[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 47 (Thursday, March 11, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11483-11502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5152]



[[Page 11483]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 305

RIN 3084-AB15


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'')

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting announcement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Section 325 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007 provides the Commission with authority to promulgate energy 
labeling rules for certain consumer electronics, including televisions. 
On March 16, 2009, the Commission sought comment on whether it should 
require energy disclosures for these products. After reviewing the 
comments received, the Commission is proposing to require EnergyGuide 
labels on televisions to help consumers with their purchasing 
decisions. As part of this effort, the Commission has scheduled a 
public meeting on April 16, 2010, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments 
electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in 
section IX of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Comments in 
electronic form should be submitted using the following weblink: 
(https://public.commentworks.com/ftc/tvdisclosures) (and following the 
instructions on the web-based form). Comments filed in paper form 
should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade 
Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex T), 600 
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580, in the manner detailed 
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome, (202) 326-2889, 
Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, 
Federal Trade Commission, Room M-8102B, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20580.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    Section 325 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
(EISA) (Pub. L. 110-140) authorizes the Commission to require energy 
disclosures for certain consumer electronics, including televisions, 
personal computers, cable or satellite set-top boxes, stand-alone 
digital video recorder boxes, and personal computer monitors.\1\ On 
March 16, 2009, the Commission sought comment on whether to require 
energy disclosures for these products.\2\ After reviewing the comments, 
the Commission proposes requiring ``EnergyGuide'' labels for 
televisions. The Commission does not propose requirements for other 
consumer electronics at this time, but seeks further comment on test 
procedures and other issues related to these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EISA amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
U.S.C. 6291 et seq).
    \2\ 74 FR 11045 (Mar. 16, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This Notice first provides background on the Commission's current 
energy labeling requirements and its previous consideration of 
television labeling requirements. Next, it explains the Commission's 
new labeling authority under EISA and why requiring television energy 
usage disclosures is proper under that statute. The Notice then details 
the content, format, and location of those proposed disclosures. 
Finally, it seeks comment on the proposed disclosures and on possible 
disclosure requirements for other consumer electronics.

II. Current Energy Labeling Requirements

    The Commission's Appliance Labeling Rule (16 CFR Part 305) requires 
energy disclosures for a variety of covered products, including home 
appliances, lighting, and plumbing products. The Rule requires most 
covered products to have, at the point of sale, yellow EnergyGuide 
labels containing estimated annual operating cost information based on 
Department of Energy (DOE) test procedures. The label information must 
also appear in catalogs and on Internet sites offering the products for 
sale.\3\ The Rule allows manufacturers to place the U.S. Government 
ENERGY STAR logo on labels for products that qualify for that 
program.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission's Rule requires manufacturers of most covered 
products to file reports with the FTC. These reports must contain 
the estimated annual energy consumption or energy efficiency ratings 
for the appliances derived from tests performed pursuant to DOE test 
procedures. 16 CFR 305.8(b).
    \4\ ENERGY STAR is a voluntary government labeling program that 
identifies high-efficiency products. The Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and DOE administer the ENERGY STAR program. See (http://www.energystar.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Previous Consideration of Televisions

    In 1979, the Commission determined not to require labeling for 
televisions because annual energy cost varied little between competing 
models and because such costs amounted to a small fraction of the 
purchase price. Thus, the Commission concluded that television labels 
were unlikely to benefit consumers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 44 FR 66466, 66468 (Nov. 19, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2007, the Commission revisited the issue as part of a broad 
review of the EnergyGuide label's effectiveness.\6\ In response, 
several commenters urged the Commission to require television labels 
because many modern televisions use as much, or more, electricity than 
products currently labeled under the Rule. In addition, commenters 
indicated a significant range of energy use between similar 
products.\7\ In short, television energy consumption has changed 
significantly since the 1970s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 72 FR 6836, 6857 (Feb. 13, 2007).
    \7\ According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) 
comments during the 2007 proceeding, there are many ``large-screen'' 
digital televisions on the market that use 500 or more kilowatt-
hours per year, as much energy as many new refrigerators. NRDC 
(<greek-i>519870-00025). At an FTC public workshop held during the 
2007 proceeding, one participant suggested that the average 42-inch 
plasma television draws 334 watts, with models ranging from 201 
watts to 520 watts. Workshop Tr. at 198 (http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/energylabeling-workshop/060503wrkshoptrnscript.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering these comments, the Commission concluded that 
energy labeling for televisions may assist consumers in purchasing 
decisions, but noted that the outdated DOE test procedures could not 
adequately test most televisions.\8\ Because the law at that time 
required DOE test procedures for FTC labels, the Commission could not 
require television energy disclosures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 72 FR 49948, 49962 (Aug. 29, 2007). See also 72 FR at 6858 
(Feb. 13, 2007). Until recently, 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. Since the 
publication of the ANPR, DOE has repealed its television test 
procedure. 74 FR 53640 (Oct. 20, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. FTC's New Authority for Consumer Electronics Labeling

    In late 2007, Congress amended the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6294) to authorize the Commission to prescribe 
labels for televisions and certain other consumer electronics, subject 
to specific provisions.\9\ If DOE publishes applicable test procedures 
for those specified consumer electronics, the Commission must issue 
disclosure requirements

[[Page 11484]]

within 18 months of DOE's publication. Absent those procedures, the 
EPCA amendments give the Commission discretion to require disclosures 
if it identifies adequate non-DOE testing procedures and finds that 
disclosures will likely assist consumers in making purchasing 
decisions. Regardless of whether DOE test procedures exist, the 
Commission cannot require disclosures if those disclosures are not 
technically or economically feasible.\10\ The amended law empowers the 
Commission to consider other types of energy disclosures in lieu of 
traditional product labels for these consumer electronics.\11\ Finally, 
the amendments provide the Commission with authority to require 
labeling or other disclosures for any other consumer product if the FTC 
determines such labeling is likely to assist consumers in making 
purchasing decisions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I).
    \10\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I)(iv).
    \11\ Specifically, the EPCA empowers the Commission to 
``prescribe labeling or other disclosure requirements for the energy 
use of'' the covered consumer electronic products. 42 U.S.C. 
6294(a)(2)(I)(i) (emphasis added).
    \12\ Under EPCA, a ``consumer product'' means any article which 
consumes, or is designed to consume energy and which, to any 
significant extent, is distributed in commerce for personal use or 
consumption by individuals. 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). As with the five 
consumer electronic categories specifically listed in the EISA 
amendments, the FTC may identify a non-DOE test procedure for 
labeling such additional consumer products (in the absence of a DOE 
test procedure) and has discretion to require comparative 
information on the label.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. FTC's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In response to these amendments, on March 16, 2009, the Commission 
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on 
the need for energy disclosures for televisions and other consumer 
electronics.\13\ Given the lack of a DOE test procedure applicable to 
modern televisions, the Notice also sought comment on the adoption of 
non-DOE test procedures currently used by the ENERGY STAR program. In 
addition, the Notice requested comment on the appropriate format for 
any television energy disclosures, specifically asking whether such 
disclosures should be made using the yellow EnergyGuide label or 
whether the disclosures should have alternative formats and locations. 
Finally, the Notice invited comment about the need for energy 
disclosures for personal computers, cable or satellite set-top boxes, 
stand-alone digital video recorder boxes, personal computer monitors, 
and other consumer electronic products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 74 FR 11045 (Mar. 16, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received eight comments in response.\14\ In this 
Notice, the Commission first analyzes the comments regarding television 
labeling, and then discusses the comments regarding other consumer 
electronics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The comments can be found at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/tvenergylabels/index.shtm). Unless otherwise stated, the 
citations for the comments in this Notice are: Consortium for Energy 
Efficiency (CEE) <greek-i>540779-00006; Consumer Electronics 
Association (CEA) <greek-i>540779-00007; Consumer Electronics 
Retailers Coalition (CERC) <greek-i>540779-00010; Mitsubishi Digital 
Electronics America, Inc. (Mistubishi) <greek-i>540779-00005; 
Motorola, Inc. <greek-i>540779-00004; Natural Resources Defense 
Council (NRDC) <greek-i>540779-00003; New York State Assemblyman 
Robert Sweeney (Sweeney) <greek-i>540779-00002; and Lonny Paul 
(Paul) <greek-i>540779-00001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Proposed Television Energy Disclosures

    The Commission proposes requiring energy disclosures for 
televisions. Disclosures are appropriate because they likely will help 
consumers in making purchasing decisions, the disclosures are not 
technologically or economically infeasible, and there is an adequate 
energy test procedure. Given these preliminary conclusions, the 
Proposed Rule would require manufacturers to measure energy use for 
such disclosures using test procedures recently adopted by the ENERGY 
STAR program. The television's estimated annual energy cost and use 
would appear on a newly designed EnergyGuide label affixed to the 
product itself. Finally, the proposed amendments would require Internet 
and paper catalog sellers to provide consumers with the same 
information that appears on the label.

