1038 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1 75 FR 11483 (Mar. 11, 2010). 

2The Appliance Labeling Rule’s full title is ‘‘Rule 

Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy 

Consumption and Water Use of Certain Home 

Appliances and Other Products Required Under the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act.’’ 

3ENERGY STAR is a voluntary government 

labeling program that identifies high-efficiency 

products. The Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) administers the ENERGY STAR program. See 

http://www.energystar.gov. 

4The NPRM discusses the statutory and 

administrative background of television labeling in 

greater detail. 75 FR at 11483–84. 

5 72 FR 49948, 49962 (Aug. 29, 2007); 72 FR 6836, 

6857–58 (Feb. 13, 2007). 

6 Id. Until October 2009, DOE’s regulations 

contained a test procedure created for analog 

cathode-ray tube (CRT) products and relied on a 

black and white static test pattern. DOE repealed 

that television test procedure. 74 FR 53640 (Oct. 20, 

2009). 

7The four products are personal computers, cable 

or satellite set-top boxes, stand-alone digital video 

recorder boxes, and personal computer monitors. 42 

U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I)(i). 

8 Id. § 6294(a)(2)(I)(ii). If DOE publishes 

applicable test procedures for the specified 

consumer electronics, the labeling requirements are 

no longer discretionary: the Commission must issue 

disclosure requirements using the DOE procedures 

within 18 months of their publication. Id. 

§ 6294(a)(2)(I)(i). 

9 Id. § 6294(a)(2)(I)(ii). 

10 Id. § 6294(a)(2)(I)(iv). 

11Specifically, EPCA empowers the Commission 

to ‘‘prescribe labeling or other disclosure 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

16 CFR Part 305 

RIN 3084–AB15 

Disclosures Regarding Energy 

Consumption and Water Use of Certain 

Home Appliances and Other Products 

Required Under the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (Appliance Labeling 

Rule) 

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC or Commission) is 

adopting final amendments to its 

Appliance Labeling Rule, to implement 

section 325 of the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007. The 

amendments establish labeling 

requirements for televisions. 

DATES: The amendments published in 

this document will become effective on 

May 10, 2011, with the exception of the 

amendments to § 305.20, which will 

become effective on July 11, 2011. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 

publications listed in the regulations is 

approved by the Director of the Federal 

Register as of May 10, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of this 

document should be sent to: Public 

Reference Branch, Room 130, Federal 

Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. 

The complete record of this proceeding 

is also available at that address. 

Relevant portions of the proceeding, 

including this document, are available 

at http://www.ftc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hampton Newsome, (202) 326–2889, 

Attorney, or Maura Dundon, (202) 326– 

3311, Attorney, Division of 

Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer 

Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 

Room M–8102B, 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

Section 325 of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA), Public Law 110–140, which 

amends the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 

6291 et seq., authorizes the Commission 

to require energy cost disclosures for 

televisions and certain other consumer 

electronics, including personal 

computers, cable or satellite set-top 

boxes, stand-alone digital video recorder 

boxes, and personal computer monitors. 

Pursuant to this authority, the 

Commission issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking 

comment on proposed energy labels for 

televisions.1 Although the NPRM did 

not propose requirements for other 

consumer electronics, it requested 

comment on whether such disclosures 

would assist consumers. On April 16, 

2010, the Commission held a public 

meeting to augment the written 

comments. 

Having reviewed the written and oral 

comments, the Commission now 

publishes the final amendments to the 

Appliance Labeling Rule, 16 CFR part 

305.2 The amendments require 

manufacturers to affix an EnergyGuide 

label to televisions. The label will 

disclose the unit’s estimated annual 

energy cost and a comparison of energy 

costs to similar units. The amendments 

also require paper catalogs and Web 

sites to disclose the energy information 

for the televisions they offer for sale. 

These new requirements will help 

consumers who want to purchase 

energy efficient televisions. 

This Notice provides background on 

the Commission’s statutory authority, 

discusses the public comments received 

in response to the NPRM and at the 

public hearing, describes the 

amendments to the Appliance Labeling 

Rule and the Commission’s reasons for 

promulgating the amendments, and 

analyzes the impact of those 

amendments pursuant to the Paperwork 

Reduction and Regulatory Flexibility 

Acts. 

II. Background 

The current Appliance Labeling Rule 

requires energy disclosures for a variety 

of home appliances (‘‘covered 

products’’), such as refrigerators and 

dishwashers. The Rule requires 

manufacturers to affix a distinctive 

yellow and black EnergyGuide label to 

most covered products. For most 

covered products, the EnergyGuide 

labels disclose the products’ estimated 

annual energy cost based on Department 

of Energy (DOE) test procedures, as well 

as an energy cost comparison to similar 

products. Energy cost disclosures must 

also appear in paper catalogs and on 

Internet sites offering the products for 

sale. The Rule allows manufacturers to 

place the U.S. Government ENERGY 

STAR logo on labels for products that 

qualify for that program.3

Televisions are covered products 

under EPCA. However, in 1979, the 

Commission determined not to require 

labeling because there was little 

variation in energy use between models 

and energy costs per model were 

generally low.4 In 2007, the Commission 

revisited labeling televisions as part of 

a broad review of the EnergyGuide 

label’s effectiveness.5 Commenters 

urged the Commission to require 

television labels because many modern 

televisions use as much, or more, 

electricity than products labeled under 

the current Rule, and energy use varies 

significantly between similarly sized 

models. The Commission therefore 

concluded that energy labeling for 

televisions likely would assist 

consumers in purchasing decisions, but 

noted that DOE test procedures dating 

from the 1970s were outdated and 

inapplicable to most modern 

televisions.6 Absent an applicable DOE 

test procedure, the Commission had no 

authority to require an alternate 

procedure. 

In late 2007, Congress amended 

EPCA, giving the Commission discretion 

to require energy disclosures for 

televisions and four other consumer 

electronic products 7 even if DOE has 

not published its own test procedures.8

Specifically, the Commission may 

require disclosures if it identifies 

adequate non-DOE test procedures and 

finds that disclosures will likely assist 

consumers to make purchasing 

decisions.9 However, the Commission 

cannot require disclosures if it finds 

they would not be technically or 

economically feasible.10 The amended 

law also empowers the Commission to 

consider alternatives to traditional 

product labels for these consumer 

electronics.11 Finally, the amendments 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1039 

requirements for the energy use of’’ the covered 

consumer electronic products. Id. § 6294(a)(2)(I) 

(emphasis added). EPCA also allows discretionary 

application of the label content required for other 

covered products (e.g., energy cost comparison 

ranges). Id. § 6294(c)(9). 

12Under EPCA, a ‘‘consumer product’’ means any 

article which consumes energy and is distributed in 

commerce for personal use or consumption by 

individuals. Id. § 6291(1). 

13 74 FR 11045 (Mar. 16, 2009). The comments 

received in response to the ANPR can be found at 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/tvenergylabels/

index.shtm. 

14 75 FR 11483. 

15The written comments and a transcript of the 

April 16 public meeting are online at: http:// 

www.ftc.gov/os/comments/tvenergylabelsnprm/

index.shtm. Unless otherwise stated, the citations 

for comments in this Notice are: American Council 

for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), 

#547194–00030; Adamo, #547194–00005; Bang & 

Olufsen, #547194–00012; People’s Republic of 

China (China), #547194–00031; Consortium for 

Energy Efficiency (CEE), #547194–00026; Consumer 

Electronics Association (CEA), #547194–00021; 

Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition (CERC), 

#547194–00015; Consumers Union, #547194– 

00013; Dabney, #547194–00004; Earthjustice, 

#547194–00020, #547194–00022, #547194–00023, 

#547194–00024, #547194–00025; Edison Electric 

Institute, #547194–00017; Heizer, Mark, #547194– 

00003; Jarvis, Eric, #547194–00002; Miles, 

Christopher, #547194–00006; Mitsubishi Digital 

Electronics America (Mitsubishi), #547194–00019; 

National Cable & Telecommunications Association, 

#547194–00018; Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC), #547194–00011; Northeast Energy 

Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), #547194–00014; 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District, Northwest Efficiency 

Alliance (PG&E), #547194–00027; Panasonic 

Corporation of North America (Panasonic), 

#547194–00029; Rollins, Matthew, #547194–00009; 

Sharp Laboratories of America (Sharp), #547194– 

00028; Sony Electronics Inc. (Sony), #547194– 

00016. Citations to the Commission’s public 

meeting are to the transcript page number (Meeting 

Tr. at x). 

16 75 FR at 11484–11485. 

17See, e.g., Mitsubishi; CERC; Miles, Christopher; 

Rollins, Matthew; PG&E; Consumers Union; and 

Earthjustice. 

18 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I)(ii). 

19 74 FR at 53641 (DOE notice repealing its 

obsolete standard and stating that ‘‘DOE will soon 

begin a rulemaking process to establish a new 

Federal test procedure * * *’’). 

20 74 FR at 11485 (‘‘[T]he ENERGY STAR tests 

seek to reflect the manner in which consumers are 

likely to use the product in their homes.’’). 

21 Id. 

22CEA submitted a copy of CEA–2037, which is 

copyright protected, as a confidential attachment to 

its comment. The full procedure is available for 

purchase on CEA’s Web siteWeb site at http:// 

www.ce.org/Standards/browse

ByCommittee_7559.asp. 

provide the Commission with authority 

to require labeling or other disclosures 

for any other consumer product not 

specifically listed in the statute if the 

FTC determines such labeling is likely 

to assist consumers in making 

purchasing decisions.12

In response to the EPCA amendments, 

on March 16, 2009, the Commission 

published an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking 

comment on the need for television 

energy disclosures.13 Given the lack of 

an applicable DOE test procedure, the 

ANPR proposed requiring a recently 

developed test procedure adopted by 

the ENERGY STAR program. The ANPR 

also sought comment on the format of 

the television disclosures and the need 

for disclosures for other consumer 

electronics. 

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

After reviewing the ANPR comments, 

the Commission published an NPRM on 

March 11, 2010, which proposed a label 

with energy disclosures derived from 

the ENERGY STAR test.14 The label 

would disclose the television’s annual 

energy cost in dollars, its annual energy 

use in kilowatt hours, and an energy 

cost comparison with televisions of 

similar screen sizes. The proposed label 

would employ a black-on-yellow design, 

similar to EnergyGuide labels currently 

in use for other products. Manufacturers 

would affix the labels to the front of 

televisions, so that they are visible to 

consumers looking at models displayed 

in retail stores. The NPRM provided 

three choices for the label shape and 

attachment: a rectangular horizontal 

adhesive label affixed to the bezel (the 

rim bordering the screen); a vertical 

rectangular label essentially identical to 

the horizontal label; and a triangular 

static cling label affixed to the bottom 

right-hand corner of the screen. The 

NPRM sought comment on whether the 

bezel labels should be affixed in a 

consistent location, whether some 

televisions were too small for the 

proposed labels, and whether the label 

disclosures should appear on television 

packaging. 

In addition, the NPRM proposed 

requiring paper catalogs and Web sites 

selling televisions to include either a 

copy of the EnergyGuide label or a text 

statement of the product’s annual 

energy cost. Paper catalogs and Web 

sites choosing the latter option would 

not have to include the energy cost 

comparison. 

Finally, the NPRM sought comments 

on labeling other consumer electronics, 

but did not propose requiring labels for 

those products. 

IV. Public Comments and Final Rule 

Twenty-three commenters responded 

to the NPRM, and the Commission 

received further public comment during 

an April 16, 2010, public meeting.15 The 

Commission’s responses to those 

comments are detailed below. 

