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

<html><head><title>532047-00018.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>532047-00018</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Received: </b></td><td>10/3/2007 11:00:05 AM</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Organization: </b></td><td>Enhance Floor Trends, Inc.</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Commenter: </b></td><td>Elisabeth Stubbs</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>State: </b></td><td>GA</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>Polyester (PET) carpet fiber has historically had a bad reputation among flooring dealers and consumers.  It performed very poorly in the 1970's and 1980's.  The fiber &quot;wore out&quot; extremely quickly and was just not a good product.  Dealers and consumers with any knowledge of this poor performance are definitely hesitant to sell and purchase the PTT product.  (Once bitten, twice shy.)  The new PTT fiber is experiencing NONE of these performance problems.  It is definitely a negative to have to call it by the same same as PET polyester.  Many customers refuse to consider the new PTT fiber because they mistakenly expect the performance to be the same as with the PET polyester.  Being able to call the PTT product something other than polyester will convey to the consumer far more accurately the way the carpet can be expected to perform.  It wll eliminate much confusion to the dealer and consumer, making the carpet purchasing experience easier and much less confusing.


Thank you for your time.</body></html>