83 FR 50484 - Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of Viewable Pictures Shown by Television Receiving Sets
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 195 (October 9, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 195 (October 9, 2018)
| Page Range | 50484-50487 | |
| FR Document | 2018-21803 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 9, 2018)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 50484-50487] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-21803] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 410 Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of Viewable Pictures Shown by Television Receiving Sets AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Federal Trade Commission (``Commission'') has completed its regulatory review of its Trade Regulation Rule Concerning the Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of Viewable Pictures Shown by Television Receiving Sets (``Picture Tube Rule'' or ``Rule''), as part of its systematic review of all current Commission regulations and guides. Pursuant to that review, the Commission now determines that the Rule is no longer necessary to prevent deceptive claims regarding the size of television screens and to encourage uniformity and accuracy in their marketing. The Commission, therefore, repeals the Rule. DATES: This rule is effective January 7, 2019. ADDRESSES: Relevant portions of the record of this proceeding, including this document, are available at https://www.ftc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Andrew Singer, Attorney, (202) 326-3234, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, CC-9528, Washington, DC 20580. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Commission promulgated the Picture Tube Rule in 1966 \1\ to prevent deceptive claims regarding the size of television screens and to encourage uniformity and accuracy in marketing. When the Commission adopted the Rule, it expressed concern about consumer confusion regarding whether a television's advertised screen dimension represented the actual viewable area of a convex-curved cathode ray tube (CRT) or included the viewable area of the picture tube plus non- viewable portions of the tube, such [[Page 50485]] as those behind a casing. In addition, the Commission concluded that most consumers perceived the sizes of rectangular shaped objects, like television screens, in terms of their length or width, not their diagonal dimension.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 31 FR 3342 (Mar. 3, 1966). \2\ Id. at 3342-43. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on these concerns, the Rule sets forth the means to non- deceptively advertise the dimensions of television screens.\3\ Thus, marketers must base any representation of screen size on the horizontal dimension of the actual, viewable picture area unless they disclose the alternative method of measurement (such as the diagonal dimension) clearly, conspicuously, and in close connection and conjunction to the size designation.\4\ The Rule also directs marketers to base the measurement on a single plane, without taking into account any screen curvature,\5\ and includes examples of both proper and improper size representations.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ 16 CFR 410.1. \4\ Id. \5\ Id., Note 1. \6\ Id., Note 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Regulatory Review The Commission reviews its rules and guides periodically to seek information about their costs and benefits, regulatory and economic impact, and general effectiveness in protecting consumers and helping industry avoid deceptive claims. These reviews assist the Commission in identifying rules and guides that warrant modification or repeal. The Commission last reviewed the Rule in 2006, leaving it unchanged.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ 71 FR 34247 (June 14, 2006). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. 2017 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) In its 2017 ANPR initiating the current Rule review, the Commission solicited comment on, among other things: The economic impact of and the continuing need for the Rule; the Rule's benefits to consumers; and the burdens it places on industry, including small businesses.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ 82 FR 29256 (June 28, 2017). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission further solicited comment regarding how consumers understand dimension claims for television screens, including: Whether consumers understand the stated dimensions; whether the dimensions are limited to the screen's viewable portion; and whether the dimensions are based on a single-plane measurement that does not include curvature in the screen. The Commission also solicited input on whether advances in broadcasting and television technology, such as the introduction of curved screen display panels and changing aspect ratios (e.g., from the traditional 4:3 to 16:9), create a need to modify the Rule. Finally, the Commission requested comment regarding whether the Rule should address viewable screen size measurement reporting tolerances and rounding.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Id. at 29257-58. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Commission received two comments in response, both urging the Commission to repeal the Rule.\10\ Both commenters characterized the Rule as an unnecessary relic from when televisions used curved CRTs. For example, the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), a trade association representing the U.S. consumer technology industry, commented that televisions with fully viewable, single plane, flat screens have become ubiquitous, and that the use of the diagonal measurement to represent screen size, both for televisions and for products with viewing screens not within the scope of the Rule, has become standard.