Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11483 

1EISA amends the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq). 

2 74 FR 11045 (Mar. 16, 2009). 

3The 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). 

4ENERGY 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). 

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

6 72 FR 6836, 6857 (Feb. 13, 2007). 

7According 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 (#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). 

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publication of the ANPR, DOE has repealed its 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). 

9 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I). 

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. 

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

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

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. 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11484 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

10 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I)(iv). 

11Specifically, 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). 

12Under 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. 

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

14The 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) #540779-00006; Consumer 

Electronics Association (CEA) #540779-00007; 

Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition (CERC) 

#540779-00010; Mitsubishi Digital Electronics 

America, Inc. (Mistubishi) #540779-00005; 

Motorola, Inc. #540779-00004; Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC) #540779-00003; New York 

State Assemblyman Robert Sweeney (Sweeney) 

#540779-00002; and Lonny Paul (Paul) #540779- 

00001. 

15For 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.’’ 

16 Draft Efficiency Standards for Televisions, 

Phase 1, Part C, Docket #07-AAER-03-C (http:// 

www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-400- 

2008-028/CEC-400-2008-028-SD.PDF) . 

17See NRDC comments; see also, (http:// 

downloads.energystar.gov/bi/qplist/ 

tv_prod_list.pdf) (ENERGY STAR data). 

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

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. 

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. 

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 

disclosures15 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. 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11485 

18The Commission cannot require disclosures if 

it determines they would be technologically or 

economically infeasible. 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I)(iv). 19Although 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). 

20See 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). 

21See, e.g., CEA, CERC, Mitsibushi, and NRDC 

comments. 

22CEA and CERC comments. 

23NRDC urged the Commission to require use of 

dynamic images. 

24NRDC 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. 

25The Proposed Rule also contains a definition of 

the term ‘‘television’’ that is consistent with the 

coverage of ENERGY STAR criteria for televisions. 

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

such information is difficult to 

calculate. 

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. 

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 nonDepartment 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). 

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. 

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

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11486 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

27See, e.g., CEE, Mitsubishi, NRDC, and Sweeney 

comments. 28CERC and Paul comments. 

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). 

30The Proposed Rule does not contain a hang tag 

option because such labels on the exterior of 

products could become easily dislodged. 

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 ‘‘preshop’’ on the Internet. Similarly, CEE 

stated that the most effective energy 

disclosures are displayed while a 

consumer views televisions for 

purchase. 

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.’’ 

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-andmortar 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. 

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. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11487 

31See CEE, CEA, NRDC, and Sweeney comments. 

32See, e.g., NRDC, Sweeney, and CEE comments. 

33 72 FR at 49959. 

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 pointof-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

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALSEP11MR10.000</GPH>
11488 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

34 72 FR at 49952-3. 

35 74 FR 26675 (June 3, 2009). 

36See, e.g., CEE and CEA comments. 

37 74 FR at 11048. 

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

39Mitsubishi 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.). 

40See, 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 § 305.17(f)(6). 

41Because the EPCA annual reporting 

requirements depend on the existence of a DOE test 

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. 

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

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. 

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

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, rearprojection) 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. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11489 

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. 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. 43EPCA 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). 

44See, e.g., NRDC, CEE, Mitsubishi, and Sweeney 

comments. 

45See NRDC and Mitsubishi comments. 

46 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I)(iii). 

47The 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). 

48The 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.’’ 

49As 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. 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). 51See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/ 

prod_lists/set_top_boxes_prod_list.pdf). 

52See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/ 

product_specs/program_reqs/ 

set_top_boxes_prog_req.pdf). 

53Motorola comments; see also CEA comments. 

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, starsbased 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. 

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

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

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. 

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

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11490 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

54CEA Report at 26. 

55See CEA comments. 

56 Id. 

57See (http://downloads.energystar.gov/bi/qplist/ 

computers_prod_list.pdf). 

58See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/ 

prod_development/revisions/downloads/computer/ 

Version5.0_Computer_Spec.pdf). 

59See CEA comments. 

60CEA Study at 26. 

61See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/ 

product_specs/qpi/displays_prod_list.pdf). 

62See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/ 

product_specs/program_reqs/displays_spec.pdf). 

efforts to provide consumers with 

accurate information. 

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. 

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 standalone 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

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

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

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11491 

63CEA 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). 

64NRDC Study at 25. 

65See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/ 

prod_development/revisions/downloads/computer/ 

Version5.0_Computer_Spec.pdf). 

66The 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.) 

67See (http://downloads.energystar.gov/bi/qplist/ 

image_equip_prod_list.pdf). 

68See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/ 

product_specs/program_reqs/ 

Imaging%20Equipment%20Specifications.pdf). 

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

70See (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/ 

product_specs/program_reqs/ 

AV_V2_Specification.pdf). 71For 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. 

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

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). 

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. 

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 midisystems, 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11492 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

72The 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. 

73The 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 § 4.9.(c). 

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). 

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

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 webbased 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

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: 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11493 

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

76See (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). 

77See (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). 

78See ‘‘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). 

79See (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). 

80See (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). 

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 preregister, please email your name and 

affiliation to 

(televisionmeeting@ftc.gov). 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 § 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11494 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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

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

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 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. 

■ For the reasons set out above, the 

Commission proposes the following 

amendments to 16 CFR Part 305: 

PART 305—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 305 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6294. 

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

to read as follows: 

§ 305.3 Description of covered products. 

(u) Television (TV) means a 

commercially available electronic 

product designed primarily for the 

display and reception of audiovisual 

signals from terrestrial, cable, satellite, 

Internet Protocol TV (IPTV), or other 

transmission of analog and/or digital 

signals, consisting of a tuner/receiver 

and a display encased in a single 

housing. 

■ 3. In § 305.5, add new paragraph (d) 

to read as follows: 

Testing 

§ 305.5 Determinations of estimated 

annual energy consumption, estimated 

annual operating cost, and energy 

efficiency rating, and of water use rate. 

* * * 

(d) Determinations of estimated 

annual energy consumption and the 

estimated annual operating (energy) 

costs of televisions must be based on the 

procedures contained in ‘‘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. 

■ 4. In 305.8(a)(1), add the term 

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

■ 5. In § 305.10(a), remove the phrase 

‘‘or ceiling fans’’ and add in its place the 

phrase ‘‘ceiling fans, and televisions’’. 

■ 6. Add § 305.17 to read as follows: 

§ 305.17 Television labeling. 

(a) Layout. All energy labels for 

televisions shall use one of three shapes: 

a 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 § 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
11496 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Annual Energy Cost 

Ranges for Televisions 

Screen Size 

(diagonal) Low High 

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 § 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. 

■ 7. In § 305.20, add new paragraph (g) 

to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 305.17 for 

products they offer; or 

(2) the estimated annual energy costs 

determined in accordance with § 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).’’ 

* * * * * 

■ 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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11497 

Prototype Label 5 

Triangular Television Label 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALSEP11MR10.001</GPH>
11498 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Prototype Label 6 

Horizontal Rectangular Television Label 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALSEP11MR10.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11499 

Prototype Label 7 

Vertical Rectangular Television Label 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALSEP11MR10.003</GPH>
11500 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Sample Label 10 

Triangular Television Label 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALSEP11MR10.004</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 11501 

Sample Label 11 

Vertical Television Label 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALSEP11MR10.005</GPH>
11502 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 47 / Thursday, March 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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 

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN 

COMMISSION 

18 CFR Part 410 

Schedule of Water Charges; Correction 

AGENCY: Delaware River Basin 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects the 

preamble to a proposed rule published 

in the Federal Register of February 19, 

2010, amending the schedule of water 

charges. This correction clarifies that 

the amended rates are proposed to take 

effect in two stages, on January 1, 2011 

and January 1, 2012, respectively, and 

not on January 1, 2010 and January 1, 

2011 as stated in the preamble. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: 

Pamela M. Bush, 609–477–7203. 

Correction: In proposed rule FR Doc. 

2010–3219, beginning on page 7411 in 

the issue of February 19, 2010, make the 

following correction in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. On 

page 7412 in the second column, in the 

second full paragraph, replace the text 

following the colon on the sixth line of 

the paragraph with the following: 

‘‘The consumptive use rate is 

proposed to be increased from $60 to 

$90 per million gallons effective on 

January 1, 2011 and from $90 to $120 

per million gallons effective on January 

1, 2012. The non-consumptive use rate 

is proposed to be increased from $.60 to 

$.90 per million gallons effective on 

January 1, 2011 and from $.90 to $1.20 

per million gallons effective on January 

1, 2012.’’ 

Dated: March 5, 2010. 

Pamela M. Bush, 

Commission Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–5219 Filed 3–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6360–01–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALSEP11MR10.006</GPH>