A. The Need for Television Disclosures 

In its NPRM, the Commission 

explained that television labels are 

likely to assist consumers in their 

purchasing decisions because 

televisions consume large amounts of 

electricity, energy use varies 

considerably among competing models, 

and consumers are likely to use energy 

information in their purchasing 

decisions.16 No commenter challenged 

these facts or opposed a disclosure 

requirement. Indeed, although there 

were disagreements on implementation 

details, commenters from all sectors 

supported disclosure, including 

manufacturers, retailers, private 

individuals, utilities, consumer groups, 

and environmental groups.17 In light of 

these comments and the reasons given 

in the NPRM, the Commission reaffirms 

its determination that television energy 

disclosures are likely to assist 

consumers in making purchasing 

decisions. 

B. Test Procedure for Determining 

Energy Usage 

As discussed below, the final 

amendments adopt the NPRM’s 

proposal to use the EPA’s ENERGY 

STAR test procedure to provide data for 

the disclosure. 

Background: Where no ‘‘applicable’’ 

DOE test exists, EPCA authorizes the 

Commission to use ‘‘adequate nonDepartment of Energy test procedures’’ 

to obtain information for energy 

disclosures.18 DOE does not currently 

have a test procedure for televisions.19

Accordingly, the NPRM proposed using 

the EPA’s ENERGY STAR test 

procedure, which is based on the 

International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC) procedure.20

The NPRM noted two additional 

issues related to test procedures. First, 

DOE was planning to develop a test 

procedure and energy efficiency 

standards for televisions. Second, CEA 

was developing its own test procedure, 

although it was unclear if CEA had 

finalized its protocol. Accordingly, the 

Commission sought comments on 

whether it should wait to finalize 

disclosure rules until DOE, CEA, or 

both, completed their work.21

Comments: No commenters identified 

any inadequacy with the ENERGY 

STAR test procedure. However, CEA 

urged the use of its own standard, CEA– 

2037, which it published in March 

2010.22 According to CEA, this standard 

covers all necessary measurements and 

is also fully consistent with ENERGY 

STAR’s testing criteria. 

Sharp, Sony, and Mitsubishi also 

supported using CEA–2037. Sharp 

characterized CEA–2037 as the ‘‘clearest, 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
1040 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

23While NEEP did not specifically address the 

energy test procedure, it incorporated NRDC’s 

positions. See NEEP at 1 (‘‘[W]e would like to 

express our explicit support for the comments 

submitted by * * * Natural Resources Defense 

Counsel.’’). 

24NRDC; Meeting Tr. at 22, 33. 

25Meeting Tr. at 23–24, 40–41. 

26The test procedure comprises the ENERGY 

STAR Program Requirements, Product Specification 

for Televisions, Eligibility Criteria Version 4.2 

(Adopted April 30, 2010); the Test Method (Revised 

Aug, 2010); and the CEA Procedure for DAM 

Testing: For TVs, Revision 0.3 (Sept. 8, 2010). 

27 75 FR at 11485. Although some commenters 

argued in favor of the CEA–2037 test, neither they 

nor other commenters suggested that the ENERGY 

STAR procedure is inadequate. The Commission 

does not make any conclusions about the adequacy 

of CEA–2037 or the transparency of its 

development. 

28 See 42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 6294(a)(2)(I)(i). The 

switch to the DOE test procedure will trigger 

EPCA’s requirement that television manufacturers 

submit annual energy reports to the Commission 

derived from DOE test procedures. 42 U.S.C. 

6296(b)(4); 16 CFR 305.8. At that time, the 

Commission will set an annual reporting date for 

television manufacturers. However, both before and 

after the switch to the DOE test, manufacturers must 

retain their test data until at least two years after 

production of the model has terminated. 16 CFR 

305.21(a). The Commission may request this data 

with 30 days notice. Id. § 305.21(b). 

29 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(1). EPCA gives the 

Commission discretion to choose the content of 

television disclosures. 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I)(ii), 

(c)(9). 

30 5 FR at 11488 (citing DOE energy data 

published at 74 FR 26675 (June 3, 2009)). 

31The NPRM also reasoned that the 5/19 duty 

cycle was within the range of usage provided by 

ANPR commenters. 

32See, e.g., Mitsubishi and Panasonic. 

33Consumer Union also noted that while 20% of 

televisions sold in the United States in 2010 are 

forecasted to include Internet connectivity, it is too 

early to determine if consumers will use this 

function in a way that significantly increases energy 

least ambiguous measurement method’’ 

and ‘‘harmonious’’ with the ENERGY 

STAR program. Sony noted that CEA– 

2037 was developed by CEA’s standards 

committee with industry input and is 

consistent with IEC and ENERGY STAR 

test procedures. Sony also stated that 

CEA–2037 will provide ‘‘additional 

details to assure that measurements are 

consistent and repeatable.’’ Mitsubishi 

noted that the recent version of the 

ENERGY STAR test references CEA– 

2037 for some measurement procedures. 

Two commenters, NRDC and NEEP, 

urged the Commission to use the 

ENERGY STAR test.23 NRDC noted that 

manufacturers already use the IEC 

procedures incorporated into ENERGY 

STAR and, thus, should be able to adapt 

quickly within the proposed six month 

effective date. Moreover, NRDC viewed 

the CEA standard as ‘‘overly restrictive’’ 

because it does not let the tester use any 

mode other than the home (standard) 

mode. Similarly, PG&E commented that 

the procedure adopted should be able to 

adapt to new television features, such as 

Internet connectivity, as they emerge. 

NRDC also raised concerns that the 

development process for CEA–2037 

lacked transparency and did not include 

all stakeholders.24 CEA disagreed, 

stating that ‘‘the claim that somehow the 

CEA standard was not done in an open 

and transparent way is simply 

untrue.’’ 25

Finally, without commenting on the 

relative merits of CEA–2037, ACEEE 

and Earthjustice urged the Commission 

to adopt the ENERGY STAR standard 

rather than delaying rulemaking for the 

DOE standard. 

Discussion: The final amendments 

require manufacturers to use the test 

procedure in the ENERGY STAR 

program requirements (Version 4.2).26

For the reasons stated in the NPRM, the 

ENERGY STAR test procedure is 

adequate to test televisions as they are 

typically used by consumers, fulfilling 

EPCA’s requirement that the 

Commission select an adequate nonDOE test.27 Moreover, using the 

ENERGY STAR procedure would 

provide uniformity across the U.S. 

government, allowing manufacturers to 

use a single test for ENERGY STAR and 

the EnergyGuide label. In light of the 

unchallenged adequacy of the ENERGY 

STAR test and the uniformity it would 

provide, the Commission sees no 

compelling reason to depart from its 

proposal. 

When DOE completes its own 

rulemaking to develop a television test 

procedure for use in that agency’s 

efficiency standards program, the 

Commission will issue conforming 

amendments consistent with EPCA’s 

requirement that the labels use 

information from DOE test procedures 

when such procedures are available.28

C. Content 

The final amendments require two 

primary label disclosures: (1) The 

television’s product-specific estimated 

annual energy cost, calculated using a 

standard electricity rate and an estimate 

of daily hours of television use; and 

(2) a comparison with the annual energy 

cost of other televisions with similar 

screen sizes. 

1. Product-Specific Estimated Annual 

Energy Cost 

Background: Under EPCA, the 

Commission may require the energy 

disclosure to include estimated annual 

energy cost or another useful measure of 

energy consumption.29 In its NPRM, the 

Commission proposed that the label list 

the television’s estimated annual energy 

cost in dollars and its annual energy use 

in kWh. 

To calculate these disclosures using 

the ENERGY STAR test, the NPRM 

proposed a standard electricity cost and 

a standard ‘‘duty cycle’’ (an estimate of 

the hours the television is on and in 

standby mode per day). Specifically, the 

NPRM proposed a standard rate of 11 

cents per kWh, which incorporates 2009 

DOE cost data rounded to the nearest 

cent, and a duty cycle of 5 hours on and 

19 hours standby per day (‘‘the 

5/19 duty cycle’’).30 The NPRM 

proposed the 5/19 duty cycle because 

the ENERGY STAR program uses that 

duty cycle to provide annual energy use 

estimates.31 The NPRM further reasoned 

that regardless of actual average usage, 

the 5/19 duty cycle would establish 

consistent energy use and cost figures, 

allowing consumers to compare 

products. 

The NPRM did not propose that the 

amount of energy consumed by 

integrated functions, such as a built-in 

DVD player or Internet connectivity, be 

included in the annual energy use and 

cost disclosed on the label. However, 

the NPRM requested comment on 

whether the label should inform 

consumers that the annual energy cost 

does not include the operation of 

integrated functions. 

Comments: Multiple commenters 

supported the proposal to calculate 

annual energy cost and use based on the 

assumptions of 11 cents per kWh and a 

5/19 duty cycle.32 Consumers Union, 

however, suggested using an 8/16 duty 

cycle, arguing that 5 hours 

underestimates total on-time. 

Consumers Union also asked the 

Commission to investigate usage 

patterns for smaller televisions, which 

consumers may use for less time 

because they are placed in secondary 

locations, like kitchens. Similarly, EEI 

proposed using a 2/22 or 3/21 duty 

cycle for televisions smaller than 27′′ 

because consumers use them less than 

larger televisions. 

With the exception of China, no 

commenter argued that the label’s 

energy use and costs calculations 

should include the energy consumed by 

integrated functions. Commenters had 

varying views, however, regarding 

whether the label should disclose that it 

does not include the energy use of those 

integrated functions. CEE recommended 

that the label state that integrated 

functions are not included. On the other 

hand, Consumers Union opposed such a 

disclosure, reasoning that integrated 

functions do not significantly add to 

energy consumption. It added, however, 

that the Commission should revisit this 

issue if new integrated functions 

increase energy usage.33 Mitsubishi took 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1041 

use. However, China commented that Internet 

Protocol Television (‘‘IPTV’’) has substantially 

different energy consumption and usage patterns 

from other televisions. Therefore, China 

recommended either exempting IPTVs from the 

labeling rule, including a disclosure about IPTVs on 

the proposed label, or creating a separate label for 

such televisions. 

34The final amendments also adopt the NPRM’s 

proposal to include additional information on the 

label consistent with other EnergyGuide labels, 

including manufacturer name, model number, and 

the ENERGY STAR logo (where applicable). The 

label excludes other information, such as the 

model’s screen size or type, because manufacturers 

routinely provide this information elsewhere and 

its inclusion would clutter the label. 

35China requested that the Commission provide 

a formula to determine the annual energy cost. The 

ENERGY STAR test and amended Rule sections 

305.5(d) and 305.17(f) provide the information 

necessary to calculate the annual energy cost. The 

Commission will provide further written guidance 

to business as necessary to help them comply with 

the Rule, and Commission staff are also available 

to discuss compliance directly with manufacturers. 

36The Commission is not exempting or treating 

IPTVs differently at this time. There is insufficient 

information on the record concerning how 

consumers use IPTV and whether it differs from 

their use of other televisions. 

37 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(1), (c)(9). 

38The data were submitted voluntarily by 

manufacturers to qualify their models for ENERGY 

STAR certification under ENERGY STAR 3.0. 

39See, e.g., Steven Castle, Stricter Energy Star 

Standards for TVs Coming—Again, Electronic 

House, May 28, 2009, http:// 

www.electronichouse.com/article/stricter_energy_

star_standards-for-tvs-coming-again/ (‘‘Most TVs on 

the market can meet the [ENERGY STAR 3.0] 

spec.’’). 