\11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ The comments are located at: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2017/07/initiative-707. Jonathan Applebaum (#3) and Consumer Technology Association (``CTA'') (#4) submitted comments. CTA's comment to the ANPR is cited herein as ``CTA-I.'' \11\ 83 FR 17117, 17118 (Apr. 18, 2018). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commission staff observations confirmed that virtually all televisions in the marketplace have flat screens. Moreover, staff observed that marketers uniformly advertise the diagonal screen measurement for televisions, as well as for devices with screens not subject to the Rule, such as computer monitors, tablets, and cellphones.\12\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \12\ Id. at 17118. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. 2018 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) Based upon the comments to the ANPR and staff's observations, the Commission's 2018 NPR proposed repealing the Rule.\13\ In the NPR, the Commission observed that the record suggested that the Rule has not kept up with changes in the marketplace. The Commission noted that there have been substantial changes in television screen technology since the Rule's adoption, particularly in the past decade. In 1966, television screens had CRTs,\14\ portions of which did not provide a viewable image.\15\ Today, virtually all televisions have flat screens where the viewable image covers the entire surface.\16\ Consequently, a television screen's viewing area is easy to ascertain and, therefore, claims regarding viewing area are not likely to deceive consumers.\17\ The Commission also stated that mandatory screen measurements appear to no longer be necessary to prevent consumer deception because the industry standard for representing screen size is a screen's diagonal dimension.\18\ Finally, the Commission concluded that the record lacked evidence of deception supporting retaining the Rule. In response to the ANPR, the Commission received no comments advocating for the Rule's retention or submitting information indicating that manufacturers are making deceptive screen size claims. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ Id. at 17118-19. \14\ CTA-I at 4. \15\ Id. \16\ Id. at 5; 83 FR at 17119. \17\ See, e.g., 60 FR 65529 (Dec. 20, 1995) (Commission repealed Binocular Rule, former 16 CFR part 402, finding technological improvements rendered it obsolete). \18\ 83 FR at 17119. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accordingly, in its 2018 NPR, the Commission preliminarily concluded that the Rule is outdated and no longer necessary to protect consumers and stated that, ``[n]othing in the record suggests that repealing the Rule would likely result in any consumer deception.'' \19\ It also sought further comment on the costs, benefits, and market effects of repealing the Rule, and particularly the cost on small businesses.\20\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ Id. \20\ Id. at 17119-20. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Issues Raised by Commenters to the 2018 NPR The Commission received four comments in response to the NPR.\21\ CTA reiterated that the Commission should repeal the Rule. Three individual consumers argued the Commission should retain the Rule, but did so without submitting any evidence to support their position. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ These comments are located at: https://www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2018/03/initiative-744. John Stover (#2), Georgianne Giese (#3), Frank Muenzer (#4), and CTA (#5) submitted comments. CTA's comment to the NPR is cited herein as ``CTA-II.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In support of repeal, CTA repeated its contention that the state of technology for televisions--flat screens extending to virtually the end of any casing--make it unlikely that any manufacturer would use any measurement other the diagonal dimension of the screen to represent its size.\22\ CTA reiterated that even manufacturers of consumer products with screens not subject to the Rule, such as monitors, smartphones and tablets, uniformly use the diagonal measurement to represent screen size.\23\ Consequently, CTA stated that keeping the Rule would not provide any [[Page 50486]] meaningful benefit to consumers because market forces will continue to make a screen's diagonal measurement the industry standard for televisions.\24\ CTA also noted that the Commission has not brought an enforcement action to compel compliance with the Rule in the more than 50 years since its adoption.\25\ Repealing the Rule, according to CTA, would not create any significant costs for manufacturers since they already use the diagonal screen measurement, and there is nothing to suggest that this would change after repeal.\26\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ CTA-II at 4-5. \23\ Id. at 5. \24\ Id. at 5-6. \25\ Id. at 6. \26\ Id. at 7. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CTA also asserted that the Commission previously repealed trade regulation rules under similar circumstances, including when rules became obsolete due to changing technology; \27\ decades had passed without any enforcement actions; \28\ and any problems with deception arising after a rule repeal could be addressed on a case-by-case basis in the absence of an industry-wide rule.\29\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ Id. at 7-8 (citing Commission's 1995 repeal of the Binocular Rule). \28\ Id. (citing Commission's 1996 repeal of Games of Chance Rule). \29\ Id. (citing Commission's 1996 repeal of Leather Belt Rule). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, CTA requested that, in addition to repealing the Rule, the Commission affirmatively declare that all ``state regulations akin to the Rule--including interpretations of state laws prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices--are in conflict with federal policy and are therefore preempted.'' \30\ CTA contended that a decision by the Commission not to regulate television screen measurement by repealing the Rule creates a federal policy that no entity may regulate television screen measurement. Therefore, according to CTA, the Commission's decision not to regulate an issue has the identical preemptive effect as the issuance of an affirmative regulation on an issue.\31\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \30\ Id. at 11. \31\ Id. at 10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Three individual consumers urged the Commission to retain the Rule unchanged. John Stover stated the Rule should remain in effect because its retention ``does no harm.'' Georgianne Giese commented the Rule should remain in effect because, ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it,'' and because the Rule standardizes television screen measurement. Finally, Frank Muenzer stated that the proposed repeal of the Rule ``appears to be a politically motivated completely unnecessary removal of a useful regulation.'' \32\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\ See n. 21, supra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IV. Basis for Repealing the Rule Section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, authorizes the Commission to promulgate, amend, and repeal trade regulation rules that define with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive in or affecting commerce within the meaning of section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1). The Commission regularly reviews its rules to ensure they are up-to-date, effective, and not overly burdensome, and has repealed a number of trade regulation rules after finding they were no longer necessary to protect consumers.\33\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \33\ See, e.g., 16 CFR part 419 (games of chance) (61 FR 68143 (Dec. 27, 1996) (rule outdated; violations largely non-existent; and rule has adverse business impact); 16 CFR part 406 (used lubricating oil) (61 FR 55095 (Oct. 24, 1996)) (rule no longer necessary, and repeal will eliminate unnecessary duplication); 16 CFR part 405 (leather content of waist belts) (61 FR 25560 (May 22, 1996)) (rule unnecessary and duplicative; rule's objective can be addressed through guidance and case-by-case enforcement); and 16 CFR part 402 (binoculars) (60 FR 65529 (Dec. 20, 1995)) (technological improvements render rule obsolete). These prior rule repeals demonstrate that the Commission has a long-standing practice of repealing certain trade regulation rules when, as here, they are no longer necessary to prevent consumer deception. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The additional comments received in response to the NPR affirm the Commission's preliminary conclusion \34\ that current conditions support repealing the Rule. As explained in detail below, the record indicates that: (1) The Rule has not kept up with changes in the marketplace; (2) mandatory screen measurement instructions are no longer necessary to prevent consumer deception; and (3) manufacturers are not making deceptive screen size claims. Therefore, based on the record, the Commission now repeals the Rule. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \34\ 83 FR at 17119. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, the record indicates that the Rule has not kept up with changes in the marketplace. Specifically, as both CTA's comments and Commission staff's observations confirm, virtually all televisions now have flat screens where the viewable image covers the entire surface.\35\ Moreover, these televisions are surrounded by thin bezels, not casings or console walls, which do not obscure any of the screens. Thus, in contrast to technology at the time the Commission promulgated the Rule, there currently is no ambiguity regarding a television screen's viewing area. Screen size claims, therefore, no longer are fertile ground for widespread deceptive claims. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \35\ CTA-I at 4-5; CTA-II at 4-5; 83 FR at 17118. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Second, to the extent lack of uniformity in screen size measurements (i.e., diagonal vs. horizontal) increases the chances of deception, the Rule is not now necessary to create that uniformity. CTA's comments confirm staff's observation that, although the Rule mandates a single plane horizontal measurement of a television screen's viewable portion as the default measurement,\36\ the industry universally measures television screen sizes using the diagonal dimension.\37\ The record further demonstrates that manufacturers universally use a screen's diagonal dimension to represent sizes for screens contained in the many consumer devices outside the scope of the Rule.\38\ The ubiquity of the diagonal dimension indicates that consumers expect to compare screens' diagonal dimensions when purchasing televisions. Thus, the market has created the uniformity the Rule originally sought. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \36\ 31 FR 3342, 3343 (Mar. 3, 1966) (former 16 CFR 4.103(b)); 16 CFR 410.1. Manufacturers may use an alternative method of measurement if they disclose this method clearly, conspicuously, and in close connection and conjunction to the size designation. 16 CFR 410.1. \37\ CTA-I at 5-6; CTA-II at 5-6; 83 FR at 17118. \38\ CTA-II at 5-6; 83 FR at 17118. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, the record lacks evidence of any deception in the marketplace that supports a continuing need for the Rule. No commenter submitted information indicating that manufacturers are making deceptive screen size claims. Additionally, the Commission has received no complaints about manufacturers making such claims over the past 5 years.\39\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \39\ The Commission retains complaint data for five years. The data reported above is based on a search of Consumer Sentinel conducted on July 18, 2018. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the Rule is no longer necessary to protect consumers from deceptive representations of screen size or to encourage uniformity and accuracy in marketing televisions. Nothing in the record suggests that repealing the Rule would likely result in any consumer deception. Therefore, any minimal costs associated with the Rule for businesses now outweigh any benefits to consumers.\40\ The Commission can address any deceptive marketing on a case-by-case basis through enforcement actions brought under Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a), rather than by imposing an industry-wide trade regulation rule.\41\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \40\ See CTA-I at 7-8; CTA-II at 7. \41\ 15 U.S.C. 45(a). See CTA-I at 3 and CTA-II at 7-8. See also, e.g., 61 FR 25560, 25560-61 (May 22, 1996) (in repealing Leather Content in Waist Belts Rule due, in part, to lack of the need for enforcement, the Commission stated that should it find any future deception of the type that the Rule was intended to prevent, the Commission could address this deception through case-by-case enforcement). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [[Page 50487]] V. The Repeal of the Rule Is Not Intended To Preempt State Action for Deceptive or Unfair Acts or Practices Regarding Television Screen Size To prevent what CTA characterized as the potential for ``a complicated patchwork quilt of inconsistent [state law] mandates,'' \42\ it asked the Commission to issue an affirmative statement that by repealing the Rule it intends to preempt any state regulatory or enforcement actions regarding representations of television screen size.\43\ The Commission declines to issue such a statement. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \42\ CTA-II at 9. \43\ CTA-II at 9-11. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- While the Commission concludes that a trade regulation rule for television screen measurement is no longer necessary, it retains its authority to address future unfair or deceptive practices relating to television screen measurement on a case-by-case basis.\44\ Similarly, states have authority under analogous state laws. Therefore, the Commission's repeal of the Rule is not intended to preempt the states from taking regulatory or enforcement actions to prevent deception or unfairness concerning television screen measurement. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \44\ See n. 41, supra. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Regulatory Analysis Under Section 22 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b-3, the Commission must issue a final regulatory analysis for a proceeding to amend a rule only when it: (1) Estimates that the amendment will have an annual effect on the national economy of $100 million or more; (2) estimates that the amendment will cause a substantial change in the cost or price of certain categories of goods or services; or (3) otherwise determines that the amendment will have a significant effect upon covered entities or upon consumers. The Commission determines that the repeal of the Rule will not have such effects on the national economy; on the cost of televisions; or on covered parties or consumers. The Rule repeal, rather than imposing any costs on covered parties or consumers, will eliminate any costs associated with complying with the Rule. Accordingly, the repeal of the Rule is exempt from Section 22's final regulatory analysis requirements. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (``RFA''), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires that the Commission conduct an analysis of the anticipated economic impact of the amendment of a rule on small entities. The purpose of a regulatory flexibility analysis is to ensure that an agency considers the impacts on small entities and examines regulatory alternatives that could achieve the regulatory purpose while minimizing burdens on small entities. Section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, provides that such an analysis is not required if the agency head certifies that the regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission concludes that the repeal of the Rule will not have a significant economic impact upon small entities because the Rule's repeal will eliminate any costs associated with complying with the Rule. Therefore, in the Commission's view, the repeal of the Rule will not have a significant or disproportionate impact on the costs of small entities that sell televisions. These entities appear to provide consumers with the screen size as measured by a television's manufacturer and that typically appears on a television's packaging. In addition, the Commission is not aware of any existing federal laws or regulations that address the measurement of television screens and that would conflict with the repeal of the Rule. Therefore, based on available information, the Commission certifies that repealing the Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. VII. Repeal of Rule For the reasons stated in the preamble, and under the authority of 15 U.S.C. 57a, the Commission removes 16 CFR part 410. List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 410 Advertising, Electronic funds transfer, Television, and Trade practices. By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Wilson not participating. Donald S. Clark, Secretary. PART 410--[REMOVED] 0 Accordingly, under the authority of 15 U.S.C. 57a, the Commission removes 16 CFR part 410. [FR Doc. 2018-21803 Filed 10-5-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
![50484 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
(3) Model A300 B4–605R and B4–622R be accomplished using a method approved Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on
airplanes. by the Manager, International Section, August 30, 2018.
