b'EAGLE RIDGE 1\nMarch 19, 2002\n\nMr. Neil Blickman\nFederal Trade Commission\n600 W. Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20580\n\nPetition to Establish a New Generic Subclass\nThe Dow Chemical Company (Dow), world headquartered in Midland, Michigan, hereby\nsubmits this Petition to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for the establishment of a new\ngeneric subclass (lastol) within the existing olefin category.\nDow seeks to establish a generic subclass for its new crosslinked elastic fiber (CEF) for three\nreasons:\n1. Dow CEF fiber has the same general chemical composition as the FTC\xe2\x80\x99s established olefin\ngeneric fiber category:\n- the fiber-forming substance in CEF is composed of at least 85 percent by weight of\nethylene, propylene, or other olefin units.\n- specifically, greater than 98 percent by weight of the fiber-forming substance in CEF\nis composed of ethylene and other olefin units (e.g., 1-octene).\n2. Dow CEF, while having the general chemical composition of olefin, has a unique chemistry,\nmolecular design, and fiber structure which enables distinct, important properties to the\nconsumer:\n- the fiber is elastic with a wide temperature tolerance, enabling comfort stretch\ngarments that can be repeatedly washed, dried, and ironed without loss of stretch and\nelasticity\n3. Dow CEF fiber\xe2\x80\x99s distinctive elasticity and temperature tolerance features enable olefin to be\nconsidered for new apparel applications beyond the conventional socks and thermal underwear:\n- stretch cotton separates like dresses, shirts, and slacks, are now possible and desirable\nfor their comfort stretch and easy-care properties\n\n1\n\n\x0cIn short, Dow CEF is an atypical olefin fiber differing significantly \xe2\x80\x93 in chemistry, process, and\nproperties \xe2\x80\x93 from conventional olefin fiber manufactured for apparel uses today per the FTC\xe2\x80\x99s\ndefinition. Dow CEF is not a rubber, per the FTC\xe2\x80\x99s definition, because the fiber-forming\nsubstance in Dow CEF is a polyolefin with low but significant crystallinity versus an amorphous\n(non-crystalline) polyolefin. And last, Dow CEF is not a spandex, per the FTC\xe2\x80\x99s definition,\nbecause CEF is not made of polyurethane.\nThe FTC definitions for olefin fiber1, rubber fiber2, and spandex fiber3 are listed below for\nreference.\n\nOlefin. A manufactured fiber in which the fiber-forming substance is any long chain synthetic polymer composed\nof at least 85 percent by weight of ethylene, propylene, or other olefin units, except amorphous (noncrystalline)\npolyolefins qualifying under paragraph (j)(1) of this section.\n1\n\nRubber. A manufactured fiber in which the fiber-forming substance is comprised of natural or synthetic rubber,\nincluding the following categories:\n\n2\n\n(1) A manufactured fiber in which the fiber-forming substance is a hydrocarbon such as natural rubber,\npolyisoprene, polybutadiene, copolymers of dienes and hydrocarbons, or amorphous (noncrystalline)\npolyolefins.\n(2) A manufactured fiber in which the fiber-forming substance is a copolymer of acrylonitrile and a diene\n(such as butadiene) composed of not more than 50 percent but at least 10 percent by weight of acrylonitrile\nunits.\nThe term lastrile may be used as a generic description for fibers falling within this category.\n(3) A manufactured fiber in which the fiber-forming substance is a polychloroprene or a copolymer of\nchloroprene in which at least 35 percent by weight of the fiber-forming substance is composed of\nchloroprene units.\n(emphasis added)\n3Spandex. A manufactured fiber in which the fiber-forming substance is a long chain synthetic polymer\ncomprised of at least 85 percent of a segmented polyurethane.\n\n2\n\n\x0cI\n\nDow Crosslinked Elastic Fiber (CEF): The Atypical Olefin Fiber\nA. Properties of Dow CEF Versus Conventional Olefin\n1.\n\nUnique Chemistry of Dow CEF\n\nDow CEF is the first manufactured olefin fiber founded on metallocene-based\npolyolefin elastomer chemistry. Although the fiber-forming substance in Dow CEF\nis made from olefin monomers, Dow CEF fiber has a unique molecular structure, a\nunique morphology and unique properties when compared with any olefin fiber\npreviously seen on the market. This unique combination of properties is a direct\nresult of the polymerization chemistry, which includes the use of a constrained\ngeometry catalyst, which is a member of the metallocene family.\nThis catalyst has a single type of active site allowing precise control of molecular\narchitecture of the polymer. Specifically, greater than 98 percent of the fiber forming\nsubstance in Dow CEF is a homogeneously branched ethylene4 interpolymer5\ncomposed of ethylene and other olefin comonomer units (typically octene).\nVery technically, the polymer in Dow CEF contains short chain branching; has no\nmeasurable high-density polymer fraction; has a narrow, essentially single peak in\nTREF (temperature rising elution fractionation) and differential scanning calorimetry\n(DSC) profile curve; and has a narrow molecular weight distribution prior to\ncrosslinking. In simple terms, the molecules in Dow CEF are all very similar in size\nand composition to each other. These molecular characteristics lead to important and\ndistinct fiber properties.\nThe alpha-olefin comonomer in Dow CEF is typically octene, and is present at a high\nlevel (typically in excess of 30 weight percent). This high comonomer content leads to\nDow CEF fiber\xe2\x80\x99s low but significant level of crystallinity and low density.