40See e.g., ACEEE, CEA, CEE, CERC, Consumers 

Union, Mitsubishi, NRDC, PG&E, Sharp and Sony. 

41The majority of sales tend to cluster around 

fixed screen sizes: 19′′, 22′′, 26′′, 32′′, 37′′, 40′′, 42′′, 

46′′, 55′′, and 65′′. See CEA and PG&E. An analysis 

of the data submitted by commenters also shows a 

cluster of sales around the 15′′ screen size. The 

NPRM’s proposal would have grouped two or three 

of these screen sizes into most categories. 

42Mitsubishi; Meeting Tr. at 67–68. The Canadian 

regulators also are engaged in a process to require 

energy labels for televisions. 

43The commenters offered slightly different 

proposals for each category size. The one significant 

difference among the proposals, however, involved 

smaller televisions. CEA, Panasonic, Sony, and 

PG&E proposed keeping televisions from 0–20′′ in 

one cagtegory, whereas NRDC proposed dividing 

these televisions into three categories. 

44The amended Rule includes a table with the 

ranges at 16 CFR 305.17(f)(5). The final 

amendments divide smaller televisions into 

separate categories, thereby keeping the commonly 

sold screen sizes of 19′′ and 15′′ in their own 

categories. Given the apparent paucity of smaller 

television models covered by the amended Rule, the 

15′′ category covers models from 0–16′′. 

no position on the disclosure, but asked 

that any such requirement only apply to 

models with an integrated function. 

Finally, Consumers Union raised an 

issue about which there was no specific 

proposal in the NPRM. Specifically, it 

voiced concern about retesting a 

television model’s energy use, arguing 

that manufacturers should be required 

to retest their models whenever ‘‘a 

product design is changed’’ in order to 

determine whether the energy 

information on the label is still accurate. 

Discussion: The final amendments 

adopt the NPRM’s proposal to use 11 

cents per kWh and a 5/19 duty cycle to 

calculate annual estimated energy cost 

and use.34 No commenters objected to 

the 11 cents per kWh energy rate.35

As some commenters noted, 

consumers may use their televisions for 

more or less than five hours per day, but 

the 5/19 duty cycle provides uniformity 

between the EnergyGuide and ENERGY 

STAR’s publicly available use estimates, 

reducing potential consumer confusion. 

Moreover, the uniform 5/19 duty cycle 

allows consumers to compare costs 

between products even if the estimate 

over or underestimates actual usage. 

Finally, using different duty cycles 

based on screen size as suggested by EEI 

and Consumers Union would prevent 

consumers from easily comparing the 

energy use of larger televisions to 

smaller ones. The Commission, 

therefore, declines to use a different 

duty cycle. 

The final amendments do not require 

the label’s annual energy calculations to 

include the energy consumed by 

integrated functions, nor do they require 

a disclosure that the integrated 

functions’ energy use is not included. 

Neither including the energy consumed 

by integrated functions nor disclosing 

that those functions’ energy use is 

excluded is likely to assist consumers 

because the functions currently 

consume little additional electricity. 

Moreover, an additional disclosure 

about the exclusion of integrated 

functions’ energy use would crowd the 

label. If evidence indicates that 

integrated functions, especially Internet 

connectivity, implicate significant new 

energy use, the Commission may 

consider amending the Rule.36

Lastly, the amended Rule does not 

specify when manufacturers must retest 

their models to determine whether the 

energy information on the label remains 

accurate. Manufacturers are in the best 

position to determine when a design 

change could alter energy consumption, 

and therefore, when retesting is needed. 

Manufacturers whose labels do not 

contain accurate energy information 

because of design changes will violate 

16 CFR 305.4. 

2. Comparative Information 

Background: Under EPCA, the 

Commission may require disclosure of 

comparative energy consumption 

information for similar products.37 The 

NPRM, therefore, proposed requiring a 

scale on the label comparing televisions 

of similar diagonal screen sizes in 

categories of 10’’ increments. The 

categories would not separate products 

by display technology (e.g., they would 

not compare plasma screens only to 

other plasma screens). The endpoints of 

each scale would represent the highest 

and lowest energy consumption of 

models on the market in that category, 

using ENERGY STAR energy data.38

This data appeared to cover most 

products on the market, providing 

ranges that reasonably reflect the energy 

use of currently available models.39

Comments: Commenters generally 

favored including comparative 

information on the label, and agreed 

that screen size, rather than display 

technology or other factors, should be 

the basis of comparison.40 However, 

many commenters (ACEEE, CEA, CEE, 

CERC, Consumers Union, Mitsubishi, 

NRDC, PG&E, Sharp, and Sony) noted 

that the NPRM’s proposed 10′′ 

increments were too large because each 

proposed category would include 

several common screen sizes.41

Mitsubishi and a Natural Resources 

Canada representative explained that 

consumers tend to shop by screen size, 

so the Commission’s categories would 

prevent them from easily comparing the 

products they were considering.42

Many commenters, including CEA, 

Consumers Union, NRDC, Panasonic, 

PG&E, and Sony, presented specific 

proposals for grouping televisions into 

smaller categories of approximately 4′′– 

5′′ increments, which place only one or 

two commonly sold screen sizes in each 

category.43 NRDC additionally 

cautioned that the ranges should not 

allow manufacturers to game the system 

by slightly increasing their screen size 

to get into the next higher category, thus 

appearing more energy efficient in 

comparison to larger screens. CEE, 

however, voiced concern that the 

smaller proposed categories would be 

‘‘too granular’’ and would prevent 

consumers from realizing that they 

could save energy costs by choosing a 

smaller screen size. 

Discussion: The final amendments 

require the labels to compare televisions 

of similar screen sizes. The Commission 

agrees that the comparison categories 

should facilitate consumers’ easy 

comparison of similar products, which 

reflects how they shop in practice. 

Accordingly, the final amendments 

adopt the commenters’ proposals to 

reduce the size of the categories to 4–5′′ 

in order to place only one or two 

commonly sold screen sizes in each 

category.44 Most of the common screen 

sizes fall towards the beginning or 

middle of each category, which should 

reduce any incentive for ‘‘gaming’’ the 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
1042 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

45NRDC reasserted its preference for a one 

through five star ranking system, stating that 

ranking systems in other countries have motivated 

manufacturers to produce efficient models. The 

Commission’s prior studies of the EnergyGuide and 

light bulb labels, however, suggested that the fivestar rating system was more likely to cause 

confusion with ENERGY STAR than other methods 

of communicating energy use. See 74 FR 57950, 

57956 (Nov. 10, 2009); 72 FR 6836, 6844–46 (Feb. 

13, 2007). The final amendments, therefore, do not 

employ such a rating system. 

46EPCA gives the Commission discretion to chose 

the location of television disclosures. 42 U.S.C. 

6294(a)(2)(I)(ii), (c)(3), (c)(9). 

47Meeting Tr. at 126. 

48The ENERGY STAR television test covers 

battery-powered models, but it specifies that the 

unit must be ‘‘connected to a mains power source’’ 

during the test (i.e., plugged into the wall outlet, 

rather than using the battery). ENERGY STAR 

Program Requirements, Product Specification for 

Televisions, Eligibility Criteria Version 4.2 

(Adopted April 30, 2010), supra note 26, ¶¶ 2.1.1 

and 1.G.1. That test does not measure the energy 

required to recharge the battery itself, nor can it 

account for the use of disposable alkaline batteries. 

The commenters did not address whether other 

tests exist to measure these factors. In addition, any 

label for a battery-powered television would need 

to avoid the possibility of consumers 

misinterpreting cost disclosures as representations 

about battery life or the cost of disposable batteries. 

49CEE, however, stated that the Commission 

should require box labeling only if costs are not 

unduly burdensome. 

50CERC commented that labeling both the 

television and the box may cause ‘‘inconsistent or 

erroneous messaging,’’ but did not elaborate on the 

nature of the problem. 

system by slightly increasing screen size 

in order to move up into the next 

category. 

CEE’s concern that smaller screen size 

increments will prevent consumers from 

comparing smaller screens to larger 

screens is not persuasive. Because 

consumers tend to shop by screen sizes, 

categories allowing them to easily 

compare energy costs for the same 

screen sizes should help them choose 

among the models that interest them. 

Moreover, the estimated annual energy 

cost, which is the label’s primary 

disclosure, allows for easy comparisons 

across all categories for those consumers 

who wish to compare different screen 

sizes. 

The comparison ranges are derived 

from ENERGY STAR data, as proposed 

in the NPRM. If a model’s energy cost 

falls outside the high or low end of the 

comparability range, manufacturers 

must place the product on the very end 

of the scale (the high or low end as 

appropriate).45

D. Coverage 

As detailed below, the final 

amendments: (1) Require a label visible 

from the front of all televisions, except 

for battery-powered models; and (2) do 

not require labels on boxes. 

1. Labels Visible From the Front of All 

Televisions; Battery Powered Excluded 

Background and Comments: The 

NPRM proposed that all televisions bear 

the EnergyGuide label on the screen or 

bezel.46 The Commission reasoned that 

these labels would be easily visible to 

consumers and would assist them in 

comparing energy consumption. Bang & 

Olufsen argued that ‘‘label[ing] every 

single product is inappropriate’’ because 

many of the labels will not be visible to 

consumers before they purchase the 

item. Instead, it argued that only 

televisions used in displays should have 

a label. Sony likewise commented that 

only display models should bear 

physical labels because labeling all 

televisions would be ‘‘very labor 

intensive and costly.’’ However, at the 

Commission’s public meeting, CERC 

indicated that manufacturers do not 

designate certain televisions as display 

models.47

CEA and Sharp argued that the 

Commission should exempt batterypowered televisions. CEA explained 

that battery-powered televisions are 

unlike standard televisions in design, 

energy consumption, and consumer use. 

Unlike standard televisions, batterypowered models are mobile, can operate 

on battery power without being 

connected to the local mains (i.e., into 

the wall socket), and consume little 

electricity in order to extend battery life 

and facilitate mobility. CEA also 

explained that unlike standard 

televisions, consumers routinely 

consider battery life when purchasing a 

battery-powered television. 

Discussion: The final amendments 

require that all televisions bear a label, 

not just display models. In practice, 

retailers do not receive units designated 

for display by manufacturers. Therefore, 

limiting the labeling requirements to 

only certain display models would 

necessitate the development of a 

separate regulatory scheme to, among 

other things, ensure that manufacturers 

label a sufficient number of models and 

send those models to retailers, and that 

retailers display only those particular 

models. Further, labeling each model 

provides useful energy consumption 

information to consumers after they 

purchase the televisions. Given the need 

to develop numerous regulations for 

display models and the benefits that 

labeling each model provides to 

consumers, the Commission has 

determined to require the labeling of all 

covered units. 

The final amendments do not cover 

battery-powered televisions. This 

rulemaking has focused on standard 

televisions, which are designed to be 

powered exclusively by being plugged 

directly into a wall outlet. Batterypowered televisions differ significantly 

from standard televisions: they may be 

powered by a rechargeable, built-in 

battery; a supplementary external power 

supply connected directly to a wall 

outlet (e.g., an AC adapter); or 

disposable inserted batteries (e.g., AA 

alkaline batteries). Although adequate 

tests may exist to measure these factors, 

no commenters identified which tests 

would provide useful energy 

information to consumers.48

Accordingly, the Commission declines 

to cover battery-powered televisions at 

this time. 

2. Boxes Not Labeled 

Background and Comments: The 

NPRM sought comment on whether 

manufacturers should be required to 

label product packaging, as well as the 

televisions themselves, because some 

retailers place boxes in showrooms. Five 

commenters (Consumers Union, 

Earthjustice, ACEEE, CEE, and NEEP) 

advocated labeling boxes, arguing that 

box labels provide a back-up source of 

information in case the label is not 

visible on the product itself.49

Earthjustice argued that labeling boxes 

would help consumers ensure that the 

model they purchased matched the 

energy efficiency of the model 

displayed. It also suggested that retailers 

may display boxes in addition to or 

rather than unboxed display models. 

Similarly, ACEEE stated that retailers 

may display boxes in a different 

location from the display models. 

Several commenters disagreed, 

asserting that labeling boxes would not 

provide useful information. CEA, 

Mitsubishi, and Sharp argued that the 

box label would be duplicative. They 

observed that retailers usually display a 

television out-of-the-box, and 

consumers would usually examine a 

labeled display model or online model 

before purchase. Sony, Mitsubishi, and 

Panasonic added that many consumers 

never see the box prior to purchase, or 

may never see the box at all if the 

television is delivered and assembled 

for them.50 Additionally, five 

commenters (CEA, Mitsubishi, 

Panasonic, Sharp, and Sony) explained 

that manufacturers print boxes many 

months before obtaining final test 

results of the model’s energy 

consumption. Given this practice, a box 

labeling requirement, in their view, 

would likely force manufacturers to 

affix adhesive labels to the boxes after 

they are printed, rather than printing the 

disclosure on the box directly. 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1043 

51As discussed below in section IV.E.2, 

manufacturers have the option of labeling the boxes 

of televisions smaller than 9’’. 

52The triangular label’s legs increase from 4.2′′ to 

4.5′′. The horizontal label’s width increases from 

4.7′′ to 5.23′′. The vertical label’s height increases 

from 4.7′′ to 5.5′′. 

According to commenters, this would be 

labor and cost intensive. 

Discussion: The final amendments do 

not require box labels. Although 

retailers may in some cases display 

boxes to consumers pre-purchase, the 

comments indicate that consumers 

typically examine a display model 

before purchase. Rather than impose 

additional cost, substantial in the 

manufacturers’ opinions, to label boxes, 

the amended Rule relies on labeled 

models to convey energy cost 

information. Should this approach 

prove inadequate, the Commission may 

revisit the requirement.51

E. Label Format 

The final amendments require that all 

covered televisions bear a physical 

EnergyGuide label that is visible from 

the front of the product. Additionally, as 

detailed below, the final amendments 

increase the size of the comparison scale 

and require a black-on-yellow color 

scheme; require a uniform label size; 

allow a choice between three label 

formats, including rectangular labels, 

triangular labels, and an alternate format 

not affixed directly to the front of the 

television; do not allow an electronic 

label in lieu of a physical label; and 

provide guidance on the label’s location 

to promote uniformity. 

1. Size of Comparison Scale and Color 

Scheme 

Background and Comments: The 

NPRM proposed presenting comparative 

energy cost information via a scale 

similar to that used on appliance labels. 

While commenters generally supported 

this approach, ACEEE, Consumers 

Union, Earthjustice, NEEP, NRDC, and 

PG&E voiced concern about the scale’s 

visibility. Two commenters (Earthjustice 

and NRDC) noted that televisions are 

routinely displayed high on showroom 

walls, and that consumers could not 

read the comparative information on the 

proposed labels at that distance. 

Consumers Union added that larger font 

sizes would also assist consumers who 

may have poor eyesight. 

Discussion: In response to these 

concerns, the Commission has for all 

three label formats increased the 

comparison information’s size and 

changed its design to improve visibility. 

The overall size of the labels will not 

increase significantly.52 Figure 1 below 

compares the proposed label on the left 

and the new label on the right: 

Sharp and CEA proposed yellow type 

on black background, which reverses 

the standard EnergyGuide scheme. They 

argued that such an approach would 

interfere less with the aesthetics of the 

screen while retaining visibility. The 

final Rule, however, continues to 

require the familiar black-on-yellow 

EnergyGuide design. This uniform color 

scheme is likely to help consumers 

already familiar with EnergyGuide 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLSER06JA11.085</GPH>
1044 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

53Because most televisions smaller than 9′′ are 

battery-powered and thus not covered by the final 

amendments, the Commission anticipates that few 

televisions boxes will be labeled. 

54 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(3), (c)(9). 

55At the Commission’s public meeting, CEE 

stated that one retailer in a voluntary television 

labeling project reported that cling labels damaged 

screens. Meeting Tr. at 50–52. However, a 

representative from the Collaborative Labeling and 

Appliance Standards Program (CLASP) clarified 

that the damage in that case was due to defective 

labels. Meeting Tr. at 52–53. 

56 Id. at 62–63. 

57CERC discussed hang tags at the public 

meeting. Id. at 11. The other commenters discussed 

the matter in their written submissions. 

58 16 CFR 305.11(d)(2). 

59The restriction is consistent with the 

Commission’s current prohibition against exterior 

hang tags on other covered appliances. See 72 FR 

at 49960–61 (discussing the Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers comment stating that 

hang tags can become dislodged). The Commission 

currently allows interior hang tags for some 

products with interiors often examined by 

consumers, such as refrigerators. Because interior 

hang tags are obviously inappropriate for 

televisions, the Commission prohibits hang tags 

entirely here. 

60The NPRM did not propose an electronic label. 

Commenters first proposed the electronic label at 

the April 16, 2010 public meeting, followed by 

written comments in support. 

labels better recognize and use the 

label’s information. 

2. Uniform Label Size 

Background and Comments: The 

NPRM proposed one size for the 

rectangular labels and one for the 

triangular label. The Commission 

requested comment on whether some 

models were too small for the proposed 

label. In response, the Commission 

received varying comments. Four 

commenters (NRDC, NEEP, CEA, and 

Sony) proposed scaling the label size to 

screen size. Specifically, NRDC 

proposed that screens larger than 32′′ 

(measured diagonally) should have 

larger labels than those proposed in the 

NPRM, and CEA stated that televisions 

smaller than 22′′ should have smaller 

labels than those proposed. 

Additionally, the government of China 

recommended exempting televisions 

smaller than the label, and CERC stated 

that ‘‘[i]t would not be practical’’ to 

require screen labels for televisions 

smaller than 9.′′ CERC noted that such 

units are usually sold in boxes carried 

by the consumer to the counter, and 

thus should be labeled on the box rather 

than the screen. 

Discussion: The final amendments 

maintain uniform label size regardless 

of television size. The label need not be 

enlarged because the graphic 

component of the redesigned cost 

comparison scale will be visible even on 

larger televisions displayed on walls, 

and a larger label might unnecessarily 

interfere with the consumer’s view of 

the television screen. The label cannot 

be reduced for smaller televisions 

without compromising visibility. 

However, in light of China’s concerns 

about small televisions and CERC’s 

comment that televisions smaller than 

9’’ are usually sold in boxes carried by 

consumers to a register, manufacturers 

may chose to label the boxes of these 

products, rather than the televisions 

themselves.53

3. Label Format 

Background: Under EPCA, the 

Commission may prescribe the manner 

in which the label is displayed.54 The 

NPRM proposed two formats for 

television labels: A small rectangular 

adhesive label affixed either vertically 

or horizontally on the product’s bezel, 

or a triangular static cling label affixed 

to the bottom right-hand corner of the 

screen. Manufacturers would have the 

flexibility to chose which label to use, 

as well as the exact placement of the 

rectangular adhesive, which would 

allow them to take into consideration 

the configuration of their particular 

products. The NPRM also noted that 

some manufacturers already provide 

descriptive information (e.g., screen 

resolution, sound features, and high 

definition capability) through similar 

labels on the bezel or screen. The NPRM 

proposed prohibiting hang tags because 

they can easily fall off. 

Comments: Several commenters 

observed that many newer models, 

which have narrow or no bezels, would 

have to use the on-screen cling labels 

under the proposed Rule. Sony, 

Panasonic, Mitsubishi, and Bang & 

Olufsen, however, voiced concern that 

cling labels could damage television 

screens, especially newer technologies 

with delicate optical coatings, or that 

consumers would damage the screen 

trying to remove the labels.55 In 

contrast, ACEEE expressed support for 

the labels, stating that 3M, an adhesive 

manufacturer, concluded that labels 

could be made safe for use on television 

screens. Finally, CEA favored both the 

adhesive and cling label options, but 

noted manufacturers’ and retailers’ 

concerns about damage. 

In light of these concerns, four 

commenters (Sony, Mitsubishi, Sharp, 

and CEA) urged the Commission to give 

manufacturers the flexibility to display 

the label in a way that does not require 

them to affix the label directly to the 

screen or bezel. At the public meeting, 

Sharp demonstrated a design currently 

used in Canada which attaches to the 

back of the television and folds over the 

television, so that the information is 

visible from the front of the screen.56

Commenters largely supported 

prohibiting hang tags. CERC, NRDC, and 

Sony (in its capacity as a retailer) agreed 

that hang tags should not be permitted 

because they may become dislodged or 

twisted.57 However, CEA stated that the 

Commission had not presented any 

evidence about why hang tags are 

unacceptable, and Consumers Union 

suggested that hang tags could be used 

on televisions too small to be labeled. 

Discussion: In response to commenter 

concerns about screen damage, the final 

amendments allow manufacturers to 

affix the label anywhere on the 

television, as long as the label itself is 

visible to someone viewing the front of 

the television. Accordingly, the final 

amendments give manufacturers the 

choice of using either a rectangular 

adhesive label adhered to the horizontal 

or vertical bezel; a triangular cling label 

affixed to the lower right-hand corner of 

the screen; or a rectangular or triangular 

label affixed using an alternate method 

anywhere on the television. Whichever 

format is used, manufacturers must 

ensure that the label is fully and 

prominently visible to consumers from 

the front of the television, will not 

become dislodged during normal 

handling throughout the distribution 

chain, and will not become obscured or 

dislodged under normal retail 

conditions. The amended Rule does not 

permit hang tags, defined as a label 

affixed ‘‘using string or similar 

material,’’ 58 because they may become 

dislodged.59

Thus, the final amendments require 

an effective disclosure, but give 

manufacturers the flexibility to affix the 

label in a way that avoids any potential 

damage to the product and works for 

products with different configurations. 

The final amendments also 

accommodate evolving technology if 

televisions’ physical shape and screen 

composition change over time. 

4. Electronic Labeling Not Allowed To 

Satisfy the Amended Rule 

Background and Comments: Sony, 

Panasonic and Sharp proposed an 

electronic or virtual label programmed 

to appear on the screen in the 

television’s ‘‘retail mode.’’ 60 In their 

view, the electronic label would reduce 

the costs of printing and affixing 

physical labels. Sony added that an 

electronic label would also reduce the 

risk of mislabeling. 

ACEEE and NEEP, however, opposed 

the electronic label. They noted that 

Australian regulators rejected a similar 

proposal for several reasons. First, the 

regulators were concerned that 

continuously displaying the electronic 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1045 

61The alternative label presented at the 

Commission’s public meeting was designed to hang 

over the top of the television. Meeting Tr. at 62– 

63. If this label meets the rest of the Rule’s 

requirements, its location would be in compliance 

with the amended Rule because its design requires 

it to appear at the top of the television rather than 

the bottom. 