(4) Model A300 F4–605R and F4–622R Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the Jeffrey E. Duven,
airplanes. European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft
(5) Model A300 C4–605R Variant F Airbus SAS’s EASA Design Organization Certification Service.
airplanes. Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA,
(6) Model A310–203, –204, –221, –222, [FR Doc. 2018–21464 Filed 10–5–18; 8:45 am]
the approval must include the DOA-
–304, –322, –324, and –325 airplanes. authorized signature. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
(d) Subject (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any
service information contains procedures or
Air Transport Association (ATA) of tests that are identified as RC, those
America Code 32, Landing gear. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
procedures and tests must be done to comply
(e) Reason with this AD; any procedures or tests that are 16 CFR Part 410
This AD was prompted by a report of not identified as RC are recommended. Those
yellow hydraulic system failure, including procedures and tests that are not identified Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of
both braking accumulators, due to failure of as RC may be deviated from using accepted Viewable Pictures Shown by Television
the parking brake operated valve (PBOV). We methods in accordance with the operator’s Receiving Sets
are issuing this AD to address failure of the maintenance or inspection program without
PBOV, which could result in no braking obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.
capability during ground operations, possibly the procedures and tests identified as RC can ACTION: Final rule.
leading to damage to the airplane and injury be done and the airplane can be put back in
to people on the ground. an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or SUMMARY: The Federal Trade
changes to procedures or tests identified as Commission (‘‘Commission’’) has
(f) Compliance RC require approval of an AMOC. completed its regulatory review of its
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already (j) Related Information Trade Regulation Rule Concerning the
done. (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of
Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD Viewable Pictures Shown by Television
(g) PBOV Replacement 2017–0153, dated August 17, 2017, for Receiving Sets (‘‘Picture Tube Rule’’ or
Within 60 months after the effective date related information. This MCAI may be ‘‘Rule’’), as part of its systematic review
of this AD, replace the PBOV having part found in the AD docket on the internet at of all current Commission regulations
number (P/N) A25315–1 with a PBOV having http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and guides. Pursuant to that review, the
P/N A25315020–2, in accordance with the and locating Docket No. FAA–2018–0301.
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Commission now determines that the
(2) For more information about this AD, Rule is no longer necessary to prevent
Service Bulletin A300–32–0467, dated July 4, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer,
2017; Airbus Service Bulletin A300–32–6117, International Section, Transport Standards
deceptive claims regarding the size of
dated July 4, 2017; or Airbus Service Bulletin Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des television screens and to encourage
A310–32–2151, dated July 4, 2017; as Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax 206– uniformity and accuracy in their
applicable. 231–3225. marketing. The Commission, therefore,
(h) Parts Prohibition repeals the Rule.
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) After modification of an airplane as DATES: This rule is effective January 7,
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, do not 2019.
approved the incorporation by reference
install any PBOV having P/N A25315–1 on (IBR) of the service information listed in this ADDRESSES: Relevant portions of the
that airplane. paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR record of this proceeding, including this
(2) For an airplane that, as of the effective document, are available at https://
part 51.
date of this AD, has a PBOV having P/N
A25315020–2 installed: As of the effective
(2) You must use this service information www.ftc.gov.
as applicable to do the actions required by
date of this AD, do not install any PBOV FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John
this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
having P/N A25315–1 on that airplane. Andrew Singer, Attorney, (202) 326–
(i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–32–0467,
(i) Other FAA AD Provisions dated July 4, 2017. 3234, Division of Enforcement, Bureau
The following provisions also apply to this (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A300–32–6117, of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade
AD: dated July 4, 2017. Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue
(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310–32– NW, CC–9528, Washington, DC 20580.