\nIn contrast, olefin fiber manufactured today is based on conventional multi-site\ncatalyst technology (such as Ziegler/Natta catalysts). Consequently, it has a broad\ncompositional molecular weight distribution and low or no comonomer content.\n\n4Homogeneously branched ethylene polymer. Refers to an ethylene interpolymer in which the comonomer is\nrandomly distributed within a given polymer molecule and where substantially all of the polymer molecules have\nthe same ethylene to comonomer molar ratios (WO 99/60060) and are manufactured using so called\nhomogeneous or single site catalyst systems known in the art as metallocene catalyst or constrained geometry\ncatalysts system. (See also US 6,140,442, \xe2\x80\x9cElastic Fibers, Fabrics and Articles Fabricated therefrom\xe2\x80\x9d and US\n6,194,532, \xe2\x80\x9cElastic Fibers\xe2\x80\x9d)\n\n5Interpolymer. Refers to polymers prepared by the polymerization of at least two different types of monomers,\ntypically ethylene and octene.\n\n3\n\n\x0c2.\n\nUnique Morphology of Dow CEF\n\nAs a result of its unique chemical structure, Dow CEF has lower crystallinity\nthan conventional olefin fibers. (See Summary Table 1, page 15.) Specifically, the\nhigh comonomer content leads to Dow CEF fiber\xe2\x80\x99s low but significant level of\ncrystallinity (12 \xe2\x80\x93 16 weight percent) (Figure 1a, page 5) and low density (from 0.87\nto 0.875 g/cc). Unlike conventional olefin fiber where the polymer crystals are in\nlamellae form, the crystals in the Dow CEF fiber-forming substance are in fringe\nmicelle form. The fringed micellar crystalline morphology6 and the low but significant\nlevel of crystallinity in Dow CEF imparts elastic properties not seen in other olefin\nfiber manufactured today. This unique morphology of the Dow CEF polymer results\nin high stretch (such that the fiber can be stretched to at least five times its original\nlength before breaking) and high elasticity or snap back (such that when a fiber is\nstretched to twice its length and then released, the fiber recovers to within 25% of its\noriginal length).\nIn contrast, conventional olefin fiber, such as drawn polypropylene fiber (Figure 1b,\npage 5), is highly crystalline with degree of crystallinity greater than 50 percent and\ndensity greater than 0.90 g/cc. Additionally, conventional olefin has very low stretch\n(for example, 33 percent elongation to break) and no significant elasticity at high\nstretch.\nThis combination of elasticity, elongation, and mechanical strength found in Dow\nCEF fiber are not found in conventional olefin fiber manufactured today. (WO\n99/60060, US Patent allowed, but not yet issued.)\n\n6\n\nBenedikt, George M., Brian L. Good all (1998). Metallocene-C atalyzed P olymers: Ma terials,\nPro perties, Processing & M arkets. Norwich, New York: Plastics Design Library, pp. 127-133.\n\n4\n\n\x0cFigure 1: Differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) showing crystallinity and melting\npeak temperature of Dow CEF fiber (a) versus conventional drawn polypropylene\nfiber (b). Degree of crystallinity is determined from heat of fusion in the melting\nendotherm.\n\nDow CEF (a)\n\nDrawn Polypropylene Fiber (b)\n\n\x0c3. Unique Manufacturing Process of Dow CEF\nDow CEF fibers are manufactured by melt spinning followed by crosslinking.\nMelt spinning\nThe Dow CEF fiber is fabricated using a melt spinning process. For instance, the\npolymer may be melt spun into mono-filament or multi-filament fibers with a broad\nrange of deniers (ranging from less than 20 to over 140 denier) on conventional\nelastic melt spinning equipment, such as that used for thermoplastic urethane fibers.\nIn one specific example, the fibers were separately melt spun on fiber extrusion\nequipment consisting of an extruder, gear pump and spinneret. The extruder provided\na melt temperature of 236\xc2\xb0C and each polymer melt stream was fed to the gear pump\nwhich pressurized the melt and passed it through a 200 mesh pack followed by a 34\nhole spinneret die. The spinneret had a 4:1 L/D and the holes had a diameter of 800\nmicrons. The resin output from the spinneret was controlled at 0.78 gram/hole/\nminute. The fibers were quenched with a room temperature air high velocity blower.\nCrosslinking\nAfter spinning, the polymer chains in CEF fiber are not connected to one another\nthrough covalent bonds. As a result, in an appropriate solvent, such as boiling xylene\nor tri-chloro benzene, the polymer will dissolve. The fiber will also begin to flow and\ndeform if heated above the crystalline melting point (about 68\xc2\xb0C). In order to prevent\ndissolution and impart high-temperature dimensional stability, the fiber is crosslinked.\nAfter the crosslinking process, the polymer chains in the fiber are linked to one\nanother via covalent bonds (Figure 2, below). The crosslinked fiber is characterized as\nhaving xylene extractables of less than about 70 weight percent as defined in\naccordance with ASTM D-2765.\nFigure 2: Schematic of morphology of crosslinked Dow CEF fiber (a) versus\nuncrosslinked polymer (b).\nDow CEF Fiber (a)\n\nUncrosslinked Fiber (b)\n\nCro sslinks and Crystals\n\nFringe-Miceller C rystals\n\n56\n\n\x0cThe crosslinking process is conducted by any means capable of economically forming\ncovalent links between the polymer chains including electron beam, beta irradiation,\ngamma irradiation, corona radiation, peroxides, allyl compounds, silane compounds\nand UV radiation with or without crosslinking catalysts. For example, crosslinking\ncan be accomplished via high energy electron beam irradiation of the fiber spools.