A. The Need For Television Disclosures

    Under the EISA amendments, the Commission has authority to require 
television disclosures if it determines such disclosures are likely to 
assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. As discussed below, 
the commenters generally supported energy disclosures\15\ for 
televisions and indicated that they would assist consumers because: 1) 
these products use a significant amount of energy; 2) energy use among 
models differs substantially; and 3) consumers are likely to use this 
information prior to purchase. Moreover, no commenters argued that 
energy disclosures for televisions are technologically or economically 
infeasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For example, New York State Assemblyman Robert Sweeney 
wrote that this information will ``allow consumers to more easily 
weigh energy costs in purchasing,'' and ``encourage the design of 
products with greater energy efficiency . . . .'' Similarly, the 
CERC concluded that ``disclosures, properly implemented and executed 
can help consumers make educated purchasing decisions.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the commenters suggest that televisions account for a 
significant amount of energy use in the home. CEE stated that 
disclosures are necessary because televisions ``are one of the largest 
energy users within a home . . . their energy use has increased 
significantly in recent years, and there has been notable technical 
advancement.'' Consistent with that view, NRDC estimated in 2004 that 
televisions account for roughly 1% of the nation's energy use. NRDC 
further noted that this number has probably increased ``due to the 
growth in screen size, operating hours, and the number of installed 
TVs.'' In NRDC's estimation, television ``now represents 10 to 20% of a 
typical home's annual electricity use.'' Similarly, in a recent study, 
the California Energy Commission found growth in television energy 
consumption due to increases in flat panel sales, average screen size, 
the number of televisions per household as well as lower prices for 
high definition flat screen digital televisions and enhanced product 
features (e.g., higher resolution).\16\ In addition, according to CEE, 
ENERGY STAR data indicates that some televisions consume more than 500 
kWh per year, as much electricity as many refrigerators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Draft Efficiency Standards for Televisions, Phase 1, Part 
C, Docket <greek-i>07-AAER-03-C (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-400-2008-028/CEC-400-2008-028-SD.PDF) .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, not only is television energy use large, but it also varies 
considerably among competing models. Though no comprehensive data is 
available, some commenters identified significant variations. According 
to Mitsubishi, for models with 65 inch screen sizes, the power 
consumption can range from approximately 135 watts to 433 watts. 
Similarly, for 52 inch LCD models, energy use ranges from 115 watts to 
329 watts. In addition, NRDC cited to ENERGY STAR data showing that 
energy use for 42 inch models ranges from approximately 110 watts to 
210 watts.\17\ Mitsubishi also indicated that ``across display 
technologies there is even more variance'' and that such differences 
are likely to increase as manufacturers introduce ``novel new display 
technologies.'' As Motorola noted, in the absence of energy 
disclosures, even sophisticated consumers cannot determine energy cost 
variance between models because

[[Page 11485]]

such information is difficult to calculate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See NRDC comments; see also, (http://downloads.energystar.gov/bi/qplist/tv_prod_list.pdf) (ENERGY STAR 
data).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, consumers will likely use energy information in making 
purchasing decisions because, as explained below, they have an interest 
in saving energy and, therefore, would likely compare energy efficiency 
between models. CEA noted data demonstrating widespread consumer 
concern over rising energy costs and, as a result, greater consumer 
interest in energy efficient products. According to a CEA study, ``89 
percent of consumers surveyed ranked energy efficiency as a top 
consideration for their next television purchase, although price and 
features remain most influential in actual purchasing decisions.'' In 
addition, several commenters suggested that consumers would have even 
more interest in energy use if they understood how much these products 
used. For example, NRDC explained that, at present, most consumers are 
not aware that one television may use two or three times as much energy 
as a similar model. Moreover, as NRDC noted, retailers often display a 
variety of models side-by-side to allow consumers to judge picture 
quality. Thus, because consumers are likely to compare several models 
while shopping, they are likely to use energy information when they are 
making their purchasing decision.
    Finally, in addition to the consumer benefits, the commenters 
stated that television labeling is technologically and economically 
feasible.\18\ For example, Mitsubishi wrote that energy testing is 
inexpensive, nonintrusive, does not involve destruction of or damage to 
units, and is performed generally in any case for other reasons (such 
as ENERGY STAR). Similarly, CEA indicated that it ``was not aware of 
any such evidence that argues against providing energy use disclosures 
for televisions.''\19\ Indeed, no commenters suggested that energy 
disclosures would raise economic or technological feasibility 
questions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Commission cannot require disclosures if it determines 
they would be technologically or economically infeasible. 42 U.S.C. 
6294(a)(2)(I)(iv).
    \19\ Although the commenters generally supported disclosure 
requirements, CEA argued that ``there should be evidence to show 
that the buying judgements of a substantial majority of consumers 
would be affected by the availability of energy use information on 
products'' prior to imposing any disclosure requirements. However, 
the law does not contain such a ``substantial majority'' test but, 
instead, allows disclosure requirements if the Commission finds such 
disclosures ``are likely to assist consumers in making purchasing 
decisions.'' 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Determining Energy Usage

    In recent years, the lack of DOE test procedures for modern 
televisions has served as a barrier to energy disclosures. However, 
EPCA now authorizes the Commission to use ``adequate non-Department of 
Energy test procedures,'' and such procedures now exist for 
televisions. Specifically, EPA's ENERGY STAR program recently adopted 
criteria for televisions based on specific international procedures 
(Section 11 of ``IEC 62087, Ed. 2.0: Methods of Measurement for the 
Power Consumption of Audio, Video and Related Equipment'' and ``IEC 
62301, Ed. 1.0: Household Electrical Appliances - Measurement of 
Standby Power'').\20\ The procedures require manufacturers to measure 
the power consumed by televisions when the products are on, and in 
standby mode (i.e., when the product is switched off).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See International Electrotechnical Commission (http://www.iec.ch); and ``ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Televisions 
Eligibility Criteria (Version 4.0 and 5.0)'' (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/television/Final_Version%204_5_TV_Program_Requirements.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the ANPR, the Commission sought comments on these test 
procedures. Several commenters recommended that the Commission require 
the IEC procedures as currently adopted by the ENERGY STAR program.\21\ 
These commenters stated that this would ensure uniformity across the 
U.S. government.\22\ Furthermore, no other commenter raised significant 
concerns with the IEC test or proposed alternative procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, e.g., CEA, CERC, Mitsibushi, and NRDC comments.
    \22\ CEA and CERC comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with commenter suggestions, the Commission proposes to 
require manufacturers to use the IEC procedures as adopted by the 
ENERGY STAR program. Indeed, the ENERGY STAR criteria offer advantages 
over the IEC test alone because ENERGY STAR makes mandatory several 
procedures which the IEC test leaves optional. For instance, the IEC 
procedure allows the use of either a dynamic or static video signal for 
testing (i.e., either moving or static images), while ENERGY STAR 
specifies the use of dynamic images only.\23\ In addition, the ENERGY 
STAR criteria provide more detail regarding the brightness setting 
under which televisions must be tested because brightness levels can 
affect a model's energy use. Specifically, ENERGY STAR requires testing 
at the brightness setting in which the model is shipped. If a model 
requires consumers to select a brightness mode upon installation (i.e., 
a forced menu), the manufacturer must test that model at the ``home'' 
or ``standard'' mode. If the model has an automatic brightness control 
feature which adjusts brightness to ambient light levels, then the 
ENERGY STAR criteria require testing at a combination of room light 
levels.\24\ Using these various criteria, the ENERGY STAR tests seek to 
reflect the manner in which consumers are likely to use the product in 
their homes. Lastly, as noted by the commenters, adopting the ENERGY 
STAR program requirements will avoid imposing two separate Federal 
government tests for measuring television energy use.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ NRDC urged the Commission to require use of dynamic images.
    \24\ NRDC suggested that the FTC provide guidance on brightness, 
including whether to test models in a certain mode or at a certain 
percentage of full brightness. NRDC asked the FTC to provide 
standardized guidance on measuring the energy use of models with an 
automatic brightness feature. The ENERGY STAR criteria offer such a 
standard.
    \25\ The Proposed Rule also contains a definition of the term 
``television'' that is consistent with the coverage of ENERGY STAR 
criteria for televisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission notes two additional issues related to test 
procedures. First, in a recent notice repealing the existing test 
procedure, DOE announced that it soon will develop a Federal test 
procedure and energy efficiency standards for televisions.\26\ In doing 
so, DOE indicated that it ``will give serious consideration to the 
suggestion made by CEA that DOE adopt IEC 62087-2008(E).'' Second, CEA 
stated that it is developing its own version of the test procedure that 
consolidates ENERGY STAR's requirements into a more detailed protocol 
(``CEA-2037, Determination of Television Average Power Consumption''). 
However, to the Commission's knowledge, CEA has not published the 
protocol. The Commission seeks comments on whether it should wait to 
finalize disclosure rules until CEA, DOE, or both complete their work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 74 FR 53640 (Oct. 20, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Location, Format, and Content of Energy Disclosures

    The Commission proposes specific requirements for television energy 
labels, including the location, format, and content of the labels. In 
addition, the Commission proposes requirements for Internet and catalog 
disclosures.
1. Location
    For most products currently covered under the Appliance Labeling 
Rule, the energy disclosures appear on yellow EnergyGuide labels 
attached to the products themselves. In its ANPR, the Commission sought 
comments on the location of television disclosures. Several commenters 
recommended labeling televisions with an

[[Page 11486]]

EnergyGuide label on the product itself at the point of purchase.\27\ 
For example, Mitsubishi indicated that labels ``should substantially 
follow the existing EnergyGuide format, content, and placement 
requirements.'' According to NRDC, consumers continue to make the 
majority of their individual purchases in stores, despite the fact that 
some ``pre-shop'' on the Internet. Similarly, CEE stated that the most 
effective energy disclosures are displayed while a consumer views 
televisions for purchase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., CEE, Mitsubishi, NRDC, and Sweeney comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters urged the Commission to avoid imposing undue 
burdens. For example, CEE emphasized that disclosures should be easy 
for industry to manage. In addition, CEA urged that the ``FTC should 
carefully consider cost impacts while determining how to best serve 
consumers and minimize the economic impacts on government, 
manufacturers, retailers, and distributors.'' CERC raised particular 
concerns about the impact of potential requirements on retailers, 
cautioning in particular against a disclosure regime that required 
retailers to match labels to products on showroom floors.\28\ CERC 
argued that the manufacturer, not the retailer, is in the best position 
to label products and noted that disclosure requirements ``should be 
consistent with America's modern and incredibly diverse retail 
marketplace.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ CERC and Paul comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although most commenters supported in-store product labeling, CEA 
urged caution and recommended that the Commission conduct research to 
understand consumer behavior, expectations, and perceptions before 
proposing any particular disclosure method. Specifically, CEA 
recommended consumer research on the effectiveness of various 
disclosure methods, including Internet disclosures, in-store material, 
product packaging, and product-related printed material.
    After considering the comments, the Commission proposes requiring 
television product labels similar to EnergyGuide labels for appliances. 
The Commission agrees with commenters that energy labels will help 
consumers choose televisions in retail stores. Retailers routinely 
display operating televisions in showrooms and, as NRDC indicated, 
models often appear in a line on walls or store shelves, allowing 
consumers to compare products before purchasing. In addition, research 
conducted in 2006 concluded that online sales accounted for only 6.4 
percent of total television units sold.\29\ Although this number has 
likely increased, the Commission has no information to suggest online 
purchases dominate this market and expects that most consumers 
comparison shop and/or purchase televisions from brick-and-mortar 
stores. Furthermore, product labeling is preferable to other disclosure 
options. Requiring disclosures only on the Internet would not provide 
information to consumers in the store, where most consumers likely 
compare performance. Labels on packages, another possible option, would 
only provide information to consumers where retailers display boxes on 
the showroom floor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ ``Spending on Consumer Technology Products Increased in 
2006 but at a Slower Rate, According to The NPD Group,'' Feb. 22, 
2007 (http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_070222.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although CEA's comments urged the Commission to conduct research on 
various disclosure methods, the Commission does not believe such 
research is needed. CEA has offered no evidence that contradicts the 
commenter observations with regard to product labeling. In the absence 
of any evidence suggesting that product labeling will not assist 
consumers in their purchasing decisions, consumer research is 
unnecessary in this circumstance.
    The Commission now seeks comment on the proposed labeling 
requirement, including evidence disputing or supporting these 
conclusions. Because some stores place television boxes in the 
showroom, the Commission also seeks comment on whether the label should 
be required on the television box, in addition to the product itself.
2. Format
    Label format is a particularly important factor for televisions. 
Unlike many large appliances, televisions have no interior in which to 
affix a label and much of the product's exterior consists of a viewable 
screen that consumers want to see while shopping. CERC emphasized that 
any labeling requirement that obscures the viewable screen diminishes 
the consumer's ability to evaluate televisions based on performance. 
Similarly, CERC argued that the label should not interfere with the 
product's performance, display, or safety.
    Other commenters offered specific suggestions about label size and 
placement. CEE urged that the label be displayed consistently in the 
same location. Mitsubishi offered three alternatives types of labels: 
1) an adhesive label, 2) a hang tag, and 3) a cling label. It also 
suggested that the Commission configure the label into a triangle shape 
so that it could fit into the corner of screens, perhaps through a 
cling label.
    After considering the comments, the Commission proposes two options 
for television EnergyGuide labels: a small rectangular adhesive label 
affixed either vertically or horizontally on the product's bezel (i.e., 
the border or frame surrounding the television) or a triangular cling 
label affixed to the bottom right hand corner of the screen.\30\ Thus, 
the proposed requirements give manufacturers flexibility to account for 
the configurations of their televisions. Both proposed labels are 
significantly smaller than the appliance EnergyGuide labels. Examples 
appear in Figure 1. The small size should minimize any affect the 
labels have on the aesthetic presentation of televisions in the 
showroom and should not impair the ability of consumers to compare the 
performance of competing products. In addition, the proposed labels 
appear to be consistent with some current industry practices. 
Specifically, some manufacturers already provide descriptive 
information (e.g., screen resolution, sound features, and high 
definition capability) about their televisions through similar adhesive 
labels on the television bezel or screen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The Proposed Rule does not contain a hang tag option 
because such labels on the exterior of products could become easily 
dislodged.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 11487]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR10.000

Figure 1

Proposed Television Label

(horizontal version)

    The Commission seeks comment on this proposal including whether the 
proposed labels are appropriate and whether it should consider other 
point-of-purchase alternatives. In particular, the Commission requests 
that commenters address whether the rectangular label must appear in a 
consistent location on the bezel or whether manufacturers should have 
the flexibility to choose the location. The Commission also seeks 
comment on whether some television models are too small for the 
proposed label and, if so, what requirements should apply to such 
models.
3. Content
    In its ANPR, the Commission sought comment on the content of 
television energy disclosures. The commenters generally provided views 
on two types of disclosures: product specific disclosures and 
comparative information. As discussed in more detail below, the 
Commission proposes requiring product specific information consistent 
with EnergyGuide labels for other products, including annual energy 
costs based on a uniform electricity rate of eleven cents per kWh and a 
usage rate of five hours per day. The Commission also proposes 
requiring comparative information in the form of a small scale on the 
label similar to that required on EnergyGuide labels for appliances.
    Product Specific Information: Commenters identified annual 
operating (i.e., energy) cost and energy use as key descriptors in 
television energy disclosures.\31\ In addition, CEA recommended that 
the disclosure include information about the variability of energy cost 
in actual use and the electricity rate underlying the cost estimate, 
similar to information on the EnergyGuide label. Commenters also 
suggested requiring disclosure of manufacturer name, model number, 
television type (e.g., plasma, etc.), screen size (measured 
diagonally), screen resolution, product features that may affect energy 
use (e.g., integral DVD players or set-top boxes), and the ENERGY STAR 
logo.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See CEE, CEA, NRDC, and Sweeney comments.
    \32\ See, e.g., NRDC, Sweeney, and CEE comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments, the Commission proposes disclosure 
requirements consistent with EnergyGuide labels for other products. 
Such labels would disclose a television's annual energy cost and energy 
use. As the Commission has stated before, a ``cost disclosure provides 
a clear, understandable tool to allow consumers to compare the energy 
performance of different models.''\33\ Energy cost information also 
allows consumers to assess trade-offs between energy efficiency and 
other expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ 72 FR at 49959.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter, NRDC, suggested that the FTC also consider 
disclosing lifetime energy cost on the label to help consumers compare 
the product's total cost over time. CEE disagreed, stating

[[Page 11488]]

that lifetime information may confuse consumers because such costs do 
not appear on the EnergyGuide label for other products. The Commission 
considered a multi-year cost disclosure in its recent proceeding on the 
EnergyGuide label for appliances.\34\ The comments at that time raised 
concerns that such a disclosure may imply a product's lifetime to 
consumers and, therefore, introduce confusing assumptions. The 
Commission believes such concerns remain valid and, therefore, does not 
propose a multi-year operating cost disclosure for televisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 72 FR at 49952-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to energy cost, the proposed television label would, 
like EnergyGuide labels for other products, include manufacturer name, 
model number, and the ENERGY STAR logo (where applicable). This 
information allows consumers to confirm the identity of the labeled 
product without crowding the label with information irrelevant to the 
product's energy use. However, the Proposed Rule does not require 
information such as screen size, television type, multiple functions 
(e.g., integral DVD player), and screen resolution. Manufacturers and 
retailers routinely provide this information through marketing and 
point-of-sale materials, and, therefore, cluttering the label with this 
information would not substantially benefit consumers. The Commission 
seeks comment, however, on whether televisions with additional 
functions, such as integrated DVD players, are common in the market. If 
so, the Commission requests comment on whether the label should inform 
consumers that the annual energy cost does not include the operation of 
such additional functions. Would such a disclosure likely be helpful or 
confusing to consumers? Given the size of the label, how should the 
disclosure be presented?
    To calculate annual energy use and energy cost information from 
test results, manufacturers must have a standard usage rate (e.g., a 
certain number of viewing hours per day) and a standard electricity 
cost. The Proposed Rule would require annual cost information using 11 
cents per kWh, which is based on 2009 DOE data rounded to the nearest 
cent.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 74 FR 26675 (June 3, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenters had different opinions regarding appropriate usage 
rates. Several suggested that the FTC require a usage rate of 5 hours 
per day in on-mode and 19 hours per day in standby (i.e., sleep) 
mode.\36\ The ENERGY STAR program uses these same numbers to provide 
annual energy use estimates.\37\ Other commenters, however, noted 
recent consumer research suggesting higher actual usage patterns. For 
example, Mitsubishi stated that recent data suggests the primary 
television in U.S. households is active 7.1 hours a day. To take into 
account likely increases in the future, it recommended that the FTC 
require a usage pattern of eight hours per day. According to NRDC, 
Nielson data suggested a range between five and eight hours per day. 
NRDC, however, urged that the FTC and ENERGY STAR use the same 
assumptions for calculating annual model energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See, e.g., CEE and CEA comments.
    \37\ 74 FR at 11048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments, the Commission proposes five hours 
a day in on-mode and 19 hours per day in standby mode to calculate 
annual cost and energy consumption information. This range is 
consistent with the ENERGY STAR program and within the range of usage 
data provided by commenters. Furthermore, regardless of the actual 
average usage rate, the proposed usage pattern of five hours will 
establish a consistent number that will allow consumers to compare 
products.
    Comparative Information: Comparative information, which the 
Commission requires on EnergyGuide labels for most appliances, allows 
consumers to gauge the energy use of a particular product against 
similar models by displaying the range of energy costs or use of all 
competing models. The EPCA amendments provide the Commission with 
discretion to require comparative information in labeling or 
disclosures.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 42 U.S.C. 6924(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given this discretion, the Commission sought comment on whether 
television energy disclosures should provide comparative information 
and, if so, how such information should be organized. Commenters 
provided three different views. First, several urged the Commission to 
include comparative information, although they disagreed about the 
basis of the comparison. For example, Mitsubishi suggested disclosing 
comparative information based on screen size only.\39\ Sweeney favored 
comparative disclosures, but suggested sorting information by 
technology (such as LCD, plasma, rear-projection) or by the existence 
of extra accessories bundled with the model (e.g., HDTV with built-in 
Blu-ray player). Second, CEE proposed gathering information about 
consumer purchasing behavior before determining whether to require 
comparative information across all models or categorized by size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Mitsubishi explained that ``Consumers don't shop for a LCD 
television, for example: they shop for a 60'' television and 
evaluate their options.'' It urged the Commission to limit 
comparison information to screen size for <20'' diagonal 
televisions, then by 10'' (diagonal) increments thereafter (e.g., 
20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, 80-89, 90-99.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, CEA opposed any comparative data on the label. 
Specifically, it argued that: (1) the many variables relevant to energy 
use could add unnecessary complexity to the disclosure, (2) frequent 
changes in models on the market would make it difficult to establish 
and maintain reasonable points of comparison, and (3) other sources, 
including consumer and trade publications and product reviews, will 
make the required energy disclosures available for consumers.
    After reviewing the comments, the Commission proposes to require 
comparative information on the label grouped by screen size. The 
endpoints of each range would represent the highest and lowest energy 
consumption of models on the market. This information should help 
consumers by illustrating how a particular model compares to similar 
products on the market. The Commission does not propose to group 
comparative ranges by technology or screen resolution because this 
would create separate comparative categories for similar products and 
thus segregate products that consumers may want to compare (e.g., 
plasma screens vs. LCD). The Commission proposes ranges of 
comparability in section 305.17 of the Rule based on current ENERGY 
STAR data. This data appears to cover most of the products existing on 
the market and should provide ranges that reasonably reflect models 
available on the market.\40\ The Commission seeks comment on these 
ranges and whether the Commission should look to other data sources in 
publishing ranges in the final rule.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See, e.g., ``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 
[current ENERGY STAR] spec.''). The ENERGY STAR program has recently 
issued much more stringent criteria which will go into effect May 1, 
2010. See ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Televisions Partner 
Commitments Versions 4.0 and 5.0 (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/television/Final_Version%204_5_TV_Program_Requirements.pdf). If a model's energy 
cost falls outside the high or low end of the comparability range, 
the Commission proposes to require that manufacturers place the 
product on the very end of the scale (the high or low end as 
appropriate). 16 CFR Sec.  305.17(f)(6).
    \41\ Because the EPCA annual reporting requirements depend on 
the existence of a DOE test procedure and no such procedure exists 
for televisions, the Proposed Rule does not contain such reporting 
requirements. 42 U.S.C. 6296(b)(4). When DOE completes its test 
procedure for televisions, the Commission will revisit this issue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 11489]]

    Finally, the Commission does not find CEA's arguments against 
including comparative information on the label compelling. First, the 
proposed comparative information is fairly simple (consisting of two 
cost numbers on a scale) and there are no variables involved that would 
make it unnecessarily complex as suggested by CEA. Second, although 
frequent market changes may affect the ranges, the FTC can amend the 
ranges if substantial changes occur just as it does for appliance 
labels. If substantial changes occur so frequently that the benefit of 
the comparative information becomes questionable, the Commission can 
consider eliminating such information altogether from the television 
label. Finally, publications and product reviews cannot replace the 
benefits of providing uniform comparative information to consumers in 
the store at the point of purchase.
    Other Information: As an alternative to the EnergyGuide format, 
NRDC suggested a five-star efficiency rating system, arguing that a 
categorical, stars-based approach would yield superior results to 
information provided in the EnergyGuide label. In 2007, the Commission 
considered five-star rating systems during the EnergyGuide label 
proceeding and, more recently, in developing changes to light bulb 
labels. In both cases, the Commission determined not to propose such a 
system, in part, because of potential confusion with the ENERGY STAR 
program.\42\ Given the recent examination of this issue, the Commission 
does not propose such a rating system for televisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 72 FR at 6844-46 (EnergyGuide label); and 74 FR 57950 (Nov. 
10, 2009) (light bulb labeling). Both studies suggested that the 
five-star rating system was more likely to cause confusion with 
regard to ENERGY STAR than other methods of communicating energy 
use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Catalog Disclosures
    As directed by EPCA, section 305.20 of the current Appliance 
Labeling Rule requires any manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or 
private labeler who advertises in a catalog (i.e., those publications, 
including websites, from which a consumer can order merchandise), to 
disclose energy information about the product to consumers.\43\ This 
requirement helps ensure that consumers buying products online receive 
the same energy information as those in brick-and-mortar stores. 
Moreover, in response to the ANPR, several commenters suggested that 
the FTC require energy disclosures for web-based television 
sellers.\44\ In particular, some commenters suggested requiring the 
energy disclosure or an electronic version of the label on 
websites.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ EPCA indicates that catalogs 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).
    \44\ See, e.g., NRDC, CEE, Mitsubishi, and Sweeney comments.
    \45\ See NRDC and Mitsubishi comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the current Rule and the comments, the Commission 
proposes requiring Internet and paper catalog sellers to post energy 
cost information. The Commission has identified no reason to treat 
online and paper catalog televisions sales differently than other 
covered products. Sellers commonly offer televisions through retail 
websites. As with product labels in the store, energy information 
offered online should help consumers compare the energy use of 
competing products. Consistent with current requirements for 
appliances, the Proposed Rule provides the option of posting an image 
of the EnergyGuide label itself or providing separate energy 
information derived from the product's EnergyGuide label.

D. Timing of Proposed Requirements

    The EPCA amendments state that any FTC labeling or disclosure 
requirements for consumer electronics shall be effective ``not later 
than'' 18 months after promulgation.\46\ The Commission believes that 
six months will be adequate to allow for testing and labeling of 
products. Products manufactured thereafter would require a label. The 
Commission seeks comment on the proposed six month period.\47\ 
Suggestions for longer time periods should be accompanied by specific 
information justifying the need for additional time.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I)(iii).
    \47\ The six month period is consistent with EPCA's mandate that 
manufacturers test and re-label their products at least 180 days 
after DOE changes an applicable test procedure. 42 U.S.C. 6293(c).
    \48\ The Commission notes that on November 18, 2009, the 
California Energy Commission approved final regulations for 
televisions that included energy efficiency standards and energy 
disclosures. Beginning in 2011, the regulations require 
manufacturers to mark units permanently with the ``on'' mode power 
consumption in watts and to disclose a model's watts wherever the 
product's dimensions appear in any ``publication, website, document, 
or retail display that is used for sale or offering for sale of a 
television.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Other Consumer Electronics

    The Commission also sought comments about labeling requirements for 
cable or satellite set-top boxes, stand-alone digital video recorder 
boxes, personal computers, personal computer monitors, and other 
consumer electronics. Some commenters urged the Commission to consider 
developing labels for these products. For example, CEE and NRDC stated 
that the products use significant amounts of energy, there is a 
significant range of energy use among models, and consumers would 
likely benefit from energy disclosures for electronics. CEE and NRDC 
specifically recommended that the Commission also consider labeling 
game consoles, multi-function devices, and audio/visual equipment. To 
measure the energy consumption of electronics, CEE and NRDC recommended 
that the Commission consider ENERGY STAR program test procedures. 
Additionally, CEA suggested that, before moving forward, the Commission 
carefully consider each product separately.\49\ The Commission agrees 
and, therefore, discusses each product below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ As they did with televisions, CEA argued that the 
Commission should identify evidence that disclosures would impact 
the purchasing decisions of a substantial majority of consumers. As 
discussed above, the statute contains no such test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cable and Satellite Set-top Boxes: According to a 2007 study from 
CEA, these devices use approximately 130 kWh per year.\50\ Moreover, 
ENERGY STAR data suggests that there is a range of energy use among 
qualified models.\51\ In addition, there appears to be an appropriate 
method to determine energy consumption for these products, 
specifically, the ENERGY STAR program test procedure.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ ``Energy Consumption by Consumer Electronics in U.S. 
Residences,'' CEA (2007) at 26 (http://www.ce.org/pdf/Energy%20Consumption%20by%20CE%20in%20U.S.%20Residences%20%28January%202007%29.pdf) (CEA Study).
    \51\ See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/prod_lists/set_top_boxes_prod_list.pdf).
    \52\ See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/set_top_boxes_prog_req.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the energy use of these products, the variation in energy 
use among models, and the existence of a test procedure, Motorola 
argued that energy disclosures for set-top boxes would provide little 
benefit to consumers. Specifically, Motorola stated that consumers 
generally do not purchase set-top boxes at retail.\53\ Instead, 
consumers usually lease these products from their service provider 
(e.g., cable operator), and do not have the opportunity to comparison 
shop for different models. CEA additionally stated that service 
providers often install software in these devices that can change the 
product's energy consumption, which could complicate

[[Page 11490]]

efforts to provide consumers with accurate information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Motorola comments; see also CEA comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the issues raised by Motorola and CEA, the Commission does 
not propose requiring energy labeling or disclosures for set-top boxes 
at this time. The Commission, however, seeks further comment on this 
issue. Although consumers do not purchase set-top boxes at retail, they 
may comparison shop for different cable or satellite service providers. 
If these providers were to disclose the energy use of the boxes they 
lease as part of their service, consumers could theoretically use this 
information in deciding which service provider to choose. The 
Commission, therefore, requests comment on whether such disclosures 
would, in fact, be likely to assist consumers in their purchasing 
decisions. If so, the Commission also seeks comment on how energy use 
information should be disclosed to consumers (e.g., on service 
providers' websites). Disclosures for these products are challenging 
because consumers are unlikely to see labels on set-top boxes and the 
record contains no information about how consumers shop for cable or 
satellite service providers (e.g., online, by telephone, etc.). The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether the range of energy use among 
models is significant, whether disclosure of comparability ranges would 
be useful to consumers, whether there should be one range for all set-
top boxes, and whether there is comprehensive industry data on which to 
base such ranges. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the 
ENERGY STAR test procedure for set-top boxes is an appropriate method 
of calculating energy consumption. Would this procedure yield an 
accurate estimate of annual energy consumption if third parties later 
install software in the boxes?
    Stand-alone Digital Video Recorder (DVR) Boxes: According to CEA's 
2007 study, these products use approximately 237 kWh per year.\54\ CEA 
states, however, that there currently is no test procedure to measure 
energy consumption for these products.\55\ CEA noted that it was 
working on test procedures through the industry standards development 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ CEA Report at 26.
    \55\ See CEA comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the apparent lack of an appropriate test procedure, the 
Commission does not propose labeling at this time. The Commission, 
however, requests further comment on whether an industry test procedure 
has been completed or whether other procedures, such as the ENERGY STAR 
set-top box procedure, are appropriate for measuring the energy use of 
all stand-alone DVRs. The Commission also seeks comment on whether 
there are estimates of typical consumer use of these products, which 
could be used to calculate annual energy consumption. In addition, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether there are significant differences 
in energy consumption between competing DVR models. This information 
could affect whether disclosures are likely to be useful to consumers 
and whether disclosure of comparability ranges would be appropriate. If 
the Commission were to require disclosure of comparability ranges, 
should there be one range for all DVR models? Is there comprehensive 
industry data on which to base such ranges? Finally, to evaluate how 
energy disclosures might be presented, the Commission requests comment 
on how consumers typically shop for these products. For example, if 
DVRs are displayed in retail stores out of the box, energy information 
could be provided on either a label or hangtag attached to the product. 
If DVRs are not displayed in that way, energy information might be 
provided on a label attached to the box.
    Personal Computers: According to CEA's 2007 study, desktop 
computers use approximately 237 kWh per year and notebook computers use 
approximately 72 kWh per year.\56\ Moreover, ENERGY STAR data suggests 
that there is a range in energy use among qualified models.\57\ 
However, the ENERGY STAR program test procedure only derives estimates 
of annual energy consumption in off, sleep, and idle modes.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Id.
    \57\ See (http://downloads.energystar.gov/bi/qplist/computers_prod_list.pdf).
    \58\ See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/computer/Version5.0_Computer_Spec.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, CEA raised concerns about requiring energy use 
disclosures for all computers. CEA explained that consumers often 
purchase computers by selecting among different components, including 
processors, memory, and drives. Such choices may affect the energy use 
of the finished product. Therefore, CEA stated that it would be 
administratively complex to provide energy disclosures for these 
various combinations, and the FTC should consider requiring disclosures 
for only ``basic'' or ``typical'' computers.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See CEA comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the potential limitations of the ENERGY STAR test procedure 
as well as the concerns raised by CEA, the Commission does not propose 
labeling at this time, but instead seeks further comment. Specifically, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether energy use information should 
be derived using the current ENERGY STAR test procedure (and, if so, 
whether a disclosure based on energy use only in off, sleep, and idle 
modes would be helpful or confusing to consumers), or whether there are 
other appropriate test procedures for measuring energy use. 
Additionally, the Commission requests comment on whether it should 
require disclosures for multiple computer configurations and, if so, 
how such disclosures should be made given the potentially large number 
of configurations. If the Commission should require disclosures only 
for certain ``basic'' models, which ones should be covered and why? 
Would these disclosures provide misleading energy use information if 
consumers typically modify the ``basic'' computer configuration? 
Moreover, the Commission seeks comment on whether the range of energy 
use among models is significant, whether disclosure of comparability 
ranges would be useful to consumers, whether there should be one range 
for all computers or separate ranges for desktops and notebooks, and 
whether there is comprehensive industry data on which to base such 
ranges. Finally, the Commission requests comment on how consumers shop 
for computers and how disclosures should be presented (e.g., a label on 
a display model, a label on the box, online, etc.).
    Personal Computer Monitors: According to CEA's 2007 study, computer 
monitors typically use 85 kWh per year.\60\ Additionally, ENERGY STAR 
data suggests that there is a range of energy use among qualified 
products.\61\ Moreover, the ENERGY STAR program has a procedure to 
measure energy consumption, but it currently tests monitors using a 
static (i.e., fixed screen) image.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ CEA Study at 26.
    \61\ See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/qpi/displays_prod_list.pdf).
    \62\ See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/displays_spec.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because a static image test may not provide energy use figures that 
reflect typical consumer use of computer monitors and because the 
ENERGY STAR procedure does not specify a method for calculating annual 
energy consumption, the Commission does not propose labeling monitors 
at this time. The Commission, however, requests further comment on this 
issue. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should 
require disclosures based on the current

[[Page 11491]]

ENERGY STAR test procedure that measures consumption based on a fixed 
screen image, whether the IEC test for televisions is appropriate for 
measuring energy consumption of computer monitors, or whether other, 
appropriate industry test procedures exist. The Commission also 
requests information about what use estimates it should rely upon to 
calculate the annual energy consumption of computer monitors. 
Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether the range of 
energy use among models is significant, whether to require disclosure 
of comparability ranges, whether there should be one range for all 
models, and whether there is comprehensive industry data on which to 
base such ranges. Finally, the Commission requests comment on how 
consumers shop for computer monitors and how energy use disclosures 
should be presented to consumers (e.g., a label on a display model, a 
label on the box, online, etc.).
    Game Consoles: Although the CEA's 2007 study indicates that game 
consoles use approximately 36 kWh per year, NRDC's more recent analysis 
indicates that they can use as much as 1000 kWh per year.\63\ NRDC's 
study also found a wide variation of energy use among brands. The 
NRDC's study recommended collaborative efforts to develop a standard 
test procedure for these products.\64\ Although the ENERGY STAR program 
currently contains a test procedure for game consoles in off and sleep 
modes, the program is in the process of considering additional 
criteria.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ CEA Study at 26; ``Lowering the Cost of Play: Improving the 
Energy Efficiency of Video Game Consoles,'' NRDC (Nov. 2008) (http://www.nrdc.org/energy/consoles/files/consoles.pdf) (NRDC Study).
    \64\ NRDC Study at 25.
    \65\ See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/computer/Version5.0_Computer_Spec.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because there does not appear to be an industry test procedure and 
the ENERGY STAR program currently is reviewing its procedure, the 
Commission does not propose energy disclosures at this time. The 
Commission requests comment, however, on whether it should require such 
disclosures based on the existing ENERGY STAR test procedure (and, if 
so, whether a disclosure based on off and sleep modes would be helpful 
or confusing for consumers), whether it should wait for any revised 
ENERGY STAR test procedures, or whether other, appropriate test 
procedures exist. The Commission also seeks information about use 
estimates for calculating the annual energy consumption of game 
consoles. Additionally, the Commission requests comment on whether it 
should require disclosure of comparability ranges, whether there should 
be one range for all models, and whether there is comprehensive 
industry data on which to base such ranges. Finally, the Commission 
requests comment on how consumers shop for game consoles and how energy 
use disclosures should be presented to consumers (e.g., a label on a 
display model, a label on the box, online, etc.).
    Multi-function Devices (MFDs):\66\ Although there is no information 
on the record concerning MFDs' typical energy use, ENERGY STAR data 
suggests a range of energy consumption among models.\67\ The ENERGY 
STAR program test procedures for MFDs apply to personal, business, and 
commercial products.\68\ These procedures yield weekly energy 
consumption figures and they appear to reflect certain assumptions of 
how many hours the product is used in a business setting (e.g., 
assuming no usage on weekends).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ The ENERGY STAR program defines an MFD as a product that 
performs two or more of the core functions of copying, printing, 
scanning, or faxing. See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/ partners/
product_specs/program_reqs/
Imaging%20Equipment%20Specifications.pdf.)
    \67\ See (http://downloads.energystar.gov/bi/qplist/image_equip_prod_list.pdf).
    \68\ See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/Imaging%20Equipment%20Specifications.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these facts, it appears that some MFDs may not used by 
individual consumers. If that is the case, the Commission may not have 
authority to require energy disclosures for those MFDs. Specifically, 
the Commission only has the authority to require energy disclosures for 
``consumer products,'' which EPCA defines as any article that consumes 
energy and ``to any significant extent, is distributed in commerce for 
personal use or consumption by individuals.''\69\ The Commission cannot 
propose labeling for MFDs until it gathers more information about the 
extent to which these products are sold for personal use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 42 U.S.C. 6291(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission, therefore, seeks comment on whether some MFDs are 
typically purchased for personal use. The Commission also requests 
comment on whether the ENERGY STAR test procedure is appropriate to 
calculate energy consumption for individuals' use of MFDs, whether 
there are other, appropriate test procedures, and whether there are 
estimates of individual MFD use for calculating annual energy 
consumption. Moreover, the Commission requests comment on whether the 
range of energy use among models is significant, whether it should 
require disclosure of comparability ranges, whether there should be one 
range for all models, and whether there is comprehensive industry data 
on which to base such ranges. Finally, the Commission requests comment 
on how consumers shop for MFDs and how energy disclosures should be 
presented (e.g., a label on a display model, a label on a box, etc.).
    Audio-visual (A/V) Equipment: The ENERGY STAR program defines 
consumer A/V products to include ``cassette decks, CD players/changers, 
CD recorders/burners, clock radios, DVD & Blu-ray Disc products, 
equalizers, laserdisc players, mini- and midi-systems, minidisc 
players, powered speakers, rack systems, stereo amplifiers/pre-
amplifiers, stereo receivers, table radios, and tuners.''\70\ The 
program has test procedures for these A/V products, but they do not 
specify a method of calculating their annual energy consumption. The 
CEA's 2007 study provides approximate energy use information for some 
types of these A/V products,\71\ but the Commission does not have 
information about the range of annual energy consumption of each 
specific product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/program_reqs/AV_V2_Specification.pdf).
    \71\ For example, DVD players and DVD/VCR combos use 36 kWh per 
year, while a home theater in a box uses 89 kWh per year. CEA Study 
at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the Commission lacks information on calculating annual 
energy use and about the ranges of annual energy use, it does not 
propose labeling A/V equipment at this time. The Commission, however, 
requests further comment about each specific type of A/V equipment. 
Specifically, for each particular type of A/V equipment, are there 
significant variations in energy use among models and is labeling 
likely to benefit consumers in their purchasing decisions? The 
Commission also seeks comment on whether the ENERGY STAR test 
procedures are appropriate for measuring energy use or whether there 
are other, appropriate test procedures. Additionally, the Commission 
seeks information on use estimates for calculating each product's 
annual energy consumption. Moreover, the Commission requests comment on 
whether it should require disclosure of comparability ranges, whether 
there should be a separate range for each type of A/V product or 
whether ranges should combine certain types, and whether there is 
comprehensive industry data on which to base such ranges. Finally, the 
Commission seeks comment on how consumers typically

[[Page 11492]]

shop for each product and how energy disclosures for each product 
should be presented.

VIII. Section by Section Description of Proposed Changes

    Definition of Television (section 305.3): The proposed amendments 
add a definition of televisions that is consistent with the definition 
used by the ENERGY STAR program.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ The Proposed Rule excludes a sentence in the ENERGY STAR 
definition that reads: ``The product usually relies upon a cathode-
ray tube (CRT), liquid crystal display (LCD), plasma display, or 
other display device.'' Such a list of examples is not necessary in 
a regulatory definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Testing Requirements (section 305.5): The proposed amendments 
require manufacturers to follow the test procedures required by the 
ENERGY STAR program.
    Minor Conforming Changes (305.8 and 305.8): The Proposed Rule makes 
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 proposed amendments require 
manufacturers to affix EnergyGuide labels to televisions on either the 
product's bezel or its screen in the form of a small rectangular or 
triangular label. The primary disclosure on the label would be the 
product's estimated annual energy cost.
    Catalog Requirements (section 305.20): The proposed amendments 
require catalog sellers (including web-based catalogs) to provide, for 
each television, the same information required on the EnergyGuide 
label.