(AMOCs): The Manager, International 2151, dated July 4, 2017. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, (3) For service information identified in
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness I. Background
AD, if requested using the procedures found Office—EAW, Rond-Point Emile Dewoitine
No: 2, 31700 Blagnac Cedex, France; The Commission promulgated the
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 Picture Tube Rule in 1966 1 to prevent
inspector or local Flight Standards District 93 44 51; email account.airworth-eas@ deceptive claims regarding the size of
Office, as appropriate. If sending information airbus.com; internet http://www.airbus.com. television screens and to encourage
directly to the International Section, send it (4) You may view this service information uniformity and accuracy in marketing.
to the attention of the person identified in at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, When the Commission adopted the
paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information may 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For Rule, it expressed concern about
be emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOC- information on the availability of this consumer confusion regarding whether
REQUESTS@faa.gov. Before using any material at the FAA, call 206–231–3195. a television’s advertised screen
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate (5) You may view this service information
dimension represented the actual
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
principal inspector, or lacking a principal that is incorporated by reference at the
inspector, the manager of the local flight National Archives and Records viewable area of a convex-curved
standards district office/certificate holding Administration (NARA). For information on cathode ray tube (CRT) or included the
district office. the availability of this material at NARA, call viewable area of the picture tube plus
(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any 202–741–6030, or go to: http:// non-viewable portions of the tube, such
requirement in this AD to obtain corrective www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-
actions from a manufacturer, the action must locations.html. 1 31 FR 3342 (Mar. 3, 1966).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM 09OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_50679/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 50485
as those behind a casing. In addition, such as the introduction of curved therefore, claims regarding viewing area
the Commission concluded that most screen display panels and changing are not likely to deceive consumers.17
consumers perceived the sizes of aspect ratios (e.g., from the traditional The Commission also stated that
rectangular shaped objects, like 4:3 to 16:9), create a need to modify the mandatory screen measurements appear
television screens, in terms of their Rule. Finally, the Commission requested to no longer be necessary to prevent
length or width, not their diagonal comment regarding whether the Rule consumer deception because the
dimension.2 should address viewable screen size industry standard for representing
Based on these concerns, the Rule sets measurement reporting tolerances and screen size is a screen’s diagonal
forth the means to non-deceptively rounding.9 dimension.18 Finally, the Commission
advertise the dimensions of television The Commission received two concluded that the record lacked
screens.3 Thus, marketers must base any comments in response, both urging the evidence of deception supporting
representation of screen size on the Commission to repeal the Rule.10 Both retaining the Rule. In response to the
horizontal dimension of the actual, commenters characterized the Rule as ANPR, the Commission received no
viewable picture area unless they an unnecessary relic from when comments advocating for the Rule’s
disclose the alternative method of televisions used curved CRTs. For retention or submitting information
measurement (such as the diagonal example, the Consumer Technology indicating that manufacturers are
dimension) clearly, conspicuously, and Association (CTA), a trade association making deceptive screen size claims.
in close connection and conjunction to representing the U.S. consumer Accordingly, in its 2018 NPR, the
the size designation.4 The Rule also technology industry, commented that Commission preliminarily concluded
directs marketers to base the televisions with fully viewable, single that the Rule is outdated and no longer
measurement on a single plane, without plane, flat screens have become necessary to protect consumers and
taking into account any screen ubiquitous, and that the use of the stated that, ‘‘[n]othing in the record
curvature,5 and includes examples of diagonal measurement to represent suggests that repealing the Rule would
both proper and improper size screen size, both for televisions and for likely result in any consumer
representations.6 products with viewing screens not deception.’’ 19 It also sought further
within the scope of the Rule, has comment on the costs, benefits, and
II. Regulatory Review
become standard.11 market effects of repealing the Rule, and
The Commission reviews its rules and Commission staff observations particularly the cost on small
guides periodically to seek information confirmed that virtually all televisions businesses.20
about their costs and benefits, regulatory in the marketplace have flat screens.
and economic impact, and general Moreover, staff observed that marketers III. Issues Raised by Commenters to the
effectiveness in protecting consumers uniformly advertise the diagonal screen 2018 NPR
and helping industry avoid deceptive measurement for televisions, as well as The Commission received four
claims. These reviews assist the for devices with screens not subject to comments in response to the NPR.21
Commission in identifying rules and the Rule, such as computer monitors, CTA reiterated that the Commission
guides that warrant modification or tablets, and cellphones.12 should repeal the Rule. Three
repeal. The Commission last reviewed individual consumers argued the
the Rule in 2006, leaving it unchanged.7 B. 2018 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Commission should retain the Rule, but
(NPR)
A. 2017 Advance Notice of Proposed did so without submitting any evidence
Based upon the comments to the to support their position.