\nThe irradiation source can be any electron beam generator operating in a range of 150\nkilovolts to 12 megavolts with a power output capable of supplying the desired\ndosage in megarads. The voltage can be adjusted to appropriate levels. The\nirradiation is usually carried out at a dosage between 3 to 35 megarads. Irradiation\nmay be carried out at room temperature or at a lower temperature, and is typically\nconducted on the fiber spools after fiber spinning.\n4.\n\nUnique Properties of Dow CEF\n\nDow CEF fibers have elasticity, high temperature stability, and chemical\nresistance\nElasticity\nThe low but significant level of crystallinity imparts elasticity to the Dow CEF fiber\nwhereas no olefin fiber manufactured today is elastic. Elasticity is defined as the\nability of a strained material to recover its original size and shape, immediately after\nremoval of the stress that causes deformation7. DOW CEF fiber\xe2\x80\x99s favorable stretch\n(at least five times its original length before breaking) and elasticity or snap back\n(stretching to twice its length then, when released, recovering to within 25 percent of\nits original length) are a consequence of its low but significant level of crystallinity\n(Figure 3, page 8). Because of this, CEF can be successfully used in clothing\napplications where stretch is desired.\nIn contrast, conventional olefin fiber is highly crystalline, with degrees of crystallinity\nof greater than 50 percent. The crystals of conventional olefin fiber are also in\nlamellae form, unlike crystals in the Dow CEF fiber-forming substance which are in a\nfringe micelle form. As a result, conventional olefin fiber is stiff, and essentially,\nnon-elastic. Typical olefin fibers (in their manufactured, \xe2\x80\x9cdrawn,\xe2\x80\x9d form) exhibit very\nlow elongation before breaking (typically less than 50%) and therefore cannot be\nsuccessfully used in today\xe2\x80\x99s apparel markets for stretch clothing.\n\n7 Ko Sa C omm unicatio ns and Pub lic Affairs (1 999 ). Dictionary of Fiber & Textile Technology.\nCharlotte, N.C.: KoSa, p. 69.\n\n7\n\n\x0cFigure 3: Tensile data of Dow CEF fiber (a) versus drawn polypropylene fiber (b).\n\nFigure 4: Dynamic mechanical thermal analysis (DMTA) of Dow CEF (a) versus\ndrawn polypropylene fiber (b). Note: Dow CEF maintains its mechanical integrity\nwell above its crystalline melting point (ca. > 68\xc2\xb0C), whereas drawn polypropylene\ndoes not.\n\n8\n\n\x0cHigh temperature stability, chemical resistance\nDow CEF is substantially crosslinked with covalent crosslinks that connect adjacent\npolymer chains into a contiguous 3-dimensional polymer network (Figure 2a, page 6).\nThis crosslinked polymer network structure allows Dow CEF to maintain its shape\nand mechanical integrity above its crystalline melting temperature. Above its melting\ntemperature, the mechanical integrity of Dow CEF is provided by covalent crosslinks.\nIn fact, Dow CEF retains its shape at temperatures up to 220\xc2\xb0C \xe2\x80\x93 well in excess of\nconventional olefin\xe2\x80\x99s melting point which occurs at or below 170\xc2\xb0C (Figure 4, page 8; Figure 7, page\n10). Furthermore, Figure 5, below, shows the heat stability of Dow CEF in nitrogen up to about 350\xc2\xb0C\n(> 220\xc2\xb0C).\nThis crosslinked polymer network structure also allows Dow CEF to maintain its integrity in solvents\nwhich typically dissolve the starting polymer (Figure 7, page10). In contrast, conventional olefin fiber is\nnot crosslinked and therefore loses shape and mechanical integrity and/or dissolves above its crystalline\nmelting temperatures which range up to about 170\xc2\xb0C.\nFigure 5: DSC melting curve in nitrogen of Dow CEF from room temperature\nto 500\xc2\xb0C.\n\nFurthermore, Figure 5, above, shows the heat stability of Dow CEF in nitrogen up to about 350\xc2\xb0C.\n\n9\n\n\x0cFigure 6: Photographs showing mechanical integrity of Dow CEF (a)\nversus conventional olefin fiber (b) which loses shape and integrity at 170\xc2\xb0C.\nDow CEF\n\nConventional Olefin Fiber\n\na1\n\nb1\n\n25\xc2\xbaC, CEF\n\n25\xc2\xbaC, Drawn PP\n\na2\n\nb2\n\n170\xc2\xbaC, Drawn PP\n\n220\xc2\xbaC, CEF\n\nFigure 7: Photographs showing uncrosslinked fiber (a) which has dissolved in TCB after heating to\n150\xc2\xb0C and crosslinked Dow CEF fiber (b) which continues to maintain its shape and structural\nintegrity under same conditions. Note: you can see the Dow CEF fiber still present in the TCB\nsolvent.\n\nCrosslinked fiber\nafter heating in\nTCB 150\xc2\xb0C/2 hours\n\nUncrosslinked fiber\n\nafter heating in TCB\n150\xc2\xb0C/2 hours\n(7a)\n\n(7b)\n10\n\n\x0cDow CEF fiber\xe2\x80\x99s ability to withstand high temperatures has compelling advantages for the textile\nmanufacturer: they can use more efficient dye and process methods requiring temperatures in excess of\n170\xc2\xb0C. There are also advantages for consumers: they can repeatedly wash, dry; and iron fabrics\ncontaining CEF at typical temperatures (up to 210\xc2\xb0C) without destroying the stretch properties of CEF\nfiber. In contrast, since conventional olefin fiber manufactured today loses its shape and mechanical\nintegrity in temperatures ranging from 105 \xe2\x80\x93 170\xc2\xb0C, it cannot withstand the rigors of high heat and\nrepeated launderings. Consequently, conventional olefin fiber is not widely used in apparel applications\ntoday where the consumer seeks easy wash \xe2\x80\x98n\xe2\x80\x99 wear care.