Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, 18727-18728 [E8-7179]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 67 / Monday, April 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules Inspection/Corrective Actions (f) At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., ‘‘Compliance,’’ of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 717–27A0039, dated December 6, 2007; except, where the service bulletin specifies a compliance time after the date on the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD: Do the applicable actions specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. (1) For all airplanes: Do a general visual inspection of the drive assembly of the aft elevator standby loop for interference between the clevis and bolt of the bellcrank assembly, correct orientation of the pull-pull cable clevis bolt, and excessive freeplay of the bellcrank assembly bearing. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight. (2) For airplanes identified in the service bulletin as Group 1, Configuration 1: Modify the pull-pull cable clevis in the drive assembly of the aft elevator standby loop. Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) (g)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, ATTN: David Rathfelder, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712–4137; telephone (562) 627–5229; fax (562) 627–5210; has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO. Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 28, 2008. Ali Bahrami, Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E8–7183 Filed 4–4–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 303 Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act Federal Trade Commission. Reopening of comment period. rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS AGENCY: ACTION: The Federal Trade Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or ‘‘FTC’’), pursuant to a Petition filed by Mohawk Industries, Inc. (‘‘Mohawk’’), E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company SUMMARY: VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:07 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 214001 (‘‘DuPont’’), and PTT Poly Canada (‘‘PTT Canada’’) (hereinafter ‘‘Petitioners’’), solicited comments on whether the Commission should: amend 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’’); amend Rule 7(c) to broaden or clarify its definition of ‘‘polyester’’ to describe more accurately the PTT fiber; or retain Rule 7(c)’s definition of ‘‘polyester.’’ The Commission received comments through November 12, 2007. Based on those comments, the Commission is reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days. DATES: Comments will be accepted until May 5, 2008. ADDRESSES: 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, NW., Washington, DC 20580. Because paper mail in the Washington area and at the FTC is subject to delay, please consider submitting your comment in electronic form, as prescribed below. Comments containing any material for which confidential treatment is requested, however, must be filed in paper (rather than electronic) form, and the first page of the document 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. Comments filed in electronic form (except comments containing any confidential material) should be submitted to the FTC by clicking on the following Web link: https:// 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). PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 18727 secure.commentworks.com/ftc-Mohawk, DuPontandPTTCanadaComment and following the instructions on the Webbased form. You may also visit https:// www.regulations.gov to read this request for public comment, and may file an electronic comment through that Web site. The FTC 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. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed in paper or electronic form, will be available to the public on the FTC Web site, to the extent practicable, at https:// www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. 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 Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC’s privacy policy at https://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: In a Federal Register Notice,2 the Commission solicited comments on whether to amend 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.’’ Specifically, the Commission asked whether it should establish a new subclass of polyester fibers made from PTT. At the close of the comment period on November 12, 2007, the Commission had received 49 comments.3 With the exception of one comment, from INVISTA S. r.l. (‘‘INVISTA’’),4 all of the commenters stated that they favored amending the Textile Rules to add a generic fiber subclass designation for PTT. The Commission received INVISTA’s comment opposing the Petition three days prior to the close of the 75 day comment period. Thus, the public had 72 Fed. Reg. 48,600 (Aug. 24, 2007). The 49 comments can be found at: https:// www.ftc.gov/os/comments/textile-mohawk/ index.shtm 4 INVISTA’s comment can be found at: https:// www.ftc.gov/os/comments/textile-mohawk/53204700053.pdf 2 3 E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM 07APP1 18728 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 67 / Monday, April 7, 2008 / Proposed Rules rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with PROPOSALS only limited opportunity to review and respond to it.5 INVISTA’s comment, which includes additional testing comparing PTT with conventional polyester (‘‘PET’’), calls into question the merits of the Petition, and raises issues worthy of additional time for public review and comment. INVISTA’s comment states that Petitioners failed to meet the Commission’s standard for establishing a new generic fiber subclass for PTT. Under the Commission’s standard, a new generic fiber subclass is 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.6 INVISTA argues that Petitioners failed to satisfy the second prong of this standard for two reasons. First, INVISTA asserts that because PTT performed differently than PET on such a small percentage of performance characteristics important to consumers (two out of 10),7 PTT is not sufficiently distinctive. Thus, INVISTA argues, the Petition is ‘‘fatally flawed’’ and the 5 Prior to the comment period closing, the Commission did not receive any comments responding to INVISTA’s comment. 