| Comment Number: | 532047-00021 |
| Received: | 10/4/2007 11:46:11 PM |
| Organization: | Airbase Carpet Mart |
| Commenter: | Michael Longwill |
| State: | DE |
| Agency: | Federal Trade Commission |
| Rule: | Rules and Regulations Under The Textile Fiber Products Identification Act |
| No Attachments |
Comments:
Dear Sir, My company has been selling retail floor covering for over 40 years. Historically, PET polyester has had a bad reputation compared to other fiber systems made from nylon and olefin. At one point in its history, many carpets made from PET polyester failed so miserably that retailers had to replace many jobs which quickly gave PET polyester a bad name. Today, through technological advancements in heat setting, the twist has improved and the carpets do perform. However, the reputation of PET polyester still remains tainted by its past. I am very supportive of the new fiber technology of PTT as it will allow us, the retailer, to sell with more confidence. While the new PTT fiber does have the same general chemical composition of polyester, it is unfair to the consumer to label it as such because she will believe that the fiber will perform poorly like PET polyester of the past and will be inferior to its counter part fiber systems in nylon today. At the same time, the exact opposite is true; the fiber performs much better then PET and is comparable to premium nylon products. For this fiber to be successful and the consumer to have a clearer understanding of its benefits, it is imperative that it not be labeled as polyester. This product performs so much better than PET that it should be allowed a new name that extols its benefits and will not confuse the consumer by PET polyesters soiled and matted past. Sincerely, Michael Longwill President, Airbase Carpet Mart