Advisory opinion letter

Gentlemen:

This letter is submitted as a supplement to my letter dated April 21, 1970, with reference to the applicability of the above Standard to entrance mats. In my previous letter, I did not discuss the possibility of the application of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to entrance mats once the Standard is effective. Since it occurs to me that such a question might arise, I would like to take this opportunity to present my Views on that question.

It seems to me that Section 5 is inapplicable and that to attempt to apply Section 5 to entrance mats would be highly discriminatory. ADVISORY OPINIONS WITH REQUESTS THEREFOR 1719 Apparently it is not contemplated that Section 5 will be applied to hotel-keepers. Nevertheless, a hotel-keeper rents rooms to customers, including carpeting. The carpeting may be washed enough times to remove or destroy its flame-resistant properties. There seems to be no intent to test the hotel carpeting even at periodic intervals, much less to test the hotel carpeting each time it is rented to a customer. Indeed, to do so would be rather absurd.

On the other hand, it would be highly discriminatory to hold that although a hotel-keeper is not subject to Section 5 each time he rents a room and carpet, the laundry is subject to Section 5 each time it rents an entrance mat.

This becomes even more apparent when the purpose of the Standard is considered. The Standard, in general, is for the purpose of giving some degree of protection to the user. Hotel carpeting is used in foyers, halls and rooms where, if fire occurs, the carpeting is in close proximity to other furniture, drapes and beds. An entrance mat, as already pointed out in some detail in my previous letter, is generally a small mat. and by its very nature and purpose, is used at the entrance door to a building, where there is normally little, if any, fire hazard. To hold that a hotel-keeper who rents out rooms and carpeting is a user not subject to the Standards or to Section 5, but that laundries which rent out entrance mats are not subject to the Standards but are subject to Section 5, would-be not only discriminatory, but discriminatory against. the one which presents the least hazard. Tn addition, to hold entrance mats subject to Section 5 would impose severe and needless economic hardships upon the entrance mat industry. T assume that after the Standards are effective, the entrance mat industry will be able to purchase only mats which have been treated to be fire-resistant, since the Standards will apply to all manufacturers at the time of the original sale. This will substantially increase the original cost of its mats to the industry. But, if the industry were held to be subject to Section 5, the only course the industry could follow would be to test the mats for fire-resistance each time the mats were picked up from a customer and before renting them out again, This would not only impose a substantially higher original cost, but a continuing increased cost of operating. No distinction can be drawn, as a practical matter, between mats. There is no practical method, short of destruction, for testing mats to determine the extent to which they have lost fire-resistant properties. This would depend primarily on the extent of use and the number of washings between uses. Since mats are handled in batches of hundreds at a time, the industry would be compelled to add a fire-resistant treatment to every mat every time it is vashed between uses. This would add a substantial expense to the least hazardous item.

1720 ' FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIONS As far as the users of the mats are concerned, this additional and substantial cost would be passed on to them, needlessly increasing the cost to consumers on items of minimum hazard. To draw a parallel again, obviously no hotel-keeper is going to be: compelled to treat his carpeting with a fire-resistant treatment in between each room rental or risk being in violation of Section 5. But applying Section 5 to the entrance mat industry would essentially require such a treatment between each rental and require it in the case: of the item which presents the minimum hazard. Under all of the circumstances set forth herein, as well as in my previous letter of April 21, 1970, it is urgently requested that the Federal Trade Commission issue a ruling that rental entrance mats are: not subject to the above Standard or testing under the Standard and not subject. to Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, once: they have been bought in compliance with the Standard.

Respectfully,
/s/ Bernard H. Ehrlich
Letter of Request