6 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. 60 FR 62352, 62353 (Dec. 6, 1995). 7 As set forth in Table 1 of the Petition, consumer survey evidence indicates these carpet performance characteristics are: common spills and pet accidents can be easily removed; carpet is durable; dirt and soil can be easily removed; areas where spills have been cleaned will not be visible; stain resistant properties will not diminish over time; soil resistant properties will not diminish over time; carpet color will stay the same and will not fade; heavy soil and most stains can be removed from the carpet with water; carpet pile will not shed or fuzz; and carpet is soft. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:21 Apr 04, 2008 Jkt 214001 Commission cannot conclude that PTT fibers are ‘‘significantly better suited’’ than PET fibers in carpet applications. Second, even if superiority as to only two of the top 10 carpet applications could satisfy the standard, INVISTA argues that the Petition does not substantiate the assertion that PTT is superior to PET. With regard to carpet durability, INVISTA states that Petitioner’s test was inadequate because: (1) Petitioners used the Hexapod Wear Test, a relatively light-duty test of the performance of PET and PTT, and did not use the Vettermann Drum test, which INVISTA alleges better simulates how carpet holds up under actual use; (2) INVISTA’s own testing using the Vettermann Drum test showed no meaningful difference between PET and PTT;8 and (3) Petitioners compared finer, lighter weight PET fibers with thicker, heavier weight PTT fibers, thus making a meaningful comparison impossible. INVISTA also argues that the Petition does not substantiate the assertion that PTT is superior with respect to softness. INVISTA states that rather than submitting any test results or survey data indicating how soft PTT fibers feel to consumers in actual carpet application, Petitioners presented ‘‘irrelevant’’ laboratory testing regarding deflection properties.9 INVISTA argues that Petitioners failed to show that such testing reveals differences meaningful to consumers evaluating the softness of carpets. INVISTA relies on a similar analysis to argue that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate that PTT fabrics are softer than PET fabrics.10 INVISTA submitted additional durability and appearance testing comparing PTT and PET carpets which it argued showed that ‘‘PTT performed very much like PET.’’ Only one other commenter, Independent Textile Testing Service, Inc. (‘‘Independent’’), stated that it had tested PTT. Independent stated that over the past 10 years it had been involved in extensive testing of the PTT fiber pertaining to carpet usage and that its testing included pedestrian traffic, soiling, staining, static, and colorfastness. Independent said that PTT performed much better than PET in foot traffic ratings and concluded that it would benefit the consumer to know that there were distinct differences between PET and PTT. Independent’s comment can be found at: https://www.ftc.gov/os/ comments/textile-mohawk/532047-00047.htm. 9 The Petition states that a very useful measure of the difference in yarn softness is the force or stress required to deflect or strain a fiber a given distance. 10 Concerning both carpet and apparel applications, INVISTA also argues that the Petition failed to address how different manufacturing techniques affect softness. INVISTA states that the Petition failed to address the possibility that the 8 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Furthermore, INVISTA contends that the Petition does not substantiate the assertion that PTT is superior with respect to stretch with recovery of apparel products. INVISTA argues that Petitioners failed to present the results of any reliable testing methodology showing that PTT fibers ‘‘recover’’ from stretching better than PET fibers. INVISTA states that Petitioners’ testing for stretch and recovery was flawed, in part, because Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the amount of tension used in the test simulates the tension applied in actual consumer use of garments. INVISTA’s comment discusses another reason why it believes the Commission should deny the Petition. Specifically, INVISTA states that two of Petitioners’ three suggested new generic subclass names for PTT ‘‘appear to be intentionally designed to create confusion with existing INVISTA trademarks.’’11 INVISTA raises arguments that merit further discussion.12 Because Petitioners and other interested parties had limited opportunity to review and comment on INVISTA’s comment prior to the close of the public comment period, a full discussion of the issues has been impossible. Therefore, the Commission has decided to reopen the comment period for 30 days. The Commission believes that the benefit of enhancing the record by reopening the comment period outweighs any delay stemming from reopening the comment period. 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. E8–7179 Filed 4–4–07: 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750–01–S same level of softness provided by PTT could be achieved using PET fibers and different manufacturing techniques. 11 INVISTA argues that Petitioners’ proposed names ‘‘resisoft’’ and ‘‘durares’’ are ‘‘alarmingly similar’’ to INVISTA’s ResisTech and DuraTech brand names, respectively. 12 In addition to these arguments, INVISTA dismisses as irrelevant Petitioners’ argument that it might be difficult to recycle PTT and PET together due to their different properties and that the subclass designation would help recyclers separate PTT from PET fibers to avoid any such difficulty. E:\FR\FM\07APP1.SGM 07APP1