Rulemaking (ANPR) ANPR and staff’s observations, the In support of repeal, CTA repeated its
In its 2017 ANPR initiating the Commission’s 2018 NPR proposed contention that the state of technology
current Rule review, the Commission repealing the Rule.13 In the NPR, the for televisions—flat screens extending to
solicited comment on, among other Commission observed that the record virtually the end of any casing—make it
things: The economic impact of and the suggested that the Rule has not kept up unlikely that any manufacturer would
continuing need for the Rule; the Rule’s with changes in the marketplace. The use any measurement other the diagonal
benefits to consumers; and the burdens Commission noted that there have been dimension of the screen to represent its
it places on industry, including small substantial changes in television screen size.22 CTA reiterated that even
businesses.8 technology since the Rule’s adoption, manufacturers of consumer products
The Commission further solicited particularly in the past decade. In 1966, with screens not subject to the Rule,
comment regarding how consumers television screens had CRTs,14 portions such as monitors, smartphones and
understand dimension claims for of which did not provide a viewable tablets, uniformly use the diagonal
television screens, including: Whether image.15 Today, virtually all televisions measurement to represent screen size.23
consumers understand the stated have flat screens where the viewable Consequently, CTA stated that keeping
dimensions; whether the dimensions are image covers the entire surface.16 the Rule would not provide any
limited to the screen’s viewable portion; Consequently, a television screen’s
and whether the dimensions are based viewing area is easy to ascertain and, 17 See, e.g., 60 FR 65529 (Dec. 20, 1995)
on a single-plane measurement that (Commission repealed Binocular Rule, former 16
does not include curvature in the 9 Id. at 29257–58. CFR part 402, finding technological improvements
screen. The Commission also solicited 10 The comments are located at: https:// rendered it obsolete).
www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2017/07/ 18 83 FR at 17119.
input on whether advances in
initiative-707. Jonathan Applebaum (#3) and 19 Id.
broadcasting and television technology, Consumer Technology Association (‘‘CTA’’) (#4) 20 Id. at 17119–20.
submitted comments. CTA’s comment to the ANPR
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
21 These comments are located at: https://
2 Id. at 3342–43. is cited herein as ‘‘CTA–I.’’ www.ftc.gov/policy/public-comments/2018/03/
3 16 CFR 410.1. 11 83 FR 17117, 17118 (Apr. 18, 2018).
initiative-744. John Stover (#2), Georgianne Giese
4 Id. 12 Id. at 17118.
(#3), Frank Muenzer (#4), and CTA (#5) submitted
5 Id.,Note 1. 13 Id. at 17118–19.
comments. CTA’s comment to the NPR is cited
6 Id.,Note 2. 14 CTA–I at 4. herein as ‘‘CTA–II.’’
7 71 FR 34247 (June 14, 2006). 15 Id. 22 CTA–II at 4–5.
8 82 FR 29256 (June 28, 2017). 16 Id. at 5; 83 FR at 17119. 23 Id. at 5.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM 09OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_50679/page/2.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 9, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 50487
V. The Repeal of the Rule Is Not the anticipated economic impact of the DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
Intended To Preempt State Action for amendment of a rule on small entities. HUMAN SERVICES
Deceptive or Unfair Acts or Practices The purpose of a regulatory flexibility
Regarding Television Screen Size analysis is to ensure that an agency Food and Drug Administration
To prevent what CTA characterized as considers the impacts on small entities
the potential for ‘‘a complicated and examines regulatory alternatives 21 CFR Part 172
patchwork quilt of inconsistent [state that could achieve the regulatory [Docket No. FDA–2016–F–1444]
law] mandates,’’ 42 it asked the purpose while minimizing burdens on
Commission to issue an affirmative small entities. Section 605 of the RFA, Food Additives Permitted for Direct
statement that by repealing the Rule it 5 U.S.C. 605, provides that such an Addition to Food for Human
intends to preempt any state regulatory analysis is not required if the agency Consumption; Styrene
or enforcement actions regarding head certifies that the regulatory action
representations of television screen AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration,
will not have a significant economic
size.43 The Commission declines to HHS.
impact on a substantial number of small
issue such a statement. entities. The Commission concludes ACTION: Final rule.