62 16 CFR 305.20. This provision implements 

EPCA’s requirement that a ‘‘catalog’’ must ‘‘contain 

all information required to be displayed on the 

label, except as otherwise provided by the rule of 

the Commission.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6296(a). The current 

Rule defines ‘‘catalog’’ as any ‘‘printed material, 

including material disseminated over the Internet, 

which contains the terms of sale, retail price, and 

instructions for ordering, from which a retail 

consumer can order a covered product’’ 16 CFR 

305.2(h). 

disclosure could damage the screen, and 

therefore the label would only be 

intermittently displayed. Second, 

Australian regulators worried that retail 

staff would turn off the retail mode to 

display an unobstructed image to 

customers. Finally, they expressed 

concern that the electronic label would 

require retailers to operate showroom 

models continuously, which would 

waste energy. 

CEA suggested further study of the 

electronic label, but cautioned that too 

many technological issues (such as font, 

access, layout, and rendering) remain 

unexplored for a timely decision. CEA 

urged that consideration of the 

electronic label not delay the present 

rulemaking. 

Discussion: The amended Rule does 

not permit electronic labels to satisfy its 

requirements. As CEA noted, the 

method for implementing an electronic 

label is unclear. Furthermore, the 

concerns noted by the Australian 

regulators suggest significant pitfalls, 

including the fact that the electronic 

image might appear only periodically. 

These potential problems could 

significantly reduce the labels’ ability to 

assist consumers in their purchasing 

decisions. Moreover, although an 

electronic label would save the costs 

associated with the physical label, the 

television would have to be on 

continuously to display the label, which 

may offset those savings. Given these 

uncertainties, the Commission declines 

to allow electronic labels at this time. 

5. Location 

Background: The Commission’s 

NPRM proposed requiring 

manufacturers to affix the labels directly 

to the front of the screen. The triangular 

label would appear on the lower righthand corner of the screen, and the 

rectangular label would be placed on 

the horizontal or vertical bezel. The 

Commission sought comment on 

whether manufacturers should be given 

discretion on the precise placement of 

the rectangular label on the bezel. 

Comments: Sony and Panasonic 

argued that a physical label affixed to 

the screen will interfere with customers’ 

view of the screen. As discussed above, 

they proposed providing the 

information in an electronic label. 

Panasonic suggested labeling the 

television’s side or back in addition to 

the electronic label, and Sony suggested 

labeling a non-viewing surface, such as 

the television stand. China likewise 

commented that the label should be 

placed on the side or back in order not 

to interfere with ‘‘normal use,’’ 

especially for smaller screens. In 

contrast, five commenters (ACEEE, CEE, 

NEEP, NRDC and PG&E) advocated a 

physical label on the front of the 

television so consumers can see the 

label while shopping. With respect to 

the rectangular label’s precise location 

on the bezel, CEE and Consumers Union 

favored requiring a uniform location for 

easy comparison. 

Discussion: The final amendments 

require that all labels be visible from the 

front of the television so that consumers 

can easily see them on display models. 

Consumers are not likely to see a label 

attached to the side or back, and as 

discussed above, the Commission 

rejected the proposal to display an 

electronic label. The labels are small 

enough not to interfere with consumers’ 

view, which should assuage 

commenters’ concern that the label will 

block the screen. 

The final amendments specify the 

label’s location on the television 

because a uniform location will help 

consumers to more easily find the label. 

However, given that televisions have 

varying configurations, the Rule 

provides manufacturers flexibility in 

placement of the rectangular and 

alternative labels. The rectangular label 

should be located on a bezel in the 

bottom right-hand corner of the 

television. Specifically, the horizontal 

rectangular label shall be located on the 

far right of the bottom bezel and the 

vertical rectangular label shall be 

located on the bottom of the right-hand 

bezel. However, if the television’s 

configuration prevents such placement 

(e.g., if the model has buttons on the 

bottom right-hand bezel), manufacturers 

may adhere the rectangular label to 

another location on the bezel. Similarly, 

the alternative label should be visible 

from the front of the television, near the 

bottom right-hand corner. However, 

manufacturers may use another 

prominent location visible from the 

front of the television if the product’s 

configuration or the alternative label’s 

design prevents such placement.61

The final amendments do not give 

flexibility in the location of the 

triangular cling label, which must be 

placed on the lower right-hand corner of 

the screen. There is no indication that 

varying configurations require flexibility 

for the labels placed directly on the 

screen. 

F. Catalog Disclosures 

The final amendments require 

catalogs (i.e., publications, including 

those on the Internet, from which a 

consumer can order merchandise) to 

display EnergyGuide information for 

televisions offered for sale. The 

amendments specify different 

disclosures for paper and online 

catalogs. Additionally, to facilitate 

compliance, the amendments require 

manufacturers to provide copies of the 

EnergyGuide labels online. 

Background: The NPRM proposed 

requiring catalogs that sell televisions to 

either: (1) Display an image of the full 

EnergyGuide label for each product; or 

(2) state the product’s annual energy 

cost derived from the label, along with 

a generic disclosure that energy costs 

will vary with utility rates and use. 

Sellers choosing the latter option would 

not need to publish the comparative 

information found on the label. This 

proposal is consistent with current 

Commission requirements for covered 

appliances sold through catalogs.62 The 

NPRM did not distinguish between 

paper and online catalogs. 

Comments: Some commenters sought 

clarification concerning the scope of the 

disclosure requirements. Specifically, 

CERC asked the Commission to clarify 

that ‘‘circulars and flyers’’ are not subject 

to the disclosure requirements, and that 

manufacturers must provide the labels 

to retailers for use in their catalogs. 

NRDC asked the Commission to clarify 

that Web sites of brick-and-mortar stores 

must meet the catalog disclosure 

requirement, and that the Rule does not 

apply only to retailers that sell 

exclusively online. 

The commenters also discussed the 

proposed disclosures for both paper and 

online catalogs. Two commenters 

specifically addressed paper catalog 

disclosures. Earthjustice objected to the 

Commission’s proposal to allow paper 

catalog sellers the option of disclosing 

the television’s annual energy cost 

without the comparative information. It 

argued there is no legal or rational basis 

to allow catalog sellers to disclose less 

information than what appears on the 

label. Earthjustice contended that 

consumers cannot be expected to collect 

cost information for each television and 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
1046 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

63 16 CFR 305.2(h). 

64 42 U.S.C. 6296(a) (The catalog disclosure ‘‘shall 

contain all information required to be displayed on 

the label, except as otherwise provided by rule of 

the Commission.’’). 

65 Sample 13 in Appendix L displays the required 

icon. The icon does not include the explanatory 

‘‘Click Here for EnergyGuide Text’’ suggested by 

NRDC. The meaning of the link should be clear 

without this text because the icon consists of the 

EnergyGuide logo. 

66The Commission may consider extending the 

Web site disclosure requirements to all appliances 

covered under the Rule in the future. 

67 42 U.S.C. 6296(a). Catalog sellers may create 

their own versions of the labels rather than using 

the images provided by the manufacturers, as long 

as the labels conform to all the specifications in the 

amended Rule. 

conduct a comparison of those energy 

costs themselves. It also argued that 

there is no evidence that printing a full 

label in a paper catalog would be 

burdensome. 

CERC, however, argued that print 

space is at a premium in paper catalogs 

and that ‘‘there is also an environmental 

issue associated with the additional 

print space needed for every disclosure 

requirement.’’ CERC, therefore, 

supported retaining the option of 

disclosing only the annual energy cost. 

CERC also recommended permitting 

paper catalogs to display a smaller 

version of the label than what appears 

in stores. For paper catalogs disclosing 

only the annual energy cost, CERC 

recommended allowing them to: 

(1) Provide the disclosure in the same 

font size used for the products’ other 

descriptive information; and (2) print 

the generic information that 

accompanies the cost disclosure one 

time on a page, rather than multiple 

times with each individual product. 

With respect to catalogs on the 

Internet, several commenters (ACEEE, 

CEA, CEE, Earthjustice, NEEP, NRDC, 

and PG&E) supported requiring sellers 

to include an image of the entire 

EnergyGuide label for each advertised 

television. For example, Earthjustice 

stated that, as with paper catalogs, 

consumers need the full label 

information and there is no evidence 

that displaying a full label in a Web site 

would be burdensome. CERC, however, 

argued that space is also at a premium 

on the Internet and, as with paper 

catalogs, suggested that sellers have the 

option to display a smaller EnergyGuide 

label or make energy cost disclosures 

with one explanatory statement per 

page. 

The commenters also made various 

proposals about how sellers should 

display labels on the Internet. For 

example, Earthjustice argued that the 

label should appear on each webpage 

displaying the covered product and 

adjacent to the first image of the 

product. It further stated that sellers 

should not use a hyperlink to lead to the 

label because consumers may not find 

the link or understand it leads to energy 

information. NRDC, however, suggested 

using an icon that hyperlinks to the 

label. It proposed placing the icon on 

the first product screen in close 

proximity to the product’s price and 

stated that consumers should not have 

to scroll down or switch to another tab 

or page to see the icon. CEA similarly 

suggested either posting the full label or 

a link to the label on the ‘‘product 

description page.’’ 

Discussion: The final amendments 

require energy disclosures in catalogs 

that offer televisions for sale. 

Specifically, the amended Rule applies 

to all publications that contain ‘‘the 

terms of sale, retail price, and 

instructions for ordering, from which a 

retail consumer can order a covered 

product.’’ 63 Flyers and circulars meeting 

this definition must contain the 

required disclosures. Further, the 

definition makes no distinction between 

brick-and-mortar stores selling online 

and online-only retailers. 

The final amendments depart in 

several respects from the NPRM 

proposal and the Rule’s catalog 

disclosures for covered appliances 

because the amendments require 

different disclosures for paper and 

online catalogs. For paper catalogs, the 

final amendments allow sellers to either 

display the full EnergyGuide label, or a 

statement of the television’s annual 

energy cost and a generic explanation 

that energy costs will depend on utility 

rates and use. Catalogs that display the 

text statement do not need to include 

the comparison scale. EPCA does not 

require the Commission to include 

comparative information on the label; 

rather, it gives the Commission 

discretion to decide the disclosure’s 

content.64 Print catalogs have space 

constraints and formats which may 

make it difficult to display the full label 

or the comparison scale. The 

Commission, therefore, exercises its 

discretion to give paper catalogs the 

option of stating the annual energy cost 

and not including the comparison scale. 

Regardless of whether the paper 

catalog displays the full label or states 

the product’s annual energy cost, the 

disclosure must appear clearly and 

conspicuously on each page displaying 

a television and its price, in close 

proximity to the price. These 

requirements should help ensure that 

consumers can find the energy 

information. The amendments do not 

require the use of a specific font size, 

however, given paper catalogs’ differing 

formats. The amendments also state that 

if paper catalogs display more than one 

television model on a page, the seller 

can state that energy costs will vary 

once on that page rather than repeating 

the information for each advertised 

television. This information, however, 

must be clear and conspicuous. 

Although paper catalog sellers have a 

choice regarding how to disclose energy 

information, the final amendments 

require Internet sellers to display the 

full EnergyGuide label. Based on the 

comments, the Commission now finds 

that the reasons for allowing a space 

saving text-only disclosure for paper 

catalogs do not apply to the Internet. 

Online catalogs have fewer space 

constraints than paper catalogs and can 

more easily include the full 

EnergyGuide label, and information can 

be condensed by linking to the label. 