Agencies

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 67 (Monday, April 7, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18727-18728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-7179]


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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 303


Rules and Regulations Under the Textile Fiber Products 
Identification Act

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'' or ``FTC''), 
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'') (hereinafter ``Petitioners''), solicited comments on 
whether the Commission should: amend 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''); amend Rule 7(c) to broaden 
or clarify its definition of ``polyester'' to describe more accurately 
the PTT fiber; or retain Rule 7(c)'s definition of ``polyester.'' The 
Commission received comments through November 12, 2007. Based on those 
comments, the Commission is reopening the comment period for an 
additional 30 days.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until May 5, 2008.

ADDRESSES: 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, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
    Because paper mail in the Washington area and at the FTC is subject 
to delay, please consider submitting your comment in electronic form, 
as prescribed below. Comments containing any material for which 
confidential treatment is requested, however, must be filed in paper 
(rather than electronic) form, and the first page of the document 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 (except comments containing any 
confidential material) should be submitted to the FTC by clicking on 
the following Web link: https://secure.commentworks.com/ftc-Mohawk, 
DuPontandPTTCanadaComment and following the instructions on the Web-
based form. You may also visit https://www.regulations.gov to read this 
request for public comment, and may file an electronic comment through 
that Web site. The FTC 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. All timely and responsive public comments, whether filed 
in paper or electronic form, will be available to the public on the FTC 
Web site, to the extent practicable, at https://www.ftc.gov/os/
publiccomments.shtm. 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 
Web site. More information, including routine uses permitted by the 
Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy at https://
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: In a Federal Register Notice,\2\ the 
Commission solicited comments on whether to amend 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.'' 
Specifically, the Commission asked whether it should establish a new 
subclass of polyester fibers made from PTT. At the close of the comment 
period on November 12, 2007, the Commission had received 49 
comments.\3\ With the exception of one comment, from INVISTA S. r.l. 
(``INVISTA''),\4\ all of the commenters stated that they favored 
amending the Textile Rules to add a generic fiber subclass designation 
for PTT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 72 Fed. Reg. 48,600 (Aug. 24, 2007).
    \3\ The 49 comments can be found at: https://www.ftc.gov/os/
comments/textile-mohawk/index.shtm
    \4\ INVISTA's comment can be found at: https://www.ftc.gov/os/
comments/textile-mohawk/532047-00053.pdf
_____________________________________-

 The Commission received INVISTA's comment opposing the Petition 
three days prior to the close of the 75 day comment period. Thus, the 
public had

[[Page 18728]]