While the Commission concludes that
that the repeal of the Rule will not have SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
a trade regulation rule for television
screen measurement is no longer a significant economic impact upon Administration (FDA, the Agency, or
necessary, it retains its authority to small entities because the Rule’s repeal we) is amending the food additive
address future unfair or deceptive will eliminate any costs associated with regulations to no longer provide for the
practices relating to television screen complying with the Rule. Therefore, in use of styrene as a flavoring substance
measurement on a case-by-case basis.44 the Commission’s view, the repeal of the and adjuvant for use in food because
Similarly, states have authority under Rule will not have a significant or these uses have been abandoned. We are
analogous state laws. Therefore, the disproportionate impact on the costs of taking this action in response to a food
Commission’s repeal of the Rule is not small entities that sell televisions. These additive petition submitted by the
intended to preempt the states from entities appear to provide consumers Styrene Information and Research
taking regulatory or enforcement actions with the screen size as measured by a Center (SIRC).
to prevent deception or unfairness television’s manufacturer and that DATES: This rule is effective October 9,
concerning television screen typically appears on a television’s 2018. See section VIII for further
measurement. packaging. In addition, the Commission information on the filing of objections.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act and is not aware of any existing federal laws Submit either electronic or written
Regulatory Analysis or regulations that address the objections and requests for a hearing on
measurement of television screens and the final rule by November 8, 2018.
Under Section 22 of the FTC Act, 15
that would conflict with the repeal of ADDRESSES: You may submit objections
U.S.C. 57b–3, the Commission must
issue a final regulatory analysis for a the Rule. Therefore, based on available and requests for a hearing as follows.
proceeding to amend a rule only when information, the Commission certifies Please note that late, untimely filed
it: (1) Estimates that the amendment that repealing the Rule will not have a objections will not be considered.
will have an annual effect on the significant economic impact on a Electronic objections must be submitted
national economy of $100 million or substantial number of small entities. on or before November 8, 2018.
more; (2) estimates that the amendment Objections received by mail/hand
VII. Repeal of Rule delivery/courier (for written/paper
will cause a substantial change in the
cost or price of certain categories of submissions) will be considered timely
For the reasons stated in the
goods or services; or (3) otherwise if they are postmarked or the delivery
preamble, and under the authority of 15
determines that the amendment will service acceptance receipt is on or
U.S.C. 57a, the Commission removes 16 before that date.
have a significant effect upon covered CFR part 410.
entities or upon consumers. The Electronic Submissions
Commission determines that the repeal List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 410
of the Rule will not have such effects on Submit electronic objections in the
the national economy; on the cost of Advertising, Electronic funds transfer, following way:
televisions; or on covered parties or Television, and Trade practices. • Federal eRulemaking Portal:
consumers. The Rule repeal, rather than By direction of the Commission,
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
imposing any costs on covered parties Commissioner Wilson not participating.
instructions for submitting comments.
or consumers, will eliminate any costs Objections submitted electronically,
Donald S. Clark,
associated with complying with the including attachments, to https://
Secretary. www.regulations.gov will be posted to
Rule. Accordingly, the repeal of the
Rule is exempt from Section 22’s final the docket unchanged. Because your
PART 410—[REMOVED] objection will be made public, you are
regulatory analysis requirements.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act solely responsible for ensuring that your
■ Accordingly, under the authority of 15 objection does not include any
(‘‘RFA’’), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires that
the Commission conduct an analysis of U.S.C. 57a, the Commission removes 16 confidential information that you or a
CFR part 410. third party may not wish to be posted,
[FR Doc. 2018–21803 Filed 10–5–18; 8:45 am] such as medical information, your or
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
enforcement, the Commission stated that should it
find any future deception of the type that the Rule BILLING CODE 6750–01–P anyone else’s Social Security number, or
was intended to prevent, the Commission could confidential business information, such
address this deception through case-by-case
enforcement). as a manufacturing process. Please note
42 CTA–II at 9. that if you include your name, contact
43 CTA–II at 9–11. information, or other information that
44 See n. 41, supra. identifies you in the body of your
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:30 Oct 05, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\09OCR1.SGM 09OCR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_50679/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-10-06 00:59:01
Document Modified: 2018-10-06 00:59:01
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule is effective January 7, 2019. | |
| Contact | John Andrew Singer, Attorney, (202) 326-3234, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, CC-9528, Washington, DC 20580. | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 50484 | |
| CFR Associated | Advertising; Electronic Funds Transfer; Television and Trade Practices |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR