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

<html><head><title>532047-00003.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>532047-00003</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Received: </b></td><td>9/26/2007 1:49:34 PM</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Organization: </b></td><td>Prattville Carpet, Inc.</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>Commenter: </b></td><td>Ronny Boles</td></tr>

<tr><td><b>State: </b></td><td>AL</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>09-26-2007 To Whom It May Concern: RE: 16 CFR Part 303- Textile Rule 8, Mohawk, Dupont, and PTT Canada Comment Matter No. po74201 We feel PTT fiber, while having the general chemical composition of polyester, is a better product than what people traditionally think of as polyester. PET historically has not had good wear characteristics and many customers will not even consider this product. If we have to call it polyester, we believe it will mislead the consumer as to how good the product really is. The product performs so much better than PET that it should be allowed a new name. Furthermore, forcing a fiber, with much better performance than PET, to use the same name, will limit the consumer's ability to purchase the product. We strongly recommend that the PTT fiber should be allowed to have a new name. We are having tremendous success with the SmartStrand product, and it would help us to have it labeled without any reference to polyester. Sincerely, Ronny Boles Owner </body></html>