only limited opportunity to review and respond to it.\5\ INVISTA's 
comment, which includes additional testing comparing PTT with 
conventional polyester (``PET''), calls into question the merits of the 
Petition, and raises issues worthy of additional time for public review 
and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Prior to the comment period closing, the Commission did not 
receive any comments responding to INVISTA's comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    INVISTA's comment states that Petitioners failed to meet the 
Commission's standard for establishing a new generic fiber subclass for 
PTT. Under the Commission's standard, a new generic fiber subclass is 
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.\6\ INVISTA argues that Petitioners failed to 
satisfy the second prong of this standard for two reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    First, INVISTA asserts that because PTT performed differently than 
PET on such a small percentage of performance characteristics important 
to consumers (two out of 10),\7\ PTT is not sufficiently distinctive. 
Thus, INVISTA argues, the Petition is ``fatally flawed'' and the 
Commission cannot conclude that PTT fibers are ``significantly better 
suited'' than PET fibers in carpet applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As set forth in Table 1 of the Petition, consumer survey 
evidence indicates these carpet performance characteristics are: 
common spills and pet accidents can be easily removed; carpet is 
durable; dirt and soil can be easily removed; areas where spills 
have been cleaned will not be visible; stain resistant properties 
will not diminish over time; soil resistant properties will not 
diminish over time; carpet color will stay the same and will not 
fade; heavy soil and most stains can be removed from the carpet with 
water; carpet pile will not shed or fuzz; and carpet is soft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, even if superiority as to only two of the top 10 carpet 
applications could satisfy the standard, INVISTA argues that the 
Petition does not substantiate the assertion that PTT is superior to 
PET. With regard to carpet durability, INVISTA states that Petitioner's 
test was inadequate because: (1) Petitioners used the Hexapod Wear 
Test, a relatively light-duty test of the performance of PET and PTT, 
and did not use the Vettermann Drum test, which INVISTA alleges better 
simulates how carpet holds up under actual use; (2) INVISTA's own 
testing using the Vettermann Drum test showed no meaningful difference 
between PET and PTT;\8\ and (3) Petitioners compared finer, lighter 
weight PET fibers with thicker, heavier weight PTT fibers, thus making 
a meaningful comparison impossible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ INVISTA submitted additional durability and appearance 
testing comparing PTT and PET carpets which it argued showed that 
``PTT performed very much like PET.'' Only one other commenter, 
Independent Textile Testing Service, Inc. (``Independent''), stated 
that it had tested PTT. Independent stated that over the past 10 
years it had been involved in extensive testing of the PTT fiber 
pertaining to carpet usage and that its testing included pedestrian 
traffic, soiling, staining, static, and colorfastness. Independent 
said that PTT performed much better than PET in foot traffic ratings 
and concluded that it would benefit the consumer to know that there 
were distinct differences between PET and PTT. Independent's comment 
can be found at: https://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/textile-mohawk/
532047-00047.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    INVISTA also argues that the Petition does not substantiate the 
assertion that PTT is superior with respect to softness. INVISTA states 
that rather than submitting any test results or survey data indicating 
how soft PTT fibers feel to consumers in actual carpet application, 
Petitioners presented ``irrelevant'' laboratory testing regarding 
deflection properties.\9\ INVISTA argues that Petitioners failed to 
show that such testing reveals differences meaningful to consumers 
evaluating the softness of carpets. INVISTA relies on a similar 
analysis to argue that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate that PTT 
fabrics are softer than PET fabrics.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Petition states that a very useful measure of the 
difference in yarn softness is the force or stress required to 
deflect or strain a fiber a given distance.
    \10\ Concerning both carpet and apparel applications, INVISTA 
also argues that the Petition failed to address how different 
manufacturing techniques affect softness. INVISTA states that the 
Petition failed to address the possibility that the same level of 
softness provided by PTT could be achieved using PET fibers and 
different manufacturing techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, INVISTA contends that the Petition does not 
substantiate the assertion that PTT is superior with respect to stretch 
with recovery of apparel products. INVISTA argues that Petitioners 
failed to present the results of any reliable testing methodology 
showing that PTT fibers ``recover'' from stretching better than PET 
fibers. INVISTA states that Petitioners' testing for stretch and 
recovery was flawed, in part, because Petitioners failed to demonstrate 
that the amount of tension used in the test simulates the tension 
applied in actual consumer use of garments.
    INVISTA's comment discusses another reason why it believes the 
Commission should deny the Petition. Specifically, INVISTA states that 
two of Petitioners' three suggested new generic subclass names for PTT 
``appear to be intentionally designed to create confusion with existing 
INVISTA trademarks.''\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ INVISTA argues that Petitioners' proposed names 
``resisoft'' and ``durares'' are ``alarmingly similar'' to INVISTA's 
ResisTech[reg] and DuraTech[reg] brand names, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    INVISTA raises arguments that merit further discussion.\12\ Because 
Petitioners and other interested parties had limited opportunity to 
review and comment on INVISTA's comment prior to the close of the 
public comment period, a full discussion of the issues has been 
impossible. Therefore, the Commission has decided to reopen the comment 
period for 30 days. The Commission believes that the benefit of 
enhancing the record by reopening the comment period outweighs any 
delay stemming from reopening the comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In addition to these arguments, INVISTA dismisses as 
irrelevant Petitioners' argument that it might be difficult to 
recycle PTT and PET together due to their different properties and 
that the subclass designation would help recyclers separate PTT from 
PET fibers to avoid any such difficulty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. E8-7179 Filed 4-4-07: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-S

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.