\nTherefore, Dow CEF fiber is a uniquely differentiated olefin fiber and exhibits significant property\nimprovements including shape retention and stability at very high temperatures plus improved fabric\nprocessing and consumer care characteristics not found in conventional olefin fiber manufactured\ntoday.\n\nB. Properties of Dow CEF Versus Rubber Fibers\n1.\n\nDifferences in Chemistry and Morphology\n\nDow CEF fiber differs significantly from rubber fibers. The fiber-forming substance in Dow CEF\nis a polyolefin having a low but significant level of crystallinity. Therefore, Dow CEF does not fall\nwithin the FTC definition of a rubber (FTC definition of rubber, page 2).\nEvidence of low but significant crystallinity in Dow CEF fiber is provided by a standard differential\nscanning calorimetry (DSC) technique (Figure 8, page 12).\nCEF fiber exhibits approximately 16% crystallinity and a melting point of approximately 68\xc2\xb0C. In\nmarked contrast, the rubber fiber exhibits no crystallinity as indicated by lack of a discernible DSC\nendotherm.\n\n11\n\n\x0cFigure 8: Differential scanning calorimetry of Dow CEF (a) versus rubber (b). Degree of\ncrystallinity is determined from heat of fusion in melting endotherm.\nDow CEF (a)\n\nRubber Fiber (b)\n\n12\n\n\x0c2. Process Distinctions\nDow CEF fiber is produced by a melt spinning / crosslinking process. In contrast, rubber fibers are\ncommonly made by extruding a pre-cured aqueous latex dispersion into an acid bath. This extrudate is\ncoagulated to solidify the rubber. The resulting thread then proceeds into a drying and a curing oven.\nAlternatively, rubber fibers can be made by slitting prevulcanized sheets (cut rubber).\nTherefore, CEF and rubber fibers are manufactured from radically different materials via different\nprocesses.\n3.\n\nProperty Differentiation\n\nRubber fibers are not crystalline, whereas CEF fibers have a low but significant level of\ncrystallinity. As a result, CEF fibers have unique differentiating properties.\nRubber fibers are amorphous (non-crystalline) polymers, and are vulcanized typically using sulfur and\nheat. As a result of this chemical structure, rubber fibers have uniform tensile properties across a broad\ntemperature range. In contrast, CEF fibers have mechanical properties which derive from both the\ncrystallinity and covalent crosslinks between carbon atoms \xe2\x80\x93 without using sulfur. At low\ntemperature, the presence of crystallites dominates the mechanical properties of CEF. As the\ntemperature is raised above the crystalline melting point (ca. > 68\xc2\xb0C), the modulus of CEF fibers drops\nby an order of magnitude; the modulus above melting point is determined solely by the degree of\ncovalent crosslinks. Therefore, CEF has unique temperature-dependent mechanical properties which\nare radically different from those of rubber fibers. Since rubber has absolutely no crystallinity, the\nmodulus is\nessentially flat with respect to temperature increases. The figure shown below (Figure 9) dramatically\ndemonstrates this feature.\nFigure 9: Dynamic mechanical thermal analysis (DMTA) of Dow CEF (a) versus rubber fiber (b).\n\n13\n\n\x0cSecondly, since CEF has a low but significant level of crystallinity at room temperature, the fiber\nexhibits higher tenacity (strength) at break compared to rubber fiber which is amorphous (Figure 10,\nbelow). The improved mechanical strength and toughness of Dow CEF is important to survive\nrigorous textile fabrication processes.\n\nFigure 10: Tensile data of Dow CEF fiber (a) versus rubber fiber (b) showing lower tenacity at break\nof rubber fiber due to rubber\xe2\x80\x99s amorphous character.\n\nAnd last, since Dow CEF has a low but significant level of crystallinity at room temperature, CEF\nexhibits higher tensile set (lower elastic recovery) than rubber when extended to greater than 100%\nelongation. The 5-cycle tensile set measurement (Figure 11, page 15) shows this contrasting behavior\nbetween CEF and rubber fiber. The permanent set of CEF is a direct manifestation of its crystallinity\nand stands in marked contrast to the low tensile set of rubber fibers.\n\n14\n\n\x0cFigure 11: Tensile set data of Dow CEF (a) versus rubber (b) showing permanent set of Dow CEF\nversus negligible set of rubber fiber (5 cycle elongation).\n\nSummary Table #1\nProperty\n\nCEF\n\nConventional\nOlefin 8\n\nRubber\n\nCrystallinity, wt%\n\n12 to 16\n\n> 50\n\n0\n\nElongation, %\n\n> 400\n\n< 15-200\n\n600 \xe2\x80\x93 800\n\nBreaking Strength\n(gm/den)\n\n> 0.9\n\n1.7 \xe2\x80\x93 6.8\n\n0.45\n\nInitial Modulus\n\n0.3\n\n34 \xe2\x80\x93 56\n\n0.02\n\nDensity (gm/cc)\n\n0.87 \xe2\x80\x93 0.875\n\n0.90 \xe2\x80\x93 0.91\n\n~ 1.0\n\nDissolution\nCharacteristics\nTemperature\nStability\n\nDoes not dissolve\n\nDissolve\n\nDoes not dissolve\n\nUp to > 220\xc2\xb0C\n\nUp to 170\xc2\xb0C\n\nUp to 350\xc2\xb0C\n\nManufacturing\nMethod\n\nMelt spinning\nfollowed by\ncrosslinking\n\nMelt spinning\n\nExtrusion/vulcanization or\nsplitting prevulcanized\nsheets\n\n8\n\nPolypropylene drawn fiber data (elongation, breaking strength, initial modulus) from Fourne, Franz (1998). Synthetic Fibers:\nMachines and Equipment, Manufacture, Properties. Cincinnati, Ohio: Hanser/Gardner Publications, Inc. pp. 840 & 850.