Any such hyperlink, however, must be 

in the form of a distinctive icon with the 

EnergyGuide logo in black and yellow.65

The final amendments require the 

label or icon to appear clearly and 

conspicuously and in close proximity to 

the product price. These requirements 

should assist consumers by ensuring 

that the energy information is easy to 

find on the Web site and visible. Thus, 

consumers will not have to scroll down 

unreasonably or click on a tab or other 

link to view the label or icon. Internet 

sellers may scale the label and icon 

appropriately to accommodate their 

layout as long they remain readable and 

recognizable. In further recognition of 

varying layouts, the amended Rule does 

not require that the label or icon appear 

alongside every image of a television on 

the site. For example, if summary pages 

list multiple television models and 

consumers must click on a link to obtain 

more information about a particular 

model, the EnergyGuide label or icon 

does not need to appear next to each 

model on that webpage. Instead, the 

label or icon must appear clearly and 

conspicuously on the television’s main 

page, where a detailed description of the 

television and its price appear.66

Finally, to facilitate catalog seller 

compliance with the Rule, 

manufacturers must make images of 

their labels available on a Web site for 

linking and downloading by both paper 

catalog and Internet sellers. The labels 

must remain available online for two 

years after the model ceases to be 

manufactured. This requirement is 

based on EPCA’s mandate that 

manufacturers ‘‘provide’’ a label, which 

extends to providing the label online to 

catalog sellers so that those sellers may 

comply with the Rule’s disclosure 

requirements.67


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1047 

68 16 CFR 305.4(a)(2). 

69 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(1). Earthjustice also cites an 

additional similar provision of EPCA requiring that 

the Commission’s rule apply to ‘‘all covered 

products.’’ 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(1). 

70 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(3). 

71 In addition to arguing that EPCA expressly 

mandates the Commission to impose additional 

duties on retailers, Earthjustice argued that EPCA 

gives the Commission the authority to impose 

additional retailer duties. 

72United States Government Accountability 

Office, Energy Efficiency—Opportunities Exist for 

Federal Agencies to Better Inform Household 

Consumers, GAO–07–1162, Sept. 2007, at 6. 

73Meeting Tr. at 45–46; see also CERC’s written 

comment. 

74 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(1). 

75 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(1). 

76 42 U.S.C. 6294(c)(3). 

77See 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(1), 6294(c)(1) and (c)(3). 

78 72 FR at 49960–61. In their comments to this 

NPRM, CERC, NRDC, and Sony also identified hang 

tags as problematic. 

79 In addition, televisions may be less likely to 

suffer the missing label problems identified by the 

GAO report, regardless of the mode of labeling. As 

discussed above in section IV.E.1, several 

commenters observed that televisions are routinely 

displayed high on retail store walls. Unlike the 

appliances at issue in the GAO report, which are 

displayed on the showroom floor, television labels 

will be often out of reach and therefore less likely 

to be removed by consumers viewing the products. 80 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I)(iii). 

G. Retailer Responsibility 

The final amendments forbid retailers 

from removing or rendering 

EnergyGuide labels illegible. 

Background: The NPRM proposed 

that manufacturers and private labelers 

bear the responsibility for affixing labels 

to televisions. Retailers would be 

prohibited from removing or rendering 

the labels illegible, consistent with the 

Rule’s requirements for other covered 

products,68 but would not have 

additional responsibilities to label the 

televisions themselves. 

Comments: In response to the NPRM, 

Earthjustice argued that EPCA’s ‘‘express 

statutory mandate’’ requires the 

Commission to ‘‘hold retailers 

accountable for ensuring that the 

products they display and sell are 

properly labeled.’’ Earthjustice focused 

on EPCA’s requirement that the labeling 

rule must ‘‘require that each covered 

product * * * bear a label’’ 69 which is 

‘‘displayed in a manner * * * likely to 

assist consumers.’’ 70 In Earthjustice’s 

view, this can only be accomplished if 

retailers have an affirmative duty to 

ensure the televisions are properly 

labeled in stores. 

Earthjustice also argued that the 

Commission’s failure to impose retailer 

obligations would be arbitrary and 

capricious.71 Citing a 2007 Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) report 

finding that many covered products 

lacked a visible label in retail stores,72

Earthjustice argued that the Commission 

‘‘cannot rationally find its rules require 

labels to be displayed ‘in a manner 

* * * likely to assist consumers in 

making purchasing decisions’ when 

those rules in fact allow the person 

selling the product to the consumer to 

display no label at all, or a label that is 

illegible or located where it cannot be 

viewed by the consumer.’’ 

In contrast, CERC, the retailers’ trade 

association, argued that requiring 

retailers to affix or reaffix missing labels 

would cause ‘‘chaos.’’ In CERC’s view, 

the retailer would not be able to quickly 

or easily determine the product to 

which the label belongs, and as a 

consequence may attach the label to the 

incorrect product.73

Discussion: The final amendments 

adopt the NPRM’s proposal to require 

only manufacturers and private labelers 

to affix the labels. The amendments 

prohibit both manufacturers and 

retailers from removing the label or 

rendering it illegible. 

EPCA does not require the 

Commission to impose additional 

responsibility on retailers, as 

Earthjustice argues. The EPCA 

provisions Earthjustice cites (the 

labeling rule must be ‘‘applicable to all 

covered products’’ 74 and ‘‘require that 

each covered product * * * bear a 

label’’ 75 which is ‘‘displayed in a 

manner * * * likely to assist 

consumers’’ 76) do not direct the 

Commission to require retailers to label 

products. Instead, these broadly worded 

passages address labeling generally, 

with no specific reference to retailers. 

The final amendments reasonably 

implement EPCA, in conformance with 

the statutory provisions Earthjustice 

cites. They are applicable to all covered 

products and require that each covered 

product bear a label displayed in a 

manner likely to assist consumers.77

The final amendments create a network 

of measures intended to keep the label 

on the television to allow consumers to 

see it on a display model in the store. 

First, the manufacturers or private 

labelers must affix an adhesive or cling 

label to all televisions, or choose an 

alternate method of attachment. They 

must affix the label so that it will not 

become dislodged in the distribution 

chain and will remain attached and 

visible in the showroom under normal 

retail conditions. Second, the final 

amendments prohibit hang tags, which 

the Commission has previously 

determined often became dislodged if 

attached to the exterior of appliances.78

Hang tags were likely a major 

contributing factor to the problems 

identified in the GAO report.79 Third, 

retailers may not remove the label or 

render it illegible. Retailers cannot, for 

example, display a television intended 

for examination by consumers in a way 

that obscures the label. The final 

amendments thus fulfill EPCA and are 

reasonably calculated to ensure that the 

labeling problems detected by the GAO 

do not occur with television labels. 

The Commission anticipates that the 

labeling system created by the final 

amendments will result in consumers 

receiving energy information while 

avoiding the imposition of costs on 

retailers and the possibility that retailers 

will attach labels to incorrect products. 

If experience with implementing the 

final amendments suggests that 

improvements are necessary, the 

Commission can revisit the 

requirements at a later date. 

H. Timing 

Background and Comments: Under 

EPCA, any FTC labeling requirements 

for consumer electronics shall be 

effective ‘‘not later than’’ 18 months after 

promulgation.80 In the NPRM, the 

Commission sought comment on a sixmonth effective date. 

The commenters had different views 

on this proposal. Several commenters 

(ACEEE, CEE, Earthjustice, NRDC) 

supported a six-month effective date, 

stating that it would ensure consumers 

receive the benefit of the labels as soon 

as possible. CERC, however, proposed 

nine months, stating that catalog sellers 

need additional time to change their 

designs. Sony asked for a January 2012 

effective date, while both Bang & 

Olufsen and China recommended a 

twelve-month effective date. 

Many manufacturers were more 

concerned with setting the effective date 

at the beginning of the industry’s 

production cycle than with the length of 

the compliance period. For example, 

Panasonic and Mitsubishi believed that 

six months provided sufficient lead time 

as long as the effective date coincided 

with the production cycle. The 

manufacturers, however, disagreed 

about the precise start of the production 

cycle. CEA, Mitsubishi, and Sharp 

suggested an effective date in early 

summer, but Panasonic suggested that 

March 2011 would allowed continuity 

with the production cycle. 

Discussion: The final amendments 

provide two different effective dates: 

May 10, 2011 for physical labels; and 

July 11, 2011 for catalog disclosures. 

The six-month effective date balances 

the goals of providing manufacturers 

with the necessary time to comply with 

the new requirements and expeditiously 

providing consumers the benefit of the 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
1048 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

81 42 U.S.C. 6294(d). 

82The Rule’s definition excludes battery-powered 

televisions as well as a sentence in the ENERGY 

STAR definition that states: ‘‘Cathode-ray tube 

(CRT), liquid crystal display (LCD), and plasma 

display panel (PDP) are examples of common 

display technologies.’’ Such a list of examples is not 

necessary in a regulatory definition. 83 44 U.S.C. 3501–3521. 

84See Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department 

of Labor, National Compensation Survey: 

Occupational Earnings in the United States, 2009, 

Bulletin 2738, Table 3, at 3–4 (Aug. 2010), available 

at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/nctb1346.pdf 

(National Compensation Survey). 

85See id. at 3–24. 

86 See ENERGY STAR Unit Shipment and Market 

Penetration Report Calendar Year 2008 Summary, 

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/downloads/

2008_USD_Summary.pdf, at 5 (approximately 26 

million television units shipped in 2008, 

constituting 79% of televisions sold; 26,000,000 ÷ 

0.79 = 33,000,000). 

87 See National Compensation Survey, supra note 

84 at 3–30. 

labels. This effective date also should 

address most manufacturers’ concerns 

about interrupting their production 

cycles because it occurs prior to the 

summer start date of most cycles. The 

catalog disclosure requirements become 

effective in eight months because 

catalog sellers (both online and paper) 

will likely require additional time to 

receive label information from 

manufacturers and redesign their 

catalogs. Under EPCA, the final 

amendments do not apply to any 

products manufactured before the sixmonth effective date.81

V. Other Consumer Electronics 

The NPRM sought further comment 

about labeling cable and satellite set-top 

boxes, stand-alone digital video recorder 

boxes, personal computers, personal 

computer monitors, and other consumer 

electronics, but did not propose any 

labeling requirements for those 

products, choosing instead to focus on 

televisions. The Commission received 

several comments in response. In order 

not to delay implementation of 

television labeling, the Commission will 

review these comments and consider 

whether to propose labeling 

requirements for other consumer 

electronics at a future date. 

VI. Section by Section Description of 

Final Amendments 

Definition of Television (section 

305.3): The amendments add a 

definition of televisions that is 

consistent with the definition used by 

the ENERGY STAR Specification.82

Testing Requirements (section 305.5): 

The amendments require manufacturers 

to follow the test procedures required by 

the ENERGY STAR Specification. 

Minor Conforming Changes (sections 

305.8 and 305.10): The amendments 

make minor, conforming changes to 

sections 305.8 (data submission) and 

305.10 (ranges of comparability) to 

clarify that these sections do not apply 

to televisions. 

Product Labeling (section 305.17): The 

amendments require manufacturers to 

affix EnergyGuide labels to televisions 

on the product’s bezel in the form of a 

small rectangular adhesive label, on the 

screen in the form of a small triangular 

cling label, or using an alternate method 

of attachment that permits the label to 

be clearly visible from the front of the 

television. The primary disclosure on 

the label is the product’s estimated 

annual energy cost. 

Catalog Requirements (section 

305.20): The amendments require 

catalogs to include energy disclosures 

for the televisions they offer for sale. 

Internet sellers must display the full 

EnergyGuide label, but may use a 

distinctive icon to hyperlink to the 

label. Paper catalogs must include either 

the full label or a text summary of only 

the annual cost information. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The current Rule contains 

recordkeeping, disclosure, and testing 

requirements that constitute 

‘‘information collection requirements’’ as 

defined by 5 CFR 1320.3(c) under the 

regulations that implement the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).83 OMB 

has approved the Rule’s existing 

information collection requirements 

through May 31, 2011 (OMB Control No. 

