
    To ensure that no substantial economic impact is being overlooked, 
however, the Commission requests public comment on the effect of the 
proposed alternative amendments 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. Moreover, while the Commission, as 
explained above, concludes that it is not required to prepare an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis for this matter, the Commission 
nonetheless has prepared the following such analysis to facilitate 
public comment on the impact, if any, of the proposed alternative 
amendments on small entities:

A. Description of the Reasons that Action by the Agency Is Being 
Considered

    The Commission, pursuant to Petitioners' petition, solicits 
comments on whether to (1) amend Rule 7(c) of the Textile Rules to 
establish a new generic fiber subclass name and definition to the 
existing definition of ``polyester'' for a specifically proposed 
subclass of polyester fibers made from PTT; or (2) amend Rule 7(c) to 
broaden or clarify the definition of ``polyester'' to describe more 
accurately the allegedly unique molecular structure and physical

[[Page 48603]]

characteristics of polyester fibers made from PTT and any similar 
fibers; or (3) retain Rule 7(c)'s definition of polyester.

B. Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed 
Alternative Amendments

    As explained above, the Commission's Textile Rules address the 
Textile Act's requirements for disclosure of fiber content in textile 
labeling, including the establishment of generic fiber names. 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. Rule 7 of the Textile Rules 
(16 CFR 303.7) sets forth the generic names and definitions that the 
Commission has established for manufactured fibers. Rule 8 (16 CFR 
303.8) describes the procedures for establishing new generic names. In 
accordance with Rule 8, Petitioners have petitioned the Commission to 
amend Rule 7(c)'s definition of ``polyester'' by creating a separate 
subcategory and definition for PTT. The Commission seeks comment on 
this proposal and the alternatives of amending Rule 7(c) to broaden or 
clarify the definition of ``polyester'' or not amending the Rule.

C. Description of and, Where Feasible, Estimate of the Number of Small 
Entities to Which the Proposed Alternative Amendments Will Apply

    The Commission believes that the proposed alternative amendments 
would not affect small entities because neither the Petitioners nor any 
other entity affected by these proposed alternative amendments would be 
a ``small entity'' under the Small Business Administration Size 
Standards. Although there may be some ``downstream'' textile 
manufacturers that could be ``small entities'' whose labeling may 
change as a result of these proposed alternative amendments, the 
amendments would impose no new or different compliance obligations, 
penalties, or costs on them. The Commission, however, invites comment 
and information on this issue.

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    The Textile Rules impose disclosure requirements, and the proposed 
alternative amendments would not impose any additional obligations. One 
of the proposed alternative amendments simply would allow covered 
companies to use a new generic fiber subclass name and definition as an 
alternative to an existing generic name. The other proposed alternative 
amendment would simply broaden or clarify the definition of polyester. 
Neither of the proposed amendments would impose any additional labeling 
or advertising requirements.

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    The Commission has not identified any other federal statutes, 
rules, or policies that would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed alternative amendments.

F. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Amendments

    The provisions of the Textile Rules directly reflect the 
requirements of the Textile Act and there are no other alternatives to 
the proposed alternative amendments, which reflect the nature of the 
Petitioners' fiber product.

VIII. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''), 44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520, the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') approved the 
information collection requirements contained in the Textile Rules and 
assigned OMB Control Number 3084-0101.\19\ The proposed rule 
amendments, as discussed above, would broaden the definition of 
polyester to describe more accurately the allegedly unique molecular 
structure and physical characteristics of PTT or, alternatively, allow 
covered companies to use a new generic fiber subclass name and 
definition for polyester. Neither proposal would change the existing 
paperwork burden on covered companies. Accordingly, neither proposed 
alternative amendment would impose any new or affect any existing 
reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements that 
are subject to review by OMB under the PRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The OMB clearance for the Textile Rules expires on February 
28, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. E7-16841 Filed 8-23-07: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-S