\n\n15\n\n\x0cII\n\nDow CEF: A New Generic Subclass \xe2\x80\x94 Lastol\nA. Why Dow Seeks a New Generic Subclass\nDow CEF meets the broad definition of olefin fiber. However, CEF has unique elastic properties,\nthermal resistance, molecular structure, morphology, and property improvements which differentiate it\nfrom conventional olefin fiber manufactured today. Today\xe2\x80\x99s olefin \xe2\x80\x93 largely seen in carpet, thermal\nunderwear, and socks \xe2\x80\x93 does not offer the consumer stretch or the easy-care characteristics gained\nthrough high temperature tolerance. To textile mill producers, CEF enables process economies and the\nproduction of new products with atypical stretch and performance properties. To the consumer, CEF\noffers a wider choice in garments containing stretch fabric plus the benefit of easy-care laundering at\nhigher temperatures without degradation of the stretch fiber.\nB. Proposed New Generic Subclass Name \xe2\x80\x93 Lastol\nDow recognizes that a new subclass name should capture the chemical structure while also\nreferencing the radical distinction. Dow has determined Lastol to be the descriptive new subclass\nbecause it connotes an elasticized olefin. Dow proposed the following definition for Lastol:\nA manufactured crosslinked elastic fiber in which a) the fiber-forming substance is a synthetic\npolymer, with low but significant crystallinity, composed of at least 99 percent by weight of ethylene\nand at least one other olefin unit, and b) wherein the fiber exhibits substantial elasticity and heat\nresistance properties not present in traditional olefin fibers.\n\nIII\n\nCommercialization Plan and Time Table\nCommercialization of Dow CEF is imminent \xe2\x80\x93 occurring early in the second quarter of 2002.\nBeginning in 1999, Dow identified and began working with developmental partners who are leaders in\nthe fiber manufacturing and apparel industry around the world. Since the second quarter of 2001, CEF\nhas been successfully made on commercial-scale spinning equipment, with resulting quantities\nsubsequently produced and used in a wide range of fabrics including both knits and wovens. These\nfabrics have been used to make a variety of goods, but most notably for those in the apparel market and\nits various end-use segments.\nGarments made with CEF have been tested and found to meet or exceed all standard industry\nspecifications. The market testing process of garments with leading retailers is presently underway,\nwith completion expected within the coming weeks.\n\n16\n\n\x0cIf you have questions regarding this Petition, please contact Margaret Rogers in Dow\xe2\x80\x99s Washington\nD.C. office (202 429-3403) Stephen Krupp, our business attorney (979 238-2889). Steve is located in\nFreeport, Texas.\nThank you for your time and consideration.\nSincerely,\n\nAntonio Torres\nGlobal Business Director\nDow Fiber Solutions\nCc: Stephen Krupp\nMargaret Rogers\n\n17\n\n\x0c'


b'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n.\n\n.~.~\n\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION\n~\n\n~".\n\n600 PENNSYLVANIA\n\n."\n\nA VENUE, NW\n\nWASHINGTON,DC 20580\n\nDivision of Enforcement\nBureau of Consumer Protection\n\nMarch\n\n18,\n\n2002\n\nMr. Carlos Moore\nExecutive Vice President\nAmerican Textile Manufacturers Institute\n1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1200\nWashington, DC 20036-3954\nRe: ReQuestfor FTC Staff QRinion concerning Thread Count\nDear Mr. Moore:\nThis is in reply to your letter requesting a Commission staff opinion regarding the\nappropriate method for determining fabric "thread count," or yams per square inch, in textile\nproducts such as bed sheetsand pillow cases. You state that some companies are marketing\nbedding products with extremely high yam or thread counts, achieved by counting yams within a\nply as individual yams, thus dramatically and deceptively increasing the number of yams in a\nsquare inch of fabric. You make specific reference to the American Society for Testing and\nMaterials (ASTM) test method D 3775, titled "Standard Test Method for Fabric Count of Woven\nFabric," and you express the view that this method is the long-accepted industry standard for\ndetermining thread count.\nUnder the Commission\'s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. \xe0\xb8\xa2\xe0\xb8\x87 1.I(a), the Commission (and,\nunder delegated authority, its staff) may render an advisory opinion with respectto a prospective\ncburse of conduct proposed by the requesting party:\n\xe0\xb8\xa2\xe0\xb8\x87 1.1 Policy.\n(a) Any person, partnership, or corporation may requestadvice\nfrom the Commission with respectto a course of action which the\nrequesting party proposes to pursue.\nIn this instance, A TMI is not seeking advice with respectto a course of conduct it proposes to\npursue. Rather, A TMI is seeking an opinion as to whether certain representationsmade by some\nindustry members with regard to thread count might be considered deceptive under the FTC Act.\nAs such, the question is not appropriate for issuanceof a staff advisory opinion.