IX. Request for Comment and Public Meeting Information

    The Commission invites interested persons to submit written 
comments on any issue of fact, law, or policy that may bear upon the 
FTC's proposed labeling requirements. Please provide explanations for 
your answers and supporting evidence where appropriate. After examining 
the comments, the Commission will determine whether to issue final 
amendments.
    All comments should be filed as prescribed in the ``ADDRESSES'' 
section above, and must be received on or before May 14, 2010. In 
addition to the questions and requests for comment found throughout 
this Notice, the Commission also asks that commenters address the 
following questions: What costs or burdens, and any other impacts, 
would the proposed requirements impose, and on whom? What regulatory 
alternatives to the proposed requirements are available that would 
reduce the burdens of the proposed requirements? How would such 
alternatives affect the benefits provided by the Proposed Rule?
    Interested parties are invited to submit written comments 
electronically or in paper form. Comments should refer to ``Consumer 
Electronics Labeling, Project No. P094201'' to facilitate the 
organization of comments. Please note that your comment - including 
your name and your state - will be placed on the public record of this 
proceeding, including on the publicly accessible FTC website, at 
(http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm).
    Because comments will be made public, they should not include any 
sensitive personal information, such as any individual's Social 
Security Number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state 
identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; 
financial account number; or credit or debit card number. Comments also 
should not include any sensitive health information, such as medical 
records or other individually identifiable health information. In 
addition, comments should not include ``[t]rade secret or any 
commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person 
and which is privileged or confidential'' as provided in Section 6(f) 
of the Federal Trade Commission Act (``FTC Act''), 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and 
FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). Comments containing matter for 
which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, 
must be clearly labeled ``Confidential,'' and must comply with FTC Rule 
4.9(c).\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ The comment must be accompanied by an explicit request for 
confidential treatment, including the factual and legal basis for 
the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment 
to be withheld from the public record. The request will be granted 
or denied by the Commission's General Counsel, consistent with 
applicable law and the public interest. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 
Sec.  4.9.(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because paper mail addressed to the FTC is subject to delay due to 
heightened security screening, please consider submitting your comments 
in electronic form. Comments filed in electronic form should be 
submitted using the following weblink: (https://public.commentworks.com/ftc/tvdisclosures) (and following the 
instructions on the web-based form). To ensure that the Commission 
considers an electronic comment, you must file it on the web-based form 
at the weblink (https://public.commentworks.com/ftc/tvdisclosures). If 
this Notice appears at (http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#home), you may also file an electronic comment through that 
website. The Commission will consider all comments that regulations.gov 
forwards to it. You may also visit the FTC Website at (http://www.ftc.gov) to read the Notice and the news release describing it.
    A comment filed in paper form should include the ``Consumer 
Electronics Labeling, Project No. P094201'' reference both in the text 
and on the envelope, and should be mailed or delivered to the following 
address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 
(Annex T), 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC 
is requesting that any comment filed in paper form be sent by courier 
or overnight service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the 
Washington area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to 
heightened security precautions.
    The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit 
the collection of public comments to consider and use in this 
proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and 
responsive public comments that it receives, whether filed in paper or 
electronic form. Comments received will be available to the public on 
the FTC website, to the extent practicable, at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm). As a matter of discretion, the FTC makes every 
effort to remove home contact information for individuals from the 
public comments it receives before placing those comments on the FTC 
website. More information, including routine uses permitted by the 
Privacy Act, may be found in the FTC's privacy policy, at (http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm).
    The Commission staff has scheduled a public meeting to give 
interested parties an opportunity to provide their views on issues 
related to the Proposed Rule for televisions and potential disclosure 
requirements for other consumer electronics.\74\ The details of this 
public meeting are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ In comments, both the CERC and CEA urged the Commission to 
hold a public meeting. See (http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/tvenergylabels/index.shtm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Meeting Time and Location: The public meeting will be held on April 
16, 2010, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the FTC's Satellite Building 
Conference Center, located at 601 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, 
DC.
    Meeting Information: The public meeting will include participation 
by selected panelists. Other attendees also will have an opportunity to 
present

[[Page 11493]]

their views and ask questions. There is no fee for attendance. A 
stenographer will record the proceedings, and the Commission will place 
the transcription on the public record. For admittance to the 
Conference Center, all attendees must show a valid photo identification 
such as a driver's license. The FTC will accept pre-registration for 
this meeting. Pre-registration is not necessary to attend, but is 
encouraged. To pre-register, please email your name and affiliation to 
(<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9beffef7feedf2e8f2f4f5f6fefeeff2f5fcdbfdeff8b5fcf4ed"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98ecfdf4fdeef1ebf1f7f6f5fdfdecf1f6ffd8feecfbb6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a>). When you pre-register, we will collect 
your name, affiliation, and your email address. The Commission will use 
this information to estimate how many people will attend. We may use 
your email address to contact you with information about the workshop.
    Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or other laws, we may 
be required to disclose to outside organizations the information you 
provide. For additional information, including routine uses permitted 
by the Privacy Act, see the Commission's Privacy Policy at 
(www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm). The FTC Act and other laws the 
Commission administers permit the collection of this contact 
information to consider and use for the above purposes.

X. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The current Rule contains recordkeeping, disclosure, testing, and 
reporting requirements that constitute ``information collection 
requirements'' as defined by 5 CFR Sec.  1320.7(c), the regulation that 
implements the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).\75\ OMB has approved the 
Rule's existing information collection requirements through May 31, 
2011 (OMB Control No. 3084-0069). The proposed amendments would require 
television manufacturers to test and label their products with energy 
information and to maintain records for two years after a product model 
is discontinued. It would also require paper and website catalog 
sellers of televisions to provide energy information. Accordingly, the 
Commission is submitting a related clearance request to OMB for review 
under the PRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following burden estimates for the Proposed Rule amendments 
(cumulatively, 57,450 hours for recordkeeping, testing, and disclosure 
at an associated labor cost of $834,680) are based on data submitted by 
manufacturers to the FTC under current requirements and FTC staff's 
general knowledge of manufacturing practices.
    Testing: Manufacturers need not subject each basic model to testing 
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 are tested every year ranges roughly between 10% and 
50%. It is likely that only a small portion of the tests conducted is 
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, two units per model, and that 
testing per unit 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 $39.79 per 
hour,\76\ labor costs for testing would total $79,580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See (http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2008.htm#Wage_Tables) 
(``National Compensation Survey: Occupational Earnings in the United 
States, 2008'', U.S. Department of Labor, August 2009, Bulletin 
2720, Table 3 (``Full-time civilian workers,'' mean and median 
hourly wages), at 3-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recordkeeping: Pursuant to section 305.21 of the 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 $13.53 per hour,\77\ the associated labor cost for 
recordkeeping would be approximately $450 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See (http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2008.htm#Wage_Tables) 
(``National Compensation Survey: Occupational Earnings in the United 
States, 2008,'' U.S. Department of Labor, August 2009, Bulletin 
2720, Table 3 (``Full-time civilian workers,'' mean and median 
hourly wages), at 3-24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Disclosures (Product Labeling): The Proposed Rule requires 
manufacturers to create and affix labels on televisions. The Rule 
specifies the content, format, and specifications of the required 
labels. Manufacturers would only add 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.\78\ Accordingly, the total disclosure burden for 
televisions would be 55,000 hours (33,000,000 x 6 seconds). Assuming 
that product labels will be affixed by electronic equipment assemblers 
at an hourly wage of $13.61 per hour,\79\ cumulative associated labor 
cost would total $748,550 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 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% market 
penetration; 26,000,000 / .79 = 33,000,000).
    \79\ See (http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2008.htm#Wage_Tables) 
(National Compensation Survey: Occupational Earnings in the United 
States 2008, U.S. Department of Labor (August 2009), Bulletin 2720, 
Table 3 (``Full-time civilian workers,'' mean and median hourly 
wages), at 3-30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Catalog Disclosures: The Proposed Rule would require sellers 
offering covered products through retail sales catalogs (i.e., those 
publications from which a consumer can actually order merchandise) 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.
    Commission staff estimates that there are 50 online and paper 
catalogs for televisions that would be subject to the Rule's catalog 
disclosure requirements. Staff additionally estimates that the average 
catalog contains approximately 500 televisions and that entry of the 
required information takes one minute per covered product; thus, 9 
hours per catalog seller. The cumulative disclosure burden for catalog 
sellers is thus 450 hours (50 sellers x 9 hours annually). Assuming 
that the additional disclosure requirement will be implemented by data 
entry workers at an hourly wage rate of $13.53 per hour,\80\ associated 
labor cost would approximate $6,100 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See (http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2008.htm#Wage_Tables) 
(``National Compensation Survey: Occupational Earnings in the United 
States, 2008'', U.S. Department of Labor, August 2009, Bulletin 
2720, Table 3 (``Full-time civilian workers,'' mean and median 
hourly wages), at 3-24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated annual non-labor cost burden: Manufacturers are not 
likely to require any significant capital costs to comply with the 
Proposed Rule. 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

[[Page 11494]]

and $.03 per label, is $990,000 (33,000,000 x $.03).
    The Commission invites comments that will enable it to: (1) 
evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary 
for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, 
including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) 
evaluate the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed collections of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used; (3) enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden 
of the collections of information on those who must comply, including 
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or 
other technological techniques or other forms of information 
technology.
    Comments on any proposed filing, recordkeeping, or disclosure 
requirements that are subject to OMB review under the PRA should 
additionally be submitted to: Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for 
Federal Trade Commission. Comments should be submitted via facsimile to 
(202) 395-5167 because U.S. postal mail at the OMB is subject to 
lengthy delays due to heightened security precautions.

XI. 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), if any, 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.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ 5 U.S.C. 603-605.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission does not anticipate that the Proposed Rule will have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The Commission recognizes that some 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 manufacturers with ample time to implement the requirements. 
The Commission estimates that these new requirements will apply to 
about 30 product manufacturers and an additional 50 online and paper 
catalog sellers of covered products. Out of these companies, the 
Commission expects that approximately 40 catalog sellers qualify as 
small businesses. In addition, the Commission does not expect that the 
requirements specified in the Proposed Rule will have a significant 
impact on these entities.
    Accordingly, this document serves as notice to the Small Business 
Administration of the FTC's certification of no effect. To ensure the 
accuracy of this certification, however, the Commission requests 
comment on whether the Proposed Rule will have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities, including specific information 
on the number of entities that would be covered by the Proposed Rule, 
the number of these companies that are ``small entities,'' and the 
average annual burden for each entity. Although the Commission 
certifies under the RFA that the Rule proposed in this Notice 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 IRFA in order to inquire into the impact 
of the Proposed Rule on small entities. Therefore, the Commission has 
prepared the following analysis:

A. Description of the Reasons That Action by the Agency Is Being Taken

    Section 321(b) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
(Pub. L. 110-140) authorizes the Commission to conduct a rulemaking to 
consider the effectiveness of the television labeling and to consider 
alternative labeling approaches.

B. Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed 
Rule

    The objective of the Proposed Rule is to provide television energy 
use information to consumers. EISA provides the Commission with 
authority to require energy disclosures for televisions and other 
consumer electronics.

C. Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule 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 40 entities (all 
retailers) subject to the Proposed Rule qualify as small businesses. 
The Commission seeks comment and information with regard to the 
estimated number or nature of small business entities for which the 
Proposed Rule would have a significant economic impact.

D. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements

    The Commission recognizes that the proposed labeling rule will 
involve some increased costs related to testing, drafting labels, 
affixing labels to products, and maintaining test records. The Proposed 
Rule does not impose any reporting requirements. 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 only 
about 40 catalog sellers under the Proposed Rule that would qualify as 
such entities. The Commission invites comment and information on these 
issues.

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 
Proposed Rule. The Commission invites comment and information on this 
issue.

F. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Rule

    The Commission seeks 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. As one alternative to reduce 
burden, the Commission could delay the Rule's effective date to provide 
additional time for small business compliance. The Commission could 
also consider further reductions in the amount of information catalog 
sellers must provide. Finally, the Commission has considered requiring 
disclosures through the Internet instead of through product labels. 
However, as discussed earlier, such an approach would not provide 
information to consumers in the store, where most consumers compare 
televisions performance. If the comments filed in response to this 
Notice identify small entities that would be affected by the Rule, as 
well as alternative methods of compliance that would reduce the 
economic impact of the Rule on such entities, the Commission will 
consider the feasibility of such alternatives and

[[Page 11495]]

determine whether they should be incorporated into the final rule.

XII. Communications by Outside Parties to the Commissioners or Their 
Advisors

    Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral 
communications respecting the merits of this proceeding, from any 
outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor, will be 
placed on the public record. See 16 CFR 1.26(b)(5).

XIII. Proposed Rule Language

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 305

    Advertising, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Labeling, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

0
For the reasons set out above, the Commission proposes the following 
amendments to 16 CFR Part 305:

PART 305--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 305 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294.

0
2. In Sec.  305.3., add new paragraph (u) to read as follows:


Sec.  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.

0
3. In Sec.  305.5, add new paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Testing


Sec.  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 ``ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for 
Televisions Eligibility Criteria Versions 4.0 and 5.0.'' 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. These 
incorporations by reference were approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. 
Copies of the test procedure may be obtained at the Federal Trade 
Commission, Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580; at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA); or from the Environmental Protection 
Agency at (http://www.energystar.gov). For information on the 
availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: 
(http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html). Copies of materials and standards 
incorporated by reference also may be obtained from the issuing 
organizations listed in this section.

0
4. In 305.8(a)(1), add the term ``televisions,'' after the term 
``urinals,''.

0
5. In Sec.  305.10(a), remove the phrase ``or ceiling fans'' and add in 
its place the phrase ``ceiling fans, and televisions''.

0
6. Add Sec.  305.17 to read as follows:


Sec.  305.17  Television labeling.

    (a) Layout. All energy labels for televisions shall use one of 
three shapes: a triangle, horizontal rectangle, and vertical rectangle 
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 adhesive label is 1.5'' x 
4.7''. The minimum size for the cling tag triangle label is 4.2'' x 
4.2'' (right angle sides).
    (b) Type style and setting. The Arial series typeface or equivalent 
shall be used exclusively on the label. Specific sizes, leading, and 
faces to be used are indicated on the prototype labels. No hyphenation 
should be used in setting headline or copy text. Positioning and 
spacing should follow the prototypes closely. See the prototype labels 
for specific directions.
    (c) Colors. The basic colors of all labels 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 an adhesive label or cling label as follows:
    (1) Adhesive labels. All adhesive labels should be applied so they 
can be easily removed without the use of tools or liquids, other than 
water, but should 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 or consumer. The 
paper stock for pressure-sensitive or other adhesive labels shall have 
a basic weight of not less than 58 pounds per 500 sheets (25x38) 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 labels. 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 way that prevents its dislodgment during normal 
handling throughout the chain of distribution to the retailer or 
consumer.
    (e) Placement --
    (1) Adhesive labels. Manufacturers shall affix adhesive labels on 
the product's bezel adjacent to the viewable screen in such a position 
that it is easily read by a consumer examining the product.
    (2) Cling label. A cling label shall be affixed at the bottom right 
hand corner of the screen in a position that it can be easily read by a 
consumer examining the product.
    (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 the 
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 
Sec.  305.5 to 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Annual Energy Cost Ranges for Televisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Screen Size (diagonal)             Low                    High
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 19.9''                 $4                     $11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 to 29.9''                $4                     $19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 11496]]

 
30 to 39.9''                $11                    $31
------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 to 49.9''                $15                    $ 62
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50 to 59.9''                $21                    $75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 to 69.9''                $31                    $83
------------------------------------------------------------------------
70'' or more                $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 and sample labels in Appendix L. When the estimated annual 
energy cost of a given model of a covered product falls outside the 
limits of the current range for that product, which could result from 
the introduction of a new or changed model, 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 Sec.  305.5 and based on a usage rate of 5 hours in 
on mode and 19 hours in sleep (standby) 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 part or publication number identification may be included on 
this label, as desired by the manufacturer. If a manufacturer elects to 
use a part or publication number, it must appear in the lower right-
hand corner of the label and be 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 may add the ENERGY STAR logo to labels on qualifying 
covered products; such manufacturers may add the ENERGY STAR logo to 
labels only on those covered products that are covered by the 
Memorandum of Understanding.

0
7. In Sec.  305.20, add new paragraph (g) to read as follows:


Sec.  305.20  Paper catalogs and websites.

    (g) Any manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler who 
advertises televisions in a catalog shall include in such catalog 
either:
    (1) The EnergyGuide labels prepared in accordance with Sec.  305.17 
for products they offer; or
    (2) the estimated annual energy costs determined in accordance with 
Sec.  305.5, and the following statement conspicuously placed in the 
catalog: ``Your energy costs will depend on your utility rates and use. 
The estimated energy cost is based on 5 hours of use per day and an 
electricity cost of 11 cents per kWh.
    For more information, visit (www.ftc.gov/appliances).''
* * * * *

0
8. Amend Appendix L by adding Prototype Labels 5, 6, and 7 and Sample 
Labels 10, 11, and 12:

Appendix L to Part 305 - Sample Labels

BILLING CODE 6750-S

[[Page 11497]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR10.001

Prototype Label 5

Triangular Television Label

[[Page 11498]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR10.002

Prototype Label 6

Horizontal Rectangular Television Label

[[Page 11499]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR10.003

Prototype Label 7

Vertical Rectangular Television Label

[[Page 11500]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR10.004

Sample Label 10

Triangular Television Label

[[Page 11501]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR10.005

Sample Label 11

Vertical Television Label

[[Page 11502]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR10.006

Sample Label 12

Horizontal Television Label

    By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5152 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-C


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>