3084–0069). The amendments require 

television manufacturers to test and 

label their products with energy 

information and to maintain records for 

two years after a model is discontinued. 

They also require paper and Internet 

catalog sellers of televisions to provide 

energy information. Accordingly, the 

Commission has submitted a related 

clearance request to OMB for review 

under the PRA. 

The following burden estimates for 

the final amendments (cumulatively, 

58,867 hours for recordkeeping, testing, 

and disclosure at an associated labor 

cost of $874,179) are based on data 

submitted by manufacturers to the FTC 

under current requirements and FTC 

staff’s general knowledge of 

manufacturing practices. The NPRM 

sought comment on these estimates, but 

the Commission received no comments 

in response. Accordingly, the final 

amendments adopt the NPRM’s 

estimates. The Commission has made 

minor adjustments to the final burden as 

a result of changes implemented in the 

final Rule as noted below. 

Testing: Manufacturers need not test 

each basic model annually; they must 

retest only if the product design changes 

in such a way as to affect energy 

consumption. Staff believes that the 

frequency with which models will be 

tested every year ranges roughly 

between 10% and 50%. It is likely that 

only a small portion of the tests 

conducted will be attributable to the 

Rule’s requirements. Nonetheless, given 

the lack of specific data on this point, 

the Commission conservatively assumes 

that all of the tests conducted would be 

attributable to the Rule’s requirements 

and will apply to that assumption the 

high-end of the range noted above for 

frequency of testing. Staff estimates that 

there are approximately 2,000 basic 

models, that manufacturers will test two 

units per model, and that testing would 

require one hour per unit tested. Given 

these estimates and the above-noted 

assumption that 50% of these basic 

models would be tested annually, 

testing would require 2,000 hours per 

year. Assuming further that this testing 

will be implemented by electrical 

engineers, and applying an associated 

hourly wage rate of $39.72 per hour,84

labor costs for testing would total 

$79,440. 

Recordkeeping: Pursuant to section 

305.21 of the amended Rule, 

manufacturers must keep test data on 

file for a period of two years after the 

production of a covered product model 

has been terminated. Assuming one 

minute per model and 2,000 basic 

models, the recordkeeping burden 

would total 33 hours. Assuming further 

that these filing requirements will be 

implemented by data entry workers at 

an hourly wage rate of $13.73 per 

hour,85 the associated labor cost for 

recordkeeping would be approximately 

$450 per year. 

Disclosures (Product Labeling): The 

final amendments required 

manufacturers to create and affix labels 

on televisions. The amendments specify 

the content, format, and specifications 

of the required labels. Manufacturers 

would add only the energy consumption 

figures derived from testing and other 

product-specific information. Consistent 

with past assumptions regarding 

appliances, FTC staff estimates that it 

will take approximately six seconds per 

unit to affix labels. Staff also estimates 

that there are 33,000,000 television 

units distributed in the U.S. per year.86

Accordingly, the total disclosure burden 

for televisions would be 55,000 hours 

(33,000,000 × 6 seconds). Assuming that 

product labels will be affixed by 

electronic equipment assemblers at an 

hourly wage of $13.66 per hour,87


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1049 

88The number of catalog dealers has increased 

from the estimate in the NPRM due to revised staff 

estimates of online sellers. 

89Unlike retail Web sites that already have 

established Web pages for the products they offer, 

some manufacturers may have to create new Web 

pages for posting these requirements. Accordingly, 

the burden estimate for manufacturers is higher 

(five minutes per model) than that for catalog sellers 

(one minute per model). 

90See National Compensation Survey, supra note 

84 at 3–12. 91 5 U.S.C. 603–605. 

cumulative associated labor cost would 

total $751,300 per year. 

Catalog Disclosures: The final 

amendments would require sellers 

offering covered products through 

catalogs (both online and print) to 

disclose energy use for each television 

model offered for sale. Because this 

information is supplied by the product 

manufacturers, the burden on the 

retailer consists of incorporating the 

information into the catalog 

presentation. 

FTC staff estimates that there are 200 

online and paper catalogs for televisions 

that would be subject to the Rule’s 

catalog disclosure requirements.88 Staff 

additionally estimates that the average 

catalog contains approximately 500 

televisions and that entry of the 

required information takes one minute 

per covered product. The cumulative 

disclosure burden for catalog sellers is 

thus 1,667 hours (200 retailer catalogs × 

500 televisions per catalog × 1 minute 

each per television shown). In addition, 

the final Rule requires manufacturers to 

post images of their EnergyGuide labels 

on their Web sites. Given approximately 

2,000 total models at five minutes per 

model, the staff estimates that this 

requirement will entail a burden of 167 

hours, for a total of 1,834 hours 

associated with the catalog 

requirement.89 Assuming that the 

additional disclosure requirement will 

be implemented by graphic designers at 

an hourly wage rate of $23.44 per 

hour,90 associated labor cost would 

approximate $42,989 per year. 

Estimated annual non-labor cost 

burden: Manufacturers are not likely to 

require any significant capital costs to 

comply with the final amendments. 

Industry members, however, will incur 

the cost of printing labels for each 

covered unit. The estimated label cost, 

based on estimates of 33,000,000 units 

and $.03 per label, is $990,000 

(33,000,000 × $.03). 

VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 

5 U.S.C. 601–612, requires that the 

Commission provide an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

with a Proposed Rule, and a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

with the final Rule, unless the 

Commission certifies that the Rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities.91

The Commission does not anticipate 

that the final amendments will have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The Commission recognizes that many 

affected entities may qualify as small 

businesses under the relevant 

thresholds. The Commission does not 

expect, however, that the economic 

impact of implementing the label design 

will be significant. The Commission 

plans to provide businesses with ample 

time to implement the requirements. 

The Commission estimates that these 

new requirements will apply to about 30 

product manufacturers and an 

additional 200 online and paper catalog 

sellers of covered products. Out of these 

companies, the Commission expects 

that approximately 150 catalog sellers 

qualify as small businesses. In addition, 

the Commission does not expect that the 

requirements specified in the final 

amendments will have a significant 

impact on these entities. 

Although the Commission certified 

under the RFA that the amendments 

would not, if promulgated, have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, the 

Commission has determined, 

nonetheless, that it is appropriate to 

publish an FRFA in order to explain the 

impact of the amendments on small 

entities as follows: 

A. Description of the Reasons That 

Action by the Agency Is Being Taken 

The Commission is adopting these 

amendments to the Appliance Labeling 

Rule in order to establish labeling 

requirements for televisions, pursuant to 

the Commission’s rulemaking authority 

under the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007. 

B. Issues Raised by Comments in 

Response to the IRFA 

The Commission did not receive any 

comments specifically related to the 

impact of the final amendments on 

small businesses. The Commission 

received comments from CERC 

regarding the impacts of potential 

retailer requirements on small 

businesses. However, as discussed in 

section IV.F of this notice, the final 

amendments do not adopt those 

requirements. The Commission also 

received comments on required 

disclosures for catalog sellers and the 

effective date of the final amendments, 

which are issues that could affect small 

retail businesses. These issues are 

discussed in sections IV.F and IV.H of 

this notice. 

C. Estimate of Number of Small Entities 

to Which the Amendments Will Apply 

Under the Small Business Size 

Standards issued by the Small Business 

Administration, television 

manufacturers qualify as small 

businesses if they have fewer than 1,000 

employees (for other household 

appliances the figure is 500 employees) 

or if their sales are less than $8.0 

million annually. The threshold for 

television retailers is $9.0 million. The 

Commission estimates that fewer than 

150 retailer entities subject to the final 

amendments qualify as small 

businesses. 

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, 

and Other Compliance Requirements 

The Commission recognizes that the 

final Rule will involve some increased 

costs related to testing, drafting labels, 

affixing labels to products, and 

maintaining test records. All of these 

burdens and the skills required to 

comply are discussed in the previous 

section of this document, regarding the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, and there 

should be no difference in that burden 

as applied to small businesses. As 

explained earlier, the Commission 

estimates that there are about 150 

catalog sellers under the final 

amendments that would qualify as such 

entities. 

E. Duplicative, Overlapping, or 

Conflicting Federal Rules 

The Commission has not identified 

any other federal statutes, rules, or 

policies that would duplicate, overlap, 

or conflict with the final amendments. 

F. Alternatives 

The Commission sought comment and 

information on the need, if any, for 

alternative compliance methods that 

would reduce the economic impact of 

the Rule on such small entities. In 

particular, the Commission sought 

comments on whether it should delay 

the Rule’s effective date to provide 

additional time for small business 

compliance and whether to reduce the 

amount of information catalog sellers 

must provide. After considering the 

comments, the Commission has set the 

Rule’s effective date at six months after 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register, which should coincide with 

the beginning of the annual production 

cycle for televisions. This should reduce 

the impacts on manufacturers in 

response. In addition, the Commission 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
1050 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

has set the effective date for the catalog 

disclosure requirements two months 

after the labeling requirement for 

manufacturers. This will provide catalog 

sellers (which are likely to include 

small businesses) with additional time 

to ensure their compliance with the 

Rule. Finally, the amendments also 

require manufacturers to post label 

images online to make it easier for 

online retailers to post labels for the 

products they sell. 

IX. Final Rule 

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305 

Advertising, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Incorporation by 

reference, Labeling, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ For the reasons discussed above, the 

Commission amends part 305 of title 16, 

Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: 

PART 305—RULE CONCERNING 

DISCLOSURES REGARDING ENERGY 

CONSUMPTION AND WATER USE OF 

CERTAIN HOME APPLIANCES AND 

OTHER PRODUCTS REQUIRED 

UNDER THE ENERGY POLICY AND 

CONSERVATION ACT (‘‘APPLIANCE 

LABELING RULE’’) 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 305 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294. 

■ 2. In § 305.3, add paragraph (u) to read 

as follows: 

§ 305.3 Description of covered products. 

* * * * * 

(u) Television (TV) means a 

commercially available electronic 

product designed primarily for the 

display and reception of audiovisual 

signals from terrestrial, cable, satellite, 

Internet Protocol TV (IPTV), or other 

transmission of analog and/or digital 

signals, consisting of a tuner/receiver 

and a display encased in a single 

housing. This definition does not cover 

models that are designed to operate on 

built-in rechargeable batteries or 

inserted batteries. 

■ 3. In § 305.4, add paragraph (e)(4) to 

read as follows: 

§ 305.4 Prohibited acts. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(4) Televisions manufactured before 

May 10, 2011. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 305.5, add paragraph (d) to read 

as follows: 

Testing 

§ 305.5 Determinations of estimated 

annual energy consumption, estimated 

annual operating cost, and energy 

efficiency rating, and of water use rate. 

* * * * * 

(d) Determinations of estimated 

annual energy consumption and the 

estimated annual operating (energy) 

costs of televisions must be based on the 

procedures contained in the EnergyStar 

Version 4.2 test, which is comprised of 

the ENERGY STAR Program 

Requirements, Product Specification for 

Televisions, Eligibility Criteria Version 

4.2 (Adopted April 30, 2010); the Test 

Method (Revised Aug–2010); and the 

CEA Procedure for DAM Testing: For 

TVs, Revision 0.3 (Sept. 8, 2010). 