\n\n\x0cMr. Carlos Moore\npage 2\n\n,\nAlthough we are unable to provide you with a staff advisory opinion about whether\ncounting yarns within a ply as individual yarns would be deceptive, we can advise you as to how\nthe Commission staff generally would analyze such claims. A thread count claim, like other\nobjective, material claims about a product, must be supported by a "reasonablebasis." In\ndetermining what constitutes a reasonablebasis for claims, we would consider what experts in\nthe field believe is appropriate, including whether there are relevant consensusbased test\nprocedures, such as an ASTM test procedure, or other widely acceptedindustry practices that\napply to the matter. If so, we would give suchprocedures or practices great weight in\ndetermining whether:the advertiserhas met its substantiationburden. In other related contexts,\nthe Commission has encouragedthe use of ASTM tests. SeePressRelease,FTC Announces\nActions on Wool Labeling Rules, dated March 8, 1994 (copy attached)("In its clarification of the\nprocedure used for testing the fiber content of wool products, the FTC said the industry members\nshould, where possible, use procedures established by the American Society for Testing and\nMaterials (ASTM).")\nI also wish to bring to your attention a closing letter that is on the public record\n.concerning\nan investigation of possibly deceptive practices in connection with the packaging of\ndown comforters. In that instance, the staff determined that no further Commission action was\nwarranted when the company notified the staff that it was changing its package product\ndescription from "760 White Goose Down" to "finely woven 380 2-ply fabric." (copy attached).\nPursuant to Section 1.4 of the Commission\'s Rules of Practice and Procedure, 16 C.F.R.\n\xe0\xb8\xa2\xe0\xb8\x87 1.4, your letter, together with this response,will be placed on the public record.\nI hope you will find the above information helpful.\nSincerely yours,\n\n~U.L~\n\nl> .Ntl<:.-<..4;\n\nElaine D. Kolish\nAssociate Director for Enforcement\n\nEnclosures\n\n\x0c-\n\nFederalTrade Commission Washington, D.C. 20580\n~\nIMMEDIATERRT.RASE:March 8. 1984\nFIt= A~ES\n(If\n\nM)()L\n\nACr I (2fS\n\nt-A"RI~ 1M; BOLES\n\nThe Federal\nTrade Commission has decided,\nafter\nreviewing\npublic\ncomments,\nnot to change its rule requiring\na label\nstating\nthe minimum wool content\non wool products.\nThe Commission also\nissued a clarification\nof the procedures\nit uses for testing\nwool\nproducts\nto determine\ntheir\nfiber\ncontent.\nThe FTC enforces\nwool-labeling\nrules\nunder the Wool Products\nLabeling\nAct.\nIn April\n1983, the FTC sought comments on whether\nit should\namend its\nrules\nto allow labels\nto disclose\nthe average amount,\nrather\nthan the minimum amount, of wool in fabrics\nthat contain\nrecycled\nwool or wool blend products.\nUsing the average amount\nmight provide\nconsumers more accurate\ninformation,\nthe FTC said,\nbut using the minimum assures\nthat conswners will\nreceive\nat\nleast\nthe amount of wool on the label.\nHowever,\nafter\nreviewing\nthe comments, the Commission\ndecided\nnot to amend the rule,\nbecause there was no evidence\nthe record\nto support\nthe change.\n\non\n\nIn its clarification\nof the procedure\nused for testing\nthe\nfiber\ncontent\nof wool products,\nthe FTC said the industry\nmembers\nshould,\nwhere possible,\nuse procedures\nestablished\nby the\nAmerican\nSociety\nfor Testing\nand Materials\n(ASTM).\nThe test should be made on an "oven-dry\nbasis,"\n"commercial\nmoisture\nregain"\nadded to determine\nthe\nfiber\ncontent\nof a wool product.\n\nwith\nquantitive\n\nThe ASTM defines\noven-dry\nbasis as "the condition\nof a\nmaterial\nthat has been heated under prescribed\nconditions\nof\ntemperature\nand humidity\nuntil\nthere\nis no further\nsignificant\nchange in its mass."\nCommercial\nmoisture\nregain is "an arbitrary\nvalue\nto be used with the oven-dry\nweight"\nwhen calculating\n"the\nweight\n\n".of a specific\n\ncomponent\n\nin\n\nthe\n\nanalysis\n\nof\n\nfiber\n\nblends."\n\nCopies of the Federal\nRegister\nnotice\non the minimum wool\ncontent\nrulemaking\ndecision\nare available\nfrom the FTC\'s Public\nReference\nBranch,\nRoam 130, 6th st. and Pennsylvania\nAve. N.W.,\nWashington,\nD.C. 20580; 202-523-3598;\nTTY 202-523-3638.\nNews\nmedia copies\nare available\nfrom the Office\nof Public\nAffairs,\nRoom 496, same address;\n202-523-1892.\n# # #\n\nMEDIA CONTACT:\n\nSusan Ticknor,\n\nOffice\n\nof Public\n\nAffairs,\n\n202-523-1892\n\nSTAFF-CONTACT:\n\nJerry\n\nMcDonald,\n\nBureau\n\nof Conswner\n\n202-376-2800\n\n(labels)\n\nEarl Johnson,\n202-376-2891\n\nBureau of Conswner\n(test\nmethods)\n\nProtection,\n\nProtection,\n\n\x0c." \'IC\n\n.\n\n.~\n"".\nDivision\n\nUNITED STATESOF AMERICA\n\nj\'~~\n\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION\n\n~\n.\'1:-\n\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20580\n\nof Enforcement\n\nBureau of Consumer Protection\n\nApril\n\n8, 1996\n\nJeffrey\nGoldman, President\nCalifornia\nFeather & Down Corporation\n11842 S. Alameda St.\nLynwood, CA 90262\nRe:\n\nCalifornia\n\nFeather\n\n& Down Corporation,\n\n9523373\n\nDear Mr. Goldman:\nThe Commission has conducted an investigation\ninvolving\nyour\ncompany\'s possible\nviolation\nof the Federal Trade Commission Act\nthrough the use of unfair\nacts or deceptive\nacts or practices\nin\nconnection\nwith the packaging of down comforters.\nBy letter\ndated March 12, 1996, Mr. N. Frank Wiggins stated\nthat your company is removing the reference\nto "760" from the\npackaging and labeling\nof your "White Knights\n760 White Goose\nDown Comforter."\nFurther,\nMr. Wiggins\'\nAugust 12, 1995, letter\nstated that the company had revised\nthe text of the packaging for\nthis product\nto say that the White Knights 760 White Goose Down\nComforter\ncontains\n"finely\nwoven 380 2-ply fabric.\n..."\nThe\nformer packaging had stated\n"finely\nwoven 760 threads per sq.\n.\n"\nlnc h Upon further\nreview of this matter,\nit now appears that no\nfurther\naction\nis warranted\nby the Commission at this time.