<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC '-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN'>

<html><head><title>532047-00016.htm</title>

<meta name='vs_defaultClientScript' content='JavaScript'>

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">

<meta name='vs_targetSchema' content='http://schemas.microsoft.com/intellisense/ie3-2nav3-0'>

<meta name='Originator' content='CommentWorks'></head><body><Table>

<tr><td><b>Comment Number: </b></td><td>532047-00016</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Received: </b></td><td>10/2/2007 3:48:55 PM</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Organization: </b></td><td>Capitol Carpet and Tile</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Commenter: </b></td><td>Louis Morano</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>State: </b></td><td>FL</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Agency: </b></td><td>Federal Trade Commission</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Rule: </b></td><td>Rules and Regulations Under The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act</td></tr>

<tr><td>No Attachments</td></tr></Table>

<hr><P><b>Comments:</b></p>Putting PTT fiber in the same subclass as PET is misleading. The performance is far superior to PET. In addition as a retailer we have never had a claim ever, which I cannot say about any other fiber. In addition, because PET does and has not performed as well as some other fibers, it has a bad connotation for retail salespeople as well as consumers. Considering that PTT performs so much better then PET it is not only unfair not to give it a new name it is definitely misleading to the consumer. Puyting PTT in a separate subclass will rightfully distinguish it from the inferior PET products.</body></html>