Annual energy consumption and cost 

estimates must be derived assuming 5 

hours in on mode and 19 hours in sleep 

(standby) mode per day. These ENERGY 

STAR requirements are incorporated by 

reference into this section. The Director 

of the Federal Register has approved 

these incorporations by reference in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. Copies of the test 

procedure may be inspected or obtained 

at the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, ENERGY STAR 

Hotline (6202J), 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, 

or at http://www.energystar.gov/ia/

partners/product_specs/program_reqs/

Televisions_Program_Requirements.pdf 

[Telephone: ENERGY STAR Hotline: 

1–888–782–7937]; at the Federal Trade 

Commission, Consumer Response 

Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580 

[Telephone: 1–202–326–2830]; and at 

the National Archives and Records 

Administration, at http:// 

www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/

ibr-locations.html [Telephone: 1–202– 

741–6030]. 

§ 305.8 [Amended] 

■ 5. Amend § 305.8(a)(1) in the first 

sentence by adding the word 

‘‘televisions,’’ after the term ‘‘urinals,’’. 

§ 305.10 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 305.10(a) in the first 

sentence by removing the words ‘‘or 

ceiling fans’’ and adding, in their place, 

the words ‘‘ceiling fans, or televisions’’. 

■ 7. Add § 305.17 to read as follows: 

§ 305.17 Television labeling. 

(a) Layout. All energy labels for 

televisions shall use one of three shapes: 

a vertical rectangle, a horizontal 

rectangle, and a triangle as detailed in 

Prototype Labels 8, 9, and 10 in 

Appendix L. All label size, positioning, 

spacing, type sizes, positioning of 

headline, copy, and line widths must be 

consistent with the prototype and 

sample labels in Appendix L. The 

minimum label size for the vertical 

rectangle label is 1.5′′ x 5.5′′. The 

minimum size for the horizontal 

rectangle label is 1.5′′ x 5.23′′. The 

minimum size for the triangle label is 

4.5′′ x 4.5′′ (right angle sides). 

(b) Type style and setting. The Arial 

series typeface or equivalent shall be 

used exclusively on the label. Prototype 

Labels 8, 9, and 10 in Appendix L 

contain specific directions for type style 

and setting and indicate the specific 

sizes, leading, faces, positioning, and 

spacing to be used. No hyphenations 

should be used in setting headline or 

copy text. 

(c) Colors. The basic colors of all 

labels and icons covered by this section 

shall be process yellow or equivalent 

and process black. The label shall be 

printed full bleed process yellow. All 

type and graphics shall be printed 

process black. 

(d) Label types. The labels must be 

affixed to the product in the form of 

either an adhesive label, cling label, or 

alternative label as follows: 

(1) Adhesive label. All adhesive labels 

shall be applied so they can be easily 

removed without the use of tools or 

liquids, other than water, but shall be 

applied with an adhesive with an 

adhesion capacity sufficient to prevent 

their dislodgment during normal 

handling throughout the chain of 

distribution to the retailer and 

consumer. The paper stock for pressuresensitive or other adhesive labels shall 

have a basic weight of not less than 58 

pounds per 500 sheets (25 x 38) or 

equivalent, exclusive of the release liner 

and adhesive. A minimum peel 

adhesion capacity for the adhesive of 12 

ounces per square inch is suggested, but 

not required if the adhesive can 

otherwise meet the above standard. 

(2) Cling label. Labels may be affixed, 

using the screen’s static charge, to the 

product in the form of a cling label. The 

cling label shall be affixed in a manner 

that prevents dislodgment during 

normal handling throughout the chain 

of distribution to the retailer and 

consumer. 

(3) Alternative label. In lieu of an 

adhesive or cling label, labels may be 

affixed using an alternative method to 

secure the label to the product as long 

as the method will prevent dislodgment 

during normal handling throughout the 

chain of distribution to the retailer and 

consumer. The label may not be affixed 

using a hang tag as described in 

§ 305.11(d)(2). The label shall consist of 

paper stock having a basic weight of not 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1051 

less than 110 pounds per 500 sheets (25 

1⁄2′′; x 30 1⁄2′′) or other material of 

equivalent durability. 

(e) Placement—(1) In general. All 

labels must be clear and conspicuous to 

consumers viewing the television screen 

from the front. 

(2) Adhesive label. The adhesive label 

shall be in the shape of a horizontal or 

vertical rectangle and shall be located 

on the bezel in the bottom right-hand 

corner of the television. The horizontal 

rectangular label shall be located on the 

far right of the bottom bezel and the 

vertical rectangular label shall be 

located on the bottom of the right-hand 

bezel. Another location on the bezel 

may be used if the television’s 

configuration prevents such placement. 

(3) Cling label. The cling label shall be 

in the shape of a triangle and shall be 

located in the bottom right-hand corner 

of the screen. 

(4) Alternative label. The alternative 

label shall be in the shape of either a 

horizontal rectangle, vertical rectangle, 

or triangle. It shall be visible from the 

front of the television and located in the 

bottom right-hand corner of the 

television. Another prominent location 

visible from the front of the television 

may be used if the television’s 

configuration or the mechanism to 

secure the alternative label prevents 

such placement. 

(f) Label content. The television label 

shall contain the following information: 

(1) Headlines, texts, and statements as 

illustrated in the prototype and sample 

labels in Appendix L to this part. 

(2) Name of manufacturer or private 

labeler. This requirement shall, in the 

case of a corporation, be satisfied only 

by the actual corporate name, which 

may be preceded or followed by the 

name of a particular division of the 

corporation. In the case of an 

individual, partnership, or association, 

the name under which the business is 

conducted shall be used. 

(3) Model number(s) as designated by 

the manufacturer or private labeler. 

(4) Estimated annual energy costs 

determined in accordance with § 305.5 

of this part and based on a usage rate of 

5 hours in on mode and 19 hours in 

standby (sleep) mode per day, and an 

electricity cost rate of 11 cents per kWh. 

(5) The applicable ranges of 

comparability for estimated annual 

energy costs based on the labeled 

product’s diagonal screen size, 

according to the following table: 

Screen size 

(diagonal) 

Annual energy 

cost ranges for 

televisions 

Low High 

0–16′′ (0 to 16.49′′) ........... $ 3 $ 6 

17–20′′ (16.5 to 20.49′′) .... 4 11 

21–23′′ (20.5 to 23.49′′) .... 4 13 

24–29′′ (23.5 to 29.49′′) .... 9 19 

30–34′′ (29.5 to 34.49′′) .... 11 25 

35–39′′ (34.5 to 39.49′′) .... 17 31 

40–44′′ (39.5 to 44.49′′) .... 15 43 

45–49′′ (44.5 to 49.49′′) .... 18 51 

50–54′′ (49.5 to 54.49′′) .... 21 67 

55–59′′ (54.5 to 59.49′′) .... 24 73 

60–64′′ (59.5 to 64.49′′) .... 31 79 

65–69′′ (64.5 to 69.49′′) .... 35 83 

69.5′′ or greater ................ 39 90 

(6) Placement of the labeled product 

on the scale proportionate to the lowest 

and highest estimated annual energy 

costs as illustrated in Prototype Labels 

8, 9, and 10 and Sample Labels 10, 11, 

and 12 in Appendix L. When the 

estimated annual energy cost of a given 

television model falls outside the limits 

of the current range for that product, the 

manufacturer shall place the product at 

the end of the range closest to the 

model’s energy cost. 

(7) The model’s estimated annual 

energy consumption as determined in 

accordance with § 305.5 and based on a 

usage rate of 5 hours in on mode and 19 

hours in sleep (standby) mode per day. 

(8) No marks or information other 

than that specified in this part shall 

appear on or directly adjoining this 

label except that: 

(i) A manufacturer may include a part 

or publication number identification on 

the label, as long as it appears in the 

lower right-hand corner of the label and 

is set in 6-point type or smaller. 

(ii) The manufacturer may include the 

ENERGY STAR logo on the label as 

illustrated in Sample Labels 10, 11, and 

12 in Appendix L. The logo must be 

0.375′′ wide. Only manufacturers that 

have signed a Memorandum of 

Understanding with the Department of 

Energy or the Environmental Protection 

Agency covering the televisions to be 

labeled may add the ENERGY STAR 

logo to those labels. 

(g) Distribution of labels. For each 

television model that a manufacturer 

distributes in commerce, the 

manufacturer must make a copy of the 

label available on a publicly accessible 

Web site in a manner that allows catalog 

sellers to hyperlink to the label or 

download it for use in catalogs that 

advertise televisions. The labels must 

remain on the Web site for two years 

after the manufacturer ceases the 

model’s production. 

■ 8. In § 305.20, add paragraphs (g) and 

(h) to read as follows: 

§ 305.20 Paper catalogs and Web sites. 

* * * * * 

(g) Televisions offered for sale on the 

Internet. Any manufacturer, distributor, 

retailer, or private labeler that advertises 

televisions on the Internet in a manner 

that qualifies as a catalog under this Part 

shall disclose energy information as 

follows: 

(1) Content. For each covered 

television, the Internet seller must 

display the EnergyGuide label prepared 

in accordance with § 305.17. The seller 

may hyperlink to the label as long as it 

leads directly to the label and the 

hyperlink is an icon in the form of 

Sample Icon 13 in Appendix L. 

(2) Format. The EnergyGuide label or 

the icon must appear clearly and 

conspicuously, and in close proximity 

to the television’s price, on each 

webpage that contains a detailed 

description of the television and its 

price. The scale size of the icon and/or 

the label prototypes in Appendix L may 

be altered to accommodate the 

webpage’s design, as long as the icon 

and/or label remain clear and 

conspicuous to consumers viewing the 

page. 

(h) Televisions offered for sale in 

paper catalogs. Any manufacturer, 

distributor, retailer, or private labeler 

that advertises televisions in a paper 

publication that qualifies as a catalog 

under this Part shall disclose energy 

information as follows: 

(1) Content. For each covered 

television, the paper catalog must either: 

(i) Display the EnergyGuide label 

prepared in accordance with § 305.17, 

or 

(ii) (A) State the estimated annual 

energy cost determined in accordance 

with § 305.5, and 

(B) State the following: ‘‘Your energy 

cost depends on your utility rates and 

use. The estimated cost is based on 11 

cents per kWh and 5 hours of use per 

day. For more information, visit http:// 

www.ftc.gov/energy.’’ 

(2) Format. The required disclosure 

must appear clearly and conspicuously, 

and in close proximity to the 

television’s price, on each page that 

displays the television and its price. If 

a catalog displays the EnergyGuide label 

pursuant to paragraph (h)(1)(i) of this 

section, the size of the label may be 

altered to accommodate the paper 

catalog’s design, as long as the label 

remains clear and conspicuous to 

consumers. If a catalog includes the 

statements in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this 

section, the statements must be clear 

and conspicuous to consumers. If a 

catalog displays multiple covered 

televisions on a page, the statement in 

paragraph (h)(1)(ii)(B) of this section 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS
1052 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

may be displayed only once per page as 

long as it is clear and conspicuous. 

■ 9. Amend Appendix L by adding 

Prototype Labels 8, 9, and 10, Sample 

Labels 10, 11, and 12, and Sample Icon 

13: 

Appendix L to Part 305—Sample Labels 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLSER06JA11.086</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1053 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLSER06JA11.087</GPH>
1054 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLSER06JA11.088</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1055 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLSER06JA11.089</GPH>
1056 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLSER06JA11.090</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 1057 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLSER06JA11.091</GPH> ER06JA11.092</GPH>
1058 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 4 / Thursday, January 6, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

By direction of the Commission. 

Donald S. Clark, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32704 Filed 1–5–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–C 


kgrant on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with BILLS