\nAccordingly,\nthe investigation\nhas been closed.\nThis action is\nnot to be construed\nas a determination\nthat a violation\nhas not\noccurred,\njust as the pendency of an investigation\nshould not be\nconstrued\nas a determination\nthat a violation\nhas occurred.\nThe\nCommission reserves\nthe right\nto take such further\naction as the\npublic\ninterest\nmay require.\nSincerely,\nC---l.La..l-l\'&... ~ ~~1C_{-<...a-\\"\nElaine D. Kolish\nAssociate\nDirector\ncc:\n\nN. Frank Wiggins,\nEsq.\nVenable, Baetjer,\nHoward & Civiletti,\n1201 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 1000\nWashington,\nDC 20005-3917\n\nLLP\n\n\x0cFEDERAL\nTRA.DE\nCOMMISSION\n\n~\n\nA\nAMERICAN\nMANUFACTURERS\n\n_t)IVISION ENFORCEMENT\nTEXTILE\nINSTITUTE\n\nJanuary 31, 2002\n\nMr. Steve Ecklund\nFederal Trade Commission\nDivision of Enforcement\nWashington, DC 20580\n\nRe:\n\nRequest for FTC Staff\nOpinion on Yarn Count\n\nDear Mr. Ecklund:\nIt has come to our attention again that. some companies are marketing bed\nsheets and pillowcases to U.S. consumers where extremely high yarn or thread\ncounts are claimed -some as high as 1000 count. We believe these products\nare mislabeled, creating deceptive information for the consumer.\nLabeling these products based on a count that includes each ply in plied yarns\ndeceives the customer into believing that bedding products with higher counts\nare better when, in fact, they might be inferior because of the method used to\ndetermine the count. We wrote to the Commission regarding this same issue on\nFebruary 24, 1997 (copy enclosed) and provided a fabric sample and\nindependent lab report verifying our position.\nIn many cases, these extremely high counts are achieved by counting yams\nwithin a ply as individual yams, thus dramatically increasing the number of yarns\nin a square inch of fabric. A plied yarn is one in which two or more yarns are\ntwisted together to form a single strand.\nATMI believes this method of labeling products based on counting each\nindividual yarn in plies to be a deceptive practice, which misleads the American\n\n.\n\n1130 Connecticut Ave., NW. Suite 1200. Washington, DC 20036-3954\n202-862-0500 .fax: 202-862-0570. http://www.atmi.org\nfax on demand: 202-862-0572\n\n\x0c-\n\n,\n\npublic into making decisions to purchase items, based on false and misleading\ninformation.\nASTM method D 3775-96 (Standard Test Method for Fabric Count of Woven\nFabric) is the long-accepted industry standard for determining count. This\nmethod has been in use in this country for many years and serves as the\nindustry\'s standard way to report the count of many woven textile fabrics,\nincluding sheeting. It is based on the number of yarns in the warp direction and\nfilling direction, regardless of ply, and has become an important parameter used\nby consumers to judge the quality of sheeting products, since the higher the\ncount, the more luxurious the product.\nATMI believes that any information provided to the consumer should be true and\ncorrect so as not to be deceptive or mis-leading. We believe that plied yarns are\nproperly counted as only one yarn. For example, a fabric containing 250\nindividual four ply yarns in a square inch would be described as a "250 thread\ncount fabric, even though each thread or yarn contained four plies twisted\ntogether." It would be false and mis-leading to describe this as a 1000 thread\ncount product.\nATMI requests a staff opinion from the Federal Trade Commission on this issue.\nWe believe that manufacturers, importers and retailers of bed sheets should rely\non the ASTM D3775-96 standard test method to determine count.\n\na:;;el#\n\n~\n\nCarlos Moore\nExecutive Vice President\n\nEnclosure\n\n\x0c'


b'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\nFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION\nWASHINGTON, D.C. 20580\n\n \n\nDivision of Enforcement\nBureau of Consumer Protection\n\n\xe2\x80\x98August 6, 1999\n\nSteven S. Weiser\n\nAri L. Kaplan\n\nGraham & James, LLP\n\n885 Third Avenue\n\n21" Floor\n\nNew York, NY 10022-4834\n\nDear Mr. Weiser and Mr. Kaplan:\n\nThis is in reply to your letter requesting a written advisory opinion regarding fiber content\nlabeling of certain T-shirts, sweatshirts, sweatpants, and sweatshorts imported from Mexico. You\n_ also request a second opinion on the exclusion from labeling of certain disposable knit wipe cloths\nalso imported from Mexico.\n\n_ Based on your letter, and information that you provided over the telephone, it is my\nunderstanding that your client plans to import from Mexico into the United States various odd\nlots of textile fabrics composed of unknown percentages of cotton and polyester. Your client will\nalso acquire various discarded textile panels of U.S. origin fabric, composed of unknown\npercentages of cotton and polyester fibers. These imported odd lots.and domestic panels will then\nbe shipped into Mexico where they will be cut and sewn to make T-shirts, sweatshirts,\nsweatpants, and sweatshorts. Each such garment would be completely unique in terms of its fiber\ncontent. The finished garments will then be shipped into the United States for retail distribution\nand sale.\n\n\xe2\x80\x98\n\nB d 01 licable and tion:\n\nBefore addressing your specific concern, let me provide some background information.