[Federal Register: August 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 164)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48600-48603]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24au07-18]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=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://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov
to read this Notice, and may file an electronic
comment through that website. The Commission will consider all comments
that http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://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://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=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://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=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'')
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://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=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 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://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.''
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://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=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
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