\nAs you note in your letter, according to Textile Rule 14(a) and (b) (16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 303.14(a) and\n(b)), textile fiber products made in whole or in part from miscellaneous scraps, Tags, odd lots, or\ntextile waste materials of undeterminable fiber content, may be labeled in various ways. Textile\nRule 14(a) sets forth the following examples for labeling:\n\x0c_ Made of miscellaneous scraps of undetermined fiber content.\n100% unknown fibers \xe2\x80\x94 rags.\nAll undetermined fibers \xe2\x80\x94 textile by-products.\n100% miscellaneous odd lots of undetermined fiber content.\nSecondhand materials \xe2\x80\x94 fiber content unknown.\n\nMade of unknown fibers \xe2\x80\x94 waste materials.\n\nIt is staff\'s opinion that the above examples are intended to apply to situations where the types of\nfibers, such as cotton or polyester, are unknown, and where the percentages are likewise, of\ncourse, unknown. Textile Rule 14(b) addresses situations in which some of the fibers are of\nknown type and percentage, and other fibers in the same product are of unknown type and\npercentage. The situation that you describe involves known fibers, but of unknown percentages.\nIt appears that neither Textile Rule 14(a) nor 14(b) precisely fit the circumstances posed in your\nletter. Although the Textile Rules do not exactly correspond to your situation, we find Wool Rule\n\n_ 29, under the Wool Products Labeling Act, may by analogy be used as guidance. Wool Rule 29\n(16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 300.29) sets forth several examples that are helpful. Because the Rule is rather\nlengthy, I will point out only the sample disclosures contained in the Rule:\n\nMade of Miscellaneous Cloth Scraps\nComposed Chiefly of Cotton With Minimum of - -- % Recycled Wool.\n\nMade of Miscellaneous Cloth Scraps\nComposed Chiefly of Rayon With Minimum of - \xe2\x80\x94 % Recycled Wool.\n\nMade of Miscellaneous Cloth Scraps\nComposed Chiefly of Cotton and Rayon With Minimum of - \xe2\x80\x94 % Recycled Wool. .\n\nMade of Miscellaneous Cloth Scraps\nContaining Cotton, Rayon and Other Non-Woolen Fibers,\nWith Minimum of \xe2\x80\x94 \xe2\x80\x94 % Recycled Wool.\n\nAnalysis\n\nBased on the information you have provided, it is our understanding that the garments in\nquestion are made from odd lots and discarded panels, some composed only of cotton, and others\nof cotton and polyester, and that the percentages of cotton and polyester are unknown and, for\npractical purposes, undeterminable. It is also our understanding that the odd lots and discarded\npanels are not from used or secondhand textile products. Staff notes that the above examples use\ndescriptive terms such as \xe2\x80\x9cMiscellaneous Cloth Scraps,\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cwaste materials,\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9c textile\n\nproducts\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cmiscellaneous odd lots.\xe2\x80\x9d To remain consistent with Textile Rule 303.14 and\nWool Rule 300.29, staff feels that it is appropriate that some such equivalent descriptive term(s)\n\x0cbe used on the labels of the garments at issue. Staff suggests the following fiber content\ndisclosures: \xe2\x80\x9cMade of scraps and odd lots of unknown percentages of cotton and polyester\nfibers,\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cComposed of cotton and polyester scraps of unknown percentages.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nYou also requested an opinion on the fiber content labeling of certain disposable knit wipe\ncloths (i.e., rags) which your client proposes to import from Mexico in either one thousand\n(1,000) pound bundles or in cardboard boxes containing cloths weighing from 10 to 100 pounds.\nThese items are made of knitted fabric (not woven fabric) and are of a disposable nature intended\nfor one-time use only. You state that it is your position that this merchandise is excluded from\nlabeling under 16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 303.45(a)(6), which provides for the exclusion of \xe2\x80\x9cnon-woven\nproducts of a disposable nature intended for one-time use only\xe2\x80\x9d from the labeling requirements\nunder the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act. Because the rags are made of knitted fabric\nand, hence, \xe2\x80\x9cnon-woven,\xe2\x80\x9d and they are \xe2\x80\x9cof a disposable nature intended for one-time use only,\xe2\x80\x9d\nstaff concurs that such rags are exempt from the labeling requirements of the Textile Act. I would\nalso point out that on page 7 of our business guide book, Threading Your Way Through the\nLabeling Requirements Under the Textile and Wool Acts (copy enclosed), \xe2\x80\x9cindustrial wiping\ncloths\xe2\x80\x9d are listed as exempt from the Textile Act.\n\nIn accordance with Section 1.3(c) of the Commission\'s Rules of Practice and Procedure\n(16 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 1.3(c)), this is a staff opinion only and has not been reviewed or approved by the\nCommission or by any individual Commissioner, and is given without prejudice to the right of the\nCommission later to rescind the advice and, where appropriate, to commence an enforcement\naction.\n\nIn accordance with Section 1.4 of the Commission\'s Rules of Practice and Procedure (16\nCFR. \xc2\xa7 1.4), your request for advice, along with this response, will be placed on the public\nrecord.\n\nT hope this has been helpful. If you have any questions do not hesitate to write to me or\n\ncall me at 202-326-2841.\nSi ,\nSea. Htc\n\nSteve Ecklund\nFederal Trade Investigator\n\